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.

discusses ornament at some length in 3.96-208⁹. He discusses ornament under two general headings — vocabulary (3.149-70) and syntax (3.171-208)¹⁰. He interrupts the latter to describe briefly three styles of oratory, namely the full, plain and middle styles (3.199-200)¹¹. Elsewhere Cicero describes another threefold typology of styles, namely the Attic, Asian and Rhodian¹².

        With regard to vocabulary, Cicero argues that there are three kinds of ornament: 1) rare, usually archaic, words (3.153), 2) new coinages (3.154), and 3) metaphors and other tropes (3.155-98). The first should be used rarely, the second occasionally and the third frequently (3.201). With regard to syntax, Cicero discusses: 1) avoidance of a harsh clash of consonants or hiatus of vowels (3.171-72)¹³; 2) the use of rhythm (3.173-98)¹⁴; and 3) the figures of thought and speech that can be used for ornament (3.200-208)¹⁵. Elsewhere Cicero discusses the distinction between continuous and periodic style and the special importance of rhythm in the latter¹⁶.