Confirming Scripture through Eyewitness Testimony (2 Peter 1.19a): Resolving a Crux Interpretum

Responding to objections raised against the parousia, the author of 2 Peter seeks to defend the validity of Jesus’ return by pointing to the experience of the apostles at the Transfiguration (1.16-18) and to prophetic scripture (1.19-21). But how these two proofs relate to one another has been a mat...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Subtitles:Special Issue: Paul and the Praetorium, Guest Editors: Ryan S Schellenberg and Heidi Wendt
Main Author: Williams, Travis B. 1980- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Sage 2021
In: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Year: 2021, Volume: 43, Issue: 4, Pages: 605-624
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Witnesses / Transfiguration of Chirst (Motif) / Parousia / Bible. Petrusbrief 2. 1,16-18 / Bible. Petrusbrief 2. 1,19-21
IxTheo Classification:HC New Testament
KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:Responding to objections raised against the parousia, the author of 2 Peter seeks to defend the validity of Jesus’ return by pointing to the experience of the apostles at the Transfiguration (1.16-18) and to prophetic scripture (1.19-21). But how these two proofs relate to one another has been a matter of dispute since the earliest days of critical scholarship. Standing behind this disagreement is a difficult grammatical construction involving the comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (2 Pet. 1.19a). This article seeks to bring resolution to the debate through a comprehensive assessment of the force and function of this key term.
ISSN:1745-5294
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/0142064X211004451