Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter 63 The author of 2 Peter accomplished these transformations partly by incorporating the material taken from Jude into a larger structure, sandwiching it between 2 Pet 1 and 2 Pet 3,4-18. This is part of what gave new meaning to the Jude material. Many of the changes the author of 2 Peter made in the Jude material itself were designed to aid this incorporation. This is especially true in 2 Pet 2,1-3 and 3,1-3. But it can also be seen in such things as the addition of a reference to Noah in 2 Pet 2,5 and the phrase “blots and blemishes” in 2 Pet 2,13, both of which anticipate 2 Pet 3. The author of 2 Peter also accomplished this transformation by means of other changes in the material he took from Jude. We noted that 2 Pet 2,1 changed the aorist of Jude 4 into future tense. 2 Pet 2,1- 3 also revised Jude 4 in various ways to make it a critique of false teachers. 2 Pet 2,4-10a revised Jude 5-8a into an elaborate refutation of the doctrine of the false teachers. 2 Pet 2,10b-22 revised Jude 8b-16, which criticizes the behavior of its opponents, into a critique both of the behavior of the false teachers and of their malign effect on others. Jude 17-18 argues that the rise of its opponents had been predicted; 2 Pet 3,1-3 revised this to make the same point concerning the false teachers. In addition to adapting the material of Jude 4-18 to a different purpose than it had in Jude, other motives were probably at work in 2 Peter ’s alteration of this material. The author of 2 Peter may have wanted to eliminate references to extra-biblical literature. The author seems to have wanted to clarify obscurities in the Jude material. He did this both by the addition of words and phrases and by making the connections of the argument more explicit, as he does in 2 Pet 2,10b- 11 and 18. However, unsurprisingly, his revision is at times more obscure than the Jude material with which he began. This is especially true in 2,10b-16. The author of 2 Peter also seems to have wanted to revise the Jude material in accordance with his own stylistic preferences, especially the use of unusual vocabulary and the introduction of figures of speech. It may illuminate 2 Peter’s use of Jude to compare it briefly to other instances of literary dependence in early Christian literature (55). An instance of such dependence that at times approximates simple quotation can be seen in Matthew and Luke’s use of Q (or Matthew or Luke’s use of the other). For example, Matt 4,3-10 / Luke 4,3-12 (55) For a discussion of the way Hellenistic authors used predecessors see H.J. CADBURY, The Making of Luke-Acts (London 1961) 155-183.