- Jude
- <
- 1
- >

ΙΟΥΔΑ
1
Salutation
1 Ἰούδας, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ*ιησου χριστου f 35 𝕻72ℵA,B (65.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,NU ¦ ~ 21 (34.4%) CP ¦ 2 (0.4%) δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ Πατρὶ ἡγιασμένοις†ηγιασμενοις f 35 (90.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ αγαπημενοις 𝕻72ℵA,B (9.2%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?] καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ‡χριστω rell ¦ χριστου (26.8%) ¦ — (3%) τετηρημένοις, κλητοῖς· 2 Ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.
Why he is writing
3 Ἀγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας,§σωτηριας f 35 (85.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ημων 1 𝕻72A,B (10.6%) NU ¦ υμων 1 (2.6%) ¦ ημων ζωης (0.4%) ¦ υμων ζωης (0.4%) ¦ ημων 1 και ζωης ℵ (0.4%) ¦ two others (0.4%) ¦ ℵ has a conflation [The addition of the pronoun was a ‘natural’, but not necessary.] ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ*τη rell ¦ — CP ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. 4 Παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρῖμα· ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν†χαριν f 35 ℵC (99.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ χαριτα 𝕻72A,B (0.8%) NU [Another inferior Alexandrian variant; the proper form of the accusative is χαριν, occurring over 40 times in the NT. Χαριτα occurs only as an Alexandrian variant and even so only here and in Acts 24:27 (where they just dropped the sigma).] μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον Δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ‡δεσποτην θεον και f 35 (79.4%) RP,HF,TR ¦ 1323 (2.6%) ¦ ~ 231 τον (4%) CP ¦ 23 (0.6%) ¦ 13 (𝕻72)ℵA,B,C (13%) OC,NU ¦ 1 𝕻78 (0.4%) [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?] Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἀρνούμενοι.
Examples from ancient history
5 Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς§υμας f 35 ℵB (81.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,[N]U ¦ — 𝕻72A,C (17.2%) ¦ ημας (1.6%) (N-A uses brackets, but UBS does not [corrected in the 4th ed.].) ἅπαξ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ Κύριος*απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος f 35 (79.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1235 (4.8%) ¦ ~ 21345 (5.4%) ¦ 1234 θεος (0.6%) ¦ ~ παντα 3451 (3%) [NU] ¦ ~ παντα 351 ℵ (0.4%) ¦ ~ παντα 34 ιησους 1 (0.4%) ¦ ~ παντα 3 ιησους 1 (2%) ¦ ~ παντα 34 θεος 1 (1.2%) ¦ 1 παντα 3 ιησους A,B (0.8%) ¦ 1 παντα 34 θεος (1%) ¦ 1 παντα 3 θεος χριστος 𝕻72 ¦ five other variants (1%) [The Alexandrians really had fun with this one.] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. 6 Ἀγγέλους τε†τε rell ¦ δε A (10.2%) τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ᾿‡αλλ f 35 C [50%] ¦ αλλα 𝕻72ℵA,B [50%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. 7 Ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις—τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον§τουτοις τροπον f 35 (88.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 21 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (9%) NU ¦ 1 (0.4%) ¦ 2 (1.6%) ¦ — (0.4%) ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας—πρόκεινται δεῖγμα, πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.
Evil men are in the church
8 Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. 9 Ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος—διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωσέως*μωσεως f 35 A (60%) HF,OC,TR ¦ μωυσεως 𝕻72ℵB,C (38.8%) RP,NU ¦ μωυσεος CP ¦ ambiguous (1.2%) σώματος—οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν†επενεγκειν rell ¦ υπενεγκειν (11.4%) ¦ εξενεγκειν (0.4%) βλασφημίας, ἀλλ᾿‡αλλ rell ¦ αλλα 𝕻72A,B (1%) NU εἶπεν, «Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι§σοι rell ¦ σε (4.4%) CP Κύριος.» 10 Οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται—ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. 11 Οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν, καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο.
12 Οὗτοί εἰσιν*εισιν f 35 ℵ (85.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 οι 𝕻72A,B (14.6%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως,†αφοβως rell ¦ υμιν 1 C (12.2%) CP ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες· νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι, ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι·‡παραφερομεναι f 35 ℵA,C (87.6%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ παραφερομενοι 𝕻72B (3.8%) ¦ περιφερομεναι (4.6%) TR ¦ φερομεναι (3%) ¦ four other variants (1%) δένδρα φθινοπωρινά, ἄκαρπα, δίς ἀποθανόντα§αποθανοντα rell ¦ 1 και (15.8%) (ἐκριζωθέντα)· 13 κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης, ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας· ἀστέρες πλανῆται, οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς*εις f 35 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (65%) RP,HF,CP,NU ¦ 1 τον (35%) OC,TR αἰῶνα τετήρηται.
14 Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ, Ἐνώχ,†ἐνωχ f 35 [70%] OC,TR,CP ¦ ἑνωχ [30%] RP,HF,NU λέγων· «Ἰδού, ἦλθεν Κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν‡αγιαις μυριασιν f 35 A,B (90.2%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ ~ 21 C (5.2%) TR ¦ 12 αγγελων (2%) ¦ ~ 2 αγιων αγγελων ℵ (2%) ¦ αγιων αγγελων 2 𝕻72 ¦ two other variants (0.4%) αὐτοῦ 15 ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι§ελεγξαι f 35 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (89.6%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ εξελεγξαι (10.4%) TR πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς*παντας τους ασεβεις f 35 A,B,C (95.