TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ^^G/CALStW^^ Incoui'Orated a. D. 1799 TOIUME H, PACES 363-538 JANUSRY, 1913 The Literary Relations of The First Epistle of Peter with Their Bearing on Date and Place of Authorship BY BSZ795 ORA DELMER FOSTER, Ph.D. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D Jff YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1913 IV_-^ V-^ V I { ^ OCT 14 i TRANSACTIONS OF THE V)^, CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Incorporated A. D. 1799 VOLUME 17, PACES 363-538 JANUARY, 1913 The Literary Relations of The First Epistle of Peter with Their Bearing on Date and Place of Authorship BY ORA DELMER FOSTER, Ph.D. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D M YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1913 c/ WEIMAR : PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 370 Part I. THE APOSTOLIC FATHEES Tertallian Clement of Alexandria Irenaeus . Papias II Clement Justin Martyr Barnabas Hermas . Didache . Polycarp Testament of the Twelv Ignatius . Clement of Rome . e Patriarchs 381 381 381 381 381 382 384 388 392 393 396 397 398 Part II. THE CANONICAL BOOKS Galatians I Thessalonians II Thessalonians I Corinthians II Corinthians Romans . Ephesians Colossians Philemon Philipplans I Timothy II Timothy . Titus . . Marked Text Showing Possible Sources Dependence of I Peter upon the Pauline Epistles Hebrews "Q" Source . Markan Source Peculiar to Matthew Peculiar to Luke . Acts 411 414 416 417 421 424 442 455 459 459 460 462 463 466 472 480 492 495 499 600 502 366 Contents James ........ . 508 Jude . . . . . ... . 518 Revelation . 519 I Jolin . 522 II Jolm . 525 Ill John • 525 John ........ . 525 BIBLIOGEAPHY . 533 . 536 INTRODUCTION Professor Benjamin "W. Bacon. There are few writings, if any, besides First Peter, the accurate determination of whose date is a matter of greater moment to the student of Christian origins. Datings vary from before A.D. 50 to 115, or later ; and with the question of date that of authenticity is inextricably bound up. Early tradition is unanimous in placing the death of Peter under Nero. Yet Ramsay, stalwart defender as he is of the Petrine authorship, feels compelled to date it under Domitian, compelled by the imphcations of the Epistle itself regard- ing official treatment of Christianity. For First Peter speaks of " sufferings accomplished among the brethren throughout the world, penalties appropriate to murderers and thieves visited upon them " for the name of Christ." In fact this " fiery trial " which has come upon the church through the work of Satan, who prowls about it like a roaring lion " seeking whom he may devour " seems to be the one chief occasion of the writing. It stands practically alone among the epistles in its complete silence as to doctrinal differences. Ramsay' sees no alternative but to add a score of years more or less to the traditional life-time of Peter, recognizing the extreme difficulty of identifying these general persecutions " for the name " with the local onslaught of Nero in Rome, of which the distinctive feature was prosecution for flagitia cohaerentia nomini. Even were it found for any reason impossible to maintain the Petrine authorship, accurate determination of the date of First Peter would be of immense advantage for the settlement of a great number of disputed points of criticism ; for scarcely any writing of the canon has so many points of hterary connection with others. Itself widely used from" an extremely early date it employs to an extraordinary extent the thought and phraseology of others. It stands in the very midst of the stream of literary development. Almost every writing of the New Testament has lines of dependence leading either to it, or from it. And the period within wliicli 368 Benjamin TV. Bacon, nearly all authorities agree that it must be placed, is just that where light is most needed, the dark subapostohc age from Nero to Trajan. Again the field addressed is just that whose history we most need to trace, the mission field of Paul in Asia Minor. The type of teaching (so far as it is not simply Paul's) comes under the name of Peter, tempting us to correlate it with other sources claiming relationship to this Apostle, in the attempt to define a " Petrinische Lehrbegriff " or " Petrinische Stromung." These literary relations are undeniably present, and in ^ degree of abundance which few, we think, will have realized who have not been brought face to face with the facts by some such statis- tical survey as the following pages afford The data then are before us. The solution of the problem depends simply on the degree of critical acumen with which we can pronounce upon extremely de- licate questions of literary employment, more especialty of priority in emplo^-ment. Fortunately evidence of relationship becomes rapidly cumulative, and even the question of priority is not hope- less when real impartiality holds the scales. We bespeak the careful attention of students of New Testament origins to the data presented by Dr. Foster ; first, because of the importance of the subject, whose ramifications extend even beyond what we have already so briefly indicated ; second, because of the peculiar hopefulness of the effort in view of the superabundance of material ; third, because of the scholarly reserve, caution, and objectivity of Dr. Foster's method ; which allows the reader full liberty to form his own judgment, and aims only to let the facts speak for themselves. The present writer gladly acknowledges his own indebtedness to the careful comparisons and statistics of Dr. Foster. The out- come, a date not far from 90 AD., mth dependence of First Peter on Ephesians, Romans and Hebrews, and conversely of James, Clement of Rome, and other writers on First Peter, tallies indeed very closely with results previously attained by an important group of scholars. But the evidence, much of which, though available, has hitherto been scattered, acquires far more convincing power when exhibited in due order and classification. The inferences appeal, even to one who has traversed the field before, with new- freshness and urgency. To not a few, we believe, the conviction will be brought home that now, at last, we have a definite, fixed point in the sub-apostolic age, a datable literar^^ product of the Pauline mission-field twenty years after Paul's death ; instead of a floating, indeterminate possibilit3^ To others the problem will Introduction. 369 seem to call for further light. To all, as we believe, who give to Dr. Foster's data the attention their careful compilation deserves, the time will prove well spent. One cannot review the evidence, no matter what the verdict, without new insight into the history of primitive Christian thought and literature. Yale University. Bexj. W. Bacon. INTRODUCTION by TheAuTHOR. In this age of Biblical reconstruction, there is probably no one thing more important to be determined, as a prerequisite for arriv- ing at the truth concerning the History of Christian Origins, than the authorship and date of early documents. Criticism constantly forces us to revise and rewrite our Histories. Unfortunately or otherwise, criticism has robbed us of our " certainty," as concerns the authorship of many of the Canonical books. On discovering that dependence cannot be placed either upon the tradition con- cerning the authorship or date of certain documents or upon the claims these documents make for themselves, the modern historian is compelled to travel a more difficult path than his predecessors. Though this new path be difficult, and but vaguely defined at places, it is of the greatest importance for an understanding of the early period of Church History that the critical historian follow it to its very end, however wearisome the journey. Unless the dates of the early sources can be accurately determined the historian will ever grope about in uncertainty. As great and important results were effected in the study of the Old Testament when the Book of Deuteronomy was properly located, so also the correct dating of certain New Testament books will prove to have most significant results for the History of Christian Origins. It is as reasonable to write a history of the Hebrews during the latter half of the second Millenium before our Era on the basis of Deuteronomy as it is to construct a history of the early Church on the basis of the dates sometimes assigned to early documents. Critical History, therefore, necessarily depends upon the most careful judgment of the sources. That which has been done in analysing the sources of the Hexateuch has, in a Hmited degree, been done also in the New Testament. Valuable service has already been done in bringing to hght the sources both of the Gospels and of the Acts, but there is much important work yet to be done. Much valuable information concerning the Apostolic Age is supplied by the certain dating of the Pauhne Epistles, but unfortunately we are left in doubt concerning the Sub-Apostolic Age, because of the dubious dates assigned to the documents of the period. For Ora Dclmer Foster, Introduction. 371 example, there is little agreement among scholars concerning the elate of Hebrews, James and I Peter, though they are of the utmost importance for an understanding of this age. After a prolonged battle over the origin of the Gospels, scholars enjoyed a brief period of truce, but they have again been summoned to action by Har- nack's recent challenge. That this great scholar should mox-e the dates of the Synoptic Gospels so far back, in the face of all but universal agreement, furnishes a good illustration of the need of more critical study of the literature of this most difficult period. Probably no one book, if properly located, will throw more light on this puzzling period than the First Epistle of Peter. Though small, it contains, in proportion to its size, perhaps more points of contact with other New Testament literature than any other book of the New Testament. It is exceedingl}' important that the problems in connection with its authorship be solved. If, as many contend, the Epistle is genuine, it is probabty the onlj' written letdcy we possess from any of the original " Twelve." Since, as is agreed by scholars of all schools, the Epistle is thoroughly Pauline, we should have, in the case of its genuineness, a key to the solution of the problem of how the Pauline and the Petrine mission fields were ultimate^ united. But the very difficult problem of how Peter became so thoroughly Paulinized is presented. If the great Apostle to the Circumcision is the author, then important information is here supplied not only regarding the early influence of Paul upon Peter, but also regarding the early development of Christian thought as well as the extent of the Neronian persecu- tions, which in that case would be alluded to in I Peter. But if, as others contend, I Peter w^as not written by the one whose name it bears, it modifies our views of all this period. In this case its evidence amounts to very little in reconstructing the history of the period until it is definitely located in time and place. Since the date of this Epistlie must be determined before certainty can be obtained regarding its authorship, the present inquiry is concerned about its location in time. The Literary Relations have a very small bearing upon the problem of authorship, but much on the question of date. Of all the disputed books of the New Testament no one is more important to locate. Some make it antedate the Pauline Epistles, others put it as late as the fourth decade of the Second Century. Each decade between these extremes has its claimants for its date. Scholars have differed just as widely as to its place of origin. Some claim that it was written at Babylon on the Euphrates, others that 372 Ora Dehncr Foster, it came from Babylon in Egypt or Old Cairo, while still others hold that is was penned in Babylon on the Tiber, or Rome. Obviousty therefore the location of the time and place of authorship of the First Epistle of Peter would be of the greatest value to the History of Christian Origins. Two means of dating are open to us, i. e., (1) the internal evidence, so far as concerned with the happenings of the time, and (2) the literary relations. These must necessarily be kept apart, for any suspicion of one affecting the other tends to invalidate the proof. Much has been written concerning the date required by the stratum of theological thought found in the Epistle. Many have discussed at great length the date implied by the allusions to the persecutions which were being waged against the Christians at the time of writing. Some also have elaborated lengthy arguments concerning the date implied from the incidental references to ecclesiastical institutions and government. Many New Testament Introductions and Commen- taries on I Peter point out some of the more probable points of contact with other literature, but nowhere have these relations been exhaustively or systematically treated. This thesis is limited to the last line of approach, i. e., the Literary Relations. Nevertheless we may mention briefly some of the problems con- nected with the external conditions of the Church in the Sub- Apos- tolic Age. Obviously the Epistle was written during a fiery ordeal, to encourage and to exhort the Christians to endure to the end and to order their conduct in such a way as to avoid as far as possible both social and civil odium. The h Toi x6g-ij.(.) (5 ; 9) seems to indicate that the Imperial Government had adopted a definite policy toward the Christians throughout the world. This inference seems to be borne out b\' the general tenor of the Epistle. They were persecuted " for the name." Arnold and others are right who claim that the persecutions of Nero did not extend be3'0nd the Capital and its immediate vicinity. The conflict here referred to cannot have been that inaugurated by Nero, nor was it earlier than Domitian. Ramsay has no real evidence for saying that " the Neronian policy was resumed under Vespasian. (C. R. E. p. 282.) Nor need we suppose that the persecutions alluded to are later than Domitian, as many contend. The conditions here are practically the same as those reflected in Hebrews, Revelation and Clement of Rome. These four writings have a common background. The}' look back to the Neronian outbreak as something that occurred in former times, whereas the present one is a " strange thing." Apparently then this is the beginning of Governmental punishment of the Christians as liilrodiiclion. 373 such, throughout the world. A study of the five theories which have been proposed concerning the persecutions alhided to in I Peter, in the hght of the data at hand, has led the present writer to the conclusion that those scholars are correct who claim that the " fier}' trial," M'hich the Christians were undergoing when the Epistle was written, was caused by Domitian. Assuming the correctness of this conclusion we should be required to date I Peter somewhere between 81 and 95. The internal conditions of the Church are quite clearly reflected in I Peter. There is a distinct advance over the doctrine as presented by Paul. Though Pauline to the core, I Peter seems to be Post- Pauline in its stage of doctrinal development. " The Christian's freedom from the Law is assumed in a genuine Pauline fashion in 2 ; 16. The tendency is present to give to the ethical side of the Christian life an independent value which it lacks in Paul, who always lays chief stress upon its religious basis. There is a tendency also to emphasize the future and to treat faith as almost synonymous with hope which looks forward to the glory of Christ and his saints, and thus furnishes an incentive to Christian living, instead of making it as clearly and distinctly as it is in Paul the mystical oneness of the believer with Christ. And so baptism in the same way takes on the aspect rather of a pledge of right conduct than a bond between the Christian and his Lord. Similarly the sufferings of Christ are looked upon not simply in their redemptive value, as effecting the death of the flesh, and thus the believer's release from its bondage, but also in their moral value as an example for the Christian. This Epistle bears testimony to the survival after Paul's death of his conception of Christianity in a somewhat modified, but stiU compa- ratively pure form." (McGiffert's Apostolic Age p. 486 f.) " Christ, grace, faith — these are the foundations of Christianity. The threefold formula even appears : chosen by God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, reconciled by Christ. The struggle against Jewish legalism is alto- gether past and yet Paul's main dogma remains, that redemption is through God's grace alone. It is not difficult to discover many points in which the author of the First Epistle of St. Peter diverges from St. Paul and betrays a tendency to interpret his epistles in a catholic sense." (Wernle's Beg. of Christianity, Eng. tr. Vol. I.) The sinless Christ who died for our redemption is here thought of as the "Suffering Servant " of 11 Isaiah. This thought is foreign to Paul, but common in later hterature. The Pauline doctrine of the preexistence of Christ may be implied if not expressed in 1 ; 1 L 20. Though many scholars think that this doctrine is not implied here. 374 Ora Delmcr Foster, others assert that it is, e. g. Bevon, Bigg, Gioag, Holtzmann, Lechler, Pfleiderer, Stevens, etc. The Christologj' of I Peter occupies a position mid -way between Pan] and the Johannine Literature. It also suggests Paul on the one side and the Synoptic Gospels on the other. (For other examples see McGiffert's Apostolic Age p. 486 ; note also the later discussion of John.) The book reveals no traces of enemies within the Church, as Ephesians, Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles, but the enemies are without. Heresies were no doubt in existence at this time, but they were for the time overlooked, in the more pressing need of saving the Church from being stamped out entirely by Imperial action. The silence as to heresies seems to be as easily accounted for on the assumption that the Epistle was written during this time of external hostility as if it were written before the heresies alluded to in the Pauline Epistles had arisen. These preliminary conclusions drawn from the external conditions are very important for an understanding of the Epistle, but they will be kept separate from the discussion of the Literary Relations. In returning to the problem of Literary Relations, it may be said it is a long and difficult one to solve, but that the effort is fully recompensed by the definite results that attend its solution. Know- ing as we do, with no little degree of certainty, the date and place of authorship of the greater part of the literature related to the First Epistle of Peter, the determination of the order of dependence would, if accurately done, also determine the approximate date and place of this Epistle. It is hoped therefore that the following study may show, with some degree of accuracy, what literature I Peter pre- supposes as well as what presupposes it. The aim has not been to give every possible point of contact be- tween I Peter and all the literature considered, but an effort has been made to record what seemed to the author to be the more important ones. Many more resemblances might have been recorded, but the time and space required to collate them would not be justified by the results obtained. By arranging in parallel columns, in the original language, the more probable points of contact, it is thought that a basis is afforded for some valuable conclusions, both as regards date and place of authorship. Bj' the very nature of the subject little new material can be ad- vanced. A great percent of the parallels tabulated have already been pointed out by others, 3^et there are many additional ones discussed, which were discovered independently. Iiilrochictinu. 375 The method adopted in this thesis is, in the main, that followed by the Oxford Committee, in their excellent little book entitled " The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers " (1905.) The parallels are arranged in textual order. The order of probable de- pendence is shown by arranging them into classes A, A*, B, C, C — D, and D. Class A includes those books which mention our Epistle b\' name. Class A* comprehends those which do not mention the Epistle b}' name but concerning which there is no real doubt in the author's mind. In class B are found those which reach a very high degree of probability. In class C have been placed those which are of lower degree of probability. Class C — D represents those which give reason to suspect literary acquaintance, but are not sufficient!}' suggestive to belong in class C. Class D includes all those for which the evidence affords no ground for judgment. Doubtless there are books placed in the last class which are related to I Peter, but since the evidence is not sufficient to prove it they may be classed as doubtful. For example, Colossians shows many points of very probable connec- tion, but since these points, with many others, are also found in Ephesians, it cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty that our author knew Colossians. Under the respective classes named above, the parallels have been arranged in textual order according to the letters a*, b, c, c — d, and d, to which an explanation will apply similar to that given in connection with the capital letters. The present writer has ventured to assign to some books a higher degree of probable dependence than the Oxford Committee has done. It would seem that they have not given due consideration to the value of cumulative evidence. A book containing a number of probable points of connection deserves a higher rating than any single passage in it. Again more evidence should be attached to probable points of contact which show close contextual connection. Peculiar words of themselves mean but little, but when they occur in suggestive connections they become significant. Many of the parallels were assigned to their respective classes with much hesitancy, and it is not expected that their classification will meet the approval of those who may read them reflectively, but it is hoped that they may represent, on the whole, the real order of connection. The notes represent in part the author's reasons for the various classifications. The books of the Apostohc Fathers are arranged with the chrono- logical order reversed, beginning at the point of positive reference to I Peter and extending backward to Clement of Rome. Harnack's " Chronologic " has been followed in the main. In the New Testa- 37G Ora Dehiter Foster. ment, the order proposed by Professor Bacon (Intr. p. 280) has been adopted with few exceptions. The New Testament books are treated as wholes. This method, however, is not followed in discussing the Synoptic Gospels. Their sources are first considered, after which the peculiarities of each are reviewed in order. Though Acts is presented as a whole, attention has been called to the comparative degree of probable dependence with the " Petrine " and the " Pauline " divisions of the book. II Peter does not receive separate treatment because it is taken as direct testimony to I Peter. The application of the method described above has secured some significant results, which are presented in tabular form at the con- clusion of the thesis. It has been made obvious that our author was not an orTginal writer. This fact has proven very greatly to our advantage in locating the Epistle by its literary relations. On the other hand the freedom with which he used his sources makes it often difficult to determine whether he was influenced by a certain document or whether the agreement is due to current teaching. He was an extensive reader but no slavish copj.dst. He was acquainted with the early Christian writings as well as with the LXX. Scharfe, in his "Petrinische Stromung", shows probably as clearly as anyone how well at home our author was with the LXX, though it must be noted that he has frequently overlooked the more obvious connection with the Pauline Epistles, in his zeal to make a strong case. The discussion of the Pauline Epistles in the following pages, it is believed, shows conclusively that our Epistle rests directly upon Paul, more especially upon Romans and Ephesians. In addition to the information afforded by the tables at the conclusion of the thesis, it may be stated that no less than fift}^ percent of the text of I Peter shows a possible connection with the Pauline Epistles, and a great many references find parallels in as many as three of Paul's letters. This fact which is represented by the 218 parallels tabu- lated, is alone sufficient to show that I Peter depends upon the PauUne literature, notwithstanding the recent claim that no reference is made to this Literature for a century or more.