2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;
While some Greek manuscripts have "Jesus" (above in bold), and the versions tend to have the name, the earliest Greek witnesses (except for A) omit the subject, simply reading:
εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας (P66.75 א B D L W 1241)
Grammatically, one might understand the antecedent of εἰδὼς to be of the two figures in the prior sentence ... Judas or "the devil". The context would quickly prevail of course. However, it seems that scribes added the name Jesus, either intentionally or unintentionally making explicit what was already implicit.
The Byzantine tradition and a number of later uncials read ο Ιησους. I think that the versions may have the reading for translational reasons and not because of their Greek Vorlagen. The use of ΔΕ by the Bohairic has partially persuaded me on this. The Greek loanword is frequently used to reinforce a change in verbal subject in Bohairic with no Greek attestation. Versions aside, I wonder how many of the Greek citations were actually related to one another historically.
Thought for the day:
The earliest Greek texts set the stage for later variants. Certain passages would have been textual lightning rods for certain variations.