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...
| Autres titres: | Special Issue: Paul and the Praetorium, Guest Editors: Ryan S Schellenberg and Heidi Wendt |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Sage
2021
|
| Dans: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Année: 2021, Volume: 43, Numéro: 4, Pages: 605-624 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Témoin oculaire
/ Transfiguration du Christ (Motif)
/ Parousie
/ Bibel. Petrusbrief 2. 1,16-18
/ Bibel. Petrusbrief 2. 1,19-21
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | HC Nouveau Testament KAB Christianisme primitif |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X211004451 |