^ It can be said with a rea- sonable degree of certainty that the author of I Peter both knew and used Romans and Ephesians. There is much in the points involved, to say nothing of historical considerations, to make it 1 W. B. Smith in " Der vorchristliche Jesus " (1906). Ch. V. " Saeculi Silentium ". lutrodnction. ill certain that I Peter depends upon Pau] and not vice versa as B. Weiss and Kiihl have contended. From the htcrary relations alone then Ephesians fixes the terminus a quo for I Peter at about GO A. D. Granting with Moffatt^ that " a copy of Ephesians came back to Rome some years after its circulation in Asia," it would not be safe to fix the earliest possible date for I Peter later than the year 65. Irenaeus (cir. 186) is the first concerning whose acquaintance \Ndth I Peter there is absolute certainty. We are quite certain also that Papias (cir. 150) knew the Epistle. Doubt cannot well be enter- tained in the case of Polycarp (cir. 115). It appears highly probable that the Johannine Literature (95—100) presupposes I Peter. Clement of Rome quite certainly used it as early as the year 95. From the literary relations alone, therefore, we may fix the termini a quo and ad quem for I Peter with perfect confidence at the years 60 and 95. Granting Moffatt's view to be correct, three decades would still be open for the date of this Epistle. It is a positive gain to be able to pin this Epistle down to three decades, but it would be of still greater service to know in just which one it should be located. But to do this from the standpoint of literary relations alone requires that we employ the testimony of witnesses that are themselves difficult to locate. Yet if these doubtful writings show literary connections, they have mutual service to render in establishing their respective dates. Fortunately for us this is just the case. This stud}^ has led to the conclusion that the Epistle of James depends upon I Peter. If then, as many scholars contend, Clement of Rome knew and used James, I Peter must have been written not later than 90. At all events it would seem fair, even granting that the Oxford Committee was correct in finding no proof of connection between James and Clement, to fix the terminus ad quem for I Peter at the year 90. On the other hand it appears from our study that the Epistle to the Hebrews is presupposed by I Peter. Practically all scholars admit that Hebrews depends upon Paul. This then would require that we fix the terminus a quo for I Peter much later than the year 60. But how much later ? To determine this the internal as well as external evidence of Hebrews will be involved. Yet this is not going beyond the limits of our discussion inasmuch as the question of literary relations was settled inde- pendently. Since both Hebrews and I Peter were written by thorough students of Paul and with similar motives, and under similar circumstances their evidence may fairly be considered as supplementary. Scholars 378 Ora Delmcr Foster, are xery generally agreed that Hebrews is removed several }-ears from the Xeronian Persecution. Granting that Heb. 11 ; 32 refers to this persecution, 12 ; 3 f . certainly points to another outbreak against the Christians, which was then in progress but which had not reached its fuU height. This cannot allude to the Jewish War of 66—70. It was apparently long enough after the destruction of Jerusalem for them to have become reconciled to the catastrophe. We are to conclude therefore, so it seems, \nth Bacon. Holtzmann, Jiilicher, McGiffert, ^loffatt, Weizsacker, \'on Soden and others. that the persecutions alluded to in Hebrews are those of Domitian. If these conclusions are correct I Peter could not have been written earlier than So. Incidentally the foregoing study has afforded an earlier limit for the Epistle of James, as well as a later limit for Hebrews. If, as is here maintained, James depends upon I Peter it must have been wTitten some time after 85, and not early as many contend. But if, as we believe, this study shows, I Peter presupposes Hebrews and the latter comes from the reign of Domitian, we shovild be required to date James somewhere between 90 and 95. Hebrews would in that case be dated between 81 and 85 and I Peter between 85 and 90. It may be noted in passing that Pliny, in his correspondence with Trajan in 112, states that in BithxTiia, one of the proWnces to which I Peter is addressed, " some of the accused assert that they forsook Christianity twenty-five years ago." (Ad Traj. 96, 6.) This apostacy of cir. 87 may ven*' probably have been due to the perse- cutions that are alluded to in I Peter, whose author aims to prevent this ver\ thing. We may next consider the place of authorship of our Epistle. It is clear from Table III, p. 535. that the literature which shows the closest relation to I Peter was either \\Titten in Rome or Asia Minor, or circulated in those ree^ions ver\' earh . Nowhere in the whole realm of early Christian literature does there seem to be any ^^Titing. not ha\'ing to do \\-ith the regions just mentioned, that shows any connection ^^-ith I Peter earher than Pseudo-Bamabas cir. 135. On the other hand there are many in these locahties which show a very probable hterarv' connection. Galatians, \\Titten from Corinth and circulating in Asia !Minor. was ver\" probably kno%\'n by our author. I Corinthians, written at Ephesus, seems to have been kno\\"n by him. There are reasons also to suspect that he knew II Co- rinthians, which would be apt to circulate in this region. Apparently he knew Hebrews, the eWdence of whose existence comes to us first from Rome. It appears highh* probably that the author or authors Introduction. 379 of the Johannine literature, who wrote from Ephesus, knew I Peter. So also Ignatius, writing from the same region. We are confident that Polycarp, of Smyrna, was acquainted with our Epistle. It win be noticed in the Table that there are none of those marked "A* " earlier than Polycarp which do not show a direct connection with Rome, e.g. Romans, Ephesians, and Clement of Rome. James may also be added to this list, inasmuch as the first echoes which we have of it are in Rome. All the literature marked " B " or " C " earlier than 160 also shows direct connection with Rome or Asia Minor or both, unless it be Titus, which will hardly be counted an exception. The silence of the literature of other places, as well as that of these localities in the period assigned to I Peter is quite as signifi- cant as the direct references ; for manifestly some time must be allowed for acquaintance with the Epistle to extend, and more as the remoteness increases. Both lines of evidence converge, therefore upon the conclusion that I Peter was written in Rome cir. 87—90. In addition to the conclusion just reached regarding the date and place of authorship of I Peter, this study has other important results. The bearing that it has on the problem of dating the Synoptic Gospels should not be overlooked. If, as Harnack claims, the Gospels are so early one is surprised not to find them reflected more in I Peter. It may be claimed that the author was acquainted with the Synoptic tradition in some form, but there is very little, if indeed an3^thing, to indicate that he knew our Gospels. There is no real evidence that he knew the " Q " source. The real evidence for literary connection between I Peter and the ^Markan source is reduced to I Peter 2 ; 7 = Mark 12 ; 10. (See discussion on Mk. Ex. 5.) Were we to grant that these passages show a direct literary connection, there is nothing to prove the priority of Mark. There seems to be nothing peculiar to Matthew or Luke which would justify the claim of literary connection. It seems strange that our author, susceptible as he was to literary influences, did not make more use of the Synoptic Gospels, if they were written as early as Harnack contends. This silence is against Harnack's position. It would seem therefore, if for example, Mk. 12 ; 10 is directly connected with I Peter, that the priority must be given to the latter and not to the former. The Johannine Literature is also involved in the dating of I Peter. If the conclusions reached here are correct, namely that the Johannine Literature presupposes I Peter as a necesssary connecting link between it and Paul, they have a very important bearing, not only on the development of doctrine in Asia Minor, but also on the vexed problem of the Johannine authorship. Many ideas merely suggested by Tran-s. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 26 January, 1913. 380 Ora Delmer Foster, Introduction. Paul, which were more fully expressed in I Peter, are found in the Johannine Literature in fully developed form ; in speeches, narratives, prayers, etc. That is to say these anecdotes seem to presuppose the " Petrine " development. Apparently, then, the Pauline thought travelled in part by way of I Peter. This study also has a significant bearing on other problems of Church History. It shows the influence that Rome wielded over the Pauline Churches in Proconsular- Asia at this very early period. The relations of Roman Christianity to that of Asia Minor were indeed of the most delicate kind (cf. Rom. 1 ; 11 f. and 15 ; 15-29). The process of annexation of the great Pauline mission field after Paul's death was of the utmost concern and required the greatest possible skill. This could only be effected from Rome, not from Jerusalem, and necessarily from the " Petrine " wing, which we have reason to believe became dominant in Rome between 70 and 95. This our Epistle helped to accomplish by endorsing Paul's doctrine and fellow workers (cf. I Peter 5 ; 12 with the contemporary Acts 15 ; 13-17). Paet I.-APOSTOLIC FATHERS. TERTULLIAN A Scorpiace XII (written cir. 220) " Addressing the Christians of Pontus, Peter, at all events, says "... quoting I Pt. 2 ; 20. CLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA A (Cir. 200) INSTRUCTOR I, 6. " Peter says "... quoting I Pt. 2 ; 1-3, IREN^US A (Cir. 186) IV, ix, 2 " Peter says in his Epistle "... quoting I Pt. 1 ; 8. IV, XV i, 5 "And for this reason Peter says" . . . quoting I Pt. 2; 16. V, vii, 2 " And this it is which has been said also by Peter "... quoting I Pt. 1 ; 8. PAPIAS A (145-160) Eusebius (H. E. Ill, xxxix, 17) quotes Papias as follows ; ot£/pY]Tai S' a(j-:bc, [JiapTuptat? o^tzo ttjc 'Iwavvou 'Kpoxipac £7it(7TO>.9]c xai octto ttJi; IIsTpo'j 6[j.oto)r. II CLEMENT (Cir. 170) C c (1) II Clem. XIV, 2 I Pt. 1 ; 20 l.ivri. Bigg thinks Justin quite clearly alludes to I Peter here. He rightly points out that Truptodic in this sense is peculiar to I Peter. First Epistle of Peter. 383 We should not overlook the fact however, that although the word has a different application in Rev. 18 ; 9, 18, the thought is quite like this section. (5) Trypho 119 I Pt. 2 ; 10 Aaoc dcytoi; lajj-ev It is obvious that Bigg is right in saying " Justin is here referring to Isa. 52 ; 12." The suggestion might come either from Rom. 9 ; 25 ff, or I Peter. d 6) Trypho 35 I Pt. 1 ; 19 Here Justin exhorts not to blaspheme " Him who .... is the a[j.(o[j.oc, and in all things irreproachable Christ Jesus." Well does Bigg cite Heb. 9; 14 as a possible reference, for it seems more prob- able that Justin had it in mind, rather than I Pt. 1 ; 19, inasmuch as he would have given in all probability a better connection to both the thought and words, ^c, apoti ajxoijJLO'j xol a(77:i>.ou Xptaxou. Cf. also Eph. 1 ; 4, 5 ; 27, Col. 1 ; 22, Jude 24, Rev. 14 ; 5. (7) Trypho 110 I Pt. 1 ; 19 We have here a parallel to the one just mentioned in 35. In the later chapter of the "Dialogue," the word "ao-7:ilo?," with others, is used to point out the perfection of Jesus as " the most righteous and only spotless and sinless one." Our Epistle com- pares Jesus' blood to that of a lamb without spot or blemish. I Pt. 1 ; 19 . . . at[j.a-i, wc a[j.o)[j.ov xai acrmXou XpiaTroQ. The word here refers directly to ap.vo; rather than to XpnTToti as Bigg would make it. Similar usage may be seen in I Tim. 6; 14 i. e., TY]prj(7ai ts tt;/' IvtoAt;/ ao-TTiXov. Cf. also Jas. I ; 27 and II Pt. 3 ; 14. (8) Trypho 114 I Pt. 2 ; 6 ToD axpoycoviKiou Xibou is very suggestive of I Pt. 2 ; 6, but on close examination it becomes evident that Justin's mind was imbued with the O. T. references, more especially Isa. 28 ; 16. Yet it may have been suggested by I Peter. Mr. Bigg rightly concludes that it is probable but not certain that Justin knew I Peter. Chapters 114, 119, and 138 of the " Dialogue with Trypho," taken together, intensify the proba- bilities of literary dependence. 384 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 1 ; 17 xai d -Kocxipa smxaXsio-D'S, tov oi'Kp(JG()i7:o'ky][x%Ti<)c, xptvovTa xaxa TO IxdcTirou spyov, sv cp6[3q) tov a"T:pacpY]T£. Cf. also II Cor. 5 ; 10. BARNABAS (131-160 Harnack) A* b (1) Bar. IV, 11 f. [j,s>.£-w[j!.sv TOV cp6[3ov TOO (:!)£oD . . . (12) 6 Kuptoi; a7:poo-to7CO>.T^[j.7CTO)? XpiVsT TOV x6(7^ov . sxacTO? xaO'w? £7coiv]0'£v xo[Jit£T'irai . eocv Y] ayai^-oc, y) BixaiocyvYj auTOu xpo- T^yrjaETai auToti, £av v] xovYjpoc, 6 [XItO'O? TTj:; XOVY]pia^ £[J.7:p0(7&'£V auToO. Dr. Bartlet (N. T. in Apost. Fathers) thinks this affords no argu- ment for Hterary dependence, either on II Corinthians or I Peter, " though the hkenesses are striking in both cases." It is significant however that dcTrpoo'coTCoXTijj.T^TO)?, which is pecuhar to our Epistle, is used just in the same connection as in I Peter. The " sav clauses " on the other hand appear to be developed from " £it£ ayat>6v, £ite xaxov " of II Cor. 5 ; 10. Since I Pt. 1 ; 17 implies all that is included in the clauses, just alluded to, the probabilities are yet in favor of our Epistle. It is also important to note the employ- ment in verse 11 of vao? 'ziXzioc tw Bew which corresponds to oTxo? 7cv£U[xai:ix6r of I Pt. 2 ; 5. Reference to " the last days" in verse 9 is also suggestive of I Pt. 1 ; 5, 20. (2) Bar. V, 5, 6, 7 TTWC OOV 67r£[J.£I,V£V UTCO yt^^OC, OCV- S-pw^tov -a8>£Tv ; [xdb'szt. 6. ol 7rpOCpY]Tai, (XTC aUTOS SjrOVTE? TTjV y^apiv, £1? auTov £7rpocprjT£tJcrav . auTo? b£ I'va xaT.ipyTjcrf] tov b-a- vaTOv xoi TYjv sx v£xpwv avacTTa- (7iv B£ur,, OTi £v capxi zbzi ccoto-^ cpavEpcoO^TjVat, 67i£[j.£tv£v. 7. tva xai ToT? TraTpao'iv t7]v sroa^'yEXiv (XTCoBcO. Dr. Bartlet rightly sees a twofold parallelism here with our— Epistle ; " (1) prophecy foreshadows Christ's passion and its sequel, and (2) this is due to grace proceeding from himself." Attention should have been called also to the close parallel in the clause im- I Pt. 1 ; 10 TZZpX fj? TOTYjpiaC I'^E^YjTTjTaV V.0C1 £^Y]p£UVYia-av IZpryfTi-OCl ol XEpl TTj^ sic, b\Koic, yjkpi'coQ xpocp'/jTEUcavTE? • (11) £p£UVWVT£5 £?? TlVa Y] TCOTOV xaipov ^br^\oo to sv auToT^ ITvEij- [XV. Xpi<7T0ti, 7:pO[XapTL(p6[J-£VOV TX £1$ XpiiTTOv 7:a9T,[j.aTa, xai Tac- [j.£Ta TatJToc Bo^a?. First Epistle of Peter. 385 mediately following Mr. Bartlet's reference. See just below. Bigg contends that Barnabas used I Peter here. See Com. p. 108. (3) Bar. V, 7 I Pt. 2 ; 9 ETOtjj.a^cov sTTiBsr^Y). i£paT£U[j.a, eO-voc ayiov. 'J.qcoc si; X£pt-oir,a-iv. Following the preceding parallel this striking similarity is very significant. (4) Bar. V, 13 I Pt. 2 ; 24 auTTo; By) sO-sXYiasv o3to) T^aO-sTv . oq -zac, aj^ocpxiixq yi[j.cov atj-o; icvr,- sBst yap tva liii ^u>>ov -aO-r,. vey/vsv sv tw o'cojj.ocTt, auTOu e-i to This reference shows closer kindship to our Epistle than to any other passage of scripture. Gal. 3 ; 13 is the next closest parallel in the N. T., but clearly " Barnabas " is not following it at this point. c (5) Bar. I, 6 I Pt. 1 ; 9 (^coY)? zk-Kii;, ap/Y] xai ~iXoc, t^ittsco; ko[j.i^6{j.£voi ~b ~zkoc, ty]c t^cg-tsojc Yi[J.WV 6[J.WV This similarity is probably due to common currency. Cf. the parallel usage immediately following i. e. BixaioativY), xpiirsco; ^f//i xai TsAoc. It is to be noted however that reference is made to the prophets in the contexts following the citations. Cf. I. 7 with I Pt. 1 ; 10. Bar. V, 1 I Pt. 1 ; 2 tva T^ acpscTS!, tcov a[j-apTi,o)v ay- sv acpiao-^j.w IIvs'jij.aTo;, dc, b~oc- vt,'78'W[j.sv, 6 scTtv sv Tco 5ci[j.aTi >coy;v xai pavTiTjj.ov 6ci[j.y.zoc, 'ItjTOo ToU pavTi(7[j.a-o? autrou Xpicrxotj. Cf. 1; 19, Heb. 12; 24, 13; 12. Were we to follow C and the Lat. of Barnabas (i. e. sv tco pscv- Tii7[j.aTt auTOu ToO al'[j.aTOi;., Lat. sparsione sanguinis illius) ; we should have here a closer parallel with I Peter than with Hebrews, but as Professor Bartlet says " all depends on the reading adopted ; and as N is as likely to be right as C and a version, we must leave the phrase out of account." The similar use however made of the " suffering servant " of Isaiah is in favor of dependence on I Peter. Cf. V, 2 with I Pt. 1 ; 19, 2 ; 21f., 3 ; 18, 4 ; 1. 386 Ora Delmer Foster, (7) Bar. V, 5 I Pt. 2 ; 21 6 Kupio? 67C£[j.£ivev TvaQ'sTv Tcspi 'zr\c, Xptairoi; sTrab'Sv UTcep Yj[j.o>v. 4 ; 1 Barnabas is quite suggestive of I Peter at this point. (8) Ibid. I Pt. 1 ; 20 The context (wv xavTO? toO x6(7[j.ou Kuptoi;, d> £T7:£v 6 Heo?) con- necting this parallel with the one just cited is in favor of consider- ing this verbatim agreement to be merely accidental, yet it occurs in significant connections in both books. (9) Bar. VI, 2 (Isa. 28; 16 b) I Pt. 2 ; 6 'IBou £[j.pa>,o) £ic ~y. Q'£^.£>.ia Hiwv iBou, -i\^r^\)x h Zicov 7i0-ov aypo- \ib-Oy 7C0UT£>>Tj, IxXeXXOV, CXXpO- yWVtaToV, IxIoXTOV, £VTtIJ.OV. YwvtaTov, £VTi[j.ov Quoted from the LXX, but probably suggested by I Peter as will be seen by the following parallels. (10) Bar. VI, 3 Isa. 28; 16 b I Pt. 2 ; 6 6? lljziGZl £X' a'JTOV 6 7:iCrT£!JC0V O'J [J.Y] XaT- 6 7Cl0-T£tJ0)V £7:' aUTfi) ^T^CETat SIC -6v alcova aic/uvO-Tj on [j.y; xaTaiT/uvO-Y). Since "Barnabas" purports to be quoting from "the prophet," the passage is a good commentary on his method of quoting. That he is not following the original is obvious from the text itself. (ti'Tl^ n't 'j"'^^''^~)- 'E}v7:i^c<) is here used in the sense of ttittsow as in I Pt. 3 ; 5, IXTriuOuo-at Itu tov Heov. This usage is rare in the N. T. Paul may parallel it in Rom. 15 ; 12 and Phil. 2 ; 19, yet in the latter case it refers to desire mingled with trust. Other probable examples are I Tim. 4 ; 10, 5 ; 5. It seems on the whole altogether likely that our " Epistle of Hope " may have influenced "Barnabas" to employ unconsciously sXtti^w for Tiw—'jo). (11) Bar. VI, 4 I Pt. 2 ; 7b XiB-ov 6v a^TEBoxifxao-av oi olyi.oho- Xib-oc, ov ot oixoBo[j.OLivT£r, r/j^oQ [j.ouvT£c, oOtoc Iysvt^&Tj sic, X£'^- £Y£vr,Q^ zlc, x£(pa>.Y;v ywvta;. a7.Y]v ywvia?. There is nothing here but the context by which to determine whether " Barnabas is quoting" Ps. 118 ; 22 independently or at the suggestion of our Epistle. If he is following Rom. 8 ; 33 it First Epistle of Peter. 387 is probably by way of I Peter, since the wording, order and context of the latter is more in accord with this Epistle at this point. When taken alone the quotations taken from Chap. VI mean but little, but since they occur in the same context in the same order and are connected with a variation suggestive of Petrine influence, dependence is highly probable. Among the infinite number of possible combinations the above could be a mere coin- cidence, but exceedingly improbable. It may also be said in this connection that Chap. VI lays stress upon some Petrine ideas which are worthy of note, e. g. " hope " V. 3, yib-oc, for Christ, 1—4, "recreation" 11, 14, corresponding to I Pt. 1 ; 3, 23, and the suffering of Christ. (12) Bar. I, 6 I Pt. 5; 1 MC, zlc ti 'jiJLwv Bstico o71yu (7'jv7:pscr[3uT£po? 12, Bi' bXv(0)y This parallel of Monnier's need not detain us. (13) Bar. XVI, 10 I Pt. 2 ; 5 zv£U[j.aTa6c voco? oTxoc 7:v£'j[j.aTr/.6? We have here no clear evidence either for or against acquaintance with our Epistle. Yet the reference to " temple building " and "new creation in v. 8 may have a direct bearing on the question. Conclusion. It has been seen that Chapter V seems to be thoroughly imbued with Petrine thought and expressions. The same use made of Isa. 53 in regard to Christ, and the close and quite continuous sequence of Petrine ideas make it highly probable that " Barnabas " here depends upon I Pt. 1 and 2. The sequence and the variations of the references in Chap. VI also add weight to the above obser- vation. Hesitation and consideration should characterise any statement which is adverse to the opinion of great scholars, yet on the basis of the combined evidence of Chapters IV— VI, it seems necessary to conclude that " Barnabas " knew and used our Epistle. 388 Ora Delmer Foster, <1) Vision III, xi, 3 TOCC [J.£pi[J.Va5 £70, TOV Kuplov SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (Written cir. 140) B b I Pt. 5 ; 7 a xa(7av -TYiv [j.Epi[j.vav 6[j.5)v £7ci,picjjavT£(; etc auTOv [ttov 0£6v] Ps. 54; 23 a £7C!,pi'j>0V £TCl KuptOV TYIV [jipijjLvav crou I Pt. 5 ; 7 b OTi auTw [;.£X£t 6[j.wv Ps. 54; 23 b (2) Vis. IV, ii, 4 iHcpuys? • • • '^'^^ '^v OTi auTw [;.£A£t 7C£pl [X£piiJ.vav cou Itu TOV 6[J.WV c|j£t 0£6v EXEpKJja? . . . (5) £7rtpi'-|>aT£ TtX? pi£p- i^vai; 6[j.5iv iiz\ tov Kupiov, xai auTo? xaT- opQ-oio-Et odi-XOLC,. Principal Drummond has pointed out these parallels. (N. T. in Apost. Fathers.) He thinks this quotation is taken independently from Ps. 54. Bishop Lightfoot is undecided between the Psalm and our Epistle. Perhaps Drummond disposes of the comparison too readily. The fact that the huge beast, used as a type of dire- ful tribulation, is given in connection with the echo of I Pt. 5 ; 7, makes it very probable that Hermas had in mind also I Pt. 5; 8 b. (3) Sim. IX, xiv, 6 o5>t Ixata/^uvovT-at to ovo[j.a atJToti cpopETv. xxi, 3. OTav 8^)a'j»tv axoycrcoG"!, ... TO 6vo[xa iizcaa- •/JJVOyZXl TOU Kuplou auTwv. xxviii, 5, 6. 01 7;aC7/^OVT£? £V£yw£V ToO dv6p.aT0? 'bocaZ^zi'/ 0(p£l>«£T£ TOV BeOV, OTl 6 Szbc hof, toOto to ovojjia [3a(JTa^7]T£ . . . ZETCOvQ-aTE £V£X£V TO!J ov6[xaT05 Kuptou I Pt. 4 ; 14-16 £1 dv£tBt^£0"S'£ EV b'^O- ^.aTlXpi'TTOU . . . T.T.'j- yi~(.'> . . . tl c<)c, Xpia- Ttavo? liA] aicyuvEO'Q'O), Poly. Vin, 2 £av TcdcT/oj^Ev Bta to ovop.a auToO, Bo^a^co- [j,£v auTOv . toOtov yap Yj[jlv TOV 67:oYpajj.[JL6v Bo^a^ETO) Be tov ©eov eQ'Yjxe Bi' lauToO. £v TO) dvo[j.aTi TOUTco. Mk.8; 38, Lk. 9;26. 0); yap av z~7.i(yyw- Cf. Acts 5; 41. First Epistle of Peter. 389 Sim. VIII, vi, 4 s7:a!,'7y(L»vO'svT£c TO ovo[j.a Kupiou TO £7CIX>.Y]S>£V £7; aUTOUC Again we are indebted to Mr. Drummcjnd for this careful analy- sis, as well as for his comment upon the same. He thinks there is here a probable reminiscence of I Peter, which inference is con- firmed from the parallel from Polycarp, for the latter has just quoted I Peter, and that he still has the Epistle in mind is indicated by the last clause. Cf. I Pt. 2 ; 21. Bigg only calls attention to the par- allel between Sim. IX, xxviii, 5 and I Pt. 4 ; 15. Lightfoot and Crombie fail to record any of these parallels just given. Though a few accidental catch words as Tuaa/co, Ixaicr/yvovTat, £V£X£v toj dv6[j.aT0i;, etc. may but suggest our Epistle, the general tenor of the passage, especially ch. 28, in connection with the verbal likeness, and the reference in Polycarp, all combine to make a strong case for literary dependence. c (4) Vis. Ill, iii, 5 I Pt. 2 ; 5 y; ^coy] u[j.ajv Bta uSaTO^ zGOib-r, sv Yjijipaic Nw£, xaTaT/.s'ja^ojj.Evr,? y.ai (7coQ'-/;'j£Tai xijjWToij, elc, r^v h7h(0^ • • • StsTtoS-Y,- aav Bi uBaTO? . . . gmZ^i paTiTiT^-a. Drummond thinks the idea of salvation through water springs too readily from the practice of baptism to justify one in claiming literary dependence. The verbal similarity however is worthy of note. (5) Sim. IX, xxix, 1, 3 I Pt. 2 ; 1, 2 Mt. 18 ; 3 CO? vYjTcia ppl'prj zlnL a7:o!j-£[j.£vot o5t, 7:^(7ccv yi^r^<7b'Z ioc, Ta -aiBia. 0T5 ouB£[j.ia /.ay.ta ava- xaxiav . . . w? apTi- Cf. I Cor. 3 ; 1, and |3aiv£t, i%\ T'rjv xapBiav ^iy'^rfzcf. [3p£cpY] 14 ; 20. . . . ocoi o5v . . . In I Pt. 2 ; 1 and I Cor. 14 ; 20 it is the blamelessness of the babe which is considered, where-as in I Cor. 3 ; 1 and I Pt. 2 ; 2 its diet. Sim. IX, xxix is more likely to have been suggested by 1 Pt. than by I Cor. (6, Hand. VIII, 10 Bigg caUs attention to a list of " Petrine words close together" here i. e. cpiX6'^£voc, r^tyj/ioc, aB£}/-p6Tr,s and aya8-o-oiYj(n; — (ayaO-o- 390 Ora Delmer Foster, xoua). The first is found not only in I Pt. 4 ; 9 but also in I Tim. 3 ; 2 and Tit. 1 ; 8. The second occurs in I Pt. 3 ; 4, and in I Tim. 2 ; 2, while Yjcruxta is found in Acts 22 ; 2, II Thes. 3 ; 12 and I Tim. 2 ; 11, 12. The third is peculiar to I Peter, being found only in 2 ; 17 and 5 ; 9. The exact form of the last is not found in the N. T., but the allied form ayaS-OTCoto? is only in I Pt. 2 ; 14. The verbal form ayaS'OTwOtsco is common in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 3 ; 4, Lk. 6; 9, 33, 35, Acts 14; 17, and III Jn. 11. It is indeed a favorite word of our author. Cf. I Pt. 2 ; 15, 20, 3; 6, 17. d (7) Vis. Ill, V, 1 I Pt. 2 ; 5 oixoBo[j.r;V 7rv£U[j.aTtxoc . . . This is indeed suggestive of our Epistle, especially as a develop- ment of the figure. The figure however, is too common to guarantee any degree of certainty for dependence. (8) Vis. IV, iii, 4 I Pt. 1 ; 7 tO(77t£p yap TO /puatOV "toXllXCcttZCil TO BoXipOV 6[;.WV TT^; 7:1'7T£0)? izo- BlOC TOD TT'jpOC . . . 0'JT(.)$ Xai }.UTl[J.6T£pOV )(pU(7tOU TO^i V.-oXXu- u[X£T? Boxt[j.au£'7Q'£ [jivou Bia Tiupoc Bs Boxt[j.a'^0[j.£VOU. Drummond can see no connection here with our Epistle. Bishop Lightfoot is not sure. When taken alone we cannot lay any weight on this parallel, though it is suggestive. ^9) Sim. IX, xii, 2. 3 I Pt. 1 ; 20 Heb. 1 ; 2 6 ^-£V "JIOC TOJ 0£OLi /piTToU ZpOtyvOiGj^.Z- £~' ET/aTO'J Toiv f,[J-£- ■iKxa-f^c TTjC XTio'ofoc au- vou [j.£v Tzpo xaTOCjjo^vTj? poiv. I Jn. 3 ; 5. TOtJ TZpoyZ^ZG-ZpOC l8'Yl Tiv . . . £7w' £cr/aTO)v Be It; zayjxro'j Toiv Col. 1 ; 15. Toiv Yj[J.£po}V TTj? G'-JV- /pOVWV. TTpcOTOTOXOC "OCTrj^ XTl- T£}.£ia? cpavspoc iyf- 'j£fo$. V£TO These parallels, borrowed from Drummond, show close similarity in thought and phraseology. Yet stress cannot be placed on the likenesses, inasmuch as the same thought and forms of expression First Epistle of Peter. 391 are to be found elsewhere, also that the context does not refer to our Epistle. Mr. Crombie (Antcnicene Fathers II, 47) sees here a reference to I Peter, but Bishop Lightfoot fails to record it. (10) Sim. IX, xvi, 5 I Pfc. 4 ; 6 v.v.\oi ol /fr]f'JiavTrsi; to ovo[j.a toO xpivovTi i^wvTa? xai vsxpo'jc ' £?? uiou Tou 0£oO, xotjxYiO'svTs? Iv TouTO yap xai vcxpoTc s!jr,yYe>.i'70'r, BuvajjLS!, xai TtiTTst tou uioti toj I'va xpiQ^wo't [j.ev xa^a av0-po)7:oy? ©sou Ixvipu'^av xal toT<; Trpoxsxoi- o-apxi ^wo-i Bs xa^a O'sov 7:vc'J[xaTi. {XYi[X£voic, xoci a'jTOi eBwxav auToT? TYjv (jcppayTSa tou XYjp'Jyjj.aToc Bigg thinks Hermas here is explaining I Pt. 4 ; 6, and bases his argument largely on the occurrence of the " Petrine word ^o)0- TcoisTv " just before the reference cited. This is indeed suggestive, yet a dubious argument since the " Petrine word " is really a Pau- line word. It occurs but once in our Epistle (3; 18), but Paul uses it seven or eight times. Cf. Rom. 4; 17, 8; 11, I Cor. 15 ; 22, 36, 45, II Cor. 3; 6, Gal. 3 ; 21. See also I Tim. 6 ; 13, Jn. 5 ; 21 a, and b, 6 , 63. The thought of the passage is close to that of I Peter, yet our Epistle no where speaks of the a;:6(7To}.ot xai ^iBa'7xa}.oi preaching to the dead. Just above in I Pt. 3; 19 our author has told of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison Pos- sibly this may refer to I Peter, but the " harrowing of hell " is a mythological loan of early Christianity not confined to our Epistle. Drummond, Crombie and Lightfoot fail to record this as a parallel. On the cumulative evidence of all the foregoing parallels it would seem that we are justified in claiming a higher degree of probable dependence of Hermas on our Epistle than Drummond, or even Monnier, who says, after pointing out that Westcott, Gebhardt and Harnack see striking resemblances, that : " On nc peut en dire autant de I'ecrit de Pierre; mais il est fort possible pourtant qu' Hermas le connaisse." 392 Ora Delmer Foster, DIDACHE (120 or later) D d (1) Did. I, 3 I Pt. 2 ; 19 7;ota yap /apt? eav . . . touto yap /apt? si . , . Though the phrase is similar the passage does not deserve serious attention. (2) Did. I, 4 I Pt. 2; 11 ocKzyou Tcov crapxixwv xai (j(o[j.a- axs/saS^ai tcov aapxixoiv sTutO-upwv TWtwv S7:t8>upwv Professor Lake (N.T. in A.F.) thinks the connection, if any, comes through a later gloss of o-apxixwv from our Epistle, and as evidence that the tautologous form aapxixSv xai croifj-a-irixcov was not original, cites IV Mace. 1 ; 32, twv Bs stciO-u^iwv od [jiv dui diu/ixai cd Vz aw^.a^txai. This argument however is based on an assumption that has less in its favor than the conjecture that it is an actual quotation. The context has nothing to suggest I Peter but this was to be expected inasmuch as the whole docu- ment is a mosaic of scriptural references taken almost at random. The evidence either way is too slight to warrant one recognizing more than a possible connection. (3) Did. n, 6 I Pt. 5 ; 5 OTcspi^cpavo? OTOpYjcpavoi? This parallel, pointed out by Monnier, need not detain us, since the word is not peculiar to I Peter, nor is the context as suggestive of it as of " James." (4) Did. IV, 11 I Pt. 2; 18 6uLeTi; Be ol Boti)>ot •jxoTaYYjO'saS-e ol oixsTai, u7COTa(7<76[xevot ev TiavTt ToT? xupioi? 6p.wv . . . Iv cpopw (popw In addition to this very similar phrasing, the context also has ideas which suggest our Epistle. Compare ur.b vsotyitoc BiBa^st? tov (p6(3ov tol5 ©sou, (v. 9,) with such passages as I Pt. 5 ; 5, 2 ; 17. Compare also ou yccp sp/STai xara TipoctoTcov xaXscai (v. 10) with aTrpoG-ojTuoATjTTTco? of I Pt. 1 ; 17 and the Petrine doctrine of election. The combination of these inferences makes dependence somewhat First Epistle of Peter. 