214 Peter Spitaler Putting the special NT meaning aside, one sees the participle diakrinomevnou" can function as a conceptual link with the participle ajpodiorivzonte" in v. 19: both express inter-personal, social conflict. As disputers (v. 22), these persons are identical with separatists (v. 19) who model their conduct after Korah’s ajntilogiva, “dispute” (v. 11), rather than the positive example established by Michael in his dispute with Satan (v. 9). Second, in contrast to the [B – C – B1 – C1] parallel pattern that structurally dominates vv. 16-21 and thematically separates the faithful (uJmei'") from the querulous murmurers/separatists (ou|toi), Jude addresses the two groups together in vv. 22-23. He accomplishes this integration by 1) modifying the subject – object relationship; 2) changing verb tense and mood; and 3) front-positioning pronouns. Thus, Jude concludes his address to the community with a [B – C – B1 – C1 – B2C2] pattern (41). Table 3: Pattern of Jude’s concluding address to the faithful [B – C – B1 – C1 – B2C2] verse(s) structure address tense & mood pronoun outoi | 16 [B] querulous murmurers present indicative (eijsivn) uJmei'" 17 [C] faithful aorist imperative (mnhvsqhte) outoi | 19 [B1] separatists present indicative (eijsivn) eJautouv" 21-21 [C1] faithful aorist imperative (thrhvsate) uJmei'" present imperative (ejlea'te; sw/vzete) ou{" 22-23 [B2C2] disputers/faithful With respect to the subject – object relationship, Jude juxtaposes statements about the querulous murmurers/separatists with direct address to the faithful in vv. 16-21: ou|toiv eijsin (v. 16[B]) – uJmei'" dev (v. 17[C]) – ou|toiv eijsin (v. 19[B1]) – uJmei'" dev (vv. 20-21[C1]). Each time he addresses the community [C][C1], he excludes references to ‘the other’, i.e., Jude does not include issues about the separatists in his address to the faithful. In [B2C2], however, he uses the subject address “you” (as in [C][C1]) but changes the object to “these” (as in [B][B1]). Thus, Jude mentions both groups (the faithful and the querulous murmurers/ separatists) in [B2C2], modifying the [B – C – B1 – C1] subject – object pattern that dominates vv. 17-21. —————— 79) that James addresses the concern that a poisonous tongue pollutes human discourse (ch. 3) in a similar manner. (41) The final verses (24-25) address God, not the community.