Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 99 The two structures are linked with verses 14-15, which serve both as the end of the first structure and as the start of the second one. This structure needs to taken into account in evaluation of the internal evidence. With this in mind, I now turn to those textual variation units, where the ECM and/or Wasserman disagree with the NA27 and with each other. Jude 5 This textual variation unit is a crux interpretum in the letter of Jude, principally because of the problematic question of the subject of the clause12. Variants abound for this textual variation unit. The ECM lists no less than 31 different variant readings, although not all of them are of equal value on the basis of the external evidence. Should the text read a conjectural emendation ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ (the NA27), a singular ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς (the ECM), a different conjectural emendation ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι κύριος (Wasserman) or something else? There are several problematic questions that need to be answered in any attempt to reconstruct this textual variation unit13. (1) Does ὑμᾶς2 belong to the text following ὑπονμῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἰδότας or not? (2) What is the meaning and the position of ἅπαξ, especially in relation- ship if any to τὸ δεύτερον? (3) Should the reconstructed text read πάντα, πάντας or τούτο? (4) Who is the subject for the verb ἀπώλεσεν? Was it (ὁ) ᾽Ιησοῦς, (ὁ) κύριος, (ὁ) θεός, or θεὸς χριστός? This textual variation unit has a text-critical umlaut in codex B. Wasserman incorrectly claims that it may apply to any or all of the above questions14. The umlaut marks the line reading ΠΑΝΤΑΟΤΙΙCΛΑΟΝΕK, so the umlaut can apply only to the questions (3) and (4), not to the questions (1) and (2). Though it cannot be proven, it seems more likely that the scribe had his eyes on the part of the text relating to the question (4), rather than to the question (3). Be that as it may, the scribe of codex B knew of a rival reading or readings, which point to an early corruption of the text in Jude 5 and to some sort of text-critical decision by the scribe of codex B. Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5”, 111; M. Black, “Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three 12 New Testament Texts”, in W. Eltester (ed.), Apophoreta. Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (Berlin 1964), 39-45, argues that this textual variation unit does not need to be crux inter- pretum, unless readings are adopted, which gave rise to other readings. True, but which one did so is the question why others call this textual variation unit a crux interpretum. I’m here following the lead of K. Wachtel and T. Wasserman, who also split the tex- 13 tual variation units into these four sub-units. See K. Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe. eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments (ANTF 24; Berlin 1995) 349-50; Wassermen, The Epistle of Jude, 256-66. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 266. 14