116 Timo Flink Jude 15 This textual variation unit has to do with whether the text should read πᾶσαν ψυχήν (the NA27, the ECM) or πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ (Wasser- man). There are no bold dots in the ECM, so the editors believed their choice is beyond reasonable doubt. G. Mink told me that the genealogical coherence shows that if πᾶσαν ψυχήν is not the initial text, it needed to emerge three separate times in the NT textual tradition, because the agreement between P72, ) and 1852 is coincidental. They are not genea- logically closely related witnesses82. The problem with such an argument is that we have too few early witnesses to know for certain, which wit- nesses are related and which are not. It is possible that P72, ) and 1852 are indirectly related via now lost witnesses. Thus, the question remains open for debate which variant is the “original” one. The external evidence is as follows. πᾶσαν ψυχήν πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ P72 ) // 1852 // – // K:SBmss S:Phmss A B C Ψ 81 307 326 431 436 453 808 2200 // 33 623 630 665 1067 1409 1837 1845 2374 // 5 61 93 468 1243 1292 1735 1846 2186 2344 2805 2818 // pm Ephr NicSeid Phot A G:A1 Sl:M The external evidence is divided between the earliest witness (P72) supporting πᾶσαν ψυχήν and the “best” witness (codex 81) supporting πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ. The former reading is found in Egypt and Syria. The latter reading has the secondary support by the following witnesses, containing variations of it (add αὐτῶν or drop τούς): 1739 // 18 35 323 915 1836 1875 // 5 6 254 1881 2298 // pm. Vulgate, Bohairic, Harclean and some Philoxenian manuscripts support reading πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ with or without the article83. The latter reading and its derivatives are thus found in Egypt, Syria, Rome, Georgia and in Slavic speaking areas. This makes the latter reading more widespread. The ECM reading has a relatively weak attestation84. The scribe of P72 was probably a Chris- tian Coptic, because the papyrus has a number of notes in haphazard Greek, much orthographic confusion indicative of Coptic ear and some Coptic glosses85. Thus, P72 and K:S may be related to each other and do G. Mink, private communications with the author, July 26, 2007. 82 Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 302. 83 Wachtel, Der byzantiniche Text, 359, admits this, though genealogically the case is 84 stronger as it may look, because the witnesses are not genealogically related. Michel Testuz (ed.), Papyrus Bodmer VII-IX (Cologny-Geneva, 1959) 9-10; G.D. 85 Kilpatrick, “The Bodmer and Mississippi Collection of Biblical and Christian Texts”, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 4 (1963) 34; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 31-32.