Terrance Callan, «The Style of the Second Letter of Peter», Vol. 84 (2003) 202-224
Readers of the Second Letter of Peter have often commented on its style, usually in negative terms. This essay examines the style of 2 Pet more thoroughly than has been done heretofore, using Cicero’s discussion of style, and that of other ancient writers, as a framework. This examination shows that 2 Pet largely conforms to ancient canons of style and should be seen as an example of the grand Asian style. Recognition of this may help readers avoid unthinking assessment of 2 Pet’s style by standards not accepted by its author, and develop greater appreciation of its style in terms of its author’s own aims and standards.
common; honor; favor; time; and law88. Note that several of these have counterparts in 2 Pet, namely, being just; piety; establishing; sanctification; and favor.
As is the case in 2 Pet, the development of some of these topics in the inscription constitutes inclusio. The topic of sanctification is mentioned in sentences 1 and 26, as are the topics of favor and time. The topic of piety is mentioned in sentences 2 and 26. The topic of race is mentioned in 4 and 26; the topics of honor and law are mentioned in 4 and 27.
Waldis lists other figures in the inscription on pages 67-71.
c) Sentence structure
One of the most obvious ways the inscription and 2 Pet differ is in the average length, and thus complexity, of their sentences. The two texts are approximately equal in length: 2 Pet contains 1103 words; the inscription consists of 1065 words. However, I count 44 sentences in 2 Pet, and Waldis counts 27 in the inscription. Both texts include both long and short sentences, but average sentence length in 2 Pet is approximately 25 words, while average sentence length in the inscription is approximately 39 words. In this respect 2 Pet is less grand than the inscription and may be seen as falling between the grand and middle Asian styles 89.
One of the inscription’s elaborate sentences is sentence 5. This is a