393 probable, yet there is very little here which cannot be paralleled in the Pauline Literature. Cf. Eph. 6 ; 5. (5) Did. XVI, 4 I Pt. 4; 3 Merely accidental. (6) Did. XVI, 5 I Pt. 4 ; 12 dc, TY]v 7rupcoo-£v T^i; Boxi[;.a(7ta5 T^ypo'xjsi 7:p6; xeipao^j-ov I Pfc. 1 ; 7 Bta Tiupoc Bs Boxi[j.a'Co[jL£VOv This figure is too common to betray dependence. The foregoing study justifies us in claiming for the Didache no more than a very doubtful connection with I Peter. Harnack, with Lightfoot and others, sees no connection here with our Epistle, but notes certain resemblances to Jude and II Peter. (See Art. in Schaff. Herzog Relig. Enc.) The Oxford committee notes but one parallel. POLYCAEP Cir. 115 A* a* (1) Poly. I, 3 , I Pt. 1; 8 zlc, ov c/ux iBovTSi; TutaTSUSTS /ocpa 6v oux iBovire? ocyaTcaTs, tic, 6v av£x>.aXrjTco xat, B£Bo^aa[X£vv] apTi ij.y] 6pcovT£c iziG-fjov-zc, Vz ayaTvXiacrGs /apa av£x7.aXrjTw xal B£Bo^a(7[jivYi This reference clearly depends upon I Peter. (2) Pol. II, 1 • I Pt. 1 ; 21 mcrT£UffavT£? zlc, tov eyEtpav-ra tov iouc, BV a^ToU tckj-ou? £1? ©eov Kupiov YifJLwv 'lYjcrotiv XpicTov Ix TOV lysipavToc au-6v Ix v£xpcov vExpwv xai Bovxa au-fii Botav xai B6'£av auTw Bovra The dependence here is too obvious to require any comment. (3) Pol. VIII, 1 I Pt. 2 ; 24 6? avYjvsyxsv yi[xwv toc? a^-apxia? oc, Ta? a^xapTiac Tj^xcov a^TO? Tco iSto) (70)[j.aTt Im to tuVjv, avYiv£yx£v £v tw (70)p,aTi a^ToO Itci to 'i(ii)\Ov. 394 Ora Delmer Foster, (4) Ibid. I Pfc. 2 ; 22 (5) Ibid. I Pt. 2 ; 21 ETUaOsV 67CSp 6[J.0)V (6) Ibid. I Pt. 2 ; 24 (7) Pol. VIII, 2 lav 7ca(7)r(o[j.£v Bta to ovo[j.a a'jTou Bo|a^w[j.£v a!j~6v I Pt. 4 ; 16 £? Bs 0)5 ypirtziocwq, [xr, ai<7j(uv£iT8^w, Bo^a^sTO) Bs Tov ©eov sv tw dv6[j-aTi TO'JTco (8) Ibid. I Pt. 2; 21 toOtov yap 6[j.Tv 6~OYpa[j.[j.6v £0-r,x£ 0[j.Tv 07:o}aij.7:avo)v 'jTioyp^^lJ-JJ-ov These parallels in Pol. VIII have been pointed out by all scholars. That Polycarp drew in \TII, 1 from I Pt. 2 ; 21—24, seems to beyond all doubt. Though he has not followed the order of our Epistle he has not only reproduced its thought but its phraseology ver- batim. The first reference under VI 11, 2 is drawn from another context but clearly echoes I Peter. The second reference returns to the context drawn from in VIII, 1. Since 67uoYpa[j.[j.6v occurs no where else in the N. T., there can be but little doubt but that the last parallel presupposes our Epistle. Mr. Benecke notices that in the place where I Peter is dependent on Isaiah, Polycarp seems clearly to be dependent on I Peter. Cf. I Pt. 2 ; 22 with Isa. 53 ; 9. Isaiah employs avopav where I Peter uses a[j,ap-tav. Other diffe- rences occur, but Polycarp gives verbatim the form found in our Epistle. (9) Pol. X, 2 Omnes vobis invicem subjecti estote, con- versationem vestram irreprehensiblem hab- entes in gentibus ut es bonis operibus vestris et vos laudem I Pt. 2 ; 12 (Vulg.) conversationem ves- tram inter Gentes habentes bonam ; ut ines, quod detrectant de vobis tamquam demalefactoribus vos considerantes, glo- I Pt. 2; 12 TYjV avaCTpOCpYlV U[J,0)V 6v TTOT? sO-VEO-lV £/_OVT£? xalYjV, tva £v & xaira- XaXoOiTiv 6[j.o)v (5)^ XaXOTTOtWV £X TO)V y.cckSi'j Ipyojv etcOtutsu- ovT£? BoSa(roj<7iv tw First Epistle of Peter. 395 accipiatis et Domi- rificent Deum in die Hew Iv r,ijipa s-'-t/.o- nus in vobis non visitationis. 5 ; 5 Om- ttt^c. 'jTzo-ixyr^-t -octy, blasphemetur. nes autem invicem, avO-pomvYi /-'iTsi Bia (subditiestote. 5; 4). tov Ktiptov. 5;5-av- T£? Be a).lT,}.o',r (O-o- TayviTs 5 ; 4). Benecke, after quoting the above, states : " the second clause in the passage seems to be a certain quotation from I Pt." Bishop Lightfoot thinks there may be a reference in the first part of the quotation to Eph. 5 ; 21. It is significant that in X. 1 the word " exemplar " occurs, corresponding to the 67:oYpa[j.[j.ov of Jesus in I Pt. 2; 21, in close conjunction with " fraternitatis," which likewise corresponds to another word peculiar to our Epistle, i. e. aB£Xo6rf,Ta of I Pt. 2 ; 17. These two words, it is noticed, occur in I Peter in rather close contextual connexion. These observations make Benecke's conclusion all the more certain, that Polycarp here shows dependence upon I Peter. b (10) Pol. II, 1 I Pt. 1 ; 13 Bio ava^co(ja[j.£voi, -zy.:; oacpya; Boo- Bio avoc^wjocij.svoi -ocq oa'-p'ja? zr^q Xtuacf.'zz Tw Gso) £v cpojjo) >cal ocIy]- Biavoia? O[j.tov i>£ia Although this citation has a certain affinity with Eph. 6 ,M4 the probabilities are that the Pauline thought reached Polycarp via our Epistle. The context seems to demand such a conclusion. (11) Pol. II, 2 I Pt. 3 ; 9 [J.Y] a7roBiB6vT£c xaxov avTi xaxoo \i.r^ aTToBiBovTEc xaxov avri xaxoti ■?; XoiBopiav avTi }.otBopta? ■?! },oiBopiav avTi }.oiBopia; Benecke thinks this verbatin agreement may be accounted for, as a common proverb which both are quoting. This however is rendered highly improbable, inasmuch as Polycarp had just quoted from I Peter. If it is a common proverb, in all probability it was suggested by our Epistle. c (12) Pol. I, 3 1 Pt. 1 ; 12 dc, Y-v T.oJ.Xbi lizib-o[JM'y'y zln- £?? a £~t&"j[j.o'j'7iv ayyE^vOi Tzocpcc- £}vO'£Tv yjj'hM. Though Lightfoot, Bigg and others fail to find any reference here to our Epistle, Benecke is correct in claiming a possible connection on the basis of the certain quotation just preceding it. Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 27 Jandary, 1913. 396 Ora Delmer Foster, (13) Pol. V, 3 I Pt. 2 ; 11 "Kxkbv yap TO avaxoTreaQ-at, (Xtto ot-iziytab-ai twv capxixoiv ItoQ^u- Tcov £xi,d"U[j.twv £v Tw xocjJLto, oTt [xtwv aiTivs? (7TpaT£uovTai xaTa Tiaaa £m8'U[jia xaxa tou 7W£U[xaTos i:^? '1"^/% <7Tpa-£!j£Ta!,. This is probably a free quotation from I Peter, yet its close re- lationship with such passages of Paul as Gal. 5 ; 16, 17, and Rom. 13 ; 14, render it somewhat doubtful. The foregoing study in the Epistle of Polycarp seems to justify us, without further comment, though numerous other minor like- nesses might be pointed out, in adopting Monnier's conclusion, " L'epitre de Polycarpe aux PhiUppiens contient les citations les plus expresses et les plus detaillees de l'epitre de Pierre, mais sans le nommer comme I'auteur." (" La Premiere Epitre De L'Apotre Pierre " p. 307). Eusebius is also responsible for the statement that " Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimonies taken from the First Epistle of Peter." Though Polycarp never mentions the name of Peter in connection with the quotations there can be no doubt but that he used the " First Epistle " that bears the Apostle's name. TESTAMENTA XII PATRIARCH ARUM D Bigg, in basing the date of this document on the authority of Sinker, who puts it in the latter part of the First Century or the early part of the Second, gives it a voice in deciding our problem. But if Professor Charles is right in dating the original in the closing years of the Second Century B. C.^ there can be but little value in its testimony, since the date of the Christian interpolations is much more indefinite than the date of I Peter itself. (Cf. also the articles by F. C. Conybeare and K. Kohler in the Jewish Encyclopedia.) The Parallels between the two books may be due either to dependence by the writer of I Peter on the earlier Jewish document or to later Christian interpolations from I Peter. At all events this book complicates rather than helps to solve our problem. • Greek Version of the " Testaiueut of the Twelve Patriarchs ", p. ix. First Epistle of Peter. 397 IGNATroS (Writing Cir. 110-117) B b (1) Mag. VII [, 2 I Pt. 1; 10 f. £[X7ws6^.ai 6-0 -%c /ot-^i^rjc ((X'jTOu) 7:po9r^Tai oi Trspt ty]? zlc -jij-a? (^) yjx^i-zoc^ Tcpo'-pYjTeiJcravTs? .... sBr^- };ou TO sv a'jToT? 7;v£Dp.a XptaTOo Inspiration of the prophets by the preexistent spirit of Christ is not a common idea in the N. T., though it occurs in Heb. 2 ; 11 — 13. 10 ; 5—9. Since there are " several ideas in common " in the imme- diate contexts of the above passages, (cf . Lightfoot's Apos. Fathers, II, 125,) dependence on our Epistle is far more probable than on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the thought of whose context is quite foreign to the thought of Ignatius in this section. (2) Eph. V, 3 '' I Pt. 5; 5c •jTisprjCpavoic 6 %zbc avTnraao-sTa!, 6 0eoc uTreprz-pccvote avTiraa-o-exat It seems impossible to determine definitely whether the author was quoting Prov. 3 ; 34 directly, or whether he was influenced either by I Peter or James 4 ; 6 or Clement of Rome (30 ; 2). The order is neither that of the original in the LXX, not that of any of the later writers. The change of K-Jpio? for 6 Osoc shows later in- fluence. The context in wich the quotation occurs both in Clement and James is not in accord with the context in Ignatius. On the other hand the context of our Epistle is quite in accord with that of Ignatius, who gives immediately after the quotation o-7:o!j8a<7(o[X£v ouv [J/?] avTiT-acrascQ-at tw £7;icrx67r(o, corresponding exactly to uttotoc- YTjTs xp£(7Jju-£potc of I Pt. 5 ; 5a. The context preceding the quotation is an exhortation to humility, quite in harmony wdth I Pt. 5 ; 5b. If there be literary dependence, therefore, it is probably on our Epistle, but we are dealing with a mere " winged word," a memoniter quotation. The value of the datum will be largely determined by the number of other instances in Ignatius. (3) Eph. IX, 1 I Pt. 2; 5 wc ovire? XiO-oi vaou 7rporjTOi.[j.a<7- ok 'ki^rji ToivTs? oJ/voBoij-sTtO-s oTxo? JJ.SV01 tic, 0l)t0B0[JLY)V HsoU XaTpO? ~V£L»[J.aTlXOC Both the thought and phraseology are very suggestive of our Epistle. Ignatius shows however some points of likeness to I Cor. 3; 16. The probabilities seem to be in favor of I Peter. 398 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 3 ; 19 sv 6) (7Wsu[j.aTi) xoi iroTi; sv cpuXaxYJ xv£U[j.aa!,v TTopsuQ-si? sxiqpu^Ev, 4 ; 6 (4) Mag. IX, 3 ob xoi 61 Tcpocp^Tai ^aO-vj-al ovirs^ xpoasBoxcov. xa\ Bia toQ-o, 6v BixKwo? av£[j.£vov, Tiapwv ■V]Y£ip£V aUTOUC £X V£XpWV The idea that Jesus descended into Hades, (drawn probably from Eph. 4 ; 9, which is developed in I Pt. 3 ; 19, and 4 ; 6, into the doctrine that Christ preached there to release the spirits from prison) receives even fuller development here. This idea was too prevalent in the Second Century to enable us to be certain that Ignatius was depending directly upon our Epistle, though the general context seems to make it probable. See also Mt. 27 ; 51-53, Justin, Dial. 72; Hermas, Sim. IX, 16 and Clem, of Alex. Strom. II, 9. (5) Mag. VII r, 2 I Pt. 1 ; 11 01 yap 0£i6Ta-oi zpo'-pTj-rai xa^a £v au-oT; (TCpocpi^irai?) -v£up.a XpiCT'^ov Tr|(To3v £^rj(7av. Cf. Phi- XpiaToO lad. V. All depends on the interpretation of " xara " as to whether this is a parallel or not. This study of the Ignation Epistles has not discovered sufficient ground for asserting literary dependence on our Epistle. It merely shows the prevalence of certain ideas which are more likely to have been suggested by it than by any other writing to which we can definitely point. CLEMENT OF ROME (95) A* b ^1) Clem. Int. I Pt. 1 ; I TOxpaTopo? BeoO Bta Ty](7oO Xpic- TTOtj) 7C>.Y]9>UvQ'£lYl Bishop Lightfoot observes that "/api,? 6[j.Tv xai £iprjVY] is the common salutation of Paul, excepting the Pastoral Epistles. With the addition tcT^yiO^uvO'EITj, however, it occurs only in the two Epist- First Epistle of Peter. 399 les of Peter, from whom probably Clement derived the form, as the First Epistle is frequently quoted by him. " (Clem, of Rome I, p. 647.) Cf. also his "Notes on the Epistles of Paul", p. 8. Against this it may be urged that Clement is here borrowing from Daniel instead of from I Peter. Dan. (LXX) 3; 31 has sipr^vY] 6[jilv %lrib'0-^b'zi-(]. See also Dan. 4; 34. Dan. 11; 39 employs the phrase 7cl'/]Q-uvsT Bo^av. ll}.-r]0'!jv(o is a ver}^ common word in the LXX. It is rarely employed as in I Peter and Clement, but is frequently used to express the growth of evil. Cf. Ps. 118 (119); 69, Si. 47 ; 24, Am. 4 ; 4, Jl. 3 (4) ; 13, Is. 57 ; 9, Jer. 5 ; 6, 37 (30) ; 14, 15, etc. It is also to be observed that the word r.caxo- xpdcTcop does not appear in Daniel. The word, however, is common in the LXX, especially in Amos, where it is used no less than ten times. But it is never used in the O. T. in a connection similar to the above usage in Clement and I Peter. Nor is xapi? employed in this way in the O. T. It does not seem necessary therefore to think Clement selected words from different O. T. books to compose this clause when he could have taken the major portion of the expression directly from I Peter, from which he apparently drew in other connections. " Jude" has a very simi- lar clause; zXzoc, upv xai sipvivYj xai aYaTrv) TcT^vjO-uvO-eir,. but it need not detain us here as a rival of 1. Pt. 1; 1. On the whole it seems Lightfoot's conclusion is well grounded. There is a further likeness in the salutation of Clement in the word Tuapoixoijaa. Though £7ui,Brjp.oi? is used in I Peter instead, the idea is the same, as may be seen, both by I Pt. 2; 11 (where -apoixou? and TvapsTCiBYjij.ou? are coordinated) and by Clement himself. Cf. salutation for xapouoOo-a and I, 2 for .zap£7:tBYi[r^(7a;. In the saluta- tion of no other N. T. book does either word, or a word expressing a similar idea occur. The nearest approach is in Jas. 1 ; 1 {zcdc, BwBsxa 's^iAoiXq TaTc h ty] BiaaTOpa), But I Pt. 1 ; 1 also employs BiacrTTOpai;. Clement uses xT^yj-oT? while I Peter has sxIsxtoTc. The former occurs in the N. T. salutations only in Romans, I Corinthians and Jude, while the latter appears only in Titus and our Epistle. Though I Peter nowhere uses the form yCkr^-oc,, the idea is the same. Thayer contrasts these words (Lex. in loco), but evidently there is no contrast to be understood here, since it is improbable that Clement would, in the salutation, upbraid his readers as " those who have shown themselves unfitted to obtain salvation". Paul does not contrast these forms, nor indeed is there a contrast here. (Th. Lex. xT^TiTO?,) Then if Clement shaped his salutation after 400 Ora Delmer Foster, the model of I Peter, as Lightfoot thinks, the change of form would not militate against it, since " sxXsxxo? is indeed a rare word with Geeek writers", (cf. Th. Lex. on sxXsxto^) and he would, in quoting from memory, naturally employ the more familiar word expressing the same idea. He, however, uses £x>.sxt6? elsewhere, which will be considered later. Cf. 1 ; 1. (2) Clem. lut. I Pt. 1 ; 2 yiYta(7[j,£V0i(; sv 8<£>.Yj[xaTt ©sou Bia Iv ayiao-jj-w IIvsufj-aTO? zlq 6-a- Tou KupioO Yi[j.o)v Ir^GOo XpicTOL) xoYjv xal pavTiTfj-ov at[j.aT05 'I'^icou XplOTOLi This seems to express the thought of I Peter in contracted form. The likeness will be made clearer by the following analysis. (1) YiytaT^svoi? (5:yia(7[x6) (2) £v O'slrijjLa-t HsoD xa^a xpoyvtoo-tv Szou (3) Sta -rov Kuptov y][j.o)v 'IyjToO sic 67i:axoY]v xai pavTiaixov ai'ixa-iroc XpicTou 'Iy](7oO XpiaToO. The forms of the verb ocyAZfo are found in the salutations of but two N. T. writings, i. e., I Corinthians and Jude. The former has Y)Yi.a'7|jivoi? £v XpicTTw 'It^toD while the latter has, £»• 0-£w r.ccrpl Y]Yia«T[j,£voi$. Attention has been called to the close parallel between the sa- lutations of Jude and I Clement. It seems there is more probability of connection between I Clement and Jude than between I Clement and I Corinthians at this point. But it is to be noted that many of the best manuscripts of Jude have Y]Ya7:Yi[j.Evoi^ instead of YiY!.ao-[;.£vot?, as in I Corinthians. In favor of the former Tregelles cites A. B. x. Vulg., Syr., Hcl. Memph. Theb. Arm. (AEth.) Orig. Ill, 607c, etc. It appears therefore that I Clement was very probably influenced here by I Peter. (2) 'Ev b'zXriiJMZi (')trjo is a very different form from that used in I Peter, but the thought of xa-ra ;:p6Yvoj'7!,v ©£oO . . . 7:^z'j[j.rx.zoc, is far from alien to that of Iv b't\riij.rx.zi (:)£ot». Indeed the latter may be a reminiscence of the former in contracted form. (3) Aia Tou KtjpCou y][j.wv TyjTou Xpia-oO may be a general form drawn from pavTicp-ov aifxairoi; 'Ir,a"oO XpiaToO, in which case Bia takes the place of pav-i(7[j.6v atij.aTO?. First Epistle of Peter. 401 In the beginning of no other N. T. book is the same emphasis laid on " election," with the single exception of Ephesians, and there the dependence is on the side of I Peter. Cf. x}.r,ToTr of I Clem. Int. and v/Ckzy-oXc, of I Clem. 1 ; 1 with sx}.£xtoTc of I Pt. 1 ; 1 and xpoyvoxTtv of I Pt. 1 ; 2. Cf. also 1 ; 3 ff . Though some of the above " likenesses " may be imaginary, there seems to be, on the whole, a good basis for maintaining, notwith- standing Professor Carlyle's adverse conclusion (X. T. in Apos. Fathers p. 57), that the salutation of I Clement is in some way dependent upon I Peter. (3) 1 Clem. 22 ; 2—6 I Pt. 3 ; 10—12 ayaTiwv rj[j.£pK? iSsTv ayaO-a?; (3) iSsTv Yj[jipa? ayaO-a?. TwaoaccTO) Tiauo-ov TTjV yXoifj^av lou axo xaxoj tTjV yAoio-G-av auToti axo xaxoj xal /si^^Tj Toti [j.Tj 'K'x\%'jy.i BciAov xal /sO/rj aoToEi toO [j.t, XocLr^ny.'. (4) £xx>.!,vov a-0 xaxou xai xoiy)- B6);ov, (11) sxxlivaTco Bs a~o (70V ayaO'OV (5) Zrixr^iyoy sipYjvYiV xaxoS xal TuoiYjcraTO) aya0-6v, xai Buo'fov a'jTTjV. (6) dcpO'a7^[j.oi ^TiTYjaaTO) eipi^vYiv xal Bto)^aTO) Kupiou exi BtxaiOL)?, xai co-^a aO- auTYjv. (12) oti ocpO-alij-ol KupioD ToO r^poc BsTjOT/ auTwv xpoTr^-ov Itzi Bixaiou? xai w^a auTOu sir Be Kupiou £7ci TTOtouvTa? xaxa .... Bstjciv au^wv, TipocrwTrov Bs Kupio'j Cf. Ps. 34 ; 13 — 17a. lizi ;:oioOv-:ac xaxa We are certain that Clement is quoting here from the LXX, not only because of the verbatim agreement but also because he quotes at greater length. But that the scripture was suggested by I Peter (3 ; 10—12) is made most probable, since it is used as the scriptural authority for the lengthy Petrine exhortations just given in Chap. 21, precisely as it is employed in I Pt. 3 ; 10—12 after 3 ; 1—9. It is especially significant that the quotation is followed in both instances with a buoyant expression of God's providential care for His fol- lowers. Cf. Clem. 22 ; 1 with I Pt. 3 ; 13. This sequence can hardly be accidental. (4) I Clem. 49 : 5 aya^'r] xa>.!j;;T£i tcT^y]- 8"0r a!J.a.CTto>v I Pt. 4 ; 8 ayavfi xalu7;"i TzLr- b-oc oifxapTicov Jas. 20 sTViTTps'lia? aij.ap- T0)16v £x izXarr^c oSoD auToD croWsi '\>'jyry Ix O-avaTOu xai xa}.U'i£i zXrb-rjC aa.apTTicov Prov. 10; 12 :cav'C"acBEToijc [J-Tj cpilovsixoDvTacxal'JTTTSioilia Light foot, Monnier and others think we have here a certain quo- tation from our Epistle. Professor Carlyle, however, views it as a 402 Ora Delnier Foster, mere possibility. Nor can he justify A. Resch (Agrapha p. 248) in his conclusion that both I Peter and I Clement are quoting a tradi- tional saying of our Lord. (N. T. in A. F. p. 56—57. Clement's mind was certainly and deeply imbued with I Cor. 13. There is, however, no record that Paul ever alluded to this passage in Pro- verbs. The fact that this exact form of the quotation is to be found nowhere earlier than I Peter is indeed significant. Though Jas. 5 ; 20 and Prov. 10 ; 12 are similar, it seems evident that if there is dependence anywhere it is on our Epistle. It is also to be noted that Clem. 49 ; 6 is quite suggestive of I Peter. This parallel affords no conclusive proof that Clement used I Peter, but in view of the other parallels and quotations common to both Epistles, we are justified in regarding this verbatim agreement as very important. (5) I Clem. 59 ; 2 I Pt. 2 ; 9 Bi' o5 sxaT^scrsv Yi[J-a? dcTco ot.O'ZOOQ -zou sx (jy.6-ooc, 6[j.a? xa}.s(7avT0i; dc '-pwc, 36 ; 2 zlc, to OuuiJ-aTTOv zlc, to O-auj^vOCTTOv auToO cpoi? a'jTou cpwc. Cf. Eph. 1 ; 18, 5 ; 8—14. This is a closer parallel to the above passage in I Clement than is to be found elsewhere in the N. T. In fact the two references in I Clement reproduce both the thought and phraseology of I Peter. Similar thought appears in Ephesians but the form is much different. The use of the word liziGy.ozo'/ v. 3, finds its closest N. T. parallel in I Pt. 2 ; 25. Clement speaks of God as the bishop of 7tV£U[j.a-::o)v while our author makes Christ the bishop of '|»tJ//>v. In the same context both writers employ the same metaphorical expression for the believers, i. e., TipopaTa. The doctrine of election Bia XpiaTou (cf. 64 ; 1) is particularly Petrine. Cf. I Pt. 1 ; 2, 21, 2 ; 9, 3 ; 18, 5 ; 10. It is important to note that " election through Christ " is thought of in both instances as a " calling from darkness to light. The similarities of thought and expression in chap. 59, make depen- dence here very probable. b— c (6) I Clem. 1 ; 3 I Pt. 1 ; 17 dt:cpoc7co7uo>>T^[j.7CT(Oi; axpoacoTcoXvi^TCTWi; Dependence here is made very probable since this word, which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., appears in a context suggestive of our text, which context also contains another word peculiar First Epistle of Peter. 403 to I Peter, and others common with it but rare in the N. T. Cf. paraUels No. 15-19, 27-30. (7) 1 Clem. 1 ; 3 I Pt. 3 ; 7 •7i[j.Y)v . . . a7:ov£[j.ov':e? a-ov£[j.ovT£c -i[xry 'Arcovep-o) occurs but this one time in the N. T. That Clement uses Ttjr^v as its object in a context suggestive of I Peter can hardly be accidental. (8) I Clem. 2 ; 2, 7 I Pt. 4 ; 19 xyccb'OTzoiiix xyocb'O'Koiia, Professor Carlyle not only notes that this word occurs nowhere else in the N. T., but also that it is found neither in the LXX nor other Greek versions of the O. T. and Apocrypha ; and that appar- ently it does not occur in classical literature. The word is very significant in this connection. (9) I Clem. 2 ; 4 I Pt. 2 ; 17 5 ; 7 This word, which occurs in no other book of the N. T., Carlyle says, " appears in the LXX only in I Mac. 12 ; 10, 17, but in the sense of brotherly affection." He is also unable to find the w^ord in clas- sical literature. (N. T. in A. F. p. 57.) It is also significant that it is found in direct connection with . . . crtJVStBT^o-sto? (tov apiO'[j.ov) Ttov exXsxToiv auTou. Cf. I Pt. 2; 19, 3; 16, 21 and 1 ; 2, 2; 4, 6, 9. (lOj I Clem. 2: 1 I Pt. 5 ; 1 Although this is a favorite Petrine expression it affords, in itself, but httle evidence for or against dependence, since it is also common in the letters of Paul. Yet taken in conjunction with paraEels 8 and 9, and the general tone of the passage with its appeal to their witnessing, the probabilities are greatl}/ increased. Professor Carlyle is justified in not taking into account the last three citations, when viewed separately, but when so many like- nesses, both in diction and thought, occur in such close contextual connection, one is justified in taking into account less striking re- semblances and in giving to all a higher rating. 404 Ora Delnier Foster, (11) I Clem. 16 ; 5, 6 I Pt. 2 ; 24, 25 TO) i>.diXomi ixo'zoo Tj^-sT? ?a&'Y][X£v. o3 TO) [xo)lo)Xi ia9'Y)T£. ^JTS ydcp 6 xavTSi; (5)? 7ip6[3aTa sTClavT^S-rj- (j)^ 7:p6{3a-a 7i>.avw[X£voi, [xsv. Isa. 53 ; 5, 6. (12) I Clem. 16 ; 10 I Pt. 2 ; 22 OTi avop-iav oux stcoiYjCTsv, ouSs 6c a[j.apT:iav oux s7rotY](7£v ouBs £6p£9'Y] ^oXoq £v TO) (TT6[xai:t, au- £6p£9'Yi ^67.0^ Iv TTOjxa-i auTou TOO. Isa. 53; 9. (13) I Clem. 16 ; 14 I Pt. 2 ; 24 xai auTO? a[j-apTia? TzoXko)^ av- o? toc? a[j.apTia$ r^]j.m [6[j.wv] a'j- :^'v£YX£v. Isa. 53; 12. to? avrlvEyxsv Quotations 12—13 show they were not copied directly from I Peter but from the LXX. That these quotations from Isa. 53 follow the LXX rather than our Epistle is no proof that the latter did not suggest their use, especially since Clement did not consider the N. T. writings to be on the same level with the O. T. books. If he were following the thought of I Peter, he would, in that case, still be inclined to refer to the original and in so doing quote at greater length, just as he has done. 16 ; 10 follows I Pt. 2 ; 22 in using zopib-i] '^oXoc, instead of b6}.ov. Though the form used by Clement and our author is found in x c. a.^ Swete rejects it and adopts Bolov instead. The latter reading agrees with the original. (1 "'?! np"]p S'?l.) While this is no proof that Clement was influenced by I Peter it is suggestive. Dependence here is indeed made very probable by the use of the word 'j7:oYpa[j.[j.6c in the immediate context with these quotations. See note on the following parallel. (14) I Clem. 16 ; 17 1 Pt. 2 ; 11 6 6xoYpa[j.[j.6$ 6 B£Bo[j.£voc TjIxTv 6[j,Tv 6TCo7.i[XTCavo)v bTzoypx\x[xw Professor Bacon has rightly noted that very probably Clement dipped his pen into our author's ink-well when he wrote " uTroypajj.- [xoc, of the suffering of Christ". Cf. also 33 ; 8. (Bacon's Intro- duction p. 151.) This word is not found anywhere else in the N. T., and it is indeed significant that St. Peter is mentioned by name in a context where the word is used. Cf. 5 ; 4 and 5 ; 7. This parallel is also strengthened by the occurrence of the word Ta7C£tvo(ppov£0). See Paral. 22. First Epistle of Peter. 405 c (15) I Clem. 1 ; 3 I Ft. 2 ; 13, 17 7]YS[X6(71V (17) TOV paTtXsb Tl- Though Clement does not refer to secular rulers as does our author yet the phraseology is very suggestive in this context. Note that this passage stands between parallels 6 and 7. (16) I Clem. 1 ; 3 I Ft. 5 ; 5 'ZOIC, TrpecpuTspoi?" vsot; . . . l-z-oi- vstoTspoi 67roTaYY)TS 7:ps<7|3t>T£poi? TTSTS (17) I Clem. 1; 3 I Pt. 3 ; 1 Yuvai'fiv Ts £v a[j.o)[j.o) xal (7S[j.v^ Bia t5^c Toiv Y'^^aixcov avaTTpocpv]? xal aYvfj aovoi^'^Vst, xdcvra stti- ocveu "koyoD xspSrjOTjTov-ai -£>.£Tv xapYjYYs^^sT^s, a[j.co[j.O(: is a rare word in the N. T. Cf. I Pt. 1 ; 19. aYvrj (r'jv£t- BrjTEt also finds a similar phrase in (7uv£i,B-/]'(nv ayot.b%v of I Pt. 3 ; 16, 21. (18) I Clem. 1 ; 3 I Pt. 3 ; 1, 6 crT£pY<>t>^ac Kai>r,x6vT0)C tcj? 67:o~a(7(76[j.£voi xoTc iSioi? avSpaiTiv, avBpac la'jToiv (19) I Clem. 1 ; 3 I Pt. 3 ; 6 £v T£ T(o xo«v6vt T-^c u'oxixyr^c 6)c Happa utctIxo'jte tw 'Ajipaapi, bTZ(xpyo6Gixc . . . x'jpiov ocutov xaloticra' When taken separatel3' these references have little value, but in view of the Petrine phrasing and vocabulary, which includes two words not found elsewhere in the N. T. and others which appear but rarely, and the Petrine sequence of thought (cf. parallels 6, 15, 7, 16—19) in Chap. I, the passage suggests that Clement was acquainted with our Epistle. (20) 1 Clem. 7 ; 2, 4 I Pt. 1 ; 18, 19 §10 a::o>i-(oij.£v xac x£va? xai eiSots? oti o-j (pD-ap-oTc, apY'->P"!> [xaxaiac cppov-iBa?, xa\ E>.0'wp<£v ■?) /p'J'^U;), s}.tJi:pwQTjT£ Ix ty;: £TO Tov £•>/.};£•?) xal a-£ij.vov T-^c [xccxccicc^ 6[j.(ov livaTTpocp-^; -oc-rpo- xapaBoTEco? Yj[j.wv xo!.v6yrx, . . . ocxt- TzapaBoTO-j, alloc tiij.u.) aiij.^Tt oj; viTcoij.Ev £1? TO od\).(x -ZOO XpicTiToO (xpoO aij.(oij.o'j xal a'7-i}.o'j XptT- xai Y'^wiJ.Ev bic zaziv -iij.tov Toi tou . . . I 406 Ora Delmer Foster, O-ew Tw TuaTpi auToD, O'^'i Bia tyjv rj[j-£T£pav atoTTjpiav ex/uO-sv T^avxi -w xo(7[JLw [j-STavoiai; /aptv Ixr- vsyxsv " These passages present many points of correspondence of phrase and thought, but the conception of redemption through the blood of Christ is not pecuhar to St. Peter's Epistles in the N. T., and may- well be supposed to have been current among all Christians." Among the " many points of correspondence " Professor Carlyle should have noted that aT[j.aT!, 'i^xoy is peculiar to our Epistle. It is also important to note that Clement alludes, in the immediate context, to the preaching of Noah. Cf. I Clem. 7 ; 6 with I Pt. 3 ; 20. It seems probable, therefore, that this Pauline thought traveled by the way of I Peter. (21) I Clem. 13 ; 1 I Pt. 2 ; 1 . . o3v, d(7:oO-£[j.evoi ;:a(7av . . . dCTCoO-sfJisvoi, o5v xaaav .... Monnier thinks there is a reference here to I Peter. This may be a mere coincidence, and indeed we should so conclude, were it not for the fact that this compound word (a-OTiD'r,[j.i) is not common in the N. T., and that it is used here in a connection resembling that of I Peter. The probabilities are increased in geometrical ratio to the number of times it is used in this way. Cf. I Clem. 30 ; 1 and 57 ; 2. (22) I Clem. 16 ; 1 I Pt. 5 ; 2, 3 TarjstvocppovoyvTwv yap Ittiv 6 7:oi[j.avaT£ ~b |v 6pv 7;oi[j.vtov ~oi> XpiG-TO?, otjx £-aipop.