Instead of this superscription (in A C K) there is found in B only
Ἰούδα
CHAPTER 1
Jud_1:1. Instead of
Ἰησ
.
Χρ
. (Rec. after A B L
à
, etc., several vss. etc., Lachm. Tisch. 8) Tisch. 7 had adopted
Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ
, after K P, etc., without sufficient justification.
ἡγιασμένοις
] Rec. after K L P, etc.; instead of this
ἠγαπημένοις
, in A B
à
, 5, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Orig. Eph., is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is true that there are exegetical difficulties connected with the latter reading, but it is too strongly defended by authorities to be on that account considered spurious. Reiche, Schott, Hofmann have declared for it, Wiesinger against it; Brückner is undecided.
Jud_1:3.
τῆς
κοινῆς
σωτηρίας
] Rec. after K L P, al.; Tisch. 7 has retained this reading; Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the contrary, read
κοινῆς
ἡμῶν
σωτηρίας
, for which A B C
à
, 5, al., Syr. Erp. Sahid. Theoph. Lucif. testify. The weight of authorities is in favour of this latter reading; it is possible that
ἡμῶν
was omitted, in order to give to the idea a universal character.
Jud_1:4. Instead of the usual form
χάριν
, Lachm. and Tisch., after A B, read
χάριτα
, which occurs in classical writers only among the poets (see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprachl. § 44. Anm. 1) [E. T. 13].
τὸν
μόνον
δεσπότην
καὶ
κύριον
ἡμῶν
Ἰ
.
Χρ
., with Griesbach, Scholz, Tittmann, Lachm. Tisch., after the testimonies of A B C 10,
à
, Lect. 1, 3, Erp. Copt. Sahid. etc., Eph. Didym. Chrys.
The Rec. has after
δεσπότην
the word
Θεόν
(in K L P, etc., Syr. utr. Thph.), which, however, is a later addition, the more definitely to distinguish
δεσπότην
from
κύριον
ἡμῶν
. In later MSS. many other variations are found, namely:
Θεὸν
καὶ
δεσπότην
τὸν
κύρ
.
ἡμ
.
Ἰ
.
Χρ
., or
δεσπότην
καὶ
Θεὸν
τὸν
κύρ
.
ἡμ
.
Ἰ
.
Χρ
., or
Θεὸν
δεσπότην
καὶ
κύρ
.
ἡμ
.
Ἰ
.
Χρ
.
Jud_1:5. After
εἰδότας
the Rec. has
ὑμᾶς
; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in A B C** several min. etc., but is found in K L
à
, etc. It may have been omitted on account of the preceding
ὑμᾶς
.
τοῦτο
(Rec. after K L, etc.) appears to be an explanatory correction instead of the original
πάντα
, for which A B C**
à
, etc., Vulg. etc., testify; also Reiche considers
πάντα
as the original reading.
à
has
ἅπαξ
after
κύριος
, so also several versions, yet after
ὅτι
κύριος
. Two reasons co-operated for this displacement: (1) because
ἅπαξ
did not appear to suit
εἰδότας
, and (2) because the following
τὸ
δεύτερον
appeared to require a word corresponding with
σώσας
. Tisch. on this observes: quae quidem lectio omnino praeferenda esset alteri, nisi incredibile esset
ἅπαξ
locum post
εἰδότας
a quopiam correctore nactum esse. Reiche remarks: loco, quem vulgo occupat, testium auctoritate servari debet.
The Rec.
ὁ
κύριος
is found in K L, most min. some vss. and Fathers; Tisch. 7 has retained it; Tisch. 8 reads, after C*
à
,
κύριος
without the article. A B, several min. etc., have
Ἰησοῦς
instead of
κύριος
(on this Tisch. 8 remarks: articulum om. et A B et reliqui qui
Ἰησοῦς
praebent); Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted
ὁ
Ἰησοῦς
; C** and Lucif. read
ὁ
Θεός
. The reading
Ἰησοῦς
(instead of
κύριος
) is indeed very strange, but might for this reason be changed into the other readings.
Jud_1:6. Instead of
τε
after
ἀγγέλους
(Tisch.), A, some min. etc., have
δέ
. Lachm. has
δέ
in the text-edition; but, on the other hand, in the larger edition he has rightly again adopted
τε
.
Jud_1:7.
τούτοις
τρόπον
] Rec. after K L, etc.; a correction instead of
τρόπον
τούτοις
(Lachm. Tisch.) in A B C
à
, many min. etc.
Jud_1:9. Instead of
ὁ
δὲ
Μιχ
.
ὁ
ἀρχάγγελος
,
ὅτε
, Lachm., against the testimony of A C K L
à
, etc., has adopted, after B,
ὅτε
Μιχ
.
ὁ
ἀρχ
.
τότε
.
Jud_1:12. A B, 13, al., m. edd. Syr. utr. (Copt.?) etc., read after
οὗτοί
εἰσιν
the relative
οἱ
, which Griesbach considers as probably genuine, and Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted into the text;1[5] the omission must be considered as an explanatory correction.
ἀγάπαις
] instead of which A C and some min. read
ἀπάταις
; a correction after 2Pe_2:13.
ὑμῶν
] Lachm. has in the small edition
αὐτῶν
, after A, etc., but in the larger edition the Rec.
ὑμῶν
, which is sufficiently attested by B C K L
à
, etc.; the reading
αὐτῶν
, which Stier without reason considers as original, is explained from 1Pe_2:13.
Instead of
ὑπὸ
ἀνέμων
,
à
reads
παντὶ
ἀνέμω
; an evident correction.
παραφερόμεναι
] is already by Griesb. Scholz, etc., after almost all authorities, rightly adopted into the text instead of the Rec.
ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΌΜΕΝΑΙ
.
Jud_1:13.
ἌΓΡΙΑ
ΚΎΜΑΤΑ
is in
à
instead of
ΚΎΜΑΤΑ
ἌΓΡΙΑ
, which is attested by all authorities.
Buttmann has, after B, adopted
ΠΛΑΝῆΤΕς
instead of
ΠΛΑΝῆΤΑΙ
, and
ΖΌΦΟς
instead of
Ὁ
ΖΌΦΟς
; as the other authorities, so also
à
testifies for the reading of the Rec.
εἰς
αἰῶνα
] after A B C
à
, etc., instead of the Rec.
ΕἸς
ΤῸΝ
ΑἸῶΝΑ
.
Jud_1:14. Instead of the form
ΠΡΟΕΦΉΤΕΥΣΕ
, attested by almost all authorities, Tisch. has, after B*, adopted
ἘΠΡΟΦΉΤΕΥΣΕ
.
ἉΓΊΑΙς
ΜΥΡΙΆΣΙΝ
] after A B K L, etc., instead of the Rec.
μυριάσιν
ἁγίαις
in C; in
à
the reading is
μυριάσιν
ἁγίων
ἀγγέλων
.
Jud_1:15.
ἐλέγξαι
] after A B C K L
à
, etc., instead of the Rec.
ἘΞΕΛΈΓΞΑΙ
.
After
ἈΣΕΒΕῖς
the Rec. has
αὐτῶν
, found in K L, some min. vss. and Fathers; retained by Tischendorf,[6] and defended by Reiche; on the other hand, it is wanting in A B C (Lachm.); its spuriousness is scarcely to be doubted.
ἀσεβείας
αὐτῶν
is wanting in
à
;
ἀσεβείας
in C; the omission is easily explained.
Tisch. 8 inserts after
τῶν
σκληρῶν
the word
λόγων
, after C
à
, and many min.; it is wanting in most authorities (Tisch. 7); it appears to have been added from a regard to the preceding
τῶν
ἔργων
.
Jud_1:18. After
ἔλεγον
ὑμῖν
Tisch. 7, after A C K L, etc., has
ὅτι
(Rec.); Tisch. 8 has omitted it after B L*
à
; so also Lachm. in his larger edition, but hardly correctly.
Instead of the Rec.
ἐν
ἐσχάτῳ
χρόνῳ
(K L P, some min. and Oecumenius), which is an explanatory correction, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted
ἐπʼ
ἐσχάτου
τοῦ
χρόνου
; the article
τοῦ
is found in A
à
, al., etc.; its omission is easily explained, because
ἘΣΧΆΤΟΥ
was taken for an adjective.
ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ
] Whilst Lachm. in his small edition instead of it reads
ἘΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ
, he has in the large edition rightly adopted the reading of the Rec. The reading
ἐλεύσονται
(in A C** etc.) is a correction after 2Pe_3:3.
à
has primo manu
ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ
; on the other hand corrected
ἘΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ
.