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 13 (1.4%) ¦ 23 (0.6%) ¦ πασαν ψυχην 𝕻72ℵ1852 (alone) NU ¦ part of a larger omission (1.6%) [The reading chosen by NU is bad. Certain very evil persons have been rather graphically described in verses 4, 8 and 10-13. In verse 14 Jude introduces a prophecy “about these men”, the same ones he has been describing, and the quotation continues to the end of verse 15. Verse 16 continues the description of their perversity, but verse 17 draws a clear distinction between them and the believers that Jude is addressing. So, Enoch cannot be referring to “every soul”—the NU reading is clearly wrong, introducing an aberration on the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, Nestle25 and UBS2 stayed with the Majority, reading “all the ungodly”. UBS3 changes to “every soul”, without comment! Is this not a curious proceeding? The UBS editors reverse an earlier position, following just three MSS and the Sahidic version, and do not even mention it in their apparatus.] αὐτῶν†αυτων f 35 (80%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (18.2%) NU ¦ part of a larger omission (1.8%) περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν, καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν‡σκληρων rell ¦ 1 λογων ℵC (14%) ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ—ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς.» 16 Οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταί, μεμψίμοιροι, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν§εαυτων f 35 C (49.4%) NU ¦ αυτων ℵA,B (49.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ part of a larger omission 𝕻72 (1%) πορευόμενοι· καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν.
Exhortation
17 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· 18 ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν ὅτι*οτι f 35 𝕻72A,C (98.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,[N]U ¦ — ℵB (1.6%) ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ†εν εσχατω χρονω f 35 (80.1%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 12 χρονων (0.6%) ¦ 12 τω 3 (1.2%) ¦ επ 23 (0.4%) ¦ επ εσχατου χρονου 𝕻72B,C (1.4%) NU ¦ επ εσχατου του χρονου ℵ(A) (5.2%) ¦ επ εσχατου των χρονων (4.2%) ¦ επ εσχατων των χρονων (5.8%) ¦ three other readings (1%) ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας‡εαυτων επιθυμιας rell ¦ αυτων 2 (3.4%) ¦ ~ 21 (5.8%) CP ¦ ~ 2 αυτων ℵ (3.4%) ¦ two other variants (0.6%) πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν. 19 Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες,§αποδιοριζοντες rell ¦ 1 εαυτους C (18.4%) ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
20 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς,*τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει εποικοδομουντες εαυτου f 35 (79.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR ¦ 12 ημων 456 (5.6%) CP ¦ 12456 (1.2%) ¦ ~ 561234 ℵA,B (10.2%) NU ¦ ~ 5612 ημων 4 C (3%) ¦ ~ 1 εαυτων 24 ανοικοδομεισθε 𝕻72 ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι,†προσευχομενοι rell ¦ 1 εαυτοις 𝕻72 (10%) (basically this same group omits the immediately following εαυτους) 21 ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
22 Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε,‡ελεειτε f 35 (89.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ελεατε ℵB (2%) NU ¦ ελεγχετε A,C (8%) ¦ — (𝕻72) διακρινόμενοι·§διακρινομενοι f 35 (89.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ διακρινομενους (𝕻72)ℵA,B,C (10.2%) NU [If the accusative were original, who would change it to nominative? Why? The Alexandrians either didn’t understand, or didn’t like, the original nominative and changed it to suit.] 23 οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σῴζετε, ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες,*εν φοβω σωζετε εκ (+του 10.4% OC,TR,CP) πυρος αρπαζοντες f 35 (81%) RP,HF(OC,TR,CP) ¦ ~ 345612 C (2%) ¦ 3456 (1.4%) ¦ ~ 3456 ους δε ελεατε (ελεειτε 1.6%; ελεγχετε 3.6%) 12 ℵA,B (10.4%) NU ¦ a variety of conflations (4.4%) ¦ four other variants 𝕻72 (1%) (OC is in small print.) [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?] μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα.
Doxology
24 Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι αὐτοὺς†αυτους f 35 (67.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ υμας ℵB(C) (29.8%) (the AV’s TR)NU ¦ ημας A (1%) ¦ — (1.4%) ¦ — 𝕻72 is wild (Virtually all versions in English read ‘you’, but in the context ‘them’ makes good sense. Jude is assuring his readers that it is worth the effort to snatch people from the very jaws of hell (v. 23), because God is able to secure them (one’s natural tendency would be to doubt that). In commenting the parable of the lost sheep, the Lord Jesus affirmed that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” It seems that God gets special pleasure out of cheating the Lake. If υμας were original, who would change it to αυτους?) ἀπταίστους,‡απταιστους rell ¦ 1 και ασπιλους C (11.4%) ¦ — 𝕻72 is wild καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει— 25 μόνῳ σοφῷ§σοφω f 35 (92%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (8%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?] Θεῷ,*θεω rell ¦ — (5.6%) CP Σωτῆρι ἡμῶν,†ημων f 35 (78.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου 1 (𝕻72)ℵAv,B,C (21.6%) NU δόξα καὶ‡και f 35 𝕻72 (88%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C (12%) NU μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία,§εξουσια f 35 (78.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 προ παντος του αιωνος ℵA,B,C (13%) NU ¦ 1 προ παντος αιωνος (8%) ¦ — 𝕻72 [Is not the Alexandrian gloss obviously infelicitous?] καὶ*και rell ¦ — (12.1%) νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.†The citation of f 35 for 2 & 3 John and Jude is based on forty-six MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 444, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1628, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 141, 204, 386, 824, 928, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1637, 1855, 1864, 2221, 2554 and 2723 are very pure representatives of f 35 in these three books, with not a single variant, and so for the exemplars of fourteen others. For all those MSS to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception.
For Jude I used Tommy Wasserman’s complete collation of over 500 MSS (The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006), so I imagine the percentages given are very close to the true picture. For 2&3 John I used ECM, extrapolating from a comparison with TuT, which presumably allows a reasonably close approximation. So I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±3%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of f 35, that represents around 17% of the total of extant MSS for these books. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.

- Jude
- <
- 1
- >

*1:1 ιησου χριστου f35 𝕻72ℵA,B (65.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,NU ¦ ~ 21 (34.4%) CP ¦ 2 (0.4%)

†1:1 ηγιασμενοις f35 (90.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ αγαπημενοις 𝕻72ℵA,B (9.2%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?]

‡1:1 χριστω rell ¦ χριστου (26.8%) ¦ — (3%)

§1:3 σωτηριας f35 (85.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ημων 1 𝕻72A,B (10.6%) NU ¦ υμων 1 (2.6%) ¦ ημων ζωης (0.4%) ¦ υμων ζωης (0.4%) ¦ ημων 1 και ζωης ℵ (0.4%) ¦ two others (0.4%) ¦ ℵ has a conflation [The addition of the pronoun was a ‘natural’, but not necessary.]

*1:3 τη rell ¦ — CP

†1:4 χαριν f35 ℵC (99.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ χαριτα 𝕻72A,B (0.8%) NU [Another inferior Alexandrian variant; the proper form of the accusative is χαριν, occurring over 40 times in the NT. Χαριτα occurs only as an Alexandrian variant and even so only here and in Acts 24:27 (where they just dropped the sigma).]

‡1:4 δεσποτην θεον και f35 (79.4%) RP,HF,TR ¦ 1323 (2.6%) ¦ ~ 231 τον (4%) CP ¦ 23 (0.6%) ¦ 13 (𝕻72)ℵA,B,C (13%) OC,NU ¦ 1 𝕻78 (0.4%) [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?]

