Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter 45 2,3 kai; ejn pleonexiva/ plastoi'" lovgoi" uJma'" ejmporeuvsontai, oi| to; krima v ekpalai oujk ajrgei' kai; hJ ajpwvleia [ aujtw'n ouj nustavzei. 1,5 ∆Ápomnh'sai de; uJma'" bouvlomai, eijdovta" ªuJma'"º pavnta o{ti ªoJº kuvrio" a{pax laon ejk gh'" Aijguvptou swvsa" to; deuvteron ; tou;" mh; pisteuvsanta" ajpwvlesen, In addition to changing its tense, the author of 2 Peter made other changes in Jude 4 (and 5) in adapting it in 2,1-3. The author of 2 Peter began his condemnation of future opponents by saying that false prophets arose among the people, i.e., the people of Israel. Only then did he say that false teachers will likewise appear in the future. The reference to false prophets created a chiastic relationship between 2 Pet 2,1-3 and 1,16-21. The false prophets of 2,1a are a negative counterpart of the true prophets mentioned in 1,19-21; the false teachers of 2,1b-3 are a negative counterpart of the apostolic teachers mentioned in 1,16-18 (7). In this way the author of 2 Peter connected the critique of false teachers in 2,1–3,3 with the earlier part of the letter. 2 Pet 2,1a seems to be an adaptation of Jude 5 (8). For Jude this was the first of a series of historical precedents for condemnation of the author ’s opponents, namely, the Lord’s salvation of the people of Israel from Egypt and later destruction of those who did not believe. 2 Peter did not make use of this as a precedent. However, it may underlie the reference to the false prophets that arose among the people. 2 Peter may have taken the word “people” from Jude 5. And 2 Peter may assume that it was the presence of false prophets in Israel that led some not to believe and to be destroyed. The remainder of 2 Pet 2,1-3 is more directly related to Jude 4. The latter is a very compact description of those whom Jude criticizes. They are described in a main clause, and further described in three participial phrases and an adjective. 2 Pet 2,1b-3 rearranged and elaborated these elements. The main clause of Jude 4 says, “Certain people have stolen in among you”. 2 Pet 2,1b specifies the people as false teachers. The author of 2 Peter replaced “have stolen in among you” with “will be among you”. He then added a relative clause (7) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 236; WATSON, Invention, 106. (8) WATSON, Invention, 173-174. Watson attributes to Fornberg the sug- gestion that adaptation of Jude 5 in 2 Peter 2,1 explains why Jude 5 is not included in the list of examples in 2 Peter 2,4-10a (p. 173).