Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude
DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1287n6r.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Epistolary Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0
2

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…15 Since then, there have been debates about the authorship of the epistle. 16 Daniel Arichea upholds the Petrine authority of 1 Peter, 17 but other scholars, like Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, argue that someone else other than Peter wrote the letter pseudonymously. However, internal evidence within the letter supports Petrine's authorship.…”
Section: Results and Discussion Historical Background Of 1 Petermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…15 Since then, there have been debates about the authorship of the epistle. 16 Daniel Arichea upholds the Petrine authority of 1 Peter, 17 but other scholars, like Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, argue that someone else other than Peter wrote the letter pseudonymously. However, internal evidence within the letter supports Petrine's authorship.…”
Section: Results and Discussion Historical Background Of 1 Petermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 Erland Waltner views 1 Peter as a letter encouraging hope for Christians living in an oppressive environment. 20 Arichea proposed that the hostility towards the believers was from government authorities, pagan elements of society, or the members of the families of the Christian converts. 21 Most probably, the hostilities happened during the time of Nero (AD 54-68).…”
Section: Results and Discussion Historical Background Of 1 Petermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others maintain that the decision to employ a secretary arose out of necessity. Since it is unlikely that a Galilean fisherman would have possessed the skills to compose such an epistle, Peter was required to seek out someone with the requisite abilities (e.g., Robinson 1929: 1339; Willmering 1953: 1177; Cranfield 1960: 13-14; Reicke 1964: 69-71; Beasley-Murray 1965: 51; Fitzmyer 1968: 2:362; Thompson 1983: 80-81; Mounce 1983: 3-4; Michaels 1988: lxii; Davids 1990: 4, 6-7; Skaggs 2004: 3; Bosetti 2004: 15; Charles 2005: 278; Green 2007: 6-7; Warden 2009: 12). In either case, as Peter’s amanuensis, Silvanus is assigned an active part in the composition of the letter.…”
Section: The Explanatory Power Of the Amanuensis Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the one hand, scholars have argued that 1 and 2 Peter were each composed by different amanuenses (e.g., Plumptre 1879: 79-81; Bennett 1901: 65; Falconer 1902: 47-56; Dillenseger 1907: 193-94; Vrede 1921: 149; Heupler 1942: 627; Charue 1946: 478; Holzmeister 1949: 353; Mounce 1983: 98; Hillyer 1992: 10-11; Picirilli 1992: 219-24; M.C. Black 1998: 145; Charles 1999: 260-63; Powers 2010: 162-65; Warden 2009: 297-306; Osborne 2011b: 275-77; Green 2008: 139-50; Bateman 2013: 55-56; Mbuvi 2015: 16-17; Harmon 2018: 366; Bayer 2019: 116; Schreiner 2020: 298-323). This would be consistent with the tradition that Peter employed various other ‘interpreters’ to record his memoirs (e.g., Mark, Glaucias).…”
Section: The Explanatory Power Of the Amanuensis Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation