Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 103 fathers if it was “original”. Both Cyril and Ephraem quote the text in verbatim and neither has the second ὑμᾶς27. The intrinsic probability is quite certainly against ὑμᾶς2 and favours the omission, because a double reference constitutes a break in author’s usage within the letter. He either has a single reference or a triadic one. Therefore, I regard the second ὑμᾶς as a scribal addition for textual clarity28. (2) What is the meaning and the position of ἅπαξ, especially in rela- tionship if any to τὸ δεύτερον? The ἅπαξ appears in pre-ὅτι and post- ὅτι positions. Witnesses that support the pre-ὅτι position and therefore the meaning “once for all” include P72 A B C2 81 307 436 453 808 // 33c 623* 1067 1409 1875 // 5 61 468 1735 2186 2344 2805 2818 // al L:V Ä Cyr1/2 Ephr Hier Hil Thphyl PsOec. This is a widespread second century reading found in Egypt, Rome, Syria and Ethiopia. On the other hand, witnesses that support the post-ὅτι position and therefore a rather rare meaning “first time” in conjunction with τὸ δεύτερον include ) L Ψ 88 326 431 442 1739* 2200 // 18 35 323 621 630 665 915 1836 1837 1845 2374 // 6 93 254 1243 1292 1846 1881 // al L:T K:SB S:HPh A Clem Did Or. This is also a widespread second century reading found in Egypt, Rome, Syria and Armenia. Such a split of the external evidence makes it inconclusive. The decision needs to be made on internal grounds. The internal evidence includes the following considerations. (I) If ἅπαξ originally appeared after ὅτι, it needs to be understood as an adverbial adjective with the meaning “first time” in order to go with τὸ δεύτερον, which lacks the preceding πρῶτον. There are some examples where ἅπαξ appears to have a sense of “first”29. The ἅπαξ would then modify σώσας. Such a reconstruction seemingly makes more sense than to take ἅπαξ as an adverb of manner with εἰδότας, because it provides an antecedent for τὸ δεύτερον. As such the subject first saved his people out of Egypt but later destroyed them. This would be quite an elegant statement. The pre-ὅτι position makes the text say that the readers “know everything once and for all”, which is clumsy30. Nonetheless, “first time” as a mean- ing for ἅπαξ is questionable in Jude 5, because the context speaks about Concilia Oecumenica (CnOec), Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431 27 1.1.7.20.37, reads εἰδότας ἅπαξ ἅπαντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς. This might be a miswritten form of εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς found in A 81 33c 2344 L:V Ä Cyr. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 48, accepts this reading without a discussion on its merits; 28 Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 69-70, argues for the omission on internal grounds; Wikgren, “Some Problems in Jude 5”, 150, also reconstructs the text without it. C. Bigg, A Critical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 2nd ed. (ICC; Edinburgh 1902) 328, sees the second ὑμᾶς as a scribal slip. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude, 29; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43. 29 Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 328; Black, “Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three New 30 Testament Texts”, 44; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 258.