Jud_1:19. After
ἈΠΟΔΙΟΡΊΖΟΝΤΕς
the Rec. has
ἑαυτοῖς
(C, Vulg. Aug.); an evident correction.
Jud_1:20. Instead of the Rec.
τῇ
ἁγιωτ
.
ὑμῶν
πίστει
ἐποικοδομοῦντες
ἑαυτούς
(K L P, al., pl. Syr. etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read
ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΟῦΝΤΕς
ἙΑΥΤ
.
Τῇ
ἉΓ
.
ὙΜ
.
Π
. (A B C
à
, al., several vss. etc.).
Jud_1:22-23. The readings are here very various. The Rec. has
ΚΑῚ
ΟὝς
ΜῈΝ
ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ
·
ΟὝς
ΔῈ
ἘΝ
ΦΌΒῼ
ΣΏΖΕΤΕ
,
ἘΝ
ΤΟῦ
ΠΥΡῸς
ἉΡΠΆΖΟΝΤΕς
. This reading is found in K L P (only
ΤΟῦ
before
ΠΥΡΌς
is omitted); A reads
ΚΑῚ
ΟὝς
ΜῈΝ
ἘΛΈΓΧΕΤΕ
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς
,
ΟὝς
ΔῈ
ΣΏΖΕΤΕ
ἘΚ
ΠΥΡῸς
ἉΡΠΆΖΟΝΤΕς
,
ΟὝς
ΔῈ
ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ
ἘΝ
ΦΌΒῼ
; Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted this reading, only that instead of
ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ
they read, with B:
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
.
B deviates in this, that in Jud_1:22 it reads not
ἘΛΈΓΧΕΤΕ
, but
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
(so also
à
); in Jud_1:23 it omits the first
ΟὝς
ΔΈ
, and instead of
ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ
has the form
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
; C agrees on the whole with A, yet C** has in Jud_1:22
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
, as B, and in Jud_1:23 the words
ΟὝς
ΔῈ
ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ
are wanting in C. The reading of A is held as the original by Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, because the other readings can be most easily explained from it; Hofmann, on the contrary, prefers the reading in
à
, which is found also in B, only with the inadvertent omission of the words
ΟὝς
ΔΈ
after
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς
; whilst de Wette thinks that the original reading is preserved in C. The reading in B probably lies at the foundation of the reading in K L P; the twofold
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
was naturally objectionable, and therefore the words
ΟὝς
ΔῈ
ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ
were left out,
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς
changed into the nominative, and
ἘΝ
ΦΌΒῼ
placed before
ΣΏΖΕΤΕ
. For further observations, see the exposition.
Jud_1:24. Instead of
ὙΜᾶς
(ed. Elz.; A C L
à
, al., perm. several vss. Theoph. etc., Lachm. Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had, after K P, al., etc., hardly correctly adopted
ΑὐΤΟΎς
; A has
ἩΜᾶς
.
Jud_1:25.
ΜΌΝῼ
ΘΕῷ
is correctly adopted by Griesbach, after A B C
à
, 6, al., Syr., etc., instead of the Rec.
ΜΌΝῼ
ΣΟΦῷ
ΘΕῷ
;
ΣΟΦῷ
is evidently borrowed from Rom_16:27, and is without reason defended by Reiche.
ΔΙᾺ
ἸΗΣΟῦ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ
ΚΥΡΊΟΥ
ἩΜῶΝ
is likewise adopted by Griesbach (after A B C, etc.), whilst the words are wanting in the Rec.
The Rec. between
ΔΌΞΑ
and
ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗ
has
ΚΑΊ
after K L P, etc., which is correctly omitted by recent critics; on the other hand, the words
ΠΡῸ
ΠΑΝΤῸς
ΤΟῦ
ΑἸῶΝΟς
, wanting in the Rec., are attested by almost all authorities.
The subscription of the Epistle is in B:
Ἰούδα
; in C:
Ἰούδα
ἐπιστολὴ
καθολική
; and in A:
Ἰούδα
ἐπιστολή
.
[5] 1 Reiche incorrectly observes that Buttmann has not adopted
οἱ
, and has adduced B as a witness for the reading of the Rec. On account of the difficulty which the article presents, Reiche considers the reading of the Rec. as the original.
[6] Tisch. 8 has it likewise in the text, although he says in the notes: omisimus cum A B C
à
, etc.