tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post1205322101774775609..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Witherington on authorship of 2 PeterMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-30619324251099055542008-06-23T14:53:00.000-05:002008-06-23T14:53:00.000-05:00Perhaps he would say that in denying Petrine autho...Perhaps he would say that in denying Petrine authorship, Schlatter has been unfaithful to his own dictum. <BR/><BR/>That's what I would say. . . as I agree with Gordon Wenham's statement that "'pseudonymous' . . is a posh word for forgeries." <BR/><BR/>Blessings!<BR/><BR/>JimJim Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12328458927132664453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-13106262135365855582008-06-21T02:54:00.000-05:002008-06-21T02:54:00.000-05:00Jim,I wasn't trying to imply that Tom was unaware ...Jim,<BR/>I wasn't trying to imply that Tom was unaware of Schlatter's view. I just thought it strange that he should invoke Schlatter's fine essay against "atheistic presuppositions" as a rejoinder to those who deny Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.Naomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03492511699731101193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-56862989423828090932008-06-20T21:11:00.000-05:002008-06-20T21:11:00.000-05:00Mike,Tom isn't unaware of Schlatter's view on 2 Pe...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Tom isn't unaware of Schlatter's view on 2 Peter. . . that fact was bantered around quite a bit while I was a student at SBTS. Various comments were made about how some people let Schlatter "count" as a critical scholar only because he denied Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. <BR/><BR/>JimJim Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12328458927132664453noreply@blogger.com