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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Nebentitel:Special Issue: Paul and the Praetorium, Guest Editors: Ryan S Schellenberg and Heidi Wendt
1. VerfasserIn: Williams, Travis B. 1980- (VerfasserIn)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: Sage 2021
In: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Jahr: 2021, Band: 43, Heft: 4, Seiten: 605-624
normierte Schlagwort(-folgen):B Augenzeuge / Verklärung Christi (Motiv) / Parusie / Bibel. Petrusbrief 2. 1,16-18 / Bibel. Petrusbrief 2. 1,19-21
IxTheo Notationen:HC Neues Testament
KAB Kirchengeschichte 30-500; Frühchristentum
Online Zugang: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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
Enthält:Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/0142064X211004451