106 Timo Flink reason it is lectio difficilior. Another possibility is that τούτο is an interpretation of the collective sense of the author’s remarks on judge- ment and thus a later scribal harmonisation42. Be that as it may, τούτο nevertheless violates the sentence structure by creating clauses void of an object, because the subordinate clause depends on ὑπονμῆσαι and not on εἰδότας43. Intrinsically, the author of Jude positions πᾶς before its agree- ing substantive (v. 3, 15, 25). Here πᾶς is substantive itself but that is not significant, because the word order involving πᾶς is flexible44. As a result the intrinsic evidence is inconclusive but the transcriptional probability favours πάντα, which should be taken as the “original” reading. (4) The last but not the least of the questions is who is the subject of the verb ἀπώλεσεν? This is the most difficult aspect of this textual variation unit to decide. The external evidence is divided between five readings as follows. (ὁ) κύριος ) C* L Ψ 307 326 431 436 453 808 2200 // 18 35 630 1067 1409 1836 1837 1875 2374 // 61 254 468 1292 2186 2818 // pm S:H Dam Ephr PsAth PsOec ThphAl A B 81 88 1739 // 33c 323 665 915 // 6 93 1881 2298 2344 // pc L:V (ὁ) ᾽Ιησοῦς K:SB Ä CnOec Bede Cyr Did1/2 Hier Isid IonCas Or1739mg (ὁ) κύριος ᾽Ιησοῦς – // – // 1735 // l241 l591 l1178 Did1/2 (ὁ) θεός C2 442 // 621 623 1845 // 5 1243 1846 2805 // al L:VmssTR S:Ph A Clem Lcf θεὸς χριστός P72 The external evidence faces a problematic assessment. Two readings are secondary in terms of their supporting witnesses, namely, a minor- ity reading (ὁ) κύριος ᾽Ιησοῦς and a singular reading θεὸς χριστός supported by the oldest manuscript (P72), but the other three readings present a problem45. A good number of the manuscript deemed closest to the Ausgangstext read (ὁ) κύριος. This may be a second century read- ing, but there is no external evidence that would place it there without a doubt. Geographically it is found in Egypt and Syria. There appears to be no D-text witnesses for it and it is not found in the geographical West. Yet the amount of primary, secondary and tertiary witnesses makes it a good candidate for “originality”, seeing that it is also supported by some Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5” 42 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text, 353; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude , 262; Wikgren, 43 “Some Problems in Jude 5”, 149. BDF §292. 44 CnOec refers to Concilia Oecumenica, and IonCas to Iohannes Cassianus. 45