Timo Flink, «Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 20 (2007) 95-125 page 97

Vol 20 (2007)

Timo Flink, «Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18.», Vol. 20 (2007) 95-125

The text of Jude has been reconstructed recently by two different works to replace the critical text found in the NA²⁷. The Novum Testamentum Editio Critica Maior (ECM) and a monograph by T. Wasserman offer changes to the critical text. I evaluate these suggested changes and offer my own text-critical suggestions. I argue that in Jude 13, 15 and 18 the text should read a)pafri/zonta, pa/ntaj tou\j a)sebei=j, and o3ti e!legon u(mi=n o3ti e)p ) e)sxa/tou tou= xro/nou, respectively. These solutions differ from both the NA27 and the ECM and agree with Wasserman’s reconstruction. I suggest that the «original» reading in Jude 5 was a3pac pa/nta o3ti )Ihsou=j, which none of the above works have.

See more by the same author

Page 97/125
‹
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
›

97 Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 á½…Ï„Î¹ á¼”Î»ÎµÎ³Î¿Î½ á½‘Î¼á¿–Î½ á½…Ï„Î¹ and á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Ï‡ÏÏŒÎ½Î¿Ï… (contra the ECM)7. These two rival reconstructions provide a reason to evaluate the sug- gested changes. Preliminary Remarks The ECM and has been reconstructed using data from a new text-criti- cal method called the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)8. This new method has produced an interesting view of the transmissional history of the text in terms of which manuscripts are potentially closest to the reconstructed initial text. With it there is a renewed interest for the some Byzantine witnesses. Wasserman includes his own study of 560 Greek witnesses for Jude, uses a more traditional text-critical method, and gives attention to the results of the CBGM analysis9. The editors of the ECM list the following findings of the CBGM for the epistle of Jude10. 1. The primary witnesses that were considered to have the initial text as their closest related potential ancestor are P72 ) A B C L Î¨ 81 88 307 326 431 436 442 453 808 1739 2200. 2. The secondary witnesses that were considered to have the initial text as their next most closely related potential ancestor are 18 33 35 323 621 623 630 665 915 1067 1409 1836 1837 1845 1852 1875 2374. 3. The tertiary witnesses have the initial text as third to fifth most closely related potential ancestor are 5 6 61 93 254 468 1243 1292 1735 1846 1881 2186 2298 2344 2805 2818. By primary, secondary and tertiary witnesses I do not mean that ECM IV.4, 410, 426; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 255-66, 291-94, 301-304, 311- 7 14. I need to add a disclaimer. Since the method is still under further development at 8 MÃ¼nster, some results of this paper apply only in so far as the ECM text of Jude stands at its initial publication. Possible future changes may alter or invalidate the results of this study. The results used are from the initial phase of the method, as published in the ECM, which is now under review at MÃ¼nster. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 105, 124. 9 ECM IV.4, 36*. Please note that these results are taken from the initial publication. 10 The list may change in the future, when the editors finish their re-examination of the entire Catholic corpus and update the text and the findings in the forth-coming Supplement to ECM. I am grateful for Dr G. Mink, one of the editors, for this information (a private communication, June 26, 2007).