Footnotes
Footnotes
1.Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), pp. 135-36.
2.For discussion, see Richard N. Longenecker, "On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 101-14.
3.Kummel, p. 302.
4.Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 134.
5.E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (London: Tyndale, 1961), p. 5.
6.So Guthrie, p. 820.
7.Jerome H. Neyrey can speak of a time when "it was fashionable to identify 2 Peter’s opponents as Gnostics,” while he himself says flatly, "the opponents are not Gnostics” ("The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-21,” CBQ 42 [1980], p. 506).
8.For fuller discussion of Gnosticism, see chap. 21.
9.Guthrie, p. 925, n. 1.
10. Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 58-64.
11.Kummel, p. 305.
12.Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 211.
13.WH, pp. 279-80.
14.J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, HNTC (New York: Harper, 1969), p. 224.
15.This was a lecture given at the Beinrod Convention in 1952. It is published in an ET in Ernst Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), pp. 169-95. Kasemann sets his estimate of the value of the letter over against those of G. Wohlenberg, who found it "full of originality” and "displaying a gift for acute observation” (Kasemann, p. 191).
16.Ibid., p. 169.
17.Ibid., p. 174.
18. Ibid.
19.Ibid., p. 195.
20.Ibid., p. 177.
21.Ibid., p. 182.
22.Ibid., p. 183.
23.Childs, p. 465. He is referring to A. Vogtle, "Die Schriftwerdung der apostolischen Paradosis nach 2 Petr. 1,12-15,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte, Fs. O. Cullmann, ed. H. Baltensweiler et al. (ZQrich: TVZ; TQbingen: Mohr, 1972), pp. 297306.
24Childs, p. 471.
25.According to Childs, "II Peter’s concern is to address the question of how the fixed apostolic traditions represented by the figure of Peter function as written scripture for later generations of Christians” (p. 492).