Timo Flink 110 Intrinsically, κύριος appears elsewhere in Jude by itself (vv. 9 and14) while ᾽Ιησοῦς is always found as part of the fuller construction ᾽Ιησοῦς χριστός (vv. 1.4.17.21 and 25). It would be an exception to the author’s style to find ᾽Ιησοῦς alone in verse 5. Hence, κύριος fits the author’s style and is more likely the “original” reading56. However, the letter of Jude is short and offers a minimal database to study the author’s stylistic fea- tures. This means that there is room for a possibility of variance in his style, though it cannot be demonstrated from a text this short. The transcriptional probability, on the other hand, is more complex. Both κύριος and ᾽Ιησοῦς were written as nomen sacrum, KC and IC respectively. A scribe could have accidentally confused them due to a common vertical stroke. It could go both ways, not just from KC to IC57. If the change was accidental, there is no certainty which way it went. There are, however, reasons to believe that the change was not accidental. The second corrector of codex C felt uncomfortable with κύριος and intentionally changed it to θεός, so there needed to be a reason to do so. As I pointed out, θεός is likely a harmonisation to the Petrine parallel. It does not affect the question of κύριος vs. ᾽Ιησοῦς, but it does provide an incentive for the change, namely, an explication of the subject. There is another possible reason for the above change. Since the anar- throus κύριος is ambiguous (God or Jesus?), it is possible that an early second century scribe interpreted κύριος as θεός. Another scribe inter- preted it as ᾽Ιησοῦς in light of the previous verse and Logos-Christology, and changed Jude 5 accordingly to ᾽Ιησοῦς to explicate the text. This is strengthened by the fact that the author of Jude uses κύριος for Jesus elsewhere (vv. 4.17.21 and 25). This interpretation was rather popular, testified in the writings of several church fathers. Such an alteration created a statement for the high Christology and would have provided ammunition to be used against those with leanings toward low Christol- ogy. The change was perhaps based on popular Joshua-Jesus typology. Such a typology does not fit the context of Jude 5 because Joshua did not destroy unbelievers or imprison angels, but a scribe could have missed its pitfalls58. Also, nowhere it is said specifically that Jesus imprisoned Study of the Epistle of Jude, 18; G.D. Kilpatrick, “Conjectural Emendation in the New Testament”, in J.K. Elliott (ed.), The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism. Collected Essays of G.D. Kilpatrick (BETL 96; Leuven 1990), 98-109; Wikgren, “Some Problems in Jude 5”. Landon, The Text of Jude, 73; Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text, 355-56. It is possible 56 that verse 25 does not apply, because there is a textual variant that omits the whole phrase altogether, but this does not change the fact that ᾽Ιησοῦς would be unique within Jude. Bartolomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt”, 149 indicates that both have a 57 common vertical stroke, which could have confused the scribe. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43; Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text, 356. 58