112 Timo Flink repeated theological reasoning that ᾽Ιησοῦς rose as an interpretation of κύριος, one way or another. It is thus interesting to note that κύριος vs. ᾽Ιησοῦς appears to be localised in Egypt and Syria as far as textual witnesses are concerned. Most theological classes between Christianity and Judaism and Christological debates took place primarily in the East. This phenomenon is not found in geographically western witnesses, which uniformly testify of ᾽Ιησοῦς. Is it not reasonable to say that the author of Jude could have written ᾽Ιησοῦς and that a later scribe changed it to κύριος in order to distance his local Christian community from Judaism by removing from the text the idea that Christianity’s primary person was no other than the Jewish God? Such an alteration on the basis of social setting would not be unique63. To my knowledge, this has never been proposed before, though Bartolomä comes close by suggesting that a change from ᾽Ιησοῦς to θεός due to Christological reasons is plausible as an attempt to avoid attributing Old Testament events to the pre-exist- ent Son instead of God the Father64. These suggestions show that the transcriptional probability may go both ways with intentional changes, whatever the reasons were for the changes. There appears to be nothing inherently implausible for see- ing either κύριος or ᾽Ιησοῦς as the “original” reading. This means that transcriptional probability turns out to be quite inconclusive for Jude 5. Intrinsic probability would favour reading κύριος if the author kept to his style consistently, but the external evidence is in my opinion strong enough to overrule this. Thus, I accept ᾽Ιησοῦς as the “original” reading. Putting all the above together, my reconstruction for Jude 5 reads ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς, which is the reading found in A 81 // 33c // 2344 // L:V Ä Cyr. It is an early reading via A, L:V and Cyril and goes to the second century via codex B (which adds ὑμᾶς). It is found in the “best” manuscript (codex 81) and in three different geographical locations, namely, Egypt, Rome and Ethiopia. It is neither a singular reading nor a conjectural emendation65. in the Western Text of the Gospel of Luke”, AUSS (1980) 149-56. Some of Epp’s results are questionable, but there appears to be tendencies to smooth out Jewish aspects from the text. For a criticism of Epp’s and Parker’s positions, see J. Read-Heimerdinger, The Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism. A Study of the Bezan Text of Acts (University of Wales 1994). See, e.g., W.C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. Evidence of 63 the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (SBL Text-Criti- cal Studies 5; Atlanta 2004). Bartolomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt?”, 151. 64 This reading is accepted by Grundmann, Der Brief des Judas, 80; Wikgren, “Some 65 Problems in Jude 5”, 149.