target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_1248af5f-dddc-5adc-b3b9-3544e435e95e">22. Wisdom and Philo also use similar language to caricature non-Jews (Harland 2009: 177): “. . . we are witnessing the expression of Judean or Christian identities in relation to the associations in a way that illustrates the internalization of external categorizations…” The Psalms in the Hebrew Bible reflect the tendency to use such rhetoric to discredit opponents, and calls for their divine destruction (e.g., Ps 3:7; 22:16, 20; 44:15; 69:21–28; 143:12).
23. Crook and Harland 2007: 74.
24. Harland 2009: 171.
25. Alikin 2010: 28.
26. Harland 2013: 74–75.
27. Alikin 2010: 34n73; Charles 1998: 55–73.
28. Beard et al. 1998: 337.
29. Bauckham 1983: 14–16; Green 1987: 179–82; Davids 2006: 9–28, while leaning towards Jude is non-committal: Green 2008: 46.
30. Reicke 1964: 190; Kelly 1969: 233–34; Neyrey 1993: 29–31; Ehrman 2011: 189.
31. Bauckham 1983: 14–16; idem 1990: 177–81.
32. Green 2008: 1. At least forty-five of the mentions are in reference to Judah the patriarch (Matt 1:2–3; 2:6; Luke 3:33–34; Heb 7:14; 8:8; Rev 5:5; 7:5) or the land of Judah (Luke 1:39).
33. Bauckham 1990: 57–60. E.g., Gos. Thom. 12.
34. Mason and Martin 2014: 10.
35. Green 2008: 5.
36. Ibid.
37. Bauckham 1983: 14–16.
38. Davids 2006: 28.
39. Kelly 1969: 231; Green 1987: 51. E.g., Bauckham (1983) constantly refers to them as false-teachers.
40. Mason and Martin 2014: 10.
41. Sidebottom 1967: 75; Kelly 1969: 231, calls it “incipient Gnosticism”; See Green (2008: 23–25) for arguments against Gnostic identification.
42. Rowston 1971: 31. Bauckham 1983: 41; Idem 1990: 166–68.
43. Thúren 1997: 451–67.
44. Painter 2013: 5. “Who are the opponents? I propose that the opponents are Jewish and particularly affiliated with Jewish leaders in Palestine, probably Jerusalem. His characterization of the perpetrators comes based on their actions, which I will focus on in a moment. Why Jewish leaders? I would first reiterate that the letter is thoroughly Jewish in its focus and uses not only the Hebrew Scriptures but at least two other Jewish writings of the period, 1 Enoch and Assumption of Moses.”
45. Schreiner 2003: 411–16.
46. Green 2008: 26.
47. Ibid., 150.
48. Green 1987: 20.
49. Picirelli 1988: 65–74.
50. Green 1987: 20. Bauckham 1983: 162: “There is better evidence than is sometimes admitted for the fact that 2 Peter existed in the second century.”
51. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.: 3.3.1–4; 25.3; 6. 25 .11: “Peter has left behind one acknowledged epistle, and perhaps a second; for it is questioned.”
52. Green 1987: 21.
53. Calvin 1885: 363.
54. McNamara 1960: 13.
55. Jerome Ep. Heb. 120.11. Rejection of this reasoning states that if the secretaries had such freedom to construct the letters, then the letters cannot be rightfully called Peter’s. However, this objection is driven by our modern understanding of authorship.
56. Green 1987: 23–26. This apparent use of Attic Greek style may also lend support to a late dating of the letter.
57. Green 2008: 145.
58. Ibid., 144.
59. Davids 2006: 145.
60. Green 2008: 147.
61. Green 1987: 34–35.
62. Webb 2012: 476. “. . . the issue at hand is not a questioning of the parousia in the future because of its delay, but rather a rejection of the truth of the parousia itself because there is no evidence of divine intervention and judgment in the past” (emphasis original).
63. Green 1987: 35–36.
64. McNamara 1960: 13–14.
65.
