107 Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 church fathers and the Syriac (Harclean). Some of the witnesses add the definite article. In contrast, the “best” manuscript (codex 81) supports ᾽Ιησοῦς, which reading goes back to the second century via B, K:S and perhaps Or1739mg. Some of the witnesses add the definite article for this one as well. Geo- graphically it is found in Egypt, Rome and Ethiopia. There are only a couple of A-text witnesses in its support (424c l596). It is doubtful whether this reading can be said to exists geographically in Syria, even though it is found in a number of non-Byzantine manuscripts that may be located to the East. It is as if there is a clear distinction between the East (κύριος) and the West (᾽Ιησοῦς) with Egypt divided as to the locales in support of a given variant reading. What complicates matters is that the reading ὁ θεός is found in some important manuscripts and versions. Geographi- cally this reading is widespread, especially among the versions, found in Egypt, Rome, Syria and Armenia. Yet generally it is found only in later Greek witnesses. This reading may go back to the second century via a reference in Clement (before AD 215) and possibly via L:TR. Clement of Alexandria is the earliest Greek reference to this reading, perhaps earli- est of all witnesses, because the evidence of Old Latin may not go back to earlier times. Yet there is a problem with Clement. It is not certain that the reading in Clement represents the text known to him. The citation by Clement is somewhat free, which might make this reading a patristic corruption46. However, P72 gives a secondary support for θεός. Thus, geographically (ὁ) κύριος and ὁ θεός overlap each other in the East, and (ὁ) ᾽Ιησοῦς and ὁ θεός overlap in the West with a minor overlap in the East. Egypt is divided between all these three readings. Is this a hint of localised scribal corruptions on the basis of doctrinal considerations? The external evidence appears to give ᾽Ιησοῦς a slight edge over the rival readings. It is both early and widespread reading. This in itself is not decisive enough, because of its almost total absence in the East47. The rival κύριος has most of the important manuscripts in its favour, but this reading is limited geographically mostly to the East. Third reading θεός appears as early as ᾽Ιησοῦς, but it is uncertain whether it is truly a variant reading or just an early patristic and/or scribal corruption. Thus, the matter cannot be decided by the external evidence. Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5”, 109. 46 Philipp Bartolomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? – A Re-examination of a 47 Textual Problem in Jude 5”, NovT 50 (2008) 143-58 argues that the external evidence clearly favours ᾽Ιησοῦς. I find this to be a bit too optimistic statement. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 263, is more cautious by stating that ᾽Ιησοῦς has the strongest support.