Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 117 not necessarily yield an independent testimony for the variant reading πᾶσαν ψυχήν, even though P72 has an uncontrolled text in Jude usually associated with the “Western” text (the D-text)86. If this is so, the external attestation is further weakened. There are no text-critical umlauts for this verse in codex B. The internal evidence is more complex. The known sources of 1 Enoch read a text close or related to πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ. In none of them πᾶσαν ψυχήν is found87. This could give scribes ample reason to har- monise the text of Jude 15 with 1 Enoch 1,9. The author of Jude has not cited his source(s)88 without modifications. He has omitted a reference to destruction and the object of the second clause, joined the remaining clauses into one and applied the resulting text to his opponents89. There- fore πᾶσαν ψυχήν could be just another modification by the author of Jude. Since verse 4 has ἀσεβεῖϛ, it is possible that a scribe harmonised v. 15 to it. These reasons favour reading πᾶσαν ψυχήν as “original”. In contrast, πᾶσαν ψυχήν could be a scribal emendation due to an influence of Rom. 2,9 to avoid repeating ἀσεβεῖϛ. Paul speaks about af- fliction to those to do evil and reads πᾶσαν ψυχήν in Rom. 2,990. It could also be a reading in conformity with κατὰ πάντων in the same verse to avoid repeating the ἀσεβ- word group four times in a single verse91. An- other reason in favour of the longer reading is that πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ as a triadic expression. The author of Jude often has πᾶς + definite article + an adjective or a substantive, three times in vv. 14-15 if the longer reading is accepted. This creates a triadic of triadic expressions, πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ – πάντων τῶν ἔργῶν- πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν, a stylisti- P.W. Comfort and D.P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manu- 86 scripts. New and Complete Transcriptions with Photographs (Wheaton, IL 2001) 479. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 302, who lists the readings from the Aramaic source 87 4Q204, codex Panopolitanus, Ethiopic source and Ps.-Cyprian and Ps.-Vigilius. E. Mazich, however, points out that not all sources known to us could have been used by the author of Jude, because Ethiopian sources are later than Jude. Syriac sources are no help either, because they derive from known Greek sources. Thus, the author of Jude could have used only an Aramaic source, a Greek one or a combination (see below). See E. Mazich, “The Lord Will Come with His Holy Myriads”. There is a debate of what exactly was the source for the author of Jude in preparing 88 his text. Did he use an Aramaic source, which he perhaps paraphrased or did he combine an Aramaic and a Greek source together? See, e.g. E. Mazich, “The Lord Will Come with His Holy Myriads”, for a scholar arguing in those lines. For an argument that he also used a text similar to that of the Ethiopian text, see C.D. Osburn, “The Christological Use of 1 Enoch I. 9 in Jude 14,15”, NTS 23 (1977) 334-41. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 276, has argued that the author of Jude quoted from memory but this seems unlikely. Osburn, ”The Christological Use”, 338. 89 Kubo, P72 and Codex Vaticanus, 88. 90 Albin, Judasbrevet, 615. 91