£V(ov lr\ ~b b'too, [j.y] dcwo(.yyf.x(jTM^ aXkcc £xou- zoi[J.viov a-jToO. TO ovv-?)7r-pov cuoc, [xr^l aicr/poxspBoii; aXko: .... oov. rfkb-z'/ £v xo'[j.7:co aXcx^o- T.^ob'UiJxoc, [j.yiB' w? xa-axupisuov-ES v£iac oohz 67r£prjcpavia5, xai:r£p twv xXyj'pojv aW.a t'jt.oi Ytvo[j,£vot Btjva[j.£vo?, ocXka TaTTEivocppovwv tou 7:oi,[j.voo!j* This parallel is significant in this context. not[j.viov is a rare word in the N. T. It is used in all five times, two of which are here. Neither Lk. 12 ; 32 nor Acts 20 ; 28, 29 shows as many points of likeness to I Clement. Acts 20 ; 28, 29 and I Pt. 5 ; 2, 3 have much in common and seem to be related, yet the context with its appeal to the " Suffering Servant " of II Isaiah is more in accord with our author's interpretation of Jesus. Clement uses Ta7r£ivo(ppov£o> (16; 1, 17) in harmony with TaTCEivocppoo-uvYj of I Pt. 5; 5 and TaTOivow of 5 ; 6. As in I Peter those in authority are exhorted not to exalt First Epistle of Peter. 407 themselves over the flock, but to be in a spirit of humility. Signi- ficantly enough, he follows our author's characteristic way of appeal- ing to the example of Christ. 'r-sprjCpavoc of I Pt. 5 ; 5 is also a rare word in the N. T. It appears, therefore, that there is much here to suggest dependence. Cf. also parallels 6, 7, 15—19. (23) I Clem. 30 ; 2 Prov. 8 ; 34 I Pt. 5 ; 5 b'zbc yap, '-prjTtv, u-spTj- Kijpioc 'j-opr/^avo!.; av- 6 b-zbc O-sprjOavo'.; iv- TaxsivoTc Bs SiSojtiv Bs 8i8o)0"iv /apv/. Be BtBtoTtv /apiv. Cf. Xaptv Jas. 4; G. Clement is not following the Hebrew original here, which words the first clause very differently, but the LXX, I Peter or James. He follows the LXX in omitting the article " 6 " with the subject, but agrees with the N. T. writers in changing xtjpio; to O-so;, Re- ference to lusts, adultery and justification by works suggest depen- dence upon James, while the Petrine tone of the exhortation, before and after the quotation, plus the probable reference to I Peter in V. 1, make it more probable that he was influenced here by our Epistle. (24) I Clem. 61 ; 3 I Pt. 2 ; 25 apy(i,sps(»5 xol TcpocTrdcTOD twv 6'j- "oipiva xai £7rioy.o~ov Toiv ouy^wv This parallel is close both in thought and form of expression. The balancing of ap/ipsoj; with 7:poo":a'70L), corresponds exactly with 7:oi[X£va and sxiTxoTtov, while both are followed by the possessive genetive ']>^»/cov. (25) I Clem. 64 ; 1 I Pt. 5 ; 10 6 Exls^aixevoc . . . Y][j.ac St' au-oti 6 -iK.oO^icy.c . . . h XpiTTw The membrans of the parallel are introduced by " 6 " with an aorist participle of antecedent action. This identical construction of synonymous participles being followed by a phrase expressing Christ as means or agent is indeed suggestive. (26) I Clem. 64 ; 2 I Pt. 2 ; 10 SIC y^aov TTspiojjaiov . . . ap/top£(oc jja-rDsSiov ispaTS'jij.a . . . }.ao; si; T^SptTTOlYlTlV The " royal priesthood " of believers would very naturally suggest that Christ himself was the great " high priest." 408 Ora Delmer Foster, d (27) I Clem. 1 ; 1 I Pt. 1 ; 2, 2 ; 4, 6, 9 Iv.'kzv.'xoic, ixXsxToc This word appears four times in I Peter and but six times in all the Pauline literature. (28) I Clem. 1; 2 I Pt. 1; 1, 2; 11 This word is found in the N. T. only in Heb. 11 ; 13 and the two places noted above. (29) I Clem. 1 ; 2 I Pt. 2 ; 18 iTUStXY]' S7ieix£(7tV A rare word in the N. T. (30) I Clem. 1 ; 2 I Pt. 4 ; 9 The form of the word used by Clement occurs in the N. T. only in Rom. 12 ; 13 and Heb. 13 ; 2. Though the form of the word which our author employed is slightly different the context is much more suggestive of his Epistle. Cf. parallels 6, 15, 7, 16—19, 27—30. (31) I Clem. 7; 6 I Pt. 3; 20 N(0£ IxTjpuSsv [j.£Tavoiav, xai ot ... Nois xaTacrx£L»a^o[j.£vrj? ya(3oj- 67caxou(javT£? £(7o)0""/]O'av Toti £?? Yjv oTlyoi, tout £a"~iv 6x- This parallel should be considered in the light of No. 20. (82) I Clem. 21 ; 6 1 Pt, 1 ; 19 oO (XptcToD) TO al[j,a uxkp r^jj-wv zkuT^Mbr^xt . . . Tipo) al[j.aTi . . . IBo'S^Y) XptTTOO This thought is common in the N. T. (33) I Clem. 21 ; 6 I Pt. 2 ; 13 TOLx; xpo7]YOU[jivou<; y][xwv odbza- b^ozdyrizt Tracrfi avQ^pcomv/] XTt(7£t Q'WJXEV . . . £tT£ ^(KCiXtX . . . £tT£ Y]Y£[Xo'(7!.V The general tone is Petrine, but the rulers to which Clement alludes are Ecclesiastical and not Political as in I Peter. First Epistle of Peter. 409 (34) I Clem. 21 ; 6 I Pt. 5 ; 5 Tou? TvpsapyTspciu? yi[j.wv TipjO-wfjxv, vctoTcpot, 67:oTaYrjT£ 7:peo-[3uT£potc This is quite suggestive of our Epistle. (35) 1 Clem. 21 ; 6 I Pt. 3 ; 1 f . Tocc ^(wm:Ay.c y][j.cov s-i to ayaO-ov ■^u'^oixy.tc^ •j-OTaTG-o'iJ.svat BiopS'toawjj.sO^a The thought is in accord but the phrasing is different. (36) I Clem. 21 ; 7 I Pt. 3 ; 2 TO a£i(XYa7Tr]T0v t-^c ayveia? rjO-o? e~07:T£y'i7avT£? T-r;./ Iv cpo(3o) ayvviv £vB£t'£a£[X£voi y-ccucckcckiccc, The thought in the contexts of these references is also much the same. (41) I Clem. 36 ; 2 I Pt. 2 ; 9 SIC TO Q-aufj-aaxciv auTOu owe dc, to O-aujxao-Tov aaToO cpoii; This verbatim agreement is indeed suggestive, but the context is thoroughly Pauline. Order of Parallels. I Clement I Peter I Clement [ Petei Int. = 1 1 16 14 = 2 24 = 1 2 16 17 = 2 11 1 , 1 = 1 2, 2 ; 4, 6, 9 21 6 = 1 19 1 , 2 = 1 1, 2 ; 11 21 6 = 2 13 1 2=2 18 21 6 = 5 5 1 3 = 1 17 21 6 = 5 5 1 3=2 13, 17 21 6 = 3 If. 1 3 = 3 , 7 21 7 = 3 2 1 3=5 5 21 7 = 3 lb 1 3=3 1 21 8 = 5 5 1 3=3 1, 6 22 2 = 3 10 1 3=3 6 30 1 = 1 15, 2 2 1 = 1 11, 4 ; 13, 5 ; 1, 9 30 1 = 2 1 2 2. 7 = 4 19 30 2 = 5 5 2 4=2 17, 5 ; 7 36 2 = 2 9 7 2, 4 = 1 18, 19 49 5 = 4 8 7 6=3 20 59 ; 2 = 2 9 13 1 = 2 1 61 ,3 = 2 25 16 1 = 5 2, 3 64 ; 1 = 5 10 16 5, 6 = 2 24, 25 64 ; 2 = 2 , 9 16 , 10 = 2 ; 22 First Epistle of Peter. 411 Conclusion. The foregoing study has shown that Clement has used words which are peculiar to our Epistle in most significant connections, as well as O. T. quotations common with our Epistle in unmistakably Petrine contexts. Of course no one can, at the conclusion of a dis- cussion of this nature, place his Q. E. D., but if Professor Sanday is correct in saying " the occurence of the same ideas in the same order must be accepted as conclusive evidence " (I. C. C. on Rom. p. Ixxvi), we have shown that I Clement is dependent on I Peter. Monnier contends that " Clement connait I'epitre. II ne la cite pas expresse- ment : il I'utilise." (Com. p. 307.) Knopf reaches a similar con- clusion : "In Rom. wird noch vor der Jahrhundertwende I. Petri wahrscheinlich von I. Clem, benutzt." . . . (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter p. 34.) Part II.— CANONICAL BOOKS GALATIANS B b— c I Ft. 1 ; 23—25 Gal. 4 ; 4—7, 28—31 Professor Bacon (Com. on Gal. p. 8, 75, 93) notes a close parallel, in the doctrine of the new birth from " spiritual seed," in the above references. In his letter to the Romans (4 ; 19—21, 9 ; 7—9), Paul " reckons the children of the promise for a seed," 9 ; 9. They become sons through adoption, Gal. 4 ; 5, (Rom. 8 ; 15, 23, 9 ; 4, Eph. 1 ; 5). While the idea is the same in our Epistle, our author, in accord with later writers (Jn. 1 ; 13, 3 ; 5, Jas. 1 ; 18, I Jn. 3 ; 9) used the figure as a " new birth " instead of an " adoption." There seems to be evidence here not only of borrowing but also of a later stratum of thought. I Pt. 2 ; 16 Gal. 5 ; 13 Mc, i'ktub'zpoi, Ttoi [XY] oic, sTctxdcX- 'jp-sT? yap £-' ilzob-zpicc IxT^yJO-TiTS 'h)^\).x lypy'^zc —qc, xcodcc^ ty]v l\- aBs^cpoi* [j.ovov [j.y] tyiv slsuO-spiav suQ-spiav a^X" w? Bsoti BoOlot dc, aoopij.TjV tt?) rrapxt, oOJ.cc Bta ■zylc, aydcTTr]^ BosjIsuts aWvTjXotc The likeness here is striking. In both cases a reference to the defeat of persecutors precedes. The freedmen are exhorted alike Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 28 January, 1913. 412 Or a Delmer Foster, not to use their liberty as license but (notice the antithesis uXkoC) to use it as becometh true servants. I Cor. 7 ; 22 is a close parallel. TheBoOT^Oi; Xpta-ToD or Bou>.o? too Hsou is a common Paulinism, but on the whole certainly no reference can outdo Gal. 5 ; 13, as the probable source of I Pt. 2 ; 16. Cf. Hort's " First Epistle of St. Peter." p. 146. (3) I Pt. 2 ; 24 Gal. 3 ; 13 6c Tocr a[j.apTiac; yi[j.wv at>-6c av- XpicTo? Ti[->-0(.c. s^Tiyopacev sx xt^(; rlvsyxsv sv tw avTov xai aixapavTOv, TSTYjpYi^svrjv Bia Xpi,G-:o!j 3; 18 xXY]povo[J.ta £v o'jpavoTc £ic 'j^xac In Gal. 3 ; 18, Rom. 4 ; 13 f., (Heb. 6 ; 12,) the promise of the "inheritance" is already fulfilled. In Gal. 4 ; 7 (Rom. 8 ; 161), as in I Peter, the " inheritance " is present, "being inseparable from sonship." (Hort " Ep. of St. Peter," p. 35). The idea is too common in the N. T., and the context too dubious to be sure of dependence, yet the parallel I Pt. 3 ; 6 = Gal. 4 ; 26 makes it quite probable. (5) I Pt. 1 ; 5 Gal. 3 ; 23 TO'JC £v Buva[j,£t 0£O!j cppoupoi;[j.£- 7:p6 ~o\j Bk IT^O'eTv ttjv TuiaTiv, 67:6- voui; Bia zifj'zoic, dc (jcoTYipiav v6[j.ov £opotjpo!J[X£Q'a, <7uyx£x>.sio-[X£- iToi\vfiv a7coxa>.'jo&^-^va!, Iv xaipw voi dc tTjV ixilloofjcc^ mcTtv (xto- so-ydcTw xaX'jcp6v]vai This parallel is very important. Paul said, " before faith they were kept under the law," I Peter then notes " they were kept through faith," whereas both have in view the " future revelation." This First Epistle of Peter. 413 doctrine of the believer's security is common in the Fourt:h Gospel (Jn. 10 ; 28, 29, 17 ; 11, 12, 15), as well as in the Pauline Literature, but nowhere is the likeness so close in both members, i. e., the ideas of " the behever's security " and of " the future revelation." (6) I Pt. 1; 18 Gal. 3; 13 ou cp8>ap'L&T? . , . IXuTpoiO-rj-rs iv. Xpiaro^ rj[j,ai; s^Tiyopao-sv Iy. tyj? 'Vfic, [xaTaia? ujjiaiv avaa-pocp-^S rca- xaTdcpa^ to3 v6[jlo!j TpoTcapaBoTou As has been noted elsewhere this is a weakened form of Paulinism. 0) I Pt. 2 ; 11 Gal. 5 ; 17 hzt/zcib-ixi Tcov crapxixwv sTrtQ'U- •/] yap Tap':; smS-ujj.eT xa^a TotJ [j.tfi)v, aiTivs? CTpairsuovTai xaxa xveu[j.aTo?, to Bs 7:v£!j[j.a xaira tJji; TT^i; ^J^u/t;? aap/,6i;- raU-ra Bs avTixciTai a}.>.r|- The internal warfare, of which St. Paul so frequently speaks, is here alluded to. Jas. 4 ; 1 likewise refers to it, but this later writer, of course, cannot have suggested it to either of these earlier authors. It is difficult to determine whether our author is following Rom. 7 ; 23 or Gal. 5 ; 13. The parallels I Pt. 2 ; 16 = Gal. 5 ; 13 and I Pt. 4 ; 3 ^ Gal. 5 ; 21, however, seem to make it more probable that he is influenced by Galatians at this point. d (8) I Pt. 3 ; 6 Gal. 4 ; 26 oic, Sappa ... % £Y£VY]8-/]'!r£ tex- "/j Bh; avo) '\z^o\j(jcCkr\\i. IXz'jb-ipoc va . . IcTtv, riziq iG~\ [J.v]''i:v]p Tcaviwv Holtzmann calls attention to this similarity of thought. (Einl. p. 314.) Though there is nothing striking in the phrases, the like- ness is worthy of consideration in view of the parallel to which Professor Bacon alludes, i. e., I Pt. 1 : 23-25 = Gal. 4 ; 4-7, 28-31. (9) I Pt. 4 , 3 Gal. 5 ; 20, 21 TO b-zkfiii.cc Toiv lO'Vcov xaTspyacr- . . toc zpyx ■zr^c, -japzo? . . . ocuzk- aa8>ai, 7i£TCop£U[j.£vou? £v ocnzy^yziccii;, yzicc^ £iB(o7.oXaTp£ia, oap[xax£ta, 414 Or a Delmer Foster, iTciQ'itpai?, oSvocpluyiat?, xoj[j.ot?, ^'/p'pM Ipziq, ZylXoi, Q>ujjLot, spiO-sTat, pziccic [xsB-ai, xw[xoi . . . Holtzmann thinks the similarity may show dependence, (Einl. p. 314,) yet there seems to be nothing to commend it over and above Eph. 2 ; 2, 3, 4 ; 17, I Thes. 4 ; 5, Tit. 3 ; 3, Rom. 13 ; 13, I Cor. 6 ; 9, Eph. 5 ; 5, etc. Although the parallels are not numerous, and there are no words found only in these two Epistles, the combined evidence of those examples classed as " b — c " and " c" make it quite probable that there is here a literary dependence. Scholars are almost unanimous, of course, in giving to " Galatians " the priority. Bigg, however, thinks " if a writer calling himself Peter had read Galatians he would have made distinct allusion to the second chapter." The fact that no such allusion is to be found in I Peter may be regarded as a strong indirect argument in favor of its authenticity." Now our interest here is not whether the Epistle is authentic or not, but we are inter- ested in the relative positions of these two Writings. Does it not seem, though, that the silence would be quite as natural for one " caUing himself Peter" as for Peter himself? Certainly Peter would have chafed at such scathing allusions, while a later writer would not feel the sting of the thrust at Peter. Furthermore the letter comes, more probably, from a later period of mediation, though not so late as the Tiibingen School would contend. To say " the author's silence, if writing before Galations, is natural " is almost naive. The circumstances under which the letter was written and the conditions revealed in it make it impossible to suppose it to have been written at such an early period. I THESSALONIANS D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 13 I Thes. 5 ; 6 vYjcpovTs?, ■zzkzioK D^TTicaTs . . YpY]Yop5>[j.sv xai vr;cpo)[j.£v. Cf . 5 ; 8. A closer parallel is to be found in Rom. 13 ; 11 — 13. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 14 I Thes. 4 ; 5 First Epistle of Peter. 415 Cf. I Cor. 15 ; 34, Gal. 4 ; 8, Eph. 2 ; 12, 4 ; 18, 22, II Thes. 1 ; 8. See also Romans Ex. 9 (i. e., I Pt. 1 ; 14 = Rom. 12 ; 2), which more probably sustains some relation to this verse. (3) I Pt. 1 ; 15 I Thes. 4 ; 7 a}.}.a xaTOc tov xaT^scravTct ujxa? o'j yap s/.axecrsv f,[J.ac 6 ©so? Im aytov xai a'jTOi aytoi, sv Tracrrj axaO'apTia a/.}' sv ayiaTiJ.oi avaTTpoor, y£v/)Q>T,T£ The thought and wording are close, yet not such as to make depen- dence here more probable than in Rom. 11 ; 2. See Rom. Ex. 10. (4) I Pt. 1 ; 22 I Thes. 4 ; 9 ofXkr^'k'Jix; !xyax-f,G-aT£ sxtsvw? i)\i.zXc O-soBiBaxTOi i>7~t zlc to aya- Cf. Rom. 12 ; 9, 10, or Ex. 13. (5) I Pt. 2 ; 17 I Thes. 4 ; 9 Tr,v ocbtloi-r^-ix ayaTcaTS Tcspi tyJ? (fikfi^zk^^ixc, . . . !j[j.£T? O-so- BiBaxTOi £C7T£ £1? TO aya~av aTvT^v]- >vOU? Cf. Rom. 12 ; 10 a, or Ex. 44. (6) I Pt. 3 ; 9 I Thes. 5 ; 15 aYj a7:oBiB6vT£? xaxov avTi xaxoS [j.y] ti? xaxov avTi xaxoD tivi axoBco See Rom. 12 ; 17 for an exact parallel, which is also in a better context. (7) I Pt. 4 ; 7 I Thes. 5 ; 6 ao)(ppovra-aT£ o3v xai vr/l»aT£ £?$ ypY,yopw[j.£v xcci vr,(pco[j.£v 7cpo(7£a/^ac In I Pt. 4 ; 7 b the exhortation is given in view of the imminent judgment (4 ; 7 a) likewise in I Thes. 5 ; 6, they are exhorted to watchfulness that they may be ready for the sudden coming of the Lord (5 ; 1—4). I Thes. 5 ; 5 seems to interrupt this thought and make the exhortation an appeal for consistent action on the part of the "children of light. " Cf. Col. 4 ; 2, Mt. 26 ; 41, Lk. 21 ; 34. (8) I Pt. 4; 15 I Thes. 4; 11 [[J.Y] Ti; 'J[J.WV Traa/STO)] 6)C . . . 7tpa'7<7£tV TOC T^IOC a}.Xo':pi£7:iaxo7:oc The background here is very different. 416 Ora Delmer Foster, (9) I Pt. 5; 8 I Thes. 5 ; 6 vrj^jjaTTS, YpTiYopTcraTs Yp7]Yopa)[xsv xai v7]'jio)[X£v This parallel is very suggestive, yet is probably accidental. Cf. Examples 1 and 7. (10) I Pt. 5 ; 9 I Thes. 3 ; 2, 3 w avTiaTrrjTs CTTSpsoi -r^ tJ.(i-zi TrapaxaXsaat 6[j.a5 Tuepl rrric, tci}.' MC HoOJ 6 Dx'JQ-spo? yJ.r^Osic, Botiy.o; sg-ti Bou>.oi XptTTOD No other N. T. passage reproduces this thought so closely, except Gal. 5 ; 13. The probabilities of dependence here are increased by the possible echo of I Cor. 7 ; 23 in I Pt. 1 ; 18. 418 Or a Delmer Foster, (4) I Pt. 5; 3 I Cor. 3; 9a [j.-r]B' cot; xaTaxupisuovTs? twv i(7[xzv Tuvepyoi * BsoD yzoypyio"^. xXvjpfov This parallel becomes more significant when taken in connection with ^zoo oly^o^o^x-f] laxt of I Cor. 3 ; 9b. Cf. also I Pt. 2 ; 5 = I Cor. 3 ; 16. (5) I Pt. 5 ; 4 I Cor. 9 ; 25 )tO[JLi£T(r8>s Tov a[i.apavTt,vov t^? hoc (^b-oL^-b^^ TTscpavov }.a[joj(nv, Bo^Yj? o-Tscpavov vi[J.£T? Bs acpB-ap-ov This figure may have been borrowed from I Cor. 9 ; 25. In nei- ther of the other parallels (II Tim. 4 ; 8 and Jas. 1 ; 12) is the imper- ishable nature of the crown mentioned. Since I Peter cannot depend upon James, and the connection with II Timothy is very dubious the dependence of our Epistle upon I Corinthians is all the more probable at this point. d (6) I Pt. 1 ; 7 I Cor. 3 ; 13 Boxipov 6^wv mG-zoK . . . Bia tcu- sxaaTou to Ipyov . . . ot'. sv Tiupl p6? Bs Boxt^a^o[j.£vou . . aTcoxaT^UTCTSTar xal sxaTTou zb spyov bizoioy s(7T!, TO TCtip 5c»xt[;.a(jei A closer duplicate is found in Jas. 1 ; 2, 3, though the figure here is much the same. Although the background is very different in these Epistles, I Cor. 3 ; 13 may have suggested the figure to our author. (7; I Pt. 1 ; 18 I Cor. 6 ; 20, 7 ; 23 ou cpQ-apToT? . . . £>>uTpc6&-rjT£ Ix 6 ; 20 Yiyopao-8^Y)T£ yap ti[x^? 7 ; 23 TY]? [xaTaiac 6[J.wv avacTTpocpYji; . . . ti^j-Tj? Yiyopaa&YiTE c/Xkoi. Ti[j.iw at[jiaTi . . . The idea is Pauline, though the deliverance from a vain manner of life is a mild statement as compared with Gal. 3 ; 13. Ti[j.y]? and ai[j.aTi seem to refer to the same thing. (8) I Pt. 1 ; 21 I Cor. 15 : 14 Tov £y£ipavTa a^Tov Ix v£xpcov . . zl Vz XptcrTOi; oux lyYjyspTat, [x£- wo-T£ TYjv ;ri(7Ti,v 6^wv xai IXwBa vov apa to x-iqpuy[j.a "?i[j.wv] X£V?) filvat zic, (")£6v Be xa\ ■/] maTti; 6[j.wv. Cf. 13 ; 13. The parallel is suggestive, but not so close as in Romans. Cf. I Pt. 1 ; 21 = Rom. 4 ; 24. First Epistle of Peter. 419 (9) IPt. 2;5 ICor. 3;16 :wsujj,aTtxoc Toii Osoti oixsT Iv 6pv The figure of a spiritual temple is common with Paul. Eph. 2 ; 20-22 very probably suggested this figure to our author. See the discussion loco citato. (10) IPt. 2; 15 ICor. 15; 34 apodtav ayvoTtav Although this word appears only in these two places in the N. T., it is a mere coincidence here. It seems to be the only word which is found in these two Epistles only. (11) I Pt. 3 ; 1 I Cor. 14 ; 34 yuvaTxsc 6-o-:a'7'76[j.£va!, toT? iBioic jjy(/xY.z(; 6[j.6iv . . . oOXy. -j-OTOcd- avBpacriv o-EcrQ-at A closer parallel is found in Eph. 5 ; 22. Cf. also 5 ; 33. (12) I Pfc. 3 ; lb I Cor. 7 ; 14 I'va £1 Ttv£5 aOTiS-ouTtv t6> Xo-^m YjYia(7Tai y^p ^ ^'^'^^i^ 6 a7:i7T0? Iv Bta TTj? Twv yuvaixwv avacTpocp^ ttj Yuvai/i av£u "koyo'^ x£pBYjO"/iG-ovTai This similarity of thought is probably due to accident. '13) I Pt. 3 ; 9 I Cor. 4 ; 12 \}:r, a-oBiB6vT£c xaxov avTt x:xxoij AoiBopo'j[j.£vo!, £'jXoyo!J[j.£v • Sw.>x6- ■?) >>o!,Bopiav avTi loiBopia? tojv- [xsvot av£/6[j.£!>a [jXa'7cpr|[j.o'J[j.£vot (xvTiov Be E'jAoyotJVTEc ;:apaxaAoD[j.Ev Though the thought is the same, a closer parallel is to be found in Rom. 12 ; 17, 14 ; the first clause of which is in verbal agreement. See the discussion on this passage in Romans. (14) I Pt. 3 ; 18 I Cor. 15 ; 3 XpiTToc a>roc'£ TCEpi ajj.apTioiy axs- XpiTTo? a-sD'avsv Ozsp tcov a[j,ap- O'avEv [£7:a&'Ev] -rtwv Tjfxwv The thought and phrasing are close, but too common to base any argument upon them. Cf. Rom. 5; 6, 8, 10, 11, Heb. 9; 28, etc. 420 Ora Delmer Foster, (15) I Pt. 3 ; 22 I Cor. 15 ; 25 uTiOTaYEVTwv auTw ayysXcov xai xai:apYY]V|] Tzaaav ocpyjiv xai Ttacrav The agreement is obvious, but the frequency with which this thought occurs in the Pauhne Literature makes it almost implossible to determine which Epistle may have suggested it to our author. The probabilities, however, are in favor of Romans (8 ; 38) and Ephesians (1 ; 21, 22). Cf. also Col. 2 ; 10, 1 ; 16. (16) I Pt. 4; 10a I Cor. 12; 5 sxacTOC xaQ-tbc zkcc^z'j yapiajxa Btatpsffsi? Btaxovicov siti See Rom. 12 ; 6 for closer parallel. I Pt. 4 ; 10 b I Cor. 4 ; 1 Thoroughly Pauline but not conclusive. (17) I Pt. 4; 12 I Cor. 3; 18 ':ri iv u[j.Tv ^upioTsi TTpoc 7csipa(T[j.6v sxaaTOu to epyov b^oiov stti to 'jjjlv Yivopivri xup Boxtjxacet Paul here refers to the testing of the Judgment, of which our author thought the present persecutions were the immediate precur- sors. Cf. I Pt. 4 ; 7. Though the conditions under which they wrote were very different, the figure used by Paul would be picked up most appropriately during the trying ordeal. (18) I Pt. 5 ; 10 I Cor. 1 ; 9 6 Bs (^soc T^aoT)? Xapixoc, 6 xxA- t.igzoc 6 ©eoc, Bt,' oo £x}.7]8'Y]T£ zGocc, 6[JLa? zlc TYiv aioivtov auToD elq xoivoiviav toQ oloo auToO Bo^av sv XpiaTo) TyitoO Xpio-ToU This close parallel finds similar thought in I Tim. 6 ; 12, but is quite suggestive of dependence here. (19) I Pt. 5 ; 12 I Cor. 4 ; 17 Sia —ikoucc'voij 6[jIv tou tcictou l%e\K'\>cc upv Tt[;.6&'£0v . . . tcicttov aSeAooti . . , sypa^a sv Kupwo (20) I Pt. 5 ; 12 I Cor. 15 ; 1 /apiv Tou ©SOU" dc TjV ct-^te to eiayysliov . . . ^) e(7T7]xaT£ First Epistle of Peter. 421 (21) I Pt. 5 ; 13 I Cor. 16 ; 19 'AT-a^ETai, 'jixa? yj . . . aT-a^CovTai Oij.a; at £ywx},Yi(7iai . . . (22) I Pt. 5; 14 I Cor. 16; 20 'A'77ra'7a(jO£ aX}.Yi'loDC Iv cpO.r'ij.a-ri aT-ao-aTQc a},7,T^7>o'j; sv oO.r/j.aTi The last four parallels may be duplicated in most any of the Pau- line Epistles. The foregoing studj^ shows the difficulty in ascertaining the exact relationship between these two Epistles. The combined evidence of a score or more of possible points of contact, and especially of those classed " c — d ", make dependence somewhat probable. No one instance requires this conclusion, nor do they all necessarily prove it since much of the thought is to be duplicated in Romans and Ephesians, with which dependence is far more probable. Hence we can do no more than assign to I Corinthians a low degree of probability. II CORINTHIANS C— D c— This parallel is made more significant by the possible relation of 4 ; 1 to II Cor. 5 ; 15. Yet the doctrine is common. Cf. Acts 17 ; 31, Rom. 4 ; 10, 12 ; 1, I Cor. 15 ; 51, 52, Jas. 5 ; 9, Acts 10 ; 42 and II Tim. 4 ; 1, the last two of which are closer to I Pt. 4 ; 5 than to II Cor. 5 ; 10. 422 Ora Delmer Foster, (3) I Pt. 5 ; 3 II Cor. 1 ; 24 [X7)B' OK xaTax'jpisuovTsc Tcov yXr\- ouy oti xupi£UO[j.sv 6[j.cov tv]? xic- II Cor. 1 ; 24 is a closer parallel to 5 ; 3 than is to be found else- where in the N. T. Dependence is somewhat probable, though not certain since the context is neutral. d (4) I Pt. 1 ; 3 II Cor. 1 ; 3 K?)'koyy]'zb(; 6 ©so? xai TraTrvjp tgO Ko'koyri'cb(; 6 QtoQ xal 7:a-bY]p tolJ Kupiou 7]p.(ov 'IyjctoO XpidTToO Kupiou 7][j,wv 'Iyj<7C/u XpiaxoO Holtzmann calls attention to this parallel (Einl. p. 314), but as we have seen the dependence is much more likely upon Eph. 1 ; 3. See discussion on I Pt. 1 ; 3 ^ Eph. 1 ; 3. (5) I Pt. 1 ; 3 II Cor. 1 ; 3 xaira to %o\ii auToO iXzo^ 6 TraTYjp twv olxTip[j.o)V Again the thought is not as close as in Ephesians. (6) I Pt. 1 ; 8 II Cor. 5 ; 7 zl(; 6v ap-Ti |xy] 6pwv'ir£(; mcTsuovTs? Bia mairscoc yap Tispt-aToujjLsv 0!> Bia siBo'j? This thought is too common and the context too different to claim dependence. Cf. Jn. 20 ; 29, Rom. 8 ; 24, 25, I Cor. 13 ; 12, Heb. 1 ; 1, 27, I Jn. 4 ; 20. (7) I Pt. 1 ; 21 II Cor. 6 ; 6 (pi>.aBs}.(piav avLiTCOxptxov aya^r) avuTTOxpiTco Although there is a parallel in I Pt. 2 ; 4 and II Cor. 6 ; 16, there is nothing to indicate dependence at this point. Cf. discussions on I Pt. 1 ; 2 = Eph. 1 ; 20 and I Pt. 2 ; 5 = I Cor. 3 ; 16. (8) I Pt. 2 ; 1 II Cor. 12 ; 20 xKTaXaXia xaTa};a>.ia This word occurs only in these two places in all the N. T., yet the context is not such as to lead one to infer dependence at this point. (9) I Pt. 4; 10 II Cor. 10; 13 exacToc xaO-wc zXa^z^ y_api(j[j.a xa^a to [j-STpov toO y.cc'^o'^oc o5 £[j.£ptcr£v Y^pv 6 (-)z6c, Our Epistle finds a closer parallel at this point in Rom. 12 ; 6, I Cor. 12 ; 4, 5 and Eph. 4 ; 7. First Epistle of Peter. 423 (10) I Pt. 4; 11 It Cor. 9; 10 The usage of this word, which occurs only here in the N. T., seems to be independent. (11) I Pt. 4 ; 13 II Cor. 1 ; 7 TraOrjij.ao'iv ycdpt'zz . . . /aprjTs Toiv, outw xal tt,? TuapaxXTjO'so); The tliought is the same, yet Rom. 8 ; 17, 18 more probabty sug- gested this to our author. (12) I Pt. 4 ; 14 II Cor. 12 ; 10 si byzihiZzab'Z sv ovojxaT!, XptcTTOtJ, suSoxw ev aaO-svsiatc . . . 6~£p [xaxapioi XpiaToti The phrase sv ovojxaTi XpKTTOu occurs now here else in the N. T. Persecution caused by confessing the name of Christ is specific. The passage in I Corinthians shows Paul's willingness to pay the price, that he might be " strong in Christ." The evidence for depen- dence here is slight. (13) I Pt. 5 ; 10 II Cor. 4 ; 17 6 xalsaa? b^oic, dc, ty]v aioiviov to TcapauTixa £>.a(ppov tyj; QOi'iiso); a^ToO Bo^av sv Xptcnrto oliyov Yjp.(ov xaO-' 67C£p[jolY]v £?c uTwsp- 7ca8>6vTac wjxoc, xaTap-cCcrsi . . . [3oXyiv aicovtov [Bapoi; Bo^y)? xaTsp- Ya^£'X'ai v]|jIv The joyful optimism during suffering is noticeable in both cases. Paul was an " apostle of hope " quite as much as our author, and no doubt was a great inspiration to him. Dependence however can not be asserted here. The concluding greeting (I Pt. 5 ; 13 = II Cor. 13 ; 13 and I Pt. 5 ; 14 = II Cor. 13 ; 12) has no more to commend it here than in the other Pauline Epistles. The possible points of contact between these two Epistles are not such as to warrant any confidence in the probability of dependence. What may be termed real evidence is limited to the parallels classed " c — d ". Even these do not show more than a low degree of pro- bability. 424 Ora Delmer Foster, HOMANS A* a*^ — b (1) I Pt. I ; 20 Eom. 16 ; 25 xpo£YV(OG-[j.£vo!j [J.SV xpo xaTajjo).'?]'? xaTcic a;upoxa>.utj>tv [j.u(7T7]piou /^p6- x6o"[j.o'j, 'pavspcoQ'svTOi; Bs Itc s^j/^oc- voi? aitovtoic 0"£(ji,YYHi.£votj, cpavspw- TOU T(OV ypOVCOV O'EVTOC B£ vuv The significance of this parallel has been noted by many scholars. Professor Sanday (Com. on Rom. p. 434) makes the following comment on the passage in Romans ; " This is the thought which underlies much of the argument of chapters 9—11, and is directly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents in fact the conclusion which the Apostle had arrived at in musing over the difficulties which the problems of human history, as he knew them, had suggested. God is working out a purpose in the world. For ages it was a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed ; and this revelation ex- plains the meaning of God's working in the past." That I Peter here alludes to the Pauline idea of the p<7rr^p!,ov is very probable. It is wholly in accord with the non-speculative nature of the author, as well as in harmony with his characteristic trait of expressing in a simple phrase or clause the equivalent of the more elaborate reasoning of Paul. This brevity has led B. Weiss to advocate the dependence of Paul. Yet Professor Sanday follows the general consensus of scholastic opinion in contending for the originality of Paul. That the above reference occurs in connection with the Pauline doctrine of the preexistence of Christ is very important to note. (2) I Pt. 2 ; 6 Eom. 9 ; 33 (3) ■ I Pt. 2; 6b Rom. 9; 33b 6 7:tG'T£'J(ov It: auToi oh [xyj xa- 6 7:i,g"~£'J(ov It: auTw oh xaira- (4) I Pt. 2 ; 8 Eom. 9 ; 33 a Ti^oc, 'K^OG%6]}j^rx':oc xai TisTpa Xib-ov 7:poax6p.p.aTO? xai 7C£i:pav (TxavBalou (T/. Xpi-TTOu 7:aOT|- £i7;£p o-Ufj-xacr/opLEv, iva xai t'jv- [j.dcTcov, 6 xai -zriz \).0(Xko6Tr,c a-o- Bo'^aiS-wjj.sv . . . (19) tTjV ij.e}.Xo'j- xaT-UTC-saO-ai Bo^-r)? xoivtovoi; lav Bo'^av aTCoxalucpO-rjvat £i$ Yjjxac These last two parallels belong together. Weiss (Lehrbegriff p. 423) thinks there is here a clear case of Paul's dependence upon I Peter. Chase (H. B. D., III. p. 788) on the other hand thinks the dependence of I Peter is obvious. Practically all scholars are agreed that there is here a clear case of dependence. The pri- ority must be given to Paul, as will appear later. b (9) I Pt. 1 ; 14 Rom. 12 ; 2 [JLY] (7uvo'/_Y]p.aTi^6[j.£voi TaT? TipoTEpov [jiYj c-'jvc/jjij.aTi^EG-B'E ~oi aioivt £V T7] ocYvoia 6[j.o)v £7;t,u'U[jiai; toutw I]uv<7)(Y][j.aTi^op.at, is found only in these two passages in all the N. T. Nor is the word used by the LXX. Our Epistle has an amplification of the simpler form found in Romans. This parallel receives added significance when placed alongside of I Pt. 2 ; 5 = Rom. 12 ; 1. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann's Einleitung p. 314. (10) I Pt. 1 ; 15 Rom. 12 ; 2 (xXkoc .... auTOi ocyioi Iv -ao-r, ocWoc [xEirajJiopcpotio'D-E ty] avaxaivto- avacrirpocp"^ YevtjQ^yjte tyzi Toti vob^ The antithesis here is an important parallel construction, while the thought is equally striking. This and the foregoing example make a strong case for dependence. (11) I Pt. 1; 17 Rom. 2; 11, G Tov a7:poG"0):to}srj[j.7:Toj5 xpivovra oo ydrj srr'i 7:po<7W7ro}.Y]']>ta 7:apa xa^a TO sxaTTOu spyov tw (-^sw 2 ; 6 6c aTCoBoi^Et fxaTTO) xaTa -y. Ipya a'jTo3 This is a common N. T. parallel, but it is closer here than in James 2 ; 1 or Acts 10 ; 34. Our Epistle clearly refers to God's Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 29 January, 1913. 428 Ora Delmer Foster, impartiality in the judgment in harmony with Rom. 2 ; 11. Cf. also 2 ; 6. A similar sentiment is expressed in Eph. 6 ; 9, and Col. 3 ; 25. That this is a closer parallel than in the " speech of Peter " is very significant.^ — We have seen another probable point of contact in this context of Romans, (i. e., IPt. 1 ; 7 = Rom. 2 ; 10,) thereby justifying us in putting this parallel in class " b ". (12) I Pt. 1 ; 21 Eom. 4 ; 24 sysipavTa auTov sx vsxpcov ^Iriaow tov Kupiov y][j.(ov ex vsxpwv That God raised up Jesus from the dead, was a common beUef, but that He did it to beget belief in Himself, hence be efficacious for salvation, is peculiar to these authors. Monnier says " La resurrection de J. C. est constamment rapportee a un acte de Dieu, a qui revient, en derniere analyse, la premiere initiative et la puis- sance supreme dans I'oeuvre de salut . . ." Both the thought and phrasing are very close. (13) I Pt. 1 ; 22 Rom. 12 ; 9, 10 Toc? '\>^'loi.c, b[Xi~)v YjyvixoTS? sv TY] Y] ayaTCY) avuTuoxpiToc. dcTioaTu- uTcaxo^ TYJ? aXr|0-£ia? dc (^iXoiZt}.- yoOvTec to TtOVYjpov, Y,o\'ko>[s.ev'Ji oiccv avj-oxpiTOv sx xapBia? aX- Toi ayaS-w, ty, cptXaBslcpia zh a).- T^TjXouc ayazTj(7(XT£ sxirsvw^. 'kr\'koij^ oiAoaTopyo!, This parallel is too close to require comment. Jas. 4 ; 8 approxi- mates it but is not nearly so close. Furthermore the evidence seems to indicate that " James " is later than either of the above passages. (14) I Pt. 2; 11 Rom. 7; 23 d^ziyzab-xi twv Tapxixwv £;:i9-l»[j.uov (J)i7:co STspov v6[j.ov sv -zoic [xil- aiTivsc o-TpaTS'JovTai xaxa t-^c zgi \).w avTiTTpaTsuop-svov tw v6[j.o) ^}>u/% -zou \/o6c [j.ou An obvious parallel to the Pauline doctrine of the Tscp^ which " wars " against the 7rveO[j.a. Monnier (Com. p. 110) says: "Eph. 2 ; 3 est imite ici ", but in reality there is here a combination of Rom. 7 ; 23 and Eph. 2 ; 3 in one sentence. The passage in Ephe- sians fails to emphasise the " internal warfare " as do these passages. First Epistle of Peter. 429 (15) I Pt. 2 ; 12 Rom. 12 ; 20, 21 sv (0 'A.at.-cKXoCkmGU 6p.(ov wc xaxo- ^av Tceiva 6 t/p-poi; (70U, 'jioi^ti^s TTOUov, ex Twv xalwv spytov ettox- auTOV £av Bi'jia, tcoti^s aa^ov TEUovTec Bo^ao-fo'j!, Tov (-)eov £v TotJTO yap Tuoiwv avO'paxac Tiupo? YjjjLepa £;:i'7X07:'^? Tcopsuastc ItcI tt;/ xscpaXYjv auToO. [XY] viX(o 6x6 Tou xaxoy, a};Xa vixa £v T(o ayaO'co to xaxov Holtzmann calls attention to this parallel. Though the back- ground is different the thought is similar and the gap is filled which would have been left open by v. 12. The importance of the position of this parallel, it is thought, justifies this classification. (16) I Pt. 2; 13 Rom. 13; 1 •jTCOTayriTS izda-fi avQ-pwmvY) XTiaet xaca 'jiu/Yj ISouaiatc, b-KzpzyouaiMQ Bia TOV Kuptov SITS (SaatlsT . . . 67COTa(7'7£(jQ-o)* . . . cd oZaai I'loixjicci SITS ■/]ys[x6p6v) can hardly be the ori- ginal for these two passages as some contend. Nor is it probable they were quoting independently a logion of Jesus. Cf. Mt. 5 ; 39, and Lk. 6 ; 29, which have very different forms. The probabilities are therefore that one is quoting the phrase from the other. Paul uses it also in another connection. I Thes. 5 ; 15. See Zahn's Introduction II, p. 187. (27) I Pt. 3 ; 9 b Rom. 12 ; 14 r\ };OtBopiav av-i 7vOiBop{a? tou- zuloytX-zz ~obc B^oxovrac 5|xac vavTiov B£ suT-oyouvTEC £u)^oy£Tt£, xa\ [xy] xaTapacrQ-s This parallel is strengthened also by I Pt. 2 ; 15. The context as well as the wording makes dependence very probable. '432 Ora Delmer Foster, (28) I Pt. 3 ; 11 Rom. 12 ; 18, 14 ; 19 a^'TO'^ T£?. 14 ; 19 toc ty]? sipr^Y]? Bto)- XC()[JL£V The thought, phrasing and context are very suggestive of Hterary dependence. (29) I Pt. 3 ; 18 Rom. 5 ; 6, 8 XpKTTo? ocTca^ xspl djxapTiojv a- XpwTO? . . . 6xsp a«7£|3cov axsO-avs, TisO-avsv. [sTiaO'Sv] W. H. 5 ; 8 Xpw^o? u^p \sxZy a;:£0-av£ W. H. prefer aTOO-av£v to £xa8-£v, on the authority of xAC and all the versions. This rendering makes a very close parallel with Romans, yet the thought would not be materially altered by ccizi- 0>av£, which has in its favor BKLP. (30) IPt. 3;18 Rom. 5; 7 Sixaio? UTOp aSixwv \xokic, yap UTCp Btxaio-j zic a^O-av- An important parallel as Rom. 5 ; 7 connects vs. 6 and 8 given in the example I Pt. 3 ; 18 = Rom. 5 ; 6, 8. Rom. 5 ; 9 is also in accord with the Petrine doctrine. (31) I Pt 3; 18 Rom. 5; 10 Iva 6[j.a? 7;poaaYaYY) tw (-)£co xair/jD^ayYipv tw (^£o) 5d toS O-avdcTou To3 -jio^i auToti. Cf. 5 ; 2. This parallel is obvious. Jiilicher thinks the agreement is closer with Rom. 5; 2. (Bi' r/j xai tyjv Tipoo-ayoiyviv ET/rjywajjxv) "Intro- duction " p. 209. This appears to be another example of con- densing. What was done elsewhere in words is here done in phrases and clauses, as 3 ; 18 seems to be an abstract of Rom. 5 ; 2 — 10. Tlie combined evidence of the last three parallels in direct contextual sequence makes dependence here very probable. (32) IPt. 3; 22 Rom. 8;. 34 OC, £G-7tV EV B£2ta 0£OO TwOpSuS-El? £y£p8-£l$, O; ET-IV Iv Be^iS T0!J dc, otjpavov . . . (^£0/0 This parallel is too close to require comment. First Epistle of Peter. 433 (33) 1 Pt. 3 ; 22 b Rom. 8 ; 88 Christ's leadership over angels, authorities and powers is distinctly a Pauhne teaching. Bigg thinks the reference to Noah in I Pt. 3 ; 20 is a proof that our author was not borrowing from Paul but from Enoch 61 ; 10, " since the passage comes just before one of the Noachic fragments." (Com. p. 166.) Enoch 61 ; 10 reads as follows ; " And He will call on all the host of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and all the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect one, and the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day." Charles says " the other persons on the earth, over the water, etc., refer to the lower angel-powers over nature." The " Noachic fragment " therefore seems too frag- mentary to merit attention. On the other hand Charles says these (referring to Enoch 61 ; 10) are exactly St. Paul's principalities and powers. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 38, Eph. 1 ; 21, Col. 1 ; 16." (Book of Enoch p. 162.) Professor Sanday refers to the same passage in Enoch as a probable source of Paul's terminology. Cf. Com. on Rom. p. 222. The commonness of the idea with Paul, along with the variety of expression argue for his independence of I Peter. In addition to the passages cited by Charles cf. I Cor. 15 ; 24, Eph. 3 ; 10, 6 ; 12, Col. 2 ; 10, 15. This and the preceding parallel taken together makes the dependence of our author upon Paul highly probable, and very hkely on Romans. (34] I Pt. 4 ; 1 Rom. 6 ; 7, 2 6 7:a6'wv crapxl rsTrauTai a[j.apTiaic 6 aTCoO-avcov BsBixauoTai ocr.b -zr^c tx[j.ap-iac. 6 ~ 2 oI'tivs? axeO-avo- This seems to be a very probable case of dependence " for the thought that death annuls man's relationship to sin, which is only differently expressed in the two instances is very boldly applied in both cases, first to the death of Christ and then as the ground of moral obhgation on the part of those who have been redeemed through His death. Similar relations do not exist between I Peter and any other of Paul's letters." (Zahn's Intro. II, p. 188.) Gal. 3 ; 23 and I Pt. 1 ; 5, quoted by Hilgenfeld, (Einl. p. 633), agree oily in the use of the word cppo-jpsTv. B. Weiss, whose judgment t34 Ora Delnier Foster, here regarding the connection is better than concerning the order of dependence, thinks the " Pauhne mysticism, regarding the effi- cacy of Christ's sufferings, is borrowed from this passage in I Peter." (" Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff " p. 289.) (35) I Pt. 4; 7 TuavTwv TO TsXoc YJyytxsv Rom. 13; 11, 12 vuv sYyuTspov y][jxov y; c-c.)TY]pia . . Y) vu^ Tcposxocjjsv, *J] Bs Yjfi-spa T^yyixev That these scriptures are followed by similar exhortations based upon them and that they occur in such close contextual connection with I Pt. 4 ; 3 = Rom. 13 ; 13, is a strong argument for literary dependence. Cf. Weiss' Lehrbegriff p. 420. (36) I Pt. 1 ; 2 xaToc ::p6yvo)(7W HsoD Ron. 8 ; 29, 11 ; 2, 1 ; 7 o'js Tiposyvto 11 ; 2, tov }.a6v , . 6v ;cpo£yvco 1 ; 7 xapi? 6pv xal SlpYjVY] np6yvo)(7tc and 7rpoyt.voj(7xto are strictly Pauline and Petrine terms. The former is found only in I Pt. 1 ; 2 and Acts 2 ; 23. The latter in Acts 26 ; 5, Rom. 8 ; 29, 11 ; 2, I Pt. 1 ; 20, II Pt. 3 ; 17. Though I Peter shows a more extended likeness in the fore part to "Ephesians" than to "Romans", it is quite probable that our author was influenced just at this point by the latter, for the former uses Tupoopicac. On the whole it is to be noted that " The salutation of I Peter is formed in an independent manner after the model which had been created by St. Paul, especially as it appears in his Epistles to the Galatians and Romans". Hort's " First Epistle of St. Peter," p. 13. We should also add the Epistle to the Ephesians. (37) I Pt. 1 ; 9 Rom. 6 ; 22 xop^ojJLSVot TO 'zzkoc iriq tcictsco^ syrsTs Tov xaprcov 6[j.(ov dc, aytaa- ffwTTQpiav 'jiuywv [Jiov, to Bs tsXoc ^ojTjV aioiviov Nowhere is this thought more closely duplicated. First Epistle of Peter. 435 (38) I Pt. 2 ; 4 Kom. 9 ; 33 XiQ-ov ^wvTa, 67:0 avO-ptoTOJv [j.sv T.iO-ov ::po'r/.0[j.[j.aTOc xai "irpav dc7coBsBoxt[;.a(7[j.Evov TxavBalou When considered along with I Pt. 2 ; (3—8 = Rom. 9 ; 33, this parallel deserves a higher rating. (39) I Pt. 2; 5 Rom. 12 ; 1 avsvsyxai, 7:yzu[i.'X~iv.'xc, O-UTia? zu- T^aL^ai(j-%GCf.i Ta (jtop.aTa Ojj.wv 0"j- xpoaBsxTG'j? Hew Bta 'It,g-o!j Xpt-j- aiav ^wo"av, ocyiav, stjapsTTov Toi ToO 0SCO TTjV T^oyixr;/ la^psiav 'j[xwv The thought is very similar. The sacrifice in both cases is to be pleasing to God. (40) I Pt. 2 ; 8 Rom. 9 ; 22, 18 £1^ xai £-:£&'rj<7av (7X£!jtj opy^? xaT/]pTia'£va dc, tx-co- X£iav. 18 6v Be ^^iXzi (TxXtjP'jvei Our author here echoes the Pauline doctrine that the disobedient were foreordained to spiritual hardness. Cf. I Tim. 2 ; 7, II Tim.l; 4. That the thought occurs in these contexts is significant. See Rendel Harris' emendation of £T£6^Y]a-av to stsO^y). (Expos. 1909, p. 155 f.) The suggested change is indeed clever, but it in no way affects the doctrine at issue, since it is found elsewhere. (41) I Pt. 2; 9 Rom. 13; 12 £X TxoTOuc ... £i; TO D'a'j[j.aG"r6v a-o&'OJ[j.£0'a oOv -% Ipya too rr/.o- a'jTou cpw; Tou?, xai £vBL>(7(6[j.£S"a Ta o-}.a TOO CptOTO^ The figure is Pauhne and the antithesis suggestive. The con- textual connection should not be overlooked. (42) I Pt. 2 ; 10 Rom. 9 ; 25 01 xoT£ otj Xaoc vDv Be 'Koloc, 0£Oii xa}v£<70) tov ou ).a6v [j.ou, xai -r,v 01 OUX Y1>.£Y][X£V0I. vOv Bs IXeYjO'EVTEC OLIX TjYaTrTjIjivTjV " Dasselbe Zitat und in demselben Sinne Rom. 9 ; 25, eine Stelle, die dem Verfasser vorzuschweben scheint." (H. Gunkel, Dritter Abschnitt, p. 40, " Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. ") Cf. Holtzmann's comment on parallels between I Pt. 2 ; 6, 8 and Rom. 9 ; 33. This reference to Hosea is preceded in both cases by the statement that God had so " called " them. Cf. Rom. 9 ; 24 = I Pt. 2 ; 9. 436 Ora Delmer Foster, (43) I Pt. 2 ; 17 Rom. 12 ; 10b (44) I Pt. 2 ; 17 Rom. 12 ; 10 a (TTopyoi Close parallels both in form and meaning, yet our author reverses the order. (45) I Pt. 2 ; 17 Rom. 13 ; 7 (46) I Pt. 2; 18, 19 Rom. 13; 5 •j7coTaa-o-6[j.£vot ... 19 Bta o-livsiBt,- Bw avayxTj uzoTao-o-sTO-at, ou [xovov (jiv 0£oQ Oxocpspsi TIC }.'j7ra? zao"- Bia tt^v opyrjv, a>,Xa xai Bia t:y]v The last two parallels should be considered together. The form is similar, but the background is different. Dependence may read- ily be inferred from these passages. (47) I Pt. 3; 18 Rom. 8; 11 ^wo7totY]Q>£i(; Be 5iv£tj[j.aTi to riv£3[j.a too syEtpavTO? 'Iyjo-oDv Iy. vexpfov This entire verse is thoroughly akin to the Pauline teaching on the subject. The suffering of Christ for sins accords with " gave himself for our sins " (Gal. 1 ; 4) and " died for our sins " (I Cor. 15 ; 3). It is significant also that the well known Pauline antithesis of the o-ap^ and 7:>/£j[j.a appears here. (Cone Com. p. 214.) (4g) I Pt. 3 ; 21 Rom. 4 ; 25, 10 ; 9 Bi' avaffTa(7£w? 'ItjCTOU Xpio-ToD YiyEpO-Y] Bia ty]v Bixotiwcriv YjpTv. miyzzurrt]); ev tT| xapBia gou OTt 6 BeOC aUTOV Yjy£lp£V £X VEXptOV, a"0)6'Yi.o- cz'^oq occurs only in I Tim. 3 ; 2, Tit. 1 ; 8, and I Pt. 4 ; 9. The use of this rare word, although in a slightly different form, in this context may indicate a real point of contact. This parallel occurs between two drawn from the same contexts, i. e., I Pt. 4 ; 8 = Rom, 12 ; 9, 10 and I Pt. 4 ; 10 = Rom. 12 ; 6. d (52) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Rom. 1 ; 7 This verbatim agreement is very suggestive, yet this form is common with Paul. The " Pastoral Epistles " employ llsoc also. The expression also occurs in Rev. 1 ; 4, which is probably bor- rowed from I Peter. n>/^&>uvQ-£tv suggests that II Peter copied the phrase from I Peter. The same word, as well as contextual reasons make it much more probable that our author is following Ephesians here rather than Romans. (53) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Rom. 15 ; G E'j}.oyTjt6? 6 i-)zoc xat, za-r^p toj So;a^Yj" tov Heov xai -^Tspx Toii xupioD r,[j.(ov 'iTiToti XpiCToD x'jpiojT([j.(ov'lY]«7oDXpi'7Toti. Cf.l;7. Dependence may easily be inferred from this very close agree- ment. I Pt. 1 ; 2b and 1 ; 3a = Rom. 1 ; 7 and 15 ; 6, modelled 438 Ora Delmer Foster, on the plan of 1 ; 7. With the single exception of I Pt. 1 ; 3, this exact phrase is peculiar to Paul and at the same time very common \mXh. him. Though the close agreement is striking in the context, Eph. 1 ; 3 shows a much more probable connection. (54) I Pt. 1 ; 7 Rom. 2 ; 10 supeS-T] £ic sTcaivov xai Botav xai Bo2a Bs xal ti.[j.y] xai siprjVY) xav- TijjiTJv 'tri Tw spya^ojj-svw -6 ayaO-dv. Cf. 2'; 7. This may be a real echo, though the evidence is inadequate for any degree of certainty. (55) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Rom. 8 ; 28, 30 ujjleTi; Ss ysvo? sxT^sxto'v toTc xaTOC TupoO^satv x}vYi-oT(; o3(TIv . . >E(7S Although the ys'^*^? exXextov may be borrowed from Isa. 43 ; 20 it is in thorough accord with Paul's doctrine of election. (56) I Pt. 3; 13 Rom. 8; 28, 31 Tt$ 6 xaxwffwv u[j.ac sav too aya- toT? ayaTTfocrt tov Beov xavtra 8-otj ^TjT^toTai ysvYj^O'E awzpyti zic ayaQ-o'v. 31 ei 6 ©eoi; •j;i;£p Y)[j.(ov, TIC xaQ' Yjpov The parallel is closer in thought than in form. (57) I Pt. 4 ; 2 Rom. 6 ; 12 tic -b [j.rjXETi avOpoj-wv £-i&-j[j.taic [j.-?] ouv [ja(7t7xu£Tco Tj ajj.apTia sv Toi O'VYjTW 6[J.WV G-OiiJ.a-l . . . £V ToT? £7:(,8'tj[j.iaic . . . a[j.apTta This parallel is strengthened both by the context and I Pt. 2 ; 24 = Rom. 4 ; 2, 11 and I Pt. 4 ; 1 = Rom. 6 ; 2, 7. (58) I Pt. 4 ; 2 Rom. 6 ; 12 aXkof. b-z'kri\i.o(.':i 0£oQ uXkoc 7capacrirY](7aTE zau-ouc to> 0EW This antithesis may indicate Pauline influence, since it follows immediately after a possible point of contact. First Epistle of Peter. 439 (59) I Pt. 4 ; 3 Rom. 13 ; 13 7ce7cop£U[;.£vou(; £v aTsXysiai?, ir^,i- 7:spt7iaTir]'ao)[j.£v [j.Tj xo>ij.oi; xai [ji- O-ujxiai^, oivocp^^uyoat?, xo)ij.O!,c, 7:0- Qaic, [j.y] xoiraic xai ao-sXYso^c; . Though the thought is similar, the context is hardly in favor of dependence. (60) I Pt. 4 ; 11 Rom. 3 ; 3 T^o'yia ©£oO T^o'yia toO Bsoti In all probability this parallel is due to accident. (61) I Pt. 5; 5 . Rom. 12; 10 you[j-£voi The thought is similar but the form is different. (62) I Pt. 5; 13 Rom. 16; 16 XpifTTOU /g3) I Pt. 5; 14 Rom. 16; 16 d(77i;aG-a(j9^£, c(XkY[ko\j(; £v cpi}.Yi[j.aTt, anr.d'yixab-z uWr^^oDi; £v cpt,lrj[j.a-t aya^iY]? ayuo These salutations are clearly built on the same specifications. The form is common with Paul, hence its occurence in I Peter can be no proof of dependence upon Romans. The following table of parallel references will serve to make more apparent the relationship between Romans and I Peter. 440 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = Rom . 8 ; 29, 11 ; 2 I. Pt . 3 ; 4 = Rom . 2 ; 16, 7 ; 22 2b = 11 1; 7 » 3 ; 8 =: » 12 ; 16, 15 ; 5 3 = 11 15; 16 » 3 ; 8 r= II 12; 5 7 = 11 2; 10 >} 3 8 = II 12; 10 9 = 11 6; 22 » 3 , 8 = II 12; 16 14 = 11 12; 2 » 3 8 = ti 12: 13 15 = 11 12; 2 » 3 9 = >i 12; 16, 17 17 = 11 2; 11, 6 >t 3 9 z^ II 12; 14 20 = 11 16; 25 » 3 11 ^ II 12 ; 18, 14 ; 19 21 = 11 4; 24 1) 3 13 = II 8 28, 31 22 = 11 12; 9, 10 3 18 =z II 5 6, 8 4 = 9; 33 » 3 18 zzz II 5 10 5 = 11 12; 1 » 3 18 = ji 8 11 6 = 11 9; 33 » 3 21 zrz II 4 25, 6; 4, 10; 9 6b = 11 9; 33b » 3 22 = II 8 34 8 = 9; 33a » 3 22 = II 8 38 8b = }} 9 ; 18, 22 » 4 1 ^^ J) 6 2, 7 9 = 8; 28, 30 » 4 2 :=: II 6 12 9b = 11 13; 12 » 4 3 =z 13; 13 10 = 11 9; 25 » 4; 5 = II 14; 10 11 = 11 7; 23 » 4; 7 ZIZ II 13; 11, 12 13 = 11 13; 1 » 4; 8 = II 12; 9, 10 14b = 11 13; 4 » 4; 9 = 12; 13 14c = 11 13; 3 » 4; 11 3= II 3; 3 15 = 11 12 ; 14, 20, 21 >! 4 11 = 12; 7 17 = 11 12; 10 b » 4; 13 = II 8; 17, 18 17 b = 1) 12; 10 a a 5; 1 zm II 8; 17-19 17c = 1) 13; 7 >t 5 ; 5 =z » 12; 10 18 = 11 13; 5 1) 5; 13 z=. II 16; 16 24 = 11 6; 2. 11, 18 » 5; 14 — 16 ; 16 From the above table we may sum up the possible points of contact with Rom. 12, as follows ; 2. 2, 9. 10 1. 14, 20, 21, 10b, 10 a, 16, 5, 10, 16, 13, 16, 17, 14, 18, 9, 10, 13, 7, 10. Rom. 8 also contains a number of parallels, i. e., 12, 1, 4, 3, 7, 5, 13, 11, 12. Many of these it wiU be noted occur in groups in close contextual con- nection. Bennet has an excellent analysis of the parallels in Rom. 12 ; 1—13; 14 in the "New Century Bible" on the Gen. Eps. p. 33 f. SUMMARY The foregoing parallels and notes it is believed show quite con- clusively that "I Peter " is indebted to "Romans." The parallels have been too close, employing too similar phraseology, and too First Epistle of Peter. 441 often of the same order to be independent. Nor have instances been lacking to show the priority of the Pauline Epistle. Few indeed are the advocates of the priority of " I Peter." B. Weiss has made the most heroic effort of all to defend this position in his " Petrinische Lehrbegriff." His pupil Kiihl follows a similar line of thought. The anonymous article on "Peter" in the " Inter- national Encyclopaedia " 1910, says " The opinion of Weiss and Kiihl, has much in its favor, and appears on the whole, the most probable." Bigg is inclined to favor the independence of our author. Cf. also E. Scharfe's "Die petrinische Stromung der neutestament- lichen Literatur." (1893.) With these exceptions the scholars of all schools are agreed that our author was the borrower. Strange to say not all the most enthusiastic defenders of this position are to be found in the " rad- ical school." " Conservatives " claim, on the one hand, that this dependence upon Romans is a proof of its genuineness, while " radi- cals " maintain, on the other hand, that it proves the very opposite. At this point it may be well to review a few of the opinions and argu- ments of some of the leading conservative scholars. Chase in his excellent article in H.B.D. says " there is no doubt that the author of I Peter was acquainted with this Epistle," i. e., Romans. Zahn, the worthy prince of German conservatives, says : "It is especially the hortatory portion of Romans to which I Peter shows numerous points of resemblance ; Rom. 12 ; 2 = I Pt. 1 ; 14, [xr, crDG/yjtj.a'Ti^S'TS'ai, with substantially the same object in the dative ; Rom. 12 ; 17 = I Pt. 3 ; 9, [xriBsvl ([j.tj) a7:oBtBov"c xazov av-i xocxoti, in both instances standing between an exhortation to humihty and the advice to preserve peace with non-Christians, while in the immediate context in both passages stands the command that they bless their persecutors instead of reviling them (Romans 12 ; 14). Taken in connection with such clear resemblances, a certain weight is to be given also to similarities in the same chapter, which cannot be used as positive proof, such as the similar use of loyixo'?, — not io be found elsewhere in the N. T. or LXX,— Rom. 12 ; 1, I Pt. 2 ; 2, and the conception of offerings, in a figurative sense, made by Christians, Rom. 12 ; 1, I Pt. 2 ; 5. In relatively close proximity to these parallels, Rom. 13 ; 1-7 and I Pt. 2 ; 13-17, occurs an ex- hortation with regard to civil authorities. The sense is not only the same but several expressions are alike, e. g. the aim for which civil authorities exist is described thus " (N. T. Intro. II, p. 187) : Cf. parallels I Pt. 2 ; 13, 14 = Rom. 13 ; 1, I Pt. 2 ; 14b = Rom. 13 ; 4, I Pt. 2 ; 14c = Rom. 13 ; 3. For the continuation of Zahn's argument see note on I Pt. 2 ; 6, 8 = Rom. 9 ; 33. 442 Ora Delmer Foster, As a leader of English Conservatives we may quote Sanday (Com. on Rom. Ixxv f.) : " The resemblance " between these parallels " is too great and too constant to be merely accidential. In I Pt. 2 ; 6 we have a quotation from the LXX that we find in Rom. 9 ; 32. Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. 12 ; 1 = I Pt. 2 ; 5), and the same rare words, such as c!ja'/Y]vaTt^eo-Q>ai, avuxdxpiToc, but in one passage (Rom. 13 ; 1 — 7 = I Pt. 2 ; 13—17) we have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas occurring in the same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of the two, the Epistle to the Romans is the earlier. St. Paul works out a thesis clearly and logically ; St. Peter gives a series of maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example in Rom. 13 ; 7 we have a broad general principle laid down, St. Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage, merely gives three rules of conduct. In St. Paul the language and ideas come out of the sequence of thought ; in St. Peter they are adopted because they had already been used for the same purpose." For Sanday and Headlam's further argument see note on I Pt. 2 ; 6 = Rom. 9 ; 33. Numerous quotations from the " liberal school " might be given in defence of the position here maintained by " conservatives," but let one suffice. Knopf rests the case, " vor allem an den starken Anleihen, die I Peter bei den Paulusbriefen macht, Anleihen, die das theologische Gedankengut im allgemeinen, aber auch besondere ein- zelne Gedanken in ihrer speziellen Formulierung betreffen. (Vgl. I Pt. 2 ; 13-17 mit Rom. 13 ; 1-7, I Pt. 3 ; 8 f. mit Rom. 12 ; 16 f.) " See " Das nachapostohsche Zeitalter " p. 33 f. EPHESIANS A* a— b (1) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Eph. 1 ; 2 yapii; upv xai sipYJvY] VJ^p^i ^F^ ^'■'^^ sipYi'vr] When considered alone, this parallel means little, but when placed alongside the following parallel which is also in exact verbal agree- ment, it is seen to be very important. It is indeed significant that this precise form occurs when so many others might have been employed. First Epistle of Peter. 443 (2) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Eph. 1 ; 3 Only in II Cor. 1 ; 3 is there to be found a duplicate of this perfect parallel. Though the " evidence for dependence here is weakened by II Cor. i ; 3 " (Salmon's Int. p. 553), the " weakening " is more than counterbalanced by the occurrence, in the immediate context of Ephesians, of the " Petrine " emphasis on the predestination of beUevers, which is wholly wanting in II Cor, 1 ; 1 ff. Eph. 1 ; 3b also leads off with " 6 " and an aorist active participle used sub- stantively (Burton's Moods and Tenses p. 165), governing r^ij.ot;; just as in I Pt. 1 ; 3b. II Cor. 1 ; 4 has a similar construction but the participle is a present of simultaneous action, and is separated from its antecedent by an interpreting phrase. Though oixTipp.wv of II Cor. 1 ; 3 b is synonymous with tXzoc, of I Pt. 1 ; 3 b, the thought is closer in the Petrine parallel. The evidence is in favor of the dependence of I Peter upon Ephesians at this point. Zahn says : "In favor of the conscious dependence of I Peter upon Ephesians is the fact that they begin with exactly the same word, " zoXoyr^xbc .... Xpi'jTo'j, 6 " followed by a participle, — a. construction which does not occur in this or similar form in any other N. T. Epistle. . . . The reference to the future x}«rjpovo[j.ia, (cf. ex. I Pt. 1 ; 4, is found also in Eph., only farther from the beginning, 1 ; 14 ; while the thought which immediately follows Eph. 1 ; 4 f . (cf. 1 ; 9, 11), namely, that of election through the divine foresight and predestination, has been utihzed already in I Pt. 1 ; 1 f. (Int. II, p. 186.) Alluding to 1 ; 5-13 and Eph. 1 ; 5-15, T. K. Abbot says : " the alternation of participles and relative pronouns is the same until the transition to the succeeding period is made, in the one case by Bio, in the other by Bia to'jto ". (I C. C. on Eph. p.xxivf.) The substance of the passage in I Pt. 1 ; 3—5 corresponds to that of the following passage in Eph. 1 ; 18 — 20, IXrdc (Ex. 34) being emphasised in both, and its object being designated the z>.Yipovo[j.ta (Ex. 23), the connection with the resurrection (Ex. 35) of Christ as its ground being the same, and in both the B'jva[j.i(; OsoD being put in relation to the rla-ic. (Ex. 24.) After making a careful analysis of the foregoing parallels Von Soden says : " the priority cannot be determined with certainty by the text itself." (" Hand commentar zum Neuen Testament," III, p. 122.) He also considers the text of our Epistle to be more compact Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 30 January, 1913. 444 Ora Delmer Foster, than that of Ephesians. These conclusions are affected, no doubt, by his doubts concerning the authenticity of Ephesians. Against the position of Von Soden may be urged the following line of argument presented by Monnier : " En realite, c'est I'epitre de Pierre qui tantot resume et tantot developpe. C'est elle dont les idees se suivent d'une fagon large, coulante, sans rien de rigoureux. Si le style des Ephesiens a des detours (1 ; 11 — 14) ou la pensee semble se resaisir, il est plein, nerveux, original ; les idees forment un en- semble solide, bien lie, avec une indiscutable puissance." (Com. p. 261.) It would seem, therefore, that the general consensus of scholastic opinion is that " This form of benediction is copied from Eph. 1 ; 3." (Hort's Ep. of Pt. p. 27.) (3) I Pt. 1 ; 21 Eph. 1 ; 20 Tov systpavToc au-ov sx v£xp(r)V eysipac auTov Ix vsxptov, xai sxa- xai BoSav aUTto ^o'vtoc O-iitsv sv Bs^ia au-ou . - . This is a striking parallel and in this context is very significant. " This connection of the resurrection of Christ with Christian faith and hope is distinctly Pauline." (Cone Com. p. 308.) Romans Ex. 12 affords a close parallel, but this one combines the exaltation of Jesus with the resurrection, and in this respect is the closest N. T. parallel. (4) I Pt. 2; 4-6 Eph. 2; 18-22 xpoc 6v xpo(7£p/6[Jxvot }i0'ov Bi' auToO typ^-tv tyiv Tcpoa-aywyriV twvTa . . . 