96 Timo Flink on the priority of Jude vs. 2 Peter– but the actual text has been reworked with the publication of the Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (ECM for short) and with T. Wasserman’s recent monograph on Jude2. Both the ECM (2005) and the Wasserman’s work (2006) are new reconstructions of the initial text of the epistle of Jude and deviate in a few textual variation units from the NA27 (1979)3 and from each other. There are three changes to the NA27 in the ECM, and five in Wasserman’s work. This is a modest number of changes, as noted by J.K. Elliott4. The ECM reads ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς, and Wasserman has ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι κύριος in Jude 5. These are replacements for ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ (the NA27). This means that the ECM has returned back to the reading found in the UBS2. Wasserman’s reading is a conjectural emendation5. This change in the ECM is not a minor issue, because the change has Christological implications, which affect the theology of Jude. While the ECM retains ἐπαφρίζοντα in Jude 13 and πᾶσαν ψυχήν in Jude 15 and thus agrees with the NA27 in both cases, Wasserman changes these to ἀπαφρίζοντα and πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ, respectively. The latter one is a somewhat significant change, because it brings the text in line with the later Majority text and the reconstructed Ethiopian text of 1 Enoch, a possible source for Jude. There are two omissions in the ECM. Jude 18 now reads ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν instead of ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν [ὅτι], and ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου χρόνου instead of ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χρόνου. Wasserman accepts the bracketed words as “original”6 and reads D. Senior and D.J. Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (Collegeville 2003); R. Skaggs, The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude (London 2004); B. Aland et al, Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior. IV. Catholic Let- 2 ters. Installment 4, the Second and Third Letter of John, the Letter of Jude (Stuttgart 2005); T. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude. Its Text and Transmission (CBNTS 43; Stockholm 2006). The NA27 reproduces the text of the NA26 unchanged. This is why the text dates back 3 to 1979. See B. Aland et al, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart 1993) 46*. J.K. Elliott, “One Reader’s Reaction to Editio Critica Maior”, in W. Weren and D.-A. 4 Koch (eds.), Recent Development in Textual Criticism (Assen 2003) 130, has noted the small number of changes and argues that the ECM still reproduces an approximation of a text that was used during the 4th century, but not necessarily during the earlier period. C. Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (JSNTSup 135; Sheffield 1996) 142-45, has 21 changes to the text of the NA27, albeit he worked with a different methodological ap- proach than the others. As a thoroughgoing eclectic Landon gave preference to the internal evidence over the external one. C.D. Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5”, Bib 62 (1981) 107-15; Wasserman, The Epistle of 5 Jude, 255. I use the word “original” throughout the article, because of the debate what can be 6 known of the original text. It is not certain that the initial text is the same as the original text. Further, there is a possibility of multiple original texts. In such a case “original” would only mean one form of the original text. Thus, I use “original” because of this multivalence of the term. For reasons of this nomenclature, see E.J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism”, HTR 92 (1999) 245-81.