98 Timo Flink primary witnesses are inherently better than the secondary ones and so on, but that they appear in a prior position in the genealogical tree. Some secondary witnesses may be closer to the initial text than some primary ones due to their genealogical relationships. This naming concept is a simple convention to differentiate the genealogical closeness of the wit- ness to the initial text, not a value judgement on the manuscripts. The editors of the ECM consider codex 81 as the “best” single manuscript for the letter of Jude. The discussion of merits of different textual variants is not exhaustive. It is meant to be representative to establish parameters to analyse the pros and cons of the textual decisions. It can be debated, but I consider the text of Jude as established in textual variation units other than those under study, including the question of the text of Jude 22-23. The exter- nal evidence is based on the primary, secondary and tertiary witnesses with other supporting evidence added. The format is as follows: primary // secondary // tertiary // other. This does not mean a value assessment on the witnesses but a grouping of them on the basis of the potential genealogical closeness to the initial text. The text of Jude appears to follow a carefully constructed outline. The verses under study fall under two poetic structures in Jude. Verses 4-15 form a chiastic structure and verses 14-21 follow a parallel structure as follows11. (A) 4 – The Lord’s judgement (B) 5-7 – examples of negative behaviour (C) 8 – application to the infiltrators (D) 9 – Michael defers judgement to the Lord (C’) 10 – application to the infiltrators (B’) 11-13 – polemic against negative behaviour (A’) 14-15 – Enoch’s prophecy of the Lord’s judgement (B’) 16 – reference to infiltrators (C’) 17a – address to community (A’’) 17b-18 – apostle’s prophecy (B’’) 19 – reference to infiltrators (C’’) 20-21 – address to community This is an adaptation from Spitaler, “Doubt or Dispute”, 201-22. There are other sug- 11 gestions for the outline, but I accept the one offered by Spitaler. See e.g. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 5-6; H. Harm, “Logic Line in Jude. The Search for Syllogisms in a Hortatory Text”, JOTT 1 (1987) 147-72; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 419-26; Smith, “Unlocking the Structure of Jude”, 138-42; D.F. Watson, Invention. Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS 104; Atlanta, 1988), 29-79. A. Vögtle, Der Judasbrief, der 2 Petrusbrief (EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1994), 4; E.R. Wendland, “A Comparative Study of ‘Rhetorical Criticism,’ Ancient and Modern – with Special Reference to the Larger Struc- ture and Function of the Epistle of Jude”, Neot 28 (1994) 193-228.