§1:5 υμας f35 ℵB (81.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,[N]U ¦ — 𝕻72A,C (17.2%) ¦ ημας (1.6%) (N-A uses brackets, but UBS does not [corrected in the 4th ed.].)

*1:5 απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος f35 (79.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1235 (4.8%) ¦ ~ 21345 (5.4%) ¦ 1234 θεος (0.6%) ¦ ~ παντα 3451 (3%) [NU] ¦ ~ παντα 351 ℵ (0.4%) ¦ ~ παντα 34 ιησους 1 (0.4%) ¦ ~ παντα 3 ιησους 1 (2%) ¦ ~ παντα 34 θεος 1 (1.2%) ¦ 1 παντα 3 ιησους A,B (0.8%) ¦ 1 παντα 34 θεος (1%) ¦ 1 παντα 3 θεος χριστος 𝕻72 ¦ five other variants (1%) [The Alexandrians really had fun with this one.]

†1:6 τε rell ¦ δε A (10.2%)

‡1:6 αλλ f35 C [50%] ¦ αλλα 𝕻72ℵA,B [50%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU

§1:7 τουτοις τροπον f35 (88.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 21 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (9%) NU ¦ 1 (0.4%) ¦ 2 (1.6%) ¦ — (0.4%)

*1:9 μωσεως f35 A (60%) HF,OC,TR ¦ μωυσεως 𝕻72ℵB,C (38.8%) RP,NU ¦ μωυσεος CP ¦ ambiguous (1.2%)

†1:9 επενεγκειν rell ¦ υπενεγκειν (11.4%) ¦ εξενεγκειν (0.4%)

‡1:9 αλλ rell ¦ αλλα 𝕻72A,B (1%) NU

§1:9 σοι rell ¦ σε (4.4%) CP

*1:12 εισιν f35 ℵ (85.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 οι 𝕻72A,B (14.6%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?]

†1:12 αφοβως rell ¦ υμιν 1 C (12.2%) CP

‡1:12 παραφερομεναι f35 ℵA,C (87.6%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ παραφερομενοι 𝕻72B (3.8%) ¦ περιφερομεναι (4.6%) TR ¦ φερομεναι (3%) ¦ four other variants (1%)

§1:12 αποθανοντα rell ¦ 1 και (15.8%)

*1:13 εις f35 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (65%) RP,HF,CP,NU ¦ 1 τον (35%) OC,TR

†1:14 ἐνωχ f35 [70%] OC,TR,CP ¦ ἑνωχ [30%] RP,HF,NU

‡1:14 αγιαις μυριασιν f35 A,B (90.2%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ ~ 21 C (5.2%) TR ¦ 12 αγγελων (2%) ¦ ~ 2 αγιων αγγελων ℵ (2%) ¦ αγιων αγγελων 2 𝕻72 ¦ two other variants (0.4%)

§1:15 ελεγξαι f35 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (89.6%) RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ εξελεγξαι (10.4%) TR

*1:15 παντας τους ασεβεις f35 A,B,C (95.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 13 (1.4%) ¦ 23 (0.6%) ¦ πασαν ψυχην 𝕻72ℵ1852 (alone) NU ¦ part of a larger omission (1.6%) [The reading chosen by NU is bad. Certain very evil persons have been rather graphically described in verses 4, 8 and 10-13. In verse 14 Jude introduces a prophecy “about these men”, the same ones he has been describing, and the quotation continues to the end of verse 15. Verse 16 continues the description of their perversity, but verse 17 draws a clear distinction between them and the believers that Jude is addressing. So, Enoch cannot be referring to “every soul”—the NU reading is clearly wrong, introducing an aberration on the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, Nestle25 and UBS2 stayed with the Majority, reading “all the ungodly”. UBS3 changes to “every soul”, without comment! Is this not a curious proceeding? The UBS editors reverse an earlier position, following just three MSS and the Sahidic version, and do not even mention it in their apparatus.]

