119 Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 reading95. Also, the absence of ὅτι in some Latin witnesses may be due to a translational process, which is more likely than the reverse by the same process. This would mean that the absence is limited geographically to Egypt in so far as important witnesses are concerned. The inclusion goes back to the second century exemplar (via P72) but the exclusion is likely equally old (via B). There are no umlaut markings in codex B for this tex- tual variation unit, which as the principal codex for the B-text supports the absence of ὅτι. Correctors working with manuscripts L and P inserted the ὅτι into the respective manuscripts, but this may only tentatively point towards the “originality” of the exclusion of the ὅτι. The correc- tors may have re-introduced and earlier reading back to their respective manuscripts. Thus, though the inclusion is more persuasive among the important witnesses, the matter needs to be solved in conjunction with the internal evidence96. The internal evidence is more complex, but not as ambiguous as Wasserman claims97. The existence of the second ὅτι may be a straightfor- ward introduction of an indirect statement or a recitative introduction to a ‘quotation’ that follows. Its inclusion makes sense. Its absence in some witnesses may be a scribal harmonisation to Jude 14 since it has λέγων without ὅτι or a simplification of the clause since the first ὅτι seemingly makes the second ὅτι redundant. A scribe could have perceived the second ὅτι as superfluous and drop it as a minor stylistic improvement. Early scribes were prone to omit more often than to add98. On a literary level the phrase λέγων ὅτι is rare in the New Testament with only 10 hits (the NA27), from which only 5 occurrences are textually undisputed, while the rest have variae lectiones99. The preponderant usage is λέγων without ὅτι (160 hits in the NA27) as in Jude 14. In light of this, the absence of ὅτι in Mayor, The Epistle of Jude, clxxxv; Wasserman, Text of Jude, 311. 95 Albin, Judasbrevet, 618, argued that the decision needs to be made on internal 96 grounds because the external evidence is divided. True, but he made his comments long before the existence of CBGM that could be used to reconstruct the hypothetical transmis- sional history. Though the decision needs the input from internal evidence, which is not so ambiguous as to be of no help, the external evidence does suggest the inclusion as more likely the “original”. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 311. 97 Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 123; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 312. For a 98 general treatment of scribal habits, see E.C. Colwell, “Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75”, in E.C. Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden 1969) 107-24; Royse, “Scribal Tendencies”, 239-52; P.M. Head, “Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, especially on the ‘Scribal Habits’”, Bib 71 (1990) 240-47; idem, “The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John”, Bib 85 (2004) 399-408.; Mt. 9.18, Mk 1.15, 5.23, 12.6, Lk. 8.49, 19.42, Jn 1.32, Acts 19.26, Heb. 10.8, and 1 Jn 99 2.4. Textually undisputed occurrences are underlined.