Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1–2

16 references·7 citing·29 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1920The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian366 cited
1984New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism333 cited
1987The New Testament in its literary environment316 cited
1989Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity286 cited
1887Ioannis calvini opera quae supersunt omnia277 cited
1981Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia202 cited
1921A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians127 cited
1987Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case121 cited
1985New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism115 cited
2008Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians110 cited
1958Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr.94 cited
1990Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater90 cited
1989Der Brief an die Galater69 cited
1991Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts51 cited
1937An die Thessalonicher I. II : An die Philipper48 cited
1957Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater46 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

Cited by

2003St. Paul as a public relations practitioner: a metatheoretical speculation on messianic communication and symmetry22 cited
2014The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation21 cited
2007The rhetorical analysis of the Letter to the Galatians: 1995-200516 cited
2003St. Paul as a public relations practitioner: a metatheoretical speculation on messianic communication and symmetry13 cited
2012Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters8 cited
2010The rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians: 1995-20057 cited
2011I’m okay, you’re not okay: Constancy of character and Paul’s understanding of change in his own and Peter’s behaviour5 cited