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.

is that of Duane F. Watson⁴. Watson’s work is basic to any further discussion of the style of 2 Pet. One such further discussion is that of Lauri Thurén⁵. Thurén says that style is not currently studied as part of rhetorical analysis, and argues that it should be.

        The following essay is an attempt to advance description and analysis of the style of 2 Pet. I will do this by making use of Cicero’s discussion of the virtues of style, especially as developed by Quintilian, and supplemented by the discussions of others⁶. Watson has discussed tropes and figures of speech and thought almost exhaustively. However, he has discussed other aspects of style less thoroughly. A full catalog of stylistic ornament in 2 Pet should deepen our understanding of its style.

        In De oratore 3.37 Cicero, in the person of Crassus, identifies four virtues of style: correct diction, lucidity, ornament and appropriateness to the matter under consideration⁷. He discusses the first two and the last one very briefly in 3.38-39 and 3.210-12 respectively⁸. Cicero