'Effective Forces.'

Baum, Henry E.

doi:10.1126/science.16.402.432-a

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 The implied or abstract author, as W. Schmid, Narratology, An Introduction (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), prefers to name the entity is 'the inferred authorial element in a work' (p. 43) or 'the image of the author that the concrete reader forms by unifying all the meanings of a work' (p. 45). As such the reconstruction of the implied author is subject to the cultural context of each reader (p. 46), though at the same time the text, as the product of a real/concrete author, offers indexical signs to its reconstructions (p. 37,[48][49]. Note that both the implied author and reader are reconstructed by the real/concrete reader.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…an authorial attribution was regarded as correct and non-deceptive if either the wording or the content of a particular text could be traced back to the author whose name it carried.' 48 In the context of 1 Peter, the idea that ancient audiences knew the letter was pseudepigraphical is problematic. Eusebius makes clear that he believes Peter wrote the epistle (Hist.…”

Section: Questions Concerning the Acceptance Of Pseudepigraphical mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Fictitious Audience of 1 Peter

Robinson

Llewelyn²

2019

The Heythrop Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent scholarship has argued that Simon Peter is not the author of 1 Peter, whilst maintaining that the addressees in 1:1 are the real recipients of the letter. We contend that both the stated author and the stated audience are part of the author's deception. We propose instead that the author may have simply argued that this text was an older letter from Peter. This proposal is consistent with the widely-held view that pseudepigraphical letters were not knowingly accepted in early Christian circles, as well as the ancient tradition that Peter was believed to be the real author of the text and offers a simple solution as to how the letter escaped the scrutiny that came with pseudepigraphical works. If this thesis is followed, scholarship concerned with uncovering the socioeconomic status of the Christians in Asia Minor based on this text is therefore misguided.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Questions Concerning the Acceptance Of Pseudepigraphical mentioning

confidence: 99%