†1:15 αυτων f35 (80%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (18.2%) NU ¦ part of a larger omission (1.8%)

‡1:15 σκληρων rell ¦ 1 λογων ℵC (14%)

§1:16 εαυτων f35 C (49.4%) NU ¦ αυτων ℵA,B (49.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ part of a larger omission 𝕻72 (1%)

*1:18 οτι f35 𝕻72A,C (98.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,[N]U ¦ — ℵB (1.6%)

†1:18 εν εσχατω χρονω f35 (80.1%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 12 χρονων (0.6%) ¦ 12 τω 3 (1.2%) ¦ επ 23 (0.4%) ¦ επ εσχατου χρονου 𝕻72B,C (1.4%) NU ¦ επ εσχατου του χρονου ℵ(A) (5.2%) ¦ επ εσχατου των χρονων (4.2%) ¦ επ εσχατων των χρονων (5.8%) ¦ three other readings (1%)

‡1:18 εαυτων επιθυμιας rell ¦ αυτων 2 (3.4%) ¦ ~ 21 (5.8%) CP ¦ ~ 2 αυτων ℵ (3.4%) ¦ two other variants (0.6%)

§1:19 αποδιοριζοντες rell ¦ 1 εαυτους C (18.4%)

*1:20 τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει εποικοδομουντες εαυτου f35 (79.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR ¦ 12 ημων 456 (5.6%) CP ¦ 12456 (1.2%) ¦ ~ 561234 ℵA,B (10.2%) NU ¦ ~ 5612 ημων 4 C (3%) ¦ ~ 1 εαυτων 24 ανοικοδομεισθε 𝕻72

†1:20 προσευχομενοι rell ¦ 1 εαυτοις 𝕻72 (10%) (basically this same group omits the immediately following εαυτους)

‡1:22 ελεειτε f35 (89.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ελεατε ℵB (2%) NU ¦ ελεγχετε A,C (8%) ¦ — (𝕻72)

§1:22 διακρινομενοι f35 (89.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ διακρινομενους (𝕻72)ℵA,B,C (10.2%) NU [If the accusative were original, who would change it to nominative? Why? The Alexandrians either didn’t understand, or didn’t like, the original nominative and changed it to suit.]

*1:23 εν φοβω σωζετε εκ (+του 10.4% OC,TR,CP) πυρος αρπαζοντες f35 (81%) RP,HF(OC,TR,CP) ¦ ~ 345612 C (2%) ¦ 3456 (1.4%) ¦ ~ 3456 ους δε ελεατε (ελεειτε 1.6%; ελεγχετε 3.6%) 12 ℵA,B (10.4%) NU ¦ a variety of conflations (4.4%) ¦ four other variants 𝕻72 (1%) (OC is in small print.) [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?]

†1:24 αυτους f35 (67.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ υμας ℵB(C) (29.8%) (the AV’s TR)NU ¦ ημας A (1%) ¦ — (1.4%) ¦ — 𝕻72 is wild (Virtually all versions in English read ‘you’, but in the context ‘them’ makes good sense. Jude is assuring his readers that it is worth the effort to snatch people from the very jaws of hell (v. 23), because God is able to secure them (one’s natural tendency would be to doubt that). In commenting the parable of the lost sheep, the Lord Jesus affirmed that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” It seems that God gets special pleasure out of cheating the Lake. If υμας were original, who would change it to αυτους?)

‡1:24 απταιστους rell ¦ 1 και ασπιλους C (11.4%) ¦ — 𝕻72 is wild

§1:25 σοφω f35 (92%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻72ℵA,B,C (8%) NU [Is the Alexandrian variant not inferior?]

*1:25 θεω rell ¦ — (5.6%) CP

†1:25 ημων f35 (78.4%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου 1 (𝕻72)ℵAv,B,C (21.6%) NU

‡1:25 και f35 𝕻72 (88%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C (12%) NU

§1:25 εξουσια f35 (78.8%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 προ παντος του αιωνος ℵA,B,C (13%) NU ¦ 1 προ παντος αιωνος (8%) ¦ — 𝕻72 [Is not the Alexandrian gloss obviously infelicitous?]

*1:25 και rell ¦ — (12.1%)

†1:25 The citation of f35 for 2 & 3 John and Jude is based on forty-six MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 444, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1628, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 141, 204, 386, 824, 928, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1637, 1855, 1864, 2221, 2554 and 2723 are very pure representatives of f35 in these three books, with not a single variant, and so for the exemplars of fourteen others. For all those MSS to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception. For Jude I used Tommy Wasserman’s complete collation of over 500 MSS (The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006), so I imagine the percentages given are very close to the true picture. For 2&3 John I used ECM, extrapolating from a comparison with TuT, which presumably allows a reasonably close approximation. So I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error should hardly exceed ±3%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error should rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of f35, that represents around 17% of the total of extant MSS for these books. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.

© 2020 Wilbur N. Pickering