19) . . . oixeToi toD 0soO. 5) xai au-ol w? }aO'Oi, Zdyxtc oly^o- 20) 27roixoBo[j.YiQ'£v-£c Irl to> 0-s- Bo[j.sTcr&-s, oTxoc Tcvsup-aTixo? [xeXCw . . . oyzcjc axpoyojviaiou au- 6) . . . }ii)-ov axpoY^vtotov toD XpicTToD 'IrjCrou 22) G-JVOIXoBoiJ-STg-Q-S sic XaTOlXTjTY]'ptOV This arrangement, borrowed from Abbot (Com. p. xxv), shows the extended parallel in detailed form. In I Pt. 2 ; 4 and Eph. 2 ; 18 access to God is through Christ. Cf. also I Pt. 3 ; 18 and Eph. 3 ; 12. Holtzmann's theory, that the reference to Isa 28 ; 16 was suggested to our author by the axpoyfovtatov of Eph. 2 ; 20, is quite plausible. The word is found in the N.T. only in these two passages. The reference in Acts 4 ; 11 may seem to indicate the originality of I Peter, yet stress cannot be placed upon this point, since Acts may depend upon I Peter. See also the discus- sion on Rom, Ex. 2—4. The believers are frequently thought of as a spiritual temple by Paul. (Cf. I Cor. 3 ; 16.) Cone thinks the First Epistle of Peter. 445 application of the epithet "living" is not only obscure here but also has the appearance of a mixing of metaphors, and that the transition is abrupt from " new born " babes longing for the reasonable milk to " living stones " in a " spiritual house." These considerations are important in determining the order of priority. In favor of Paul's independence, Zahn offers the following : " Paul develops the figure briefly at the end of the discussion ; Peter makes a varied and detailed use of the same, in connection with various O. T. expressions, and also sayings of Jesus. The building suggests the Lord of the building, who has chosen this particular stone for a cornerstone, and Himself has put it in place, after it had been rejected as worthless by the foolish master builders. From the thought of the living character of the person of Christ, who is represented as the corner-stone, is argued the living character of the stones built upon this foundation, as well as the freedom of their attachment to Him. The comparison of the building with the temple suggests the thought of the priesthood and the offerings. The corner-stone is also the curb-stone, over which passers-by stumble. It would seem almost as if in I Pt. 2 ; 4— 8 one were hearing the voice of a preacher making various applications of the figure suggested by his text, Eph. 2 ; 20-22 " (Int. II, p. 187.) Alluding to I Pt. 2 ; 4-6 Monnier says : " La meme image se retrouve dans Eph. 2 ; 20, 21, dont ce passage depend." (Com. p. 90—91.) Cf. Ignatius and Hermas for further development. There seems to be a clear case of the independence of Paul at this point, but whether I Peter depends upon Ephesians, or Romans, or both is not so clear. Our study of Romans (Ex. 2—4) led us to believe it to be the original starting point for our author. The above discussion, it is believed, shows that he was also acquainted with Ephesians. " II ne copie pas, il s'inspire. Son attitude est celle d'un disciple." (Monnier's Com. p. 264.) (5) I Pt. 3 ; 19 Eph. 4 ; 9 ToT? £v '-pL>>>axT| TivsyiJ-aciv T^opsu- xa-rspY) TCpwxov zlc, toc xa-oj-spoc Apparently Paul thought only of the descent of Christ from heaven to the present world ; the abode of the power of death. Yet some think there is here an allusion to the idea as developed in I Peter. The doctrine of the " Harrowing of Hell " in its pre-Christian form probably goes back to Isa. 26 ; 12—19, which Cheyne dates cir. 104 B. C. (cf. also Ezek. 37.) It is based on the mythological conception of Yahweh smiting the dragon of darkness and delivering his people 446 Ora Delmer Foster, from the prison-house of the underworld. The Christians took over the doctrine with but few changes. They thought of God effecting the dehverance in the person of Christ. This passage in Ephesians marks the transition point, and from it our author apparently drew the doctrine of the mission of Christ to the underworld. The more developed form found in I Peter indicates the priority of Paul. The thought occurs in the fully developed form but this one time in the N. T., but is common in later writings. Sandwiched as it is here between thoroughly Pauline ideas and phrases, the probabihties are highly in favor of Abbot's theory of dependence. See Monnier's discussion Com. p. 172—178. (6) I Pt. 3; 21—22 Eph. I; 20—21 avao"c-a<7£0)? 'lY]o-ot> Xpt(7ToO, 6c scr- systpa? atj-6v sz vsxpwv xai sxa- Tiv sv Bs'(^ta 0soO, 7:op£u8'£i$ dc, O-ktcv sv Ss'fta oluzou h -:oXc stcou- o5pav6v. 22) t'KOzccyivzo)'^ auToi paviot?. 21) uT^spavw rAcrf^t; v.^yr^c, aYY£7.wv xai Ecoucrtcov xai B'jva- xat, zzo'j'ji'x.c xai B'jva[j.£(i>c xai [X£WV x'jptOTT-o;. . . . The exact sequence of thought and similar phrasing in this extended parallel thoroughly justifj^ Zahn in saying : " these " parallels "go to confirm the correctness of the observation that Peter and Silvanus had Ephesians before them." (Int. II, p. 187.) Robinson also thinks there is here a clear case of dependence upon the Pauline Epistle. (Ep. to Eph. p. 151). (7) I Pt. 5 ; 8 Eph. 6 ; 11 6 , . . ^lai^oloc, . . . 7:£pi7:aT£T ^r,- £vBo'7aa-0-£ -zry 7;avo7i:>.iav zoo 0£Oij Twv Tiva xaTaTvtY, • (o o^vzin-f^zz r.^bc zo B-JvaaG-at 'j\>Mc azr^vv.i izpbc G'T£C£oi zTi 7:iC)Zzi . . . Toc^ ^.£OoS£iac zoo Biajio'Xotj . . " Dependence on the part of I Peter is evident from the fact that at the conclusion of both letters it is suggested that back of the men, through whose hostilities the readers are compelled to suffer, stands the devil, whom they are steadfastly to resist." (Zahn's Int. II, p. 187.) b (8) I Pt. 1 : 3 Eph. 1 ; 7 xaTa TO 7co>.!j (xuzou llzoc Y.ccza. zbv %\oozov r^? yapiTo; auToQ This parallel is very significant, since it follows one which is in complete verbal agreement. This usage can hardly be accidental. See Ex. 2, First Epistle of Peter. 447 (9) I Pt. 1 ; 10-12 Eph. 3 ; 5 i^TipE'Jvrjaav xporj toT; aytoi? 01? aTrsxaA'JcpQ-Tj oti ou/ £a'j- a7io(7To}vOtc auToti xai TvpocpYJTai? ^oTc 6[jIv Bs Brfjxdvo'jv oc^toc, & sv Tlvs-J^-aTi • 3; 10 hcc Yvopiab'Ti vuv avY]YY£>v-/] 6[j.Tv Bia tcov s'jay- vQv YE^icaiJivcov I Pt. 1 ; 10-12 finds a related thought in Heb. 11 ; 13, 39, 40, but Eph. 3 ; 5, 10 is the only other place in the N. T. where the meaning of the prophecies was not clearly known to the prophets themselves but has first become so to us. That I Peter goes beyond Ephesians in saying the prophets themselves were made acquainted by revelation with their own ignorance (Eph. 3 ; 5), indicates the priority of the latter. (Cf. Abbot's Com. on Eph. p. xxv). Hort thinks we have here a clear " clue to St. Peter's trend of thought." (Ep. of St. Pt. p. 64.) (10) I Pt. 1 ; 13 Eph. 6 ; 14 voiac 'j^.(ov aATjO'eta No other passage in the N. T. affords as close a parallel to our Epistle here as Eph. 6 ; 14. Dependence is made more probable by £v a%ryAul'j'\>zi 'lYiaou XpwTOLi (1 ; 13), which is " a Pauline term for the Parousia." Cf. I Cor. 1 ; 7, II Thes. 1 ; 7. (Cone Com. p. 306.) (11) I Pt. 1; 20 Eph. 3; 11, 1; 4 :ipo£YV(o^-j.£VO!j [J-sv 7:p6 xaTafiol-^? xaTa TrpoO-eaiv twv aicovwv -?iv I- y^r:r;ixrjlj ' TCOlTjCTSV SV Xpi(7TC0 . . ^Cf. 3;9, 10 z^zAi'ia-o r,[J.a? sv a-jTw Tcpo xa- -:a[iolrj? xo(7[j.o!j The " preexistence of Christ " is a common Pauline conception. Monnier thinks with Hort (Ep. of Pt. p. 80), that Trpo xa-apoxY]? is " probablement empruntee a Eph. 1 ; 4." (Com. p. 76.) " I Pt. 1 ; 20 and Eph. 3 ; 9 correspond in the same reference to the mysteiy ordained -po' xaTa^o/.-?;? xo^[j.ou, and hitherto hidden, but now revealed. And as in Eph. 3 ; 10 the wise purpose of God is now made known to angelic powers, so in I Pt. 1 ; 12 they desire to search into these things." (Abbot Com. p. xxvi). 448 Ora Delmer Foster, (12) I Pt. 2; 18 Eph. 6; 5 01 oixerat 67COTacr(7oy£vo!, sv 7:av-i ot Bot»}vOi, uTraxo'JsTs toT$ xupioi; (po(3(p T0T5 BscTTcoVai^ . . . [xstra (po(3ou On uxoTdcyaxs f. of 2 ; 13, Dr. Hort comments as follows : "In Ephesians (5 ; 21-24, 6 ; 1-3, 5-8) subjection (67:oTaG-(7S(7&-ai) is set forth only in so far as it concerns family and household relations, the subject of 2 ; 18-3 ; 7 here, but apparently as founded on a general principle of subjection (6TOT:ao-(70[j.£voi oOCkf\\rjic, h (po'Pq) Xptcr^ou), laid down at the outset in 5 ; 21, which likewise corre- sponds in drift to I Pt. 5 ; 5 as well as to this verse. (Ep. of Pt. p. 139). Eph 5; 22 ::3cvtI ai yuval/wS?, -zoic, iStoic avSpaaiv (13) I Pt. 3 ; 1 yuvaTxcC !j;:o~a'7(70[J.£voi iv r.yy-X (14) I Pt. 3; 6 w; Zappa 67:y)VvO'J'j2 tw 'AJipaaij,, xuptov a!j-6v xa}.o!JG'a (15) 01 avBps? . . . V£[J.0VT:£5 Tt[XTJv I Pt. 3; 7 . TO) Y'jvaix£u.) a-o- Epli. 5; 22b, 33 w? Tw XDpio) (oTi avr^p scTtv x£cp- a>.Yi TT^? yuvatxo? . . .) 33 y] y'jvTj iva (po(3-^-at t6v avBpa Eph. 5; 25 01 avBp£c, ayaTraTE -rar yuvaTxac £a'JTWV Robinson, in commenting on Eph. 5 ; 33 b, claims " there is here a double reference to this passage in I Pt. 3 ; 1—6, which clearly is not independent of Ephesians : 'O[j,oio)(; yuvaTx£(; 67UOTa£Tc, cpiXaBs^wOoi. z^cnzXixy- £'j'7-}.ay/vot,/apt^6[j.£voi£a'jToT;. . . Xvoi . . . This form of exhortation is common in the Pauline literature. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 13-17, I Cor. 4 ; 12, I Thes. 5 ; 15. But since the passage, which contains a word (s-jT-Xay/vot) not found elsewhere in the N. T., follows immediately after a context suggestive of Ephe- sians, dependence is made ver}' probable. First Epistle of Peter. 449 (17^ I Pt. 3 ; 18 Eph. 2 ; 18 " I Pt. 3 ; 18 reminds us of Eph. 2 ; 18, while the verses immedi- ately following exhibit the ancient explanation of Eph. 4 ; 8—10." (Abbot Com. p. xxv.) (18) I Pt. 4 ; 2, 3 Eph. 2 ; 3 avuvco)7:(-)v £-ij-j;xLatc (4 ; 2) to l%ib"j[iiy.iz ~7^c ryx-^mc t,(j.(ov. -oiouv- (io'ji-rjij.a T(ov s-J-vwv xa—ipyarru-ai tsc toc 6'£}«rj[J.xTa -^c o-apxoc (4; 3). Monnier has pointed out this close parallel. (Com. p. 263.) R. Knopf also thinks there is here a clear case of dependence upon Ephesians. (Das nachapostohsche Zeitalter p. 34). (19) I Pt. 1 ; 1 Eph. 1 ; 1 This Pauhne form of address is worthy of attention in a context so suggestive of Ephesians. Though " epistolary forms are not made by any one man," it is indeed significant that our author used the Ephesian form both at the beginning and at the end of his Epistle. (20) I Pt. 1 ; 1 Eph. 1 ; 4 £/.}.£/. ToT? zc^zkzicc^o (21) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Eph. 1 ; 5 y.y~y. "poYvcoTiv 7:poopi,'7ac Election is a common Pauhne doctrine, but it is alluded to in the opening verses of but three of his Epistles, i. e., Eph. 1 ; 4, I Thes. 1 ; 4 and Tit. 1 ; 1, granting the Pauhne authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Predestination is also a Pauline doctrine. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 29, 30, I Cor. 2 ; 7, and Eph. 1 ; 5, 11. But in the beginning of no other Epistle is it alluded to. Paul never uses the noun 7:poYV(.)C7ic, yet he employs the verb -poY^oWao in the same way. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 29. See also Acts 26 ; 5. The occurrence of these ideas in the beginning of these two Epistles only, and in the same order is too significant to be passed over lightly. 450 Ora Delmer Foster, (22) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Eph. 1 ; 3 sTvat, r|[J.a? ayioui; These phrases are quite different, but they afford a close parallel in thought, and are suggestive in this connection. (23) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Eph. 1 ; 5 SI? 'jTcaxoYjv xal pavTia-[j.ov ai[j.aT:o? sic uioO'STtav (7) aTcol'JTpwo-tv ^loc Toti at[j.aToc In the beginning of no other N. T. books is redemption through Christ's blood so mentioned, except in Col. 1 ; 4, I Jn. 1 ; 7 and Rev. 1 ; 5. It is clear, however, that our Epistle cannot depend upon either of the last two. Nor have we found sufficient evidence to suppose that it was influenced by the companion Epistle of Ephe- sians. There is, therefore, a closer parallel here than can be found in the beginning of any N. T. book earlier than I Peter. True, Paul never uses the term pavTio-p-oc, yet tlie theology is the same. This exact usage is found only in later writers (e. g. Heb. 12 ; 24), which indicates the priority of Ephesians. (24) 1 Pt. 1 ; 4 Epli. 1 ; 18 xlr,povo[j.ia /.lr,povo[j.iac The " inheritance reserved in hea\-en," is equivalent to the " hope reserved in heaven " (Col. 1 ; 5). Ephesians contains the doctrine of " the hope of his calling, and the riches of the glory of his in- heritance in the saints." Dependence, therefore, seems somewhat probable in this connection. (25) I Pt. 1 ; 5 Eph. 1 ; 13 ITvs'Jij.aT!, The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith is obvious in both references. (26) I Pt. 1 ; 7 Eph. 1 ; 14 dc sTratvov zai Bo'^av sic s-aivov — ?fc Bo'cy^c That this close parallel follows the preceding one in direct con- textual connection in both instances is significant. First Epistle of Peter. 451 (27) I Pt. 1 ; 14 Epli. 4 ; 22, 18 ToTc TTpoTspov £v TYj ayvoia 'j[}xZv 22 -r;/ ;:poT2pav avaaxpocpYjV. 18 sTTiO-upatc Bta — f,v o'^(yji'yr^j -yv ouaav sv The thought is thoroughly PauHne. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 2, I Thes. 4 ; 5, and Acts 17 ; 30. 'AYvoia appears in the N. T. only in these passages and in Acts 3 ; 17 and 17 ; 30. The parallel suggests dependence. (28) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Eph. 1 ; 11, 12 'jjXEr? ysvoc £x}^£XTov . . . OTCO)? Toc? T^poopiaQ'SVTsc xaTa zpoO-sTiv . . . apsTac eiayYsi^^Tj-s . . tic to sTvai r^'J.ac tie s7:aivov T/^r Bo'^TjC The sequence of thought is worthy of note. Cf. Ex. 25. (29) I Pt. 2 ; 9 b Eph. 5 ; 8 To3 £/v cy.oTO'jc 'jij.ac xa7i(7avTo; f'{-:z yap ttots (t/.otoc, vuv Ss otoc SIC TO 6-a'j[j.ai7T0v a'jTo!; owe £v xupuo " The transition from darkness to light is much emphasised in Eph. 5 ; 8—14, yet the phrase probably was suggested by Eph. 1 ; 17-19." (Hort's Ep. of St. Pt. p. 130.) The preceding parallel makes this one more significant. (30) I Pt. 2 ; 11 Eph. 2 ; 19 Tcapoi/wOuc xai 7:ap£-iB"/][j.0!JC Hvoi xai Tiapoixoi TTapoixo? is found only here and in Acts 7 ; 6, 29. riaps-i^r,- [J.0? occurs only in I Pt. 1; 1, 2; 11 and Heb. 11; 13. Z£vo?, a comparatively rare word in the N. T., is used by our author in 4 ; 12. It is employed by no N. T. writer in the above sense earlier than I Peter, except in Eph. 2 ; 12, 19. This combination, following Exs. 27 and 28, is very suggestive. (31) 1 Pt. 3 ; 20 Eph. 5 ; 26 Bi,eG-(6Q-r,aav Bt' GBaTO? (21) 6 xai iva aOTviv aytairri, xocO-apiTar to> 'j[j.a(: avTiTUTCTOv vOv ffw^ei [3a7:- },ouTpco Toti GBaTOc TiTjj-a Though the thought is more crassly expressed in our Epistle it is important to note that this reference is found between two ver\^ suggestive parallels, i. e., h and 6. (32) I Pt. 5; 5 Eph. 5; 21 rx'lXr^Lrjic TTjV TaTisivo'ppoT'JvTjV £Y" O-OTaTTo'ij-evoi a>.Ar'7.oic xoij.jitoTao'O'S See note on Ex. 12. 452 Ora Delmer Foster, (33) I Pt. 5 ; 12 Eph. 6 ; 21 aBsT^cpou . . . sypa'j^a . . . 6v £7i£[;-cj>a Attention is to be directed to the use of the word 7:1(7-0? as well as to the general similarity. The proper names play similar parts in connection with the verb in the first person, Aor. Ind. (34) I Pt. 5 ; 14 Eph. 6 ; 23 £ipv]v/] ujJiTv Tracriv toTc sv XpKTTw sipTjvr, 'zoXc oc^z7/ztoic Though this parallel is not very close it is significant that our Epistle closes with sv Xpio-i-co, a Pauline phrase "par excellence." For further justification of this classification see note on Ex. 18. d (35) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Eph. 1 ; 18 dc D.TUiBa ^o~<7av Yj D.'Xc -re ySi/rfiZLoc auToD The wording is different but the thought is much the same. Con- sidered alongside Ex. 23, this parallel deserves a higher classification. (36) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Eph. 1 ; 20 Bi (XvaTTaTsco? 'Xr/yryj XpiTTOJ sx lysCpa? auTOV Ix vsxptov vsxpwv Suggestive here, though a closer parallel appears in Ex. 22. (37 1 I Pt. 1; 17 Eph. G; 9 Tov d(7:pocro)7wO>>r,[j.7CT(or xpivovTa 7:po'7(o7:o}.rj'j»ia o'jx stti Trap' au-oi xa^a TO £xaa'-ou Ipyov This thought is suggestive in this connection, yet it is reproduced Rom. 2 ; 6, 11, Col. 3 ; 25, Jas. 2 ; 1 and Acts 10 ; 34. See discus- sion on Romans Ex. 11. (38) I Pt. 1 ; 18 Eph. 4 ; 17 ix T7]c [j-aTaiac 6[j.(ov avao-Tpoo-^c £v ij.aTai,o'TY,Ti Toti vooc auTtov (39) I Pt. 1 ; 7 Eph. 1 ; 7 sluTpwB-YjTs . . . (19) -ijjio) al'jj.aTi Iv to lyoij-sv ty]v a-oXuTpojTtv Sia . . . XptcTToO ToO al'jj.aTO!; auToO Examples 37 and 38 show Pauline influence, though the term " redeem " is considerabty weakened. The thought is too common with Paul to be sure of dependence here. See Gal. Ex. 6 and I Cor. Ex. 7. First Epistle of Peter. 453 (40) I Pt. 1 ; 20 Epli. 1 ; 10 /po'vcov A common view. (41) I Pt. 2 ; 1 Eph. 4 ; 25 a7:o8£[j.£vo!, o5v tiS-qoim v.ixvlyy xai Bio a7io8£[j.£voi, to 'Jis'jBoc 31, T,6iM^cf. Bo}.ov xat, OT^oxpiTiv xal Traaa Tuixpia xai 0>ujj,oc xal opyY] oQ-o'vour xai rrao-ac xaTa}>a)iar xai xpauy^j "/-ai, (SXaTcpYipa apS-Yjpco acp' 6[j/ov . . . This is a very suggestive parallel, yet the thought is common in the Pauline Epistles. Cf. Rom. 13 ; 12 and Col. 3 ; 8. See also Heb. 12 ; 1, and Jas. 1 ; 21. (42) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Eph. 2 ; 14 •J\^.zXc Vz ^(iyoc £x}.£Xt6v [jacriX£iov 6 rcoirfOLq toc a[j.cpo'':'£pa Iv xai to i£paT£U[j.a £&>voc, ayiov, }.a6r £i; \yzG6^ov/rjv tou (ppayij.oj }«'j<77.; . . . 7:£pixoir,G-tv See Ex. 27 and Rom. Ex. 55. (43) I Pt. 3 ; 15 Eph. 3 ; 17 x'jpiov §£ Tov XptTTov aYia(7a-£ xaTor^cai tov XptiTOv Bta T-yjc £v TaTc xapBiaic 6[j.cov 7:ia'T£0-)c sv toTc xapBiat^ 6[j.(ov Iv ayaTTfi It does not seem probable that this Isaianic passage was suggested to our author by Eph. 3 ; 17. (44) I Pt. 4 ; 10 . Eph. 4 ; 7 £xa(7T0C xauwc £Aa|3£v /apiTjj.a ixdccTTto Y;[j.fov eBoOy] y; ^apt? xoctoc T% Bo)p£a(: -oti XpiaToU The idea of the distribution of spiritual gifts according to the ability to receive is common in the letters of Paul. (45) I Pt. 4 ; 11 Eph. 3 ; 21 Boca^£-ai6 0£6?Bia'lYj'7oD XpiTTOo auirw y, Boca £v XpiTToi lY^Toti The glorification of God through Christ is common in the later literature. i54 Or a Delmer Foster The following table will show the sequence of the foregoing parallels. I Peter 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 r 3 7 10 13 16 17 18 18 20 20 21 1 Eph 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 6 4 1 3 1 1 A esians 1 4 5 3 5 2 3 7 18 20 18 13 14 5 14 18, 22 9 17 7 11, 1 ; 4 10 20 22, 25, 31 I Peter Ephesians 2 4-6 = 2 ; 18-22 2 9 = i'; 11, 12 2 9 = 2 ; 14 2 9b = 5' 8 2 11 = 2 ; 19 2 18 = 6 ; 5 3 1 = 5 ; 22 3 6 = 5 ; 22, 33 3 7 = 5 ; 25 3 8 = 4 32 3 15 = 3 , 17 3 18 = 2 18 3 19 = 4 9 3 20 = 5 ; 26 3 21-22 = 1 ; 20-22 4 2, 3 == 2 2-3 4 10 = 4 7 4 11 = 3 21 5 5 = 5 21 5 8, 9 = 6 , 11 5 12 = 6 21 5 14 = 6 , 23 SUMMARY Other points of likeness and similar combinations have been noted by such men as Chase, Holtzmann, Scharfe, Weiss, Monnier, Abbott, Hort, Westcott, Cone, etc., but these wiU be sufficient to show the real or apparent dependence of one author upon the other. Though no one reference may prove dependence conclusively the cumulative evidence of a succession of forty-five parallels, at lowest count, is indeed formidable. The thought and many of the expressions are the same in I Pt. 1 ; 1—7 and Eph. 1, even to verbal agreement. The fact that the parallels in I Pt. 1 ; 1—7 are all in the first chapter of Ephesians, and that, on the whole, they show progress in the Ephesian order almost precludes doubt at the very outset, as to the relationship between the Epistles. (For order see the above table.) The close similarity in the salutation and final greetings, the sequence of thought, which is obscured by analysis, and the gene- ral structure, to say nothing of similar Christology, go to show not First Epistle of Peter. 455 only that the writers were of the same school of thought but also that one was actually depending upon the other. Instances were noted in which the thought of our Epistle shows a development of the thought of Ephesians, while the latter, at many points, appeared to be the more original and logical. There are other considerations, not coming under the scope of this paper, which confirm the results of the foregoing study. Practically all scholars agree that there is here a clear case of dependence. Von Soden is undecided on which side it should be reckoned. Hilgenfeld, B. Weiss and Kiihl contend for the priority of I Peter, but the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports its dependence upon Ephesians. Abbot concludes that " the parallels are so numerous that the Epistles may almost be compared throughout." (I. I. C. on Eph. xxiv.) In harmony with this observation iMonnier remarks : L'epitre a ete redigee en toute liberte d'esprit par un ecrivain qui connaissait parfaitement les Ephesiens, et en reproduisait instinctivement les expressions essentielles. (Com. p. 261.) Dr. Hort thinks that " the connection, though close, does not lie on the surface, and that the question must be settled by identities of thought and similarities of structure rather than by identities of phrase." (Epis. of I Pt. p. 5.) Professor Ropes sees such a close similarity that he is ready to say " there is here a closer parallel to Paul's thought than some of the Epistles which bear Paul's own name." (Apos. Age, p. 213 f.) Seufert stands almost alone in ascribing to the two Epistles the same author, of course neither Paul nor Peter. Numerous other authorities might be cited, but the general con- sensus of opinion is that " the acquaintance of our author with the Epistle to the Ephesians is especially evident." (Purves' " Chris- tianity in the Apos. Age," p. 280.) COLOSSIANS D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 4 Col. 1 ; 5 xlYipovoiJiav . . . TSTTjprjijivr^v h tTjV ll-X^y. tTjV a-oy.£V[jivr,v -jij.Tv o5pavoTc zlc, 'j\i.y.c iv toT; o'jpavoT: " The thought of the ' hope ', i. e., the blessing hoped for, being already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps in I Tim. 6 ; 19, but is clearly put in I Pt. 1 ; 4. In 456 Ora Delmer Foster, substance it is involved in Phil. 3 ; 20, and, indeed, in Mat. 6 ; 20." (Abbot I. C. C. on Col. p. 197). Cf. discussion on Galatians Par- allel 4. This is a close parallel, yet it is more probable that our author was influenced by Gal. 4 ; 7 or Eph. 1 ; 18 ; more likely the latter. (2) I Pfc. 1 ; 17 Col. 3; 25 xara to ixuaxoo Ipyov xai oux sa^t, ■Kpoaomo'kri^icc In both instances an impartial judgment is pronounced and the penalty is to be inflicted in accordance with the evil done. Cf. Rom. 2 ; 11, 12, 6, Eph. 6 ; 9b, Jas. 2 ; 1, Acts 10 ; 34-35. See discussion on Eph. 6 ; 9 = 1 Pt. 1 ; 17. The probabilities are that our author was following the lead of Ephesians here rather than Colossians. (3) I Pt. 1 ; 20 Col. 1 ; 26 7cpO£Yvto(7[j.£vou [J.SV 7:p6 xaTa(io}^Tj^ to [j.L»a~Tjpiov to a7iox£xptj[j.[j.£vov xoc^J.ou, oavepoiD'SVTO? Bs iiz 1(7- utzo twv aiwvtov . . . vijv Bs soav- y6(.T0u Twv )(p6vo)v sptoS-T] . . See Eph. 3 ; 11, 1 ; 4 for closer parallel. (4) I Pt. 2 ; 1 Col. 3 ; 8 'AxoO-s^xevoi o3v TiocTav xaxiiav xai oi.T.ob-z'jbz xat 6[xsT? Ta 7i;avTa, uTCOxpicriv xai (pO-ovouc xai Tcaaa? opy^v, 8'U[j.6v xaxiav (iXaTOYi^j-iav, Y.ix'ucckoOMc, oda/^o'koyiix'^ sx toO TTOixaTO? See Eph. 4 ; 22, 25, 21, etc. for equally close parallels. (5) I Pt. 2 ; 18 Col. 3 ; 22 01 oixsTai 67roT(X(70'6[j.evoi. sv TcavTi oi BouAoi, UTcaxousTS xaTa tmvtcc cpopto ToT? BscTTiOTaii; toT? . . xuptot? Cf. Eph. 6 ; 5. (6) I Pt. 3 ; 1 Col. 3 ; 18 YuvaTxsc 67COTacro'6[j.£vai, loXc, iBioi(; yuvaixs? 67COTa(7(7£(7&£ ^oiq ibioic avBpa<7iv avBpaatv See Eph. 5 ; 22, which also agrees verbally. First Epistle of Peter. 457 (7) I Pt. 3 ; 7 Col. 3 ; 19 oi avBpsi; (tuvoixouvtsc . . . wc acr- oi avBpsc, ky^'^'^cts tkc yuvaTxa? a::ov£!J.GVT£c tiij-tv Cf. Eph. 5 ; 25. (8) I Pt. 3 ; 8 Col. 3 ; 12 To Bs -ztsjc, r^oontc 6[j.6opov£r, svB'JG-ao-Q'S . . . aTuTvay/^va oixTipjxou o-ufXTcaQ-dt?, cpiXaBsT^cpo!., zi)<7j:'KyyyrA^ /yr^G'zo'rri'zix, Ta7C£ivocppocruvY]v, xpaij- TaTvsivocppovsg . . . TTjTa ij.axpoS'Djxiav . . Cf. Eph. 4 ; 32. (9) I Pt. 3 ; 18 Col. 1 ; 22 S-ava-wOeic [xsv Tapxi . . vuvi a::oxaTTjX}.a5£v sv tw (7(6[xaTi TTj$ aapxo? a'jToO Bia toO 0-avairoy This thought is common in the Pauline Epistles. (10) I Pt. 3 ; 22 Col. 3 ; 1 b<; s(7Tiv £v B£tta ©£oij 7rop£uQ'£i? 6 Xpitrro? scttiv sv B£^i.a| tou £ii; oupavov ©soO xa8'Yj[jxvo? (11) I Pt. 3; 22 b Col. 2 ; 10, 1 ; 16 67wO';:aY£VT(ov auTw o(.yyiAc<)v xai ■?] x£(pa7.Y] r^caa-r^c, ap/Y); xai Icou- E^oucrtoiv xoci 5Dva[j.£wv ciac. sv aUToi IxtitQ-yj toc xdcvTa, Ta £v ToT? oopavoTc . . . £i';r£ S-povoi, sI'ts xuptoTAjTEc, £iT£ ap/_ai, £!':•£ Etouctat With the last two parallels cf. Rom. 8 ; 34, 6 ; 2, 7, and Eph. 1 ; 20-22, for better contexts. (12) I Pt. 4 ; 7 TCpOC7£tJ/^aC Col. 4; 2 15 TT, Ty^O>jt'X/-r\ 7rpoxapT£p£iT£, Yf^i" YOPOUVTSC Cf. Rom. 12 ; 12, Mt. 26 ; 41, Lk. 21 ; 34, I Thes. 5 ; 6, 17, etc. On the whole this reference shows no more similarities to I Peter than do some of the others mentioned. 458 Ora Delnier Foster, (13) I Ft. 4 ; 8 Col. 3 ; 14 ■^pb xdcvTfov T-Yjv £1^ i(xi>zoijc, ocyoc- iizi %dtGi hz ■rouxoic, ■^yjv a'^txirr^v •KTCiv IxTSv^ zyoy'sc, This parallel is made more important by the possible reference to Col. 4 ; 2 in I Pt. 4 ; 7. Yet we have reasons to think I Peter is borrowing, through this section, quite freely from Rom. 12. (14) I Pt. 5 ; 12 Col. 4 ; 7 Bia UdouavoLi 6[jIv Toti tzkj-^oij Tuyixoc, 6 ayaTaiTO? aBsXcpo; xa\ a^£>.cpoi5 . . . £Ypa'j»a tcio-xo? . . . 6v £7T£[j.']>a This may be an accidental parallel, yet it is suggestive. The following table will show that I Peter is following Ephesians rather than Colossians. I Peter Ephesians ; 1 ; 1 ; 2 ; 2 ; 2 ; 2 ; 3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 7 ; 10 3; ; 13 6; ; 16 4; ; 17 6; ; 18 4; ; 18 1 ; ; 20 3; ; 20 1 ; ; 21 1; ; 1 4; 1 4 5 3 5 2 3 7 18 20 18 13 14 5 14 18, 22 9 17 7 11, 1 ; 4 10 20 22,25,31 Colossians 1 ; 1 3: 25 1 : 26 I Peter 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ■3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 ; 4—6 2 ; ; 9 1; ; 9 2; ; 9b 5; ; 11 2; ; 18 6; ; 1 5; ; 6 5; ; 7 5 ; ; 8 4; ; 15 3; ; 18 2; ; 19 4; ; 20 5; ; 21-22 1 ; ; 2-3 2 ; ; 10 4; ; 11 3, ; 5 5; ; 8, 9 6 , ; 12 6; ; 14 6, )hesians Colossians 18—22 11, 12 14 8 19 5 3; 22 22 3; 18 22, 33 25 3; 19 32 3; 12 17 18 1 ; 22 9 26 20-22 3;1. 2;10 2-3 [1;16 7 21 21 11 21 4; 7 23 It appears from this table that all the thought, which we find in Colossians, that is paralleled in I Peter, is to be found also in Ephe- sians. On the other hand, there are many parallels in Ephesians that are not to be duphcated in Colossians. We have, therefore, on evidence that our author knew Colossians. First Epistle of Peter. 459 PHILEMON D No one can determine with certainty from the Epistles themselves whether our author did or did not know Philemon, but that he made no use of it is obvious. PHILIPPIANS D d <1) I Pt. 2; 5 Phil. 4; 18 TO) 0£Cp . . Though the thought is much the same, there is a closer parallel in Rom. 12 ; 1. (2) I Pt. 3 ; 8 Phil. 3 ; 16 ■zh Vz TsAo; TCavTS:; 6[j.6cppovoC to auTO cppovsTv See Rom. 12 ; 16, 15 ; 5. (3) I Pt. 4 ; 7 Phil. 4 ; 5 zavTojv ^£ TO -iXoc^ r^yyvAzy 6 K'jptoc i\'y6c See Rom. 13 ; 11, 12, which is in a more favorable context. ,(4) I Pt. 4 ; 9 Phil. 2 ; 14 cpi,>v6^£voi si; ocW-filooc, avs'j y^T" 'J^^cvTa tjoisTts y/opic YoyyuTpiv ytJ(7[JL0U Cf. Rom. 12 ; 13. Heb. 13 ; 2, II Cor. 9 ; 7, Philem. 14. ^5) I Pt. 4 ; 13 Phil. 3 ; 10 XOIVWVsTtS TOT? TOti XpiO-TOJ TZaO'T,- XOlVOJViaV Toiv 7CaQ'Yl[JiaTt<)V SC'JTOU [xaciv Verbally, no other passage is such an exact parallel. But the idea of sharing and participating in the sufferings of Christ is very common with Paul. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 17, 18, II Cor. 1 ; 7, 14 ; 10, Col. 1 ; 24. This similarity suggests dependence but the context is not in its favor. Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 31 Janoart, 1913. 460 Ora Delnier Foster, (6) I Pt. 5 ; 3 Phil. 3 ; 17 TtiTUOt. Ytv6[J.£V0l TOS TiOtjJ.VlOU Xad-WiJ £/£T£ TUTIOV fj[j.a<; Cf. II Thes. 3 ; 9, I Tim. 4 ; 12, Tit. 2 ; 7. (7) I Pt. 5; 5 Phil. 2; 3 otXkriXoi^ T-/]v Ta7i£ivocppO(7tJvrjv sy- [j.YjBev xaxa spiS-eiav t] xsvoBo^iav,. xoji.(3w'7a'j&'£ OLHof. -zri TraTcsivocppoauvfi ocXkrfkouc Y]YO'J[j.£voi. bizt^iypv-zy.q iauircov. See Rom. 12 ; 10 for better context and equally close wording. Cf. also Eph. 5 ; 21. (8) I Pt. 5 ; 13 Phil. 4 ; 22 ' AoTcatsTat b[i..o[j.£vati; bzorji^iuv) Zi Ipyoiv a- yaO^cov The wording is not close enough to show dependence, yet the antithesis leads one to suspect it. First Epistle of Peter. 461 (3) I Pt. 3 ; 4 I Tim. 2 ; 2 This word appears only in these references in all the N. T. and suggests dependence, yet the context does not seem favorable. (4) I Pt. 3 ; 9 I Tim. 5 ; 14 Although this word also appears only in these two places in the N. T., it seems to have been accidentally so employed. (5) I Pt. 4; 11 I Tim. 6; 16 w s(7Ti,v T, B62a xai to xpdcTO? dc w i:ip.-ri xai xpaxo? a?ojviov «ij.yiv Touc aitova? twv aicovtov, aij.Yiv This thought is too common in the Pauline Hterature to afford an argument for dependence. (6) I Pt. 4; 16 I Tim. 5; 13 (u-Y) . . . TcaT/ETO)) w? . . . txlXoTpio- 7:£pispy6[j.£vai xa? olxia?, ou pvov smcrxoTCOc ' ^£ apyai, a7.1a xa\ cp^uapoi xal TCspispyot, I Timothy refers to " tatthng and meddlesome women," whereas I Peter alludes to fanatical zealots inspired either by religious or civil motives. "Erst unter K. Trajanus finden wir den aW.oTpio- smcTXOTcos Oder delator, den Denuncianten als Criminalverbrecher." (Hilgenfeld's Einl. p. 360.) It seems clear that I Timothy alludes to an individual weakness while our author had in mind a more serious offense. (7) I Pt. 5; 2 I Tim. 3 ; 3, 8 ^f]Vz ai(7Xpox£pBco? ^Xk% TcpoWp)? (£m(7xoxov) . . . ai^xpoxspBY], 3; 8, ]p\ aic/poxspBsT? This quaUfication seems to have been a general requirement of church officials, especially of bishops. (8) IPt. 5;3 I Tim. 4; 12 TUTiot yivo-jxvoi Tou Tioi^-viou Tuzoc Yivou TWV maxwv The thought is similar, yet compare Phil. 3; 17 and II Thes. 3; 9. 462 Ora Delmer Foster, (9) I Pt. 5 ; 10 I Tim. 6 ; 12 Both clauses were written in view of trials to be endured. Timothy is to fight manfully in the moral confhct " whereunto he is called," whereas the Christians of Asia Minor are " to receive the glory of their caUing " after enduring " fiery trials." There is, therefore, no necessary connection here. Other minor points of similarity might be given, e. g. I Pt. 1 ; 2 = I Tim. 1 ; 2, 1 ; 16 -= 3 ; 16, 1 ; 20 =- 4 ; 2, 2 ; 18 = 6 ; 1, 3 ; 18 = 3 ; 16, 4 ; 9 = 5; 10, etc., but they do not make dependence probable. From the foregoing data we have no reason to believe that one author knew the work of the other. n TIMOTHY D d (1) I Pt. 4 ; 5 xpivovTi ^fi)VTa(; xal v£xpo!j(; (2) I Pt. 4; 7 viq(]>aT£ zlc, 7:poGtoy^(xc (3) I Pt. 4 ; 11 tb io-Tiv Yj Boca xai xpdcTO^ elc, TOUi; aicovac twv alwvcov a^.^v (4) I Pt. 4; 19 ol xacr)rovT£(; xaTa to Q-sXYjjxa tou QzOO TCiaTW XTtCTTYl TCapaTt&EO'&'W- cav Tocc '^oyocc, (5) I Pt. 5 ; 4 II Tim. 4 : 1 TYjffou XptcnroG toO [x£7.Xovto$ xpivsiv ^wvTa? xai vsxpou^ n Tim. 4; 5 v^cps sv xacri II Tim. 4 ; 18 (T) 7] Boca £1? Touc aiwva^ -rwv alwvwv. a[r^v II Tim. 1; 12 Bi' ry aiTiav xat Tau-ra izoLayyi, oOOl OUX l%iXlG^/6vO[XO(.i . . . ;U£7C£tO'- [xai OTi BuvaTO? £a~i ityjv zapa- Q>"^x-/iv [JLOU cpuXa^ai II Tim. 4 ; 8 xop.i£T(7&>£ Tov aiJ-apawivov tTji; (XTvoxsiTai, ^.oi 6 ttj? Bixaioaovvic Bo^-/)? cTTECpavov crx£cpavoc The points of contact between these Epistles are not of such a character, nor are they of sufficient number, to make dependence First Epistle of Peter. • 463 probable. Obviously neither author was influenced by the other to any appreciable extent. (Cf. Holtzmann's Commentar zum N. T. Ill, p. 110.) TITUS C— D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Tit. 3 ; 5 6 xaToc TO r^oXb auTou tXzoc, ava- xa^a tov auTOu Dxov stoxtov ^(^\^.v.c, Titus refers to "salvation" per se, whereas I Peter alludes to a " new birth," a new creation. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 7 Tit. 2 ; 13 ev dc^iOxaT.u^'st 'Iyjcou Xpio-ToU s7:i'pav£iav tTjC Boctj? . . . 'IrjToij XptaToO This thought is too common to afford any evidence for dependence. Cf Col. 3 ; 4, II Tim. 4 ; 18, Heb. 9 ; 2, I Jn. 3 ; 2, etc. (3) I Pt, 1 ; 20 Tit. 1 ; 2, 3 xposYvcoa^jivo'j \xzv "po yMT(x.^o\ri<; YjV i'K'r\'^^zi\(/.'zo 6 a'jisyBr,? Qzhq xoapu, (pavspto8>£VTO? 8s ziz It- 7:po xpovwv awovwov, soavspwcro Be vdcTcov Twv y{j6vwi xaipoT? iSwtc tov }.6yov auTOii The phrasing is closer than the thought of the passage. (4) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Tit. 2 ; 14 XoLfjc zic, 7:z^i~o'\:r^'jV/ laov ::£pi,otJC"t,v . . . Our author probably borrowed z£p!,;:cC-/).oucriv 'jp.wv o>c; xaxoxoiwv Tcspl upjv }iY2^''' 'fs'^^^v 2 ; 7 Ix Twv xa9;wv spY^v, iTroxTsuovTSt; gzccwzw 7rap£/6[J.£vo? t'j-ov xalo ?>oiacro)(ji tov ©sov, . 17 xpsiTTOv spY^v . . . )cp aY5c9'07:oio!JVTac Cf. 3 ; 16 i)V rocc This suggests dependence, yet our author more probably used Rom. 12 ; 14, 17 here. Cf. also II Cor. 8 ; 21, Phil. 2 ; 15, etc. 464 Ora Delmer Foster, (6) I Pt. 2 ; 13 Tit. 3 ; 1 Sia Tov x'jptov SITS [jactlsT . . . s^ouiriai? UTCOTacrcscQ^at xsiQ^ap/^sTv, SITS TjY£[;.6aiv . . . 7rp6<; xav spyov ayaQ'Ov £toi[j.ou$ sTvai See Rom. 13 ; 1 for equally close thought and better context (7) I Pt. 2; 13 Tit. 2; 9 01 TO [j:rf/.i-i avO-pojxwv l%idv\}.iixi<; 'bo6'kooq iBioic Bs-jTZOTai? -j-OTao-- aHoc 6'£}>ri[j.aTt (TscrQ-at See Eph. 6 ; 5. It is important, however, to note here the possible reference to I Pt. 2 ; 12 in Tit. 2 ; 8. (8) I Pt. 3 ; 1 Tit. 2 ; 5 yuvoixs? 'jT.'j-cc'j(j6\).f^o!.i toT; iBioic u7ioira(7(70[jiivai; toTi; IBioi? avSpactv avBpacriv An equally tlose parallel is seen in Eph. 5 ; 22, yet the sequence here is suggestive. (9) I Pt. 8 ; 3 - 4 Tit. 2 ; 3 6v lo--(o o'j/ 6 £cco9cV . . . oOX 6 7:p£0-(3uTiBac wa-a'j-toc Iv y.%-:%fj-f- y.^oTZ-bc — ^c xapBia? avQ-ptoTuoc . . . [J.aTi t£p07cp£X£T(; . . . Cf. I Tim. 2 ; 9 and Rom. 2 ; 29. (10) I Pt. 3 ; 21 Tit. 3 ; 5 S!,£0-w&>r,(7av Bi' 'jSaxo? 6 xai 6[j.a? ectwo-ev Y][J.ac, Bta lo'JTpoO xaliYT^- avTLTUT^ov vQv aoj^Et (3a7CTi.a-[j.a, o'j vtainc, v.oli avaxaivo)(7£0)5 7:v£!J[j.a-oc (Tapxoi; aTroO'Edti; puTrou aT^Xa ct-jvei- o^yto'j BYJaso)!; ayaQ^-^c s7C£pwTYi[j.a The thought is much the same though the wording is ver> dif- ferent. Eph. 5 ; 26 is also a close parallel. The context is more in harmony with Romans and Ephesians, yet parallels 1, 6, and 12 suggest dependence. First Epistle of Peter. 465 (11) IPt. 4;2 Tit. 2; 12 dc, TO p|/iTi avQ-pc6~o)v s-iO-ujji- TzaiSsoouaa r.ij.a?, tva apvY,(7a[j.£voi at?, alia &-slT,SJ.aTt Bsoti tov £-t- Tr,v acrs[3£iav xai toc- xoffixivca? loiTiov £v crapxl piwcrai Xp''>^^>v l7:iQ-jij.iac, crwcppovoK xal Bixaico: Xa\ £'J(7£[icoC ^T,'70)[J.£V £V TW VOV aioivi This thought may be paralleled in other Pauline Epistles, yet the sequence here is suggestive. Cf. Exs. 2, 4, 6, and 12. (12;) IPt. 4; 3 Tit. .S; 3 ap£KT6c yap y.ij.Tv 6 7;ap£}.r,7.'j0-o); y,[j.£v yap r^o'z Y.%i y,ix£T; avoY-oi, . \ . £iB(.)}vola-p{atc a7:£i'j£Tc . . . oOJ:f\ko'j(; Cf. Gal. 5 ; 21, Rom. 13 ; 13, Eph. 2 ; 2, 3. (13, I Ft. 5; 2 Tit. 1 ; 7, 11 (j.-/]B£ al(7/pox£pBo)? £7ii<7x07:ov . . . [J.Y; al(7ypox£pBo . . . aiaypou XEpBouc /.apiv This parallel is of very little consequence. (14) IPt. 5; 3 Tit. 2; 7 -'jTM Yiv6ij.£voi TOO 7:ot[j.vio'j TsauTov 7:ap£/6iJ.£vo: T'J7:ov xaltov Ipycov Though similar exhortations occur elsewhere, xa/.oiv Epywv re- minds one of our author's emphasis on " good works." Holtzmann sees a parallel between I Pt. 1 ; 3-5 and Tit. 3 ; 4-7, (Handcommentar III, p. 110). Many other minor hkenesses exist, but they are, in the main, such as are common in the Pauline lite- rature. Obviously, these parallels afford but little evidence for literary dependence, since many of those given above, however close, are not peculiar to these Epistles. The general structure of Titus, as Holtzmann notes, is more suggestive than the separate passages. But this cannot be conclusive, for it too has much in commom with other Epistles upon which we have more reason to suppose our Epistle depends. The underscored text of I PETER on the following pages will show at a glance the probable influence of the Pauline Epistles upon our Epistle. 466 Ora Delmer Foster, The dotted line ( ) shows the points of contact with Romans ; the black line ( ) calls attention to the parallels with Ephesians ; the broken line ( ) represents all the other points of contact between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles (not found in Romans or Ephesians). The lines in italic show the possible influence of Hebrews upon I Peter. MARKED TEXT SHOWIISIG POSSIBLE SOURCES 1 nETPOS a7r6(7To}«oc TYjcroO XptcrToO ivXzv.'xotc Tcaps-iB-qj-oi; Biac- Tcopa? IlovTOu, Toik'x-iixc.^ l\'x-7:aBo/iac. "Xaiy-c /.sci BiOuvia?, xara 2 zpoyvcociv 0£oO zaTpoc, sv ayi^Tp-w 7:v£'J[j.airoc sic ii~ 10 rfcAoc r^? niaieoog aon't]Qiuv Wvxmv. Hspi r,c g-ojTTjpia; zizX,r^-r\ay.'/ 11 xai s^TjpauvTjTav 7:pou[xo0criv (h(^z'krji 7:apaxu'j»ai. 1,3 Aio ava^waajj-svoi Tac OT'-puac ty]c Biavoiac !J[j.o)v, vrpoyzzc 'zz'kzmc. zXr^iGOL-zz £711 TTjV ospoijivTjV 'jij.Tv /apiv sv a-oxay.'Josi TyiTOj XpiTToQ. 14 cbi; T£xva 'j^axo'^c, [J.r, <7'jv<7/;rj[J.a-:i^6u.£voi TaTc TcpoTspov sv ttj aj^^^ First Epistle of Peter. 'SI 15 •jij.oiv s~iGu[jiaic, aXXa xarx tov xalsaavTa "jij-a? ayiov /.yA aoTol 18 t'/t/wv xoo'iw dvaarocupjh- zl'ho^zc, oti o'j ciOa^cToTr, apyypuo r, /pucriw, 8XvrQo'ji^t]ie Ix, — ^; [j.aTaia(; 'jij.wv avaTTpocp-^; r.y-zozy.zv^o-'-j'j, 19 a}.}^a Ti/(i(p (Uftaii ok dfivov ic/koiiov y.ai da^i/.or Xoiaiov. 20 7TQ08Yvo)()f.tiirov /ner ttqo y.aia^oAr^z xoGf^iov, cfavfowO^fvioc 6e in* 21 8a%i'i0v iwr xoonov 6i^ i/id? '''yjc ?)'-' ySj~ou "iTTOor sir (-)oov /or 22 8)'f:i{)('.)'ia avior tx )'8XQun' xal dc'^av aino) Sovja. coa-z tt.v -(ctiv uawv xai sATiiBa sTvat, si? Bsov. Tocc, (foy^occ, 6[j.wv T^yvizoTo? sv tt, OTia/wO^ TY]? aXY]8'2ia5 si? (ptX(xBs}.oiav avuxoxpiTov sx xapBiac SuS/.r'/.'j'jc. 23 ayazY^Ta-re sxtsvwc, avaysysvvrj[jiv&t oux sx aTuopac cpO-apTTj? aA}.a 24 ao!j-apToi>, Bia Aoyou ^ojvtoc (':)s&S xal [j-evovtoc" Bioti rcaTa ^ap^ ox: yopTo?, xai ^racra Bo'^a auTYj? w? avO-oc yopTO'j' E^YjpavQ-r] 6 /^opTo?, xai TO avO'O? Ei£7:£a"sv. II. TO Bs p-^[j.a Kuptou [isvsi, si? tov aicova. to-jto Bs s8 on /o*/f>/«^' o xvoioc. 4 7:po? ov ;:poG'sp/6ij.svoi, XiO'Ov toJvTa, 6x6 avS'pwTcwv [xsv a-oBsSoxiiJ.aT- 5 uivov ::apa Bs (")soj sxIsxtov svti'J.ov xal aijTol o)? "aiLoi ''f-ivTS? ()/xf)dof^isTai)fi oixoq nvivnttTr/.oQ si? ispaTEtj[j.a ayiov, dt'f-vhyxai (; ni'&vfAaiixdc, Ovaiac eirnQoadhxiavc 6>fo> J/ti ^Jy]aov XQinrov' Bwti iizpizyzi sv ypacpY] 'IBotj TiQ>Yi[xi SV Hkov >.it>ov sxAsxTOv axpoytoviaTov svTtfj.ov, xal 6 TiKTTS'jfov st: a-jTO) o'j [J-Y] xaTaio-^uvS-Y,. 7 'J[wv o3v -J] TijjT, ToT? T^iG-TstJOUTiv a7ci(7Toy(7iv Bs /iO-0? ov a-sSoxiij-aTav S 01 oixoBojJLOuvTs? o^iTO? sysv/iOTj SI? xs'^a}.Y,v y(.)via? xal liO'O? ::poT/.o;j.- I 468 Ora Delmer Foster, 9 £15 xai sTsO'Tjo-av. t^'f^c Bs ysvo? sxT^sxtov, ^aalXetov leQccisviJa, e^voc ayiov, Mwc ftc ntQinoiTqan'^ o/rwc Tcic aQSrag siayyf^iXtiiE 10 ror £X (TXOTOU? ujj.ac y.oiXic^ccvxoc zlq to Q^auaaa^ov auToD ©c5c" ol' TTOTS 0!j }.aoc vtiv Bs Xabc, ©sou, ol ocix T,7v£Y]^svoi vOv Bs slsyiO-avTS?. 11 'AyaTCrj-roi, Tuapaxalw wg naQoiaovg xai na^emdr^iiiovg axs/saQ-ai Tcov aacxixwv, £7uiO'U[J.icov, ai-tvsc o-TpaTS'JovTai xa-a tTjC 'j^'J/.^' '^'^j^ 12 ava(7Tpo£6v cpopsTcrO'S, tov (iao-Oia tuxSts. < )i oixst^i G-OTaTO-oij-svot, sv 18 7:avT't o6[i(o toT? ^zG~6~cac, otj [j.ovov ToTr ayaO-oTc xai sxisixsatv aXXa xai toTc ctxoXioT;. toDto yap /apic si 8ia (jUvstBrjTiv 0£on 19 'jTuoospsi Tie I'jTia; 7waG-/(ov aBixojc- ::oTov yap xlsoc si oiixapTavovTs; 20 >^ai xoAaoit6[j.£voi ■jtco[j.£V£Tts ; a}.A £i ayaO'O'oiouvTsc xoi TvaT/^ovTSC •j7;o[j.svsrTS, TOJTO /api? 7:apa 0sco. sk toijto yap £xlrjQ.ouS'Tj(rfjT£ toT; i/v£'jIv auTOJj* oc df^iaqriav ovx anohjafv ouBs 22 s'jp£8-/] B67.0C £v TO) cToij-aTi auToO* og koi^OQOvf^ievog ovx mnsXoi- 23 doQei^ vaG-/o)v oix Tj7:£iX£1, 7:ap£BiBou Be tco xpivovTi Bixaiw?* oc 24 T«g (xjiiaQilag ij/iion' avxog dt'tjvsyxev fr rw aioiiazi avrov iiii to c6}^ov, I'va TaTc aij.apTiair a7:oysv6ij.svoi tt, Bixaioauvr) ^r,(7to[xsv oO 25 T(o ij.c6}>co7:i lab-TjTs. YjTs yap oj? 7:p6(3aTa 7:7.ava)[j.£voi, oiXkcc ETCscTpa- OT,T£ vOv Itti tov Tioifxtva xai snCaxoTiov rm' ipv^oHv vfUMV. 0[j.oiO)i; III yjvaTxsr 'jTroTacTTO'j.Evai toTc iBioi? avBpaTiv, iva £i TiV£5 oazzib-ooGiy tw 2 }.6y(o Bia tTjC tcov yjvaixcov avacTTpocpTjC av£tj 'koyoD x£j3Brj8'YjcrovTai First Epistle of Peter. 469 5 xocjjt-oc, a}^X' 6 xpurToc ~r,c xapBta; avD'po)::o; Iv to> acpO-apTO) Toti TjTuyiou xai Tcpascoc 7:v£Uij.aTo;, o Ittiv bmr^iov tou BsoO T:o7jjzz).i:;. 6 o3to)c yap tcots xal ai aytai yjvaTy.sc a[ sATzt^o'jaat sic O-eov sxoTaouv lauirac, u;:oTa(7(76[X£vai toTi; t?^iotc avBpaTiv, coc llaoca 'j7:r,xou£v Toi 'A[jpaa[j., xypiov atj-rov yyOMGT.- r^c sysvy/j-Tj" 7£xva ayaO'Cz-oio^iTai 7 y.oCi [iji] cpo(3oy[JL£vai, [j-7]B£[jiav --Jytfiiu. ( )[ avSp£5 6[xoio)g t'jvoixo'jvtsc xaxa yvwcTiv, w? aaO'SVSTTEpo) 'jX£'J£f. tw yjvaiXEU.) a-ovsaovTor Ttar;/, 8 w? xoi avvxlriQOVoiiioi x^^^qitoq 'iorfji, zlc, to [j.-?) syxoT^ToO-bai Tac 9 xpo(7£U/a5 u[j.wv. To Be xzXoc xavTE^ oij.ocppovs?, cuu-TcaS-sT?, ot7.aS£}.Q0i, £'j(77r}vayyvot, TaTCsivocppovsc. [j.y] aTroBiBovTs: xaxc/v avTi xaxoti r, XoiBopiav avTi loiBopCa? zouyxv'io'/ Se £'j}«oyouvT£c, oti sic to^Ito £x7vYiOrjT£ tva evAoyiar xX^QOvof^ir^atiTf. 10 6 yap b'Elcov ^tor,v ayaxav xai iBsTv Yi[j.£pa? ayaO-a^ TiaucraTTco ty]v y^.w^Tav a7;6 xaxou xai /£i)vY] ToO [xy; XaCkr^Goci Bolov. 11 ixxXivdcTO) Be olt^o xaxoU xai 7:oiYj'7a-o) ayaB-ov, CriiriGccco) slgrivr^r xai Siw'^aio avti^v. 12 OTi 6(p8>a>.[j-oi KuptoD Itci Bixaiouc xai coTa a^JTOtJ £ic BstjCTIv auToiv, 7i;p6'70)7:ov Bs K-jpiou STd Troicrijv'^a? xaxa. 13 Kai TIC 6 xaxoicwv uij.a;; lav tou ayaO-oO (^Yi}.o)i:ai /svTjTU-e; a).}' £1 14 xai Tcaa/oiTs Bia BixaiOT^jvTjV, [xaxapioi. tov Be (p6(3ov atj-wv [j.y, zio^r^bri-zz [j.YjBe I7apa/^Q'Y;T£, xtjpiov Ss tov XpiTTOv ayiao-aTo Iv TaTc 15 xapBiaic 'jij.oiv, sttoiixoi a£i 7:p6c aT^o').o'^iy.'/ -avTi tw aJToOvTi -jpiac >.6y&v ::£pi tyjc Iv uplv £}.toBo;, aD.a ij.£Ta 7:pa'JTr,T-oc xai o6|3oo, IG ovvf^idr^oiv evovreg dyaOrjV., Ira sr Yj[j.a to3 BsolJ, -aT/siv y, xaxao- 18 TiOiouvTac. oTi ;t«/ XQiOiog ana'^ TifQi c'cfHcoiton' ihn'O^avf-): Bixaio? UTisp aBixojv, Yva vficcg ngoaaydyr^ lo) &f-o). avaT(»0£ic ij.ev 470 Ora Delmer Foster, 19 Tapxi "^oiO'KoijpzK; Bs Tuvsujj-airr sv w xai toTc ev £i(; £xr,pu'£sv, axstQ-r^cracrtv tzots ots a-scsBs/sTO yj -oO ©sou [xaxpoQ>ujj.ia £1- ijfii-Qaig iVo7f ianaax6va^of.ibn]Q xi^onov ek tjv ukiyoi.^ 21 toSt ec/ir o;fT(ij xpviai^ difa(6i)rjaav t>i uSaTOc. o x«<, vfj.ag dvTbivnov vT'V aoKf-i ^anTiai^ia ov aa^xog ctTroiftoig ^vnov ak'ka 22 av)'f-idiir)fo)g dya^^fi tiiri-Qunripa dg Ssov, Bt,' dcvaaTaa-scoc 'lYjcrou Xptc-Toti, og iaiiv ^v d&'^in &sov no^evi/elg elg ovQctror vnoraytvroiv IV avxio uyytXmv xai t'^uva/wr xai dvvuii&iov. XpiTToS ouv -aOovTor 2 capxi xal 'jijxT? v?iv atJ-TjV h'voiav OTuAiTacD'S, oTt 6 :ia0'wv aaTT/a "sTcajjTai a[j,apxiaic, si? to ir/ixsTt avOpojTKov £XtSu[jiaic a}.7.a ^eXij^ati •^ Of ot~ Tov £7:Q;oi7rov £v crapxi /:?/wo'«/ ypovov. apxsTOi; yap 6 7:ap£>."/]Xu0^wc yyjvoc TO [ioy}.rj[j,a twv eO'vojv xa':£tpYa(70-ai, 7C£7^op£tj[jivou? Iv a(7£>>Y£ia!,c, £7i:!,iJ''j[jiair, oivocp^uy^aic, xo')[xoic. ttotoi?, xai aD'£[jiTotc ■1 £i<>o)Ao}.aTpiai,?. Ev (0 '££vi^ovTai [j.r, CDVTps/ov-rwv !j[j.wv £ic tt^v auTr^v 5 Trjc a(j(.)Tia5 ava/ua"iv, [3}i.aG'O*ri[jL0!JVT£C" oV d/iodwcovciiv '/.oyov tw 6 ST01U.C0? xptvovTt TwvTac xai v£xpo'Jr tic tovito yap xai vsxpoT? t\jT{'p[z)lGb-'f\ I'va xpiO-oicri [j.£v xaTa av8pto-o'jr crapxi ^wti <^£ xa-ra 0£ov 77y£yij.aTi. 7 Ilavio)V Se 10 rtkog t'lyyixf^t: TcoopovY^TaTs o3v xai vrj'LaT£ si? 8 ~^oriz'jyo(.c' 7:po ::avTO)v ty,v f/c saviovg dydrrrp' &y.i£vri zy^ovreg, OTt, 9 aYa;rri xaA'J7v-£i 7;X"^Q'0? ajj-apTioiv ifikoiavoi fig dXh]Aovg hjz'j 10 yoYY^'^'P"^'^' s'/taTTOC xaS-toc sXaSsv /apiTij.a, sic la'jTouc auTo Biaxo- 11 VOIJVT£C (OC y.OUM 0lX0v6[J.0l rrOlXl/.Tj? /apiTO? (")£0!J* £1 TIC la},£T, coc XoY^a ©soti* si' Ti? BiaxovsT, w? It layuoc ■f\c, yoizr\yzi 6 (")£6?' iva £v ::a(7iv BocatYjTat 6 Oeoc Bia 'IyjO-ou XpiTToD, w «0Th' ») 66'^a xai to '/.QUTog eig rove ahovcg iwv iuojI'ojv. d/Jiji'. 12 Wyv.T.r^T'jX, [j.y, cEvitETO-s tyj Iv 'jijIv 7;opc6o"£t TCpo? 7:£ipao"[J.6v yijlv 13 Ytvop-svYj o)c i£vo'j 'j[j.Tv crufj.paivovToc, aA7.a xaO-6 xoivcovsTts toIc, toD XpicTToO xa9'Y,tj,a(jiv y_aipsTs, iva xai sv tt] aTioxaludtsi ty,c BoHy^c 1-1 auTOU /apYjTs aYa).};ioi[j,svoi. ft 6)'6idi^€Gi)^e sv ovo/naTt Xotaiov, paxagioi. oti to tYjC B6'cy,c xai to toS 0so!j :wsu[J.a s© 6[j-ac ava- 15 xa'JsTai. [j;?] y*^? '^I'? 'j[J-wv -aT/sTW wc oovs'jc y) xT^st^tyjc y; xaxoxoioc First Epistle of Peter. 471 !<> r, wr aA},OTpi£~0T/-o~o;. si Sk Coc. XpiTTiavor, [j.r, y.iT/'jvsTuoj, Sofa'^eTo* 17 Be Tov (■)sov £v tco ovoixaTi tootco. oti [6| v.yxyji too ap'^aTO-ai to xpi^a cmo ror or;fo/' /or (')(^or z\ Bs "pwTOv ao' '^([J-wv. ti to TS7.0C Tcov a:;;£iO'0'JvT(-)V tw tou (")$otj o-jayY^^-^f;* ; ''-^•' s? 6 Bi/.a'.or [iMXic, acouSTai, 6 [Be] aasj^r,; vsA a[j.x;:Tco}.6$ ::oD cpavelTai ; oWto xai 01 rArriyi'tt xaToc to &'£}.r,|j.a too (-)£otj rrtTTw xTiaTT, -apaT!,6-£'7'j(')'7av Tac 'ify/y-c. h aysca-o-oaa. Y npcG-jj'jTspoD? o3v £v 'j[j.Tv "apazaloj 6 o-'jv:;:p£'7J3'jT£po; xai [j.aoTU? Tojv TOO XpicTou xa&'Yi[j,aT(ov, 6 xai tyjc a£X}vOoa7]? axoxaX'JTZTS'jO'a!, 2 BocY); xoivtovoi?, 7i;ot[xavaT£ to £v 'jij.Tv -oi[j.viov too B£Oo, [J-t, avayxaTTcoi; 3 oc}Aa sxoucicoc, [j.y,B£ ai'7/j:ox£j;Bwc i<}.la ;:poQ"J[j.oK, [j;f,B' mc xaTaxu- 4 pt£UOVT£C Tcov xATj^O)'/ a}.}.a T'j-oi Y!,v6ij.£voi TOO "oiij-vioo" xal oav£':oj- L)£VTO? roT uQimoiii&voc xo[j.!,£T'jO£ tov aaapavTivov ri/c ^o6^r^c h oTfif/rn'or. '0[j.ow-jc, v£toT£po!.. OTUOTaYTjTS 7cp£a-|jOT£poi$. riavT£; 8k yjJ:'r^lSj'.z tt;/ Ta-sivoopoTOvrjV £Yxoij.[jo')'jac7U'£, OTt [6] 0£6c 'j-£pTjOavo'-; avTrnracro-STai TaxscvoTc Be BiBcotiv /apiv. ■6 Ta7:£i,va)&"Y]T£ ouv ut^o ty]v xpaTaiav /sTpcc too 0£oo, iva o[j.ar 7 ocjjwc-f, £V xaipfi), TTacav ttjv [jiptij.vav opov £7;ipi'J>avT£c It: aoTOv o// 8 aviM i^iiAsh negl vf.im'. Nr/jjaTE, y^jrpfo^riGcc^z. 6 avTiBixo? o[j.fov 9 Biajjoloc wc /iwv wpo6[j.£vo? T.zy-.y.zzX Zr-O)'/ x7.Ta-!,£Tv to avTto-Tr,T£ Gzzzzoi TTj -iTTEt, tldoi&c xu avTO. 1 GiV na^r^iiuiitiv tij sv tco xotij.o) 10 oacov dd&lffonjii suiTSAsTaltai. 'O de 0foc ttwotjc ^«^^^f^£-__2 y,ix\iGy.c 'j[J.oi^ zlc, -zry aicovtov aoTOo Bocav Iv XpiTToi, dXr{oy ^^cO'OVTa; 11 aoTO? xuTaQTtGSi. G-rr^piczi, (jb-zvoinzi. aoTw to xptxTo; zlc, too? 12 Aia IiAooavoo ojjIv too ttittoo aB£}s900, w; 7.oy"''^'^1-'-^'' ^'' '^'^'V''^'' eyQuil'a, ^apaxocicov xal l7:i,[j-apTopcov TaoTr,v £!,vai a>.TjD'rj /apiv too 13 0£oo- zlc -fiy o-TrjT£. \4aTTCiCf^Tia rifdc /j Iv Ba|3o}.o)Vi (70V£x7v£XTr, xai 11 ]\Iapxoc 6 ooo? [J.00. '"AGTrdaaaii^ d/.ktjXovg &v ^/.^■i*f«^(....«y^.^.?/.^'; Eicr,vr, oulv TraTtv toT; iv Xoitto). 472 Ora Delmer Foster, DEPENDENCE OF I PETER UPON THE PAULINE EPISTLES (A) Supporting Considerations Zahn maintains, with others, that the churches addressed in I Pt. 1 ; 1 were not in existence long enough before Paul penned his letter to the Romans to permit of its dependence upon our Epistle. " According to the testimony of his own letters and of Acts, Paul was the missionar}^ who, in the sense of Rom. 15; 20, I Cor. 3 ; 10, II Cor. 10 ; 15, laid the foundations of Christianity in all this region " (Zahn Int. II, p. 135). " The supposition that Paul found in Eph- esus or Iconium Christian Churches already organised or even indi- vidual Christians, is contrary to the evidence of all existing sources of information." (ibid.) " Regarding the founding of the churches in Cappadocia, Pontus, and Bithynia, regions which Paul did not visit personally, we have no information. But it is probable that in these provinces . . . the gospel was preached somewhat later, but practically under the same conditions " (ibid. p. 136). " Nor were the provinces evangelized by persons from these districts, who heard the preaching at Pentecost. It must be remembered that these hear- ers were not pilgrims to the feast, who, after the feast, returned to the lands of their birth, but Jews from abroad residing in Jeru- salem " (ibid. p. 138). Jiilicher also contends that " Paul would not have begun his missionary work in Galatia and Asia if flourishing Christian commu- nities had already been founded there under the influence of Peter, as we should be obliged to assume from I Pt. 1 ; 2 ff." (Int. p. 211). The same author argues that : " (a) the independence asserted by Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians becomes a grievous delusion, since he would have owed not only the kernel of his Gospel but even his epistolary style to Peter ; (b) he must, contrary to his principles, have worked upon a field over which Peter had prior rights ; (c) the history of the Apostolic times becomes an absolute riddle, for we should find Peter, who had just been publicly rebuked by Paul at Antioch (Gal. 2 ; 11 f.) for exercising a moral pressure towards Judaism upon Gentile Christians, writing immediately afterwards to Christian communities in a manner by which it might be supposed that such a thing as a written norm for the social conduct of mankind — the Law — did not exist : that he knew only of Christians, not of Jewish or Gentile Christians ; and (d) we should be forced to admit that Peter already possessed everything in Paul's' teaching which helped to form the common Christian consciousness." First Epistle oj Peter. 473 McGiffert, as against Weiss, claims : " There is no other early Christian document, by another hand than Paul's, whose Paulinism can begin to compare with that of I Peter. There can be no mista- king the fact that the author was a Pauhnist, that his Gospel was the Gospel of Paul, and that his mind was saturated with Paul's ideas " (Apos. Age, p. 485). Salmon says : " The Paulinism of Peter's Epistle proceeds be- yond identity of doctrine, and is such as to show that Peter had read some of Paul's letters. In particular the proofs of his acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans are so numerous and striking as to leave no doubt in my mind. There are isolated coincidences with other Pauline Epistles, but it is with the Epistle to the Ephesians that the affinity is closest. There are several passages in Peter's Epistle which so strongly remind us of passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that the simplest explanation of their origin is that they were suggested to the writer by his know- ledge of Paul's Epistles. But the resemblance is often merely in the thoughts, or in the general plan, without any exact reproduction of the words. We might conjecturally explain this difference by supposing the Epistle to the Romans to have been so long known to St. Peter that he had had time to become familiar with its language, while his acquaintance with the Ephesian Epistle was more recent/' For his argument see Introduction p. 553 f. Bennett and Addeney maintain that " Peter here appears as having learned more from Paul than from Christ. There are many allusions to some of Paul's Epistles, certainly Romans and probably Ephesians " (Bib. Int., p. 442). " This similarity "—between I Peter and the Pauline epistles— " certainly is traceable and is of a kind to lead us to suppose an ac- quaintance on the writer's part with several of our Pauline epistles." Among the Pauline epistles which the Apostle Peter seems to have had in mind in writing his, were those to the Colossians and Ephesians." Bleek's Int. II, p. 168 f. " One seeks in vain in this supposed work of Peter, that head of Jewish Christianity, for a definite distinctness such as is seen in the writings of Paul and John. There are not only to be found in it reminiscences of the Pauhne Epistles, which the author without doubt read, but also the doctrine and phraseology are essentially Pauline." (De Wette's Einl. in das N. T. p. 381.) Reuss, after giving a list of parallels between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles notes that : " The circumstance that two epistles 474 Ora Delmer Foster, only furnish these parallels shows that the coincidence is not acci- dental." (Hist, of the N. T. p. 145.) Examples like the above might be multiphed indefinitely, but let these suffice. Almost any N. T. Introduction, or Commentary on I Peter, to which we may turn will contain some such view as these cited above. That is to say the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports the claim that I Peter depends upon the Pauline Epistles. In addition to the authorities cited above, we may also add the names of Bleek, Credner, Ewald, Harnack, Hug, Hofmann, Lechler, Mangold, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Schmiedel, Schmidt, Schott, Sieffert, Wellhausen, etc., in Germany ; Alford, Bennett, Davidson, Cook, Farrar, Plumptre, Ramsay, etc., in England ; Loisey, Monnier, etc., in France and Bacon, McGiffert, etc., in America. (B) Opposing Considerations. As has been noted at various points in the notes on the parallels, B. Weiss, in his " Petrinische Lehrbegriff," has said about all that can be said in favor of the dependence of Paul upon I Peter. He has gained so small a following that we need not discuss his position in detail. Practically all scholars to-day admit that I Peter contains a later stratum of thought than that found in the Pauline Epistles. This, of course, is accounted for by a very small minority, by the theory of a later redaction. (See P. Schmidt's article on " Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief," in the " Zeitschrift fiir wissen- schaftliche Theologie," 1908, p. 24—52.) The above discussion assumes, on the authority of the greater number of scholars, the integrity of the Epistle. This may not be giving due consideration, either to the " partition theory," proposed by Schmidt, or to the claim of Pauline dependence, advocated by Weiss, yet, not only the evidence afforded by the 223 parallels given above, but also the consensus of scholastic opinion, seem to justify an apparently hasty disposition. Some, very naturally, question " Petrine dependence," who do not advocate the reverse relation, e. g., Bruckner, Davidson, Eadie, Huther, Mayerhoff, Ranch, Ritschl, Steiger, etc. A few of the arguments, which are advanced against the view of Petrine depen- dence, may now be reviewed. It is urged that " 1 Peter has too large a vocabulary of words peculiar to itself to depend upon Paul." This becomes of little con- sequence, when the possibility of the reverse relationship is sug- First Epistle of Peter. 475 gested. It would be much more difficult to account for the abscence of all the 01 words, which are pecuHar to I Peter, in all the Pauhne Literature, on the supposition that Paul depends upon I Peter, than to suppose the dependence is on the side of our author. The objection is raised that " many of the P«auline expressions do not appear in the Epistle." This, all will concede, but it is also important to note that the book does contain many of the funda- mental expressions of Paul. The following list of N. T. words, which occur in I Peter and the Pauline Epistles only, wiU show that this objection merits but little consideration, ayvwcia, axpoyfovioioc, (iacoTia, acpO-ap'^o?, stBo^XoT^a'psia, siTisp, sito, l^fx^ivco, sTuaivoi;, sixpoo'- bsxToc, £ucr-}^aY/vo?, vjc-tj/ioc, v/yoc, xaQo, xa-ra7>a}aa, x(o[j,oc, Ioyixoc, }.otBopia, Yr^Yj(,i., T.vzu[}.oi-v//jc,^ 7:p6(r/:o[j.