208 Peter Spitaler authority [D] (26), with the blasphemy of the infiltrators who reject kurioth", “authority” (27), and blaspheme dovxai, “glories” [C] that they v do not understand [C1] (28). Michael’s action also stands in contrast to the angels mentioned in v. 6 who did not observe the limits of their authority (29). With all these examples, Jude reminds the community that God, having judged and punished sinful behavior in the past, is ready to judge the infiltrators’ behavior in the present. Thus, Jude progressively leads his audience from the Lord’s judgment (v. 4[A]) to negative examples (vv. 5-7[B]), to application to the infiltrators (v. 8[C]), to Michael’s positive example (v. 9[D]), to application to the infiltrators (v. 10[C1]), to polemic (vv. 11-13[B1]), and to the Lord’s judgment (v. 14-15[A1]) (30). The precise paradigmatic (26) Cf. P. PERKINS, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Interpretation; Louisville 1995) 151. HARRINGTON, Jude and 2 Peter, 198 notes that Michael showed respect for a fellow angel, which is, in my view, a secondary aspect at best.. (27) As SCHREINER, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 456 points out, this term can refer to human or divine leadership. He opts for the latter meaning. (28) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 44, 61-62, however, sees a mere “catchword connection” between Jude’s repeated use of words from the stem blasfem-. He rejects the notion that Jude might have created a conceptual link between the noun blasfemia in the quote from Assumptio Mosis (v. 9), and the verb blasfemevw in v Jude’s application of Michael’s example to the conduct of the infiltrators (vv. 8, 10). Consequently, Bauckham suggests translating the expression krivsi" blasfhmia", “a condemnation of the devil for his slander”. Cf. SCHREINER, 1, 2 v Peter, Jude, 460 for a critique of Bauckham’s interpretation. (29) With Jude’s example of the archangel Michael in mind, the term “glories” perhaps denotes any glorious being — including God — equal to, or higher than, the rank of angels in the hierarchy of heavenly powers (cf. Jude’s reference to the infiltrators’ denial of the “master and kuvrio" Jesus” in v. 4). Most scholars argue the plural, “glories” (v. 8), refers to angels; cf. BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 57; CHARLES, Source Material, 138, n. 39; HARRINGTON, Jude and 2 Peter, 197; SCHREINER, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 457. (30) Cf. J.T. REED – R.A. REESE, “Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude”, FN 9 (1996) 191-198 for a discussion of Jude’s use of Greek tense forms in vv. 4-14. They conclude that Jude indicates background or primary material through his grammatical choices. Thus, v. 9 — in aorist tense — belongs to background material that is “subordinate to a major theme of the letter” (see also vv. 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15). On the other hand, vv. 8 and 10 — in present tense — convey “more rhetorically-prominent” material, and the letter’s theme (see also vv. 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19; cf. REED –REESE, “Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude”, 192-193, 198). This conclusion is appropriate if one considers the macro-level structure of the letter. However, Reed and Reese do not describe the dynamic interconnection between background and thematic material that characterizes Jude’s letter. As I attempt to demonstrate (by discussing the link between vv. 9 and 22), v. 9 is not only central to the structure