[j.a, (jU^r,pov6[j.o$, 6%(xxori, cpiT^aBsT^cpta, etc. Bigg argues that " there are none of those words which belong especially to the circle of Paul's ideas to be found in I Peter," hence the inference is that it cannot depend upon Paul. The force of his argument is seen to be nil, by a glance at the following arrangement of the words which he cites. a c c •^ P5 M d M "3 ^ 3 o H axpo(iu(7Tia Stxaiouv 11 2 14 2 3 8 2 2 1 TwepiTOp-T; 14 1 7 1 2 4 D^XoysTv 1 1 (>:vax£cpa>.ai,o ulob-zairx udb'cci 1 3 1 1 1 7:XTjp(>)[j.a 4 2 1 4 2 [lUCriTYlplOV appa[io)v 2 5 2 6 1 4 1 7:y.pa.7:zoi]j,oc 9 1 1 3 2 7:apa[iafftc TrapajjaTTjC 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 32 January, 1913. 476 Or a Delmer Foster, i d II C. Gal. ^ 1— 1 M s I— ( a H 1— 1 1—1 Tupoopi^eiv 2 1 . 5 4 17 2 2 1 1 2 xa-apysTv 6 9 2 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 cr-raupoOv 4 1 3 [J-OpcpY] Ypap-ixa 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 No one denies that I Thessalonians came from the " circle of PauUne ideas," yet of all the words Bigg cites, not one is found in that generally accepted Epistle. They also appear in other Epistles so rarely that the argument is absolutely worthless. One is puzzled to know how the same author can advance, as an argument against the Pauline influence upon our Epistle, the statement that " we do not find, in I Peter, BixaioOv or its family." True, the verbal form is not to be found in I Peter, neither is it to be found in eight of the Pauhne Epistles. Hence from his premise these are not Pauline. On the other hand, if we may consider the kindship of Bixauoc, BixaioT'jvTj, and Bixaio? not too distant to belong to the household of BixaioSv, we shall be required to conclude Professor Bigg had incidentally overlooked many of the references, since our author employs Sixaiwi; once (2 ; 23), Bi- y.MOG'jvt] twice (2 ; 24, 3 ; 14), and Bixatoc three times (3 ; 12, 18, 4; 18). Bigg notes (Com. p. 4—5) that " very few connecting particles occur " in the Epistle. He then gives the following examples : av apa Y£ IksiBy) ZTZti TS Byj 710 U KO)C, Matthew 41 7 1 2 4 1 Mark 21 2 1 1 Luke 29 6 4 1 2 7 1 John Acts 27 20 6 3 3 2 3 136 2 2 Romans 7 11 1 4 16 1 3 I Corinthians 12 5 3 4 5 4 1 2 II Corinthians 3 3 1 2 1 1 5 Galatians 5 6 2 Ephesians 1 2 First Epistle of Peter. 477 av apa ys i%tiVf\ ir.si xz ^-^ mu %oiq Philippians 1 11 1 Colossians 1 I Thessalonians 11 4 II Thessalonians 1 I Timothy II Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews 6 2 9 20 1 James 3 1 II Peter I John 5 II John III John Jude I Revelation 3 2 " That av is not to be found in the Epistle " he says " is alone sufficient to show that the writer was not a Greek." (Com. p. 5.) The weakness of this argument is made obvious by the above ar- rangement of the words which he cites. It is seen that this par- ticle does not appear in a number of Paul's Epistles. True, Paul was not a Greek by birth, yet his native city was a center of Greek culture of no little consequence. He had abundant opportunity in Tarsus to learn the Greek language thoroughly. At any rate we are assured by his writings that he was a master of the Greek language. It is to be noted that in all his Epistles, which compose cir. 25 % of the N. T., av appears but thirty times, whereas in Matthew, which certainly goes back to a Semitic original, the word occurs forty-one times. The above table shows that Paul, or his amanu- ensis, employed the particle very freely at times and at other times not at all. That the word appears in Matthew about as often as in Luke and Acts combined, which, on the whole, are written in as good Greek as is to be found in the N. T., shows that Bigg's argument has practically nothing to support it. Furthermore it involves an inconsistency, in that, he admits that our author pos- sessed " a remarkable correctness of usage." He also states that " the article is employed in more classical style than by any other writer in the N. T., and still more striking is the refined accuracy of his use of ox;." (Cf. Com. p. 4.) These concessions certainly do not support his claim that our author " could not have been a Greek." 478 Ora Dehner Foster, On Bigg's premise, we should expect the particle to be of rare occurence in the " Petrine portion " of Acts, whereas out of its twenty appearances in the entire book, thirteen are in the first ten chapters. Many of them are also in the " speeches of Peter." It would seem, therefore, that the absence of av, instead of being an argument against the dependence of our Epistle upon Paul, rather indicates the opposite, since the " Pauline portion " of Acts uses the word but rarely. The study of apa yields a similar result to that obtained through av. It appears four times in the Petrine portion of Acts, and but twice in the Pauline section. It also shows a great variation of usage in the Pauline Epistles. Fs is found in Acts only in the first eleven chapters, which again would seem to show a closer relation between our Epistle and the Pauline section than with the Petrine portion, as might be expected. " Luke ", who also "uses the language with freedom and not with an inconsiderable degree of correctness ", does not use l-zi in the Acts at all, and but twice in the Gospel. If in fifty-two chapters he uses the word but twice, and in the acts not at all, we should not be surprised at its absence in a short Epistle of but five chapters. 'EtcsiS"/) is used but six times by Paul and but five times by all the rest of the N. T. authors, so we should not think it strange that it does not appear in this little Epistle. Ts affords a good example of how an author may vary in the use of a particular word in diffe- rent writings. It appears sixteen times in Romans, and not at all in Galatians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles. "Luke" also employs it but seven times in his Gospel, whereas it appears one hundred and thirty-six times in Acts, fifty- four of which are in the " Petrine division." \r^ is a very rare word in the N. T. The absence of the particle from I Peter is just what would be expected by those who assert its dependence, since Paul only uses it twice. IIo'j is only used once in all the letters of Paul. ITok is strictly a Pauline term, yet he does not use it in seven of his Epistles. Hw; is not used by our author, yet it occurs nine times in Acts, seven of which are in the Petrine section. On the whole, therefore, the list of " missing particles," cited by Bigg, does not argue against, but for Petrine dependence upon the Pauline Epistles. As a further test of the verbal argument, a careful classification and count has been made of all the words used in I Peter, which are also employed by no more than six other N. T. writers. First Epistle of Peter. 479 Total occurrences in the generally accepted Epistles of Paul 344 Total occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles 40 Total in the Pauhne Epistles 384 Number in Petrine section of Acts 23 Number in Pauline section of Acts 41 Total in Acts 64 Total in all the other N. T. books 333 Grand total 781 Of the N. T. the Pauline Epistles (excluding Pastorals) = 22% Of the N. T. the Pastoral Epistles •= 3% Of the N. T. the Pauline Epistles compose cir. 25% Normal proportion of occurrences in the Petrine section of Acts 29 Normal proportion of occurrences in the Pauline section of Acts 35 It is obvious, therefore, that the words of this list are below the normal in the Petrine section, contrary to the " one source " theory. The Pauline Epistles which constitute but 25% of the N. T. contain almost 50% of these words. It seems therefore, as against Professor Bigg, that there must be some relationship between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles. Conclusion We have seen that the opposing arguments, reviewed above, have proven to be of very little moment. Their testimony, what little they have to offer, seems to be in favor of the dependence of I Peter upon the Pauhne Epistles rather than against it. We have also noted that the great majority of scholars of all schools agree that our Epistle depends upon Paul. Even those, as Klopper, who deny the genuineness of either I Peter or Ephesians, contend that Ephesians was used b\' our author. ]\Ioffat voices the opinion of the majority of scholars \\hen he says : " The literarj' connection of I Peter with the later Pauline epistles is indubitable " (Hist. N. T. p. 246). A glance at the underscored text of the Epistle (cf. pgs. 101—106) would seem not only to justify this conclusion, but also to warrant McGiffert and Bennet and Adeney in saying that : " there is no other book in the N. T. not written by Paul himself that so closely resembles his writings (Apos. Age p. 485, and Bib. Int. p.442) . x\s a result af the foregoing study we are led to say with Professor Bacon that : " It is one of the most solid results of criticism, that 480 Ora Delmer Foster, our Epistle stands in direct literary dependence on the great epistles of Paul, particularly Ephesians," (and Romans). Int. N.T. p. 153). HEBREWS B b— c (1) I Pt. 1 ; 18-20 Heb. 9 ; 12, 14, 24-25 sXuTpo)8"YiT£ . . . TijjLio) al'jj.aTt 6)<; to aTjjia toO XpicrToO, oc, Bia 7:votj- ajxvotj £T7](7tv Trj(; aixapTiai; Bia T?i? O-jjOTa? auToD 7:£cpav£p(.)Tai St. Paul frequently alludes to the redemption through Christ but not just as these authors do. The former never uses the word apjij.oc just as the latter use it. "The physical perfection of the victim is regarded as typical of the sinlessness of Christ, which makes his blood Tipov " (Bigg), all of which is in thorough harmony with Hebrews. Christ's blood as the means of redemption is emphasised by both authors. Both contrast the efficacy of the appointed means with other agencies. Both allude to the former conduct much in the same fashion. Cf. I Pt. 1 ; 18b with Heb. 9 ; 14 b. Compare also Tcpo xaxa[3oX^i; xoo-jxou with dcTuo xaTapoXr,? x6G\s.orj\ cpavEpwQ-EVTOc with 7:£cpav£po)Tai ; 1% scr/ocTou twv /povcov with iizi rrov-zXtia Toiv aiwvcov, and utzccc, . . . Heb. 9 ; 25 with ocTzoCi . . I Pt. 3 ; 18. Both Epistles have thought in common with Paul, yet the parallels noted above can hardly be due to common de- pendence. The thought runs through the whole chapter of Hebrews, whereas in I Peter it is more fragmentary, indicating the priority of the former. Dependence is made more probable by the close parallel between I Pt. 1 ; 17 and Heb. 12 ; 28. (2) I Pt. 2 ; 24 Heb. 9 ; 28 be 'zxc aij.apTia? Y;p.S)v a'jTO? O'jtw? xai 6 XpKTTOC a^ra^ Tcpo- UYfyz\'Y.sy £v tw (jw[j.aTi auToU (7£VEy&-£ic zlc to xoT^loiv avsvEyxsTv ap.apTiac " The turn which St. Peter has given to the words represents Christ as not only the sin-offering who bore the consequences of First Epistle of Peter. 481 the sins of his people on the cross of shame (r;/£Y''''Sv ir^i tw c'j'im), but as the priest who took the sins, or sin-offering and laid the sacrifice on the altar of the cross. Thus Alford appears to be right in giving avaospsiv here a double meaning ; but the two meanings ' bear ' and ' carry ' both belong to the one Greek word, and St. Peter has done his best to cure the ambiguity by ex- panding Isaiah's a'jTo; into the highly emphatic a'jTo; sv tw '7o')[j.a-:' a'jTou, which, reinforced as they are by the following [j.o')7.o)-'-, clearly mean, He Himself, by His own personal suffering, carried the sins up ; in other words, the Priest was also the Victim." Bigg. That Christ was both priest and victim is dwelt upon at length in Hebrews, e. g. 9 ; 11, 12, 14, 24—28. This un-Pauline chapter of Hebrews seems to form the basis of our author's allusion to the " Suffering Servant." Not only the peculiar thought but also the phraseology is very suggestive of literary dependence. The phrase avacpspstv aiJiapTtac appears only in these two places in all the N. T. Note also the other possible points of contact in these contexts, e. g. I Pt. 2 ; 23 = Heb. 12 ; 3, and I Pt. 2 ; 25 = Heb. 13 ; 20. (3) I Pt. 2 ; 25 Heb. 13 ; 20 -ot,ij.£va xai £7;iC7xo~ov to)V 'j^'J/tov 7;ot[jiva toTv T^popa^cov tov [jiyav Professor E. J. Goodspeed (Epis. to the Heb. p. 122) calls atten- tion to this striking parallel. It is indeed suggestive since the onl}' reference to the favorite Petrine " doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus," in the whole Epistle, appears in this connection. " The great shepherd of the sheep is a Messianic designation. Cf. also I Pt. 5 ; 4 (the arch-shepherd). Not simply the shepherd of the sheep, of Isa. 63 ; 11 LXX, but the great shepherd." Goodspeed. Cf. also Jn. 10 ; 11, 14, 21 ; 16, which were probably influenced by the above passages. Paul never uses the metaphor 7tOi[XT,v except of the Christian minister. Cf. Eph. 4 ; 11 (Acts 20 ; 28). Though it is easy to draw the figure used here either from Paul or the O. T., it seems more probable in this connection that I Peter was influenced by Hebrews. Note I Pt. 2 ; 22 = Heb. 4 ; 15, 2 ; 23 = 12 ; 3, 2 ; 24 = 9 ; 28, 2 ; 25 = 13 ; 20. (4) I Pt. 3 ; 18 Heb. 9 ; 28 XpiG-Toc scTca'^ Twspi aij.apTuov y.r.i- XpiTTo? y.-%i Tzpoo-svc/Q-sk sic to O-avsv (s-aO-sv) 7:oX7.(ov avsvsyxsTv ocjj-apTiac . . . 482 Ora Delmer Foster, Only in these two places is axa^ so employed. Cf. Heb. 9 ; 26. The same doctrine of the atonement is here set forth in a similar fashion. This shows that both authors moved in the same sphere of thought, if indeed, it does not prove dependence. Sal- mon thinks that a-JzoCi is accounted for by the lod-ccc, of Rom. 6 ; 10. (Int. p. 556.) But against this view it is to be urged that the phrase avacpspsiv ap.apTta? only appears in I Peter and Hebrews. See Ex. 2 above. The conjunction of these two peculiar usages in a suggestive context makes dependence highly probable. (5) I Pt. 3; 18 b Heb. 12; 22 iva ujj.ac -poirayaYTi Toi Hsoi zpo(7£lY]l!J0T|T£ Zuov opsi xai tco- }v£i 'Bsoij LWVT05, 'lepouTaT^Yiix £- Tuoupaviw I Peter and Hebrews both represent the Christians as mere strangers and sojourners in the world and that Christ leads them through this wilderness of life to God, the heavenly home, the New Jerusalem. This non-Pauline thought shows a real point of connection. The above parallel is made more significant by the ones immediately preceding and immediately following. (6) I Pt. 3; 20 Heb. 11; 7 ev Yjjjipai? N(o£ /.a-ra(r/.Btja^o[Ji£vr,? Nwe . . . xfx-trrKZ'jix'jz Y.ipo)-ov zlc cav " Salvation " is mentioned by both authors as the purpose of preparing the ark. No other N. T. writers so allude to it. Heb. 11 is an excursus on " faith," caUing up the Patriarchs in order as examples. Hence the passage was not suggested by our Epistle to the author of Hebrews, but the reverse relation seems highly probable in this context. Cf. Exs. 5 and 7. (7) I Pt. 3; 21 Heb. 9; 24, 10; 22 6 xai 'J^otq avTiTUTCOv vOv g-o)^£1 avTiTurra . . . p£pavTt'7[J.£voi -zoi^ [3a7c-:ia-p.a, o'j aapxoc o^-Kob-zaiq xapBCai; avco 7'jv£iBtg-£co? ;:ovripac p'JTUou alia (joyzibriGZfoq o(.y(xb'%c xcd 1£};ol»o-^evo!, to Twij.a uBact, l7C£p(0TY][j.a zlc, 0£6v xaQ'apo) 'AvTiT-jTrov occurs only in these two places in the N. T. The ethical and symbolical signification of baptism is here set forth in similar ways. Both see great efficacy in the baptismal ordinance, First Epistle of Peter 483 not as a cleansing of the body but as a cleansing of the conscience. No other N. T. writers so allude to it. Both refer to the physical ablution in suggestive phraseology. It is also to be noted that pavTto-[j.£vot is similarly used by I Peter in other connections. (8) I Pt. 4 ; 11 Heb. 13 ; 21 w saTiv •/] Bo^a xal to xpa'TO? (T) -^ Boca dc 'zo'jc auova; tcov od- zl<; TTOUC auovac twv aiwvcov a[j.T,v. covwv. a[j;/;v See also 5 ; 11 That no earlier writer addresses doxologies to Christ is most significant. II Tim. 4 ; 18 is hardly an exception. The similar phrasing in this peculiar usage is most easily accounted for on the basis of some real connection. (9) I Pt. 5 ; 4 Heb. 13 ; 20 ToD ap/i7:oi[j.£voc tov ^ot[JL£va twv TrpopdcTcov tov [j.syav Monnier, Goodspeed and many others think that there is here some connection. See comments on Ex. 3. (10) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Heb. 12 ; 24 pavTtTjj.ov al'ij.aTor 'IrjTO'j XpiTToD BiaBTf/wT,? vsa? [jxtit-^] 'I-^jtoO, xal od[xc<.zi pavTia^.ou. 10 ; 22 The parallel is striking since it is used b}' no other N. T. writers. " The idea is foreign to Paul but recurs in Barnabas." (Bigg.) The possible reference in I Pt. 4 ; 6 to Heb. 12 ; 23 b is significant in this connection. Note also I Pt. 1 ; 3 may refer to Heb. 6 ; 18. (11) I Pt. 1 ; 11 Heb. 12 ; 2 Ttvstiij.a XpicToO 7;po[j.apTi»po[j.£vov 'j7r£[X£V£v axccupov aW/UYr^c xara- Toc Ei; XpiTTov ::au-/][j.aTa y.oCi toc? opovrjCa? £v Bsaa -z toO O-povoy [j.£Ta TatjTa Bocae toO (-)£oj xsxaOixsv Though Paul frequently aUudes to the (jzvjjpoc he does not think of Jesus " enduring " it that glor}^ should follow. Nor does he think of Jesus as the suffering Servant of Isa. 53, as is here presented. V7C£[j.sv£v 0"taup6v and zaD-rjij.a^a are quite different in form yet the meaning is the same and probably shows some connection. No doubl both authors are influenced here by Paul yet it is to be noted that 484 Ora Delmer Foster, I Peter may also be influenced by Hebrews, for the latter, in ac- cordance with the former, lays, greater stress upon Christ's sufferings than does Paul. Christ's glorification is a common teaching of this period. (12) I Pt. 1 ; 12 Heb. 11 ; 13 Both authors may draw independently from such O. T. passages as Num. 24 ; 17 or Deut. 18 ; 15, but because of the close resem- blance between Heb. 11 ; 13b and I Pt. 1 ; 17 (2 ; 11), I Pt. 1 ; 11 and Heb. 12 ; 2 dependence is rendered quite probable. (13) I Pt. 1 ; 17 Heb. 12 ; 28 /povov avaTTpacpTjT's [xz-cc s^jXapsta? xai Bsou? These authors emphasise the " fear of God " whereas Paul lays the stress on the " love of God." The contextual connection makes it more probable that I Peter was influenced by Hebrews. Heb. 12 ; 5, 6 is echoed in I Pt. 1 ; 17 a and Heb. 11 ; 13 in I Pt. 1 ; 17 b. Cf. also I Pt. 2; 11. (14) I Ft. 2 ; 2 Heb. 5 ; 12 6)c. txpTiY£vvY]-a (jpsoT) TO Xoyi/vOv ysyovaTC ypziay zyrjy-zc, ^oChJxyjxrjc, aBo}.ov yaT^a eTciTroO-ric-aTS . . ttcci; yap 6 [J-sts/cov ya}^axToc ocTistpoi; };6you, Bixsciotuvyic, vrirrioc ' yap £0"ti,v Both authors may be influenced b}^ Paul at this point. Paul employs with Hebrews the word vTjTiioc, whereas I Peter uses [Bpscpoc. " This passage (I Pt. 2 ; 2) marks better than any other the difference between St. Peter, Hebrews, and St. Paul. In St. Peter's eyes the Christian is always a babe, always in need of mother's milk, grow- ing not to perfection but to deliverance. In Heb. 5 ; 12, 6 ; 2, milk is the catechism, the rudiments of faith . . . contrasted with the " solid meat." St. Paul is vexed with the babe, who is the weaker brother the formalist. Hebrews represents (here) a via media between St. Paul and St. Peter " (Bigg). It would seem therefore that the Pauhne figure was modified in our author's mind by the use made of it in Hebrews. First Epistle of Peter. 485 (15) I Pt. 2 ; 3 Heb. 6 ; 5 I Peter refers here to Ps. 34 ; 9 {yz'jTXTb-z xai iBsts oti /pYiTTo? 6 x^ptoc), but probably at the suggestion of Hebrews since the similar usage follows the preceding parallel so closely in both books. (16) I Pt. 2 ; 5 Heb. 3 ; 6 " These authors alone insist on the believers' privileges as members of the house of God." Possibly I Peter drew independently from Paul, yet the following parallel makes dependence here seem prob- able. (17) I Pt. 2 ; 5 Heb. 13 ; 15 avovsyxai i7^zu[t,c(.'uiy.b(; bvyioic, s'j- Bi' a^TOu avacp£poj[j.£v Q-DTtav ai- 7:po(ybiY.'ZOUC, 0£a) Bia 'Iyitou XpiT- vetsoj^ 8ta r^of-yzoc, tw 0£(o Though these passages suggest Rom. 12 ; If., these are the only N. T. authors who use the phrase ava(p£p£iv O^ucriav. They may have drawn the phrase from the LXX, where it is frequently em- ployed, but in view of the other possible points of contact with Hebrews in this context is seems very probable that our author was also influenced by the more copious treatment of the sacrificial figure in that book. (18) I Pt. 2 ; 11 Heb. 11 ; 13 "scpoixofjc xal ;:ap£xtBiri[j-otJ5 cfvot xai 7:ap£mBrj[j.ot The exact form used in Hebrews is peculiar to that book. Z£vo'. xal Tcapotxot appears only in Eph. 2 ; 19. nap£7:iBrjij.oc is found in the N. T. only in the above passages. By ehminating the term Hsvoi, common to the earlier authors, it would appear that our author combined the remaining terms. It is also to be noted that no other N. T. books lay so much stress upon the thought that Christians are but sojourners in the world. (19) I Pt. 2 ; 21, 23 Heb. 12 : 3 o-zi Xpio-TC-c £7:ai}"£v 67:£p 6[j.6)V, do^cCko^^i'j'xabz y^p '''^'^ T0t3cjvr,v 6[j.Tv 67co}.i[X7:avwv uTcoypaij-jj-ov -6? 6~oij.£[j.£VT,x6Ta 6-6 -Civ aij.apTO)}.o)v )vOiBopou[j.£voc o'jx av-£7,o!,B6p£!. dc, Ea'jTO-jc avTiloy'-^''' The appeal to the sufferings of Christ as a reason for tne Christians endurance under persecution is not made by Paul. Though the 486 Ora Delmer Foster, phraseology is different the thought is very suggestive. The pro- babihties of dependence are heightened by the following parallels. I Pt. 2 ; 22 = Heb. 4 ; 15, Heb. 12 ; 2 = I Pt 3 ; 22, I Pt. 2 ; 24a = Heb. 9 ; 28a, Heb. 9 ; 26 = I Pt. 3 ; 18. (20) I Pt. 3 ; 16 Heb. 13 ; 18 tuvsiByitiv zyymc ayaO-TiV, tva sv xaXvjv cruXei^Yjaiv £/o[j.£v, sv Traaiv d) 'KCf.'XCf.'koCkzi'jb-z 7.u'U(y.ir>yi)vi)'(j)Gi'v xaXw^ 8'£}i.ovts? avacTTpscpsirO-ai 01 £7CY]p£a^OVT£5 6[J.0)V TY]V ayaO'Tjv £V XptCTTw avac"Tpocpr,v " These are the only N. T. authors who connect ' the good con- science ' with good habits of hfe." The phrase £v Xpii-o) suggests that our author is influenced here by Paul, yet the above usage seems to indicate that he also knew Hebrews. Note the parallel usage of avacpspEtv and its derivative. (21) I Pt. 3 ; 22 Heb. 1 ; 3, 4, 6 oc Ig~v/ £v B£^i,a 0£oO izoptob^iic, IxaO-to-EV £V Be^ioc tt^? [j.£ya>.o)(j-uvrji; £1$ o'jpavov •j7:oTaY£VTO)v auTco Iv i)<^y\}^oXc, tocouto) xp£iTTO)v Y£vo- (XyyeXojv xai IcoucLOiv xai Buvaixsov [j.£voc twv ayY^^^tov Cf'. 2 ; 9, 12 ; 2. Though I Peter may depend upon Paul at this point, the sequense of thought, which is so suggestive of Hebrews, should not be over- looked. Cf. I Pt. 3 ; 20 with Heb. 11 ; 7 and I Pt. 3 ; 21 with Heb. 9 ; 24, 10 ; 22. (22) I Pt. 4; 14 Heb. 11; 20, 13; 13 £1 6v£iBir£'jO'£ £v 6v6[j.aTi Xpi^Tot), r^yri £7tl TOV oTxOV ZOO (dtOO I Peter may be influenced directly by Ez. 9 ; 6, yet the phrase is different. No other N. T. writers use the phrase with the meaning First Epistle of Peter. 487 " household of God." The phrase appears in I Tim. 3 ; 15, but not in the above sense. Cf. Heb. 3 ; 6. (24) I Pt. 5 ; 4 Heb. 2 ; 7, 9 The " crown of glory " would very naturally be attributed to Christ first, then to his followers. If there is dependence shown here it would seem to indicate the priority of Hebrews. The thought " crown of glory " or " crowned with glory " occurs only here in the. N. T. The contextual sequence is hardly accidental. Cf. I Pt. 2 ; 25, 5 ; 4 with Heb. 13 ; 20, also I Pt. 3 ; 22 with Heb. 2 ; 9, 12 ; 2. (25) I Pt 5; 10 Heb. 13; 20 6 Osoc z.aa-(^c /rk^i-rjc, . . . xairap- 6 Qsoc T%q zlpr^YrtC . . . xaTapTiG-at It is very significant that in the immediate contexts, Jesus Christ is appealed to as the one through whom God works. Hebrews very probably depends here upon II Thes. 2 ; 17. (26) I Pt. 5; 12 Heb. 13; 22 Though the thought is couched in different words, it is indeed suggestive. c— d (27) I Pt. 1 ; 4 Heb. 9 ; 15 /v}vr;povo[j.tav aoS^apTOv xai aixiav- zf^^ cdomou x}.-r]povo[jia; ■zov xai ()C[j.apavT'ov These are the first N. T. writers to use the word aijiavTo?. Cf. Heb. 7 ; 26, 13 ; 4. The imperishable nature of the inheritance is emphasised by both authors. Yet they may draw independentl}' from Paul. Cf. Gal. 3 ; 18, Eph. 1 ; 14, 18, 5"; 5, Col. 3 ; 24, I Cor. 6; 9, 10, 15; 15, Gal. 4 ; 30, 5 ; 21. (28) I Pt. 1; 6 Heb. 12; 11 sv & 6!.yoOOdafjb'Z, oliyov apTt zl izuacc [;.£v izai^dcc zpo? [xsv to B^ov XuTrfi-ivzet; sv izovAikoic, xsi- xapov ou BoxsT '/jxpoic zX'^ca dOJ.x pacrpT? lu—r^c^ unzspw Bs xap-6v £?p-^vix6v The phraseology is not so suggestive as the thought. The parallel receives additional significance by the possible reference to Heb. 12 ; 10b in I Pt. 1 ; 15, IG. 488 Or a Delnier Foster, (29) I Pt. 1 ; 8 Heb. 11 ; 27 zlc ov apTi [j-Y] 6pwvT£5 m<7-£U0VT£? TiicTst . . . Tov yocp aoparov wi; 6pwv Faith in both instances consists in laying hold of the unseen. Cf. Heb. 11 ; 1, also 11 ; 13, which may be connected with I Pt. 1 ; 17, 2 ; 11. (30) I Pt. 1 ; 9 Heb. 10 ; 36, 39 GiOZripi(X-^ t{>U/_WV . 7Cl<7T£(05 £?C 7C£piTC0lYl(nV 'j"^/^? Though this thought is Pauline, both the phraseology and the context are suggestive. (31) I Pt. 1 ; 21 Heb. 2 ; 9 TOV lyEipavTa auTov £X v£xpwv xal Bta to xaS^-rjjjLa tou Q^avdcTou B62t, ^6'£av a'JTw 'SovTa xai ti[X7] £rrT£(pavo>[jivov Again the thought is Pauline, but suggestive in its context. Cf. I Pt. 1 ; 18-20 with Heb. 9 ; 12, 14, 24-25, and I Pt. 1 ; 22 with Heb. 13; 1. (32) I Pt. 2; 1 Heb. 12; 1 dcTuoO'Ejj.Evoi o3v Tracav xaxiav . , . oyvtov a7coQ>£[X£vot Travra This parallel is made more suggestive by the possible reference to Heb. 5 ; 12, 13 in I Pt. 2 ; 2. (33) I Pt. 3 ; 7 Heb. 11 ; 9, 1 ; 14 .-/ipovo[j.'^crYiT£ x}.Yipovo[j-Y]a-a!, tyjv EuXoytav This phrase appears only in these two places in all the N. T. (35) I Pt. 4 ; 1 Heb. 4 ; 12 Evvoiav Ivvoioiv Though this word appears only in these two places in the N. T., it may be wholly accidental. It is to be noted, however, that First Epistle of Peter. 489 Pt. 4 ; 1 lays much stress upon the sufferings of Christ, in harmony with Hebrews. (36) I Pt. 4; 2 Heb. 9; 14 . . . Q'£>.Y)[j,a-t BsoO . . . (3io)(7ai sic to XxTpsyetv Hsw J^oivTi Cf. I Pt. 4 ; la with Heb. 9 ; 26, 4 ; lb with 4 ; 12, also 3 ; 15 with 9 ; 15. (37| I Pt. 4; 5 Heb. 13; 17 01 a;coBcoG'0'jG'iv T^oyov Xoyov a-oSoWovTSi; This exact usage is peculiar to these authors. (38) I Pt. 4 ; 7 Heb. 10 ; 25 rravTcov to tsAoc r^^fyiy.zv ^"kinzzz h^^^iZ/yj/yxy xry 7]ij.£pav This idea, when considered alone, is too common in the N. T. to merit attention, but it must be viewed in the light of its context (39) I Pt. 4 ; 8 Heb. 13 ; 1 dc, sauToiji; ayccTCYjv sxtevy] zyovzzc, yj (^ikcchtXoiy. [j.svstoj The context makes this very common exhortation worthy of mention. (40) I Pt. 4; 9 Heb. 13; 2 oO/jczvoi zlc, a}.'Xrj}.otJC tyJ? cptAocsviac [j-yj sTCiXavO'avsT&'S Cf. Rom. 12 ; 13, I Tim. 3 ; 2, Tit. 1 ; 18. The probabiUties of dependence are increased by the sequence of the last three parallels. (41) I Pt. 5 ; 9 Heb. 12 ; 8 £iB6t£5 Ta auTOC tojv 7ia&rjij,aT(ov zl /topir Itts TcaiBsiac, r\c, ^xoyoi TTj . . . aBsAcpOTaTi sTZiTsTvsT'jO'a!, yzyovuGiv 7:avTcr This close resemblance in thought may be due to the common background, yet the context is to be considered. d (42) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Heb. 6 ; 18 avayswrjO-ac ri[j.ac si? zk%ib(x. ^worav y.^y-^fiyx t-^c TCpox£t[j.£VYi? i7;7ri8o; The phraseology is very different and probably shows no con- nection. 490 Ora Delmer Foster, (43) I Pfc. 1 ; 15 Heb. 10 ; 14 Accidental. (44) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Heb. 12 ; 28 aytov, 0X0)^ Ta? (5(:p£Tac £^ayY£i- 'Xa[j.[3avovT£? s/o)[X£v ^apiv, Bi ■?]; >,Y]T£ TOU . . . 7m~[jz6o)[XZV £Uap£'7~C>):; TTW ©SW [j.£Ta £u}vajj£[ac xat, Sfou? I Peter more probably shows acquaintance here with Eph. 1 ; 11, 12. Cf. Deut. 10 ; 15 or Ex. 19 ; 5, 6. (45) I Pt. 2 ; 22 Heb. 4 ; 15 o? a[j.apTiav oux £X0trj(7£v . . . y/'jpU aij.apToac The doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ is too common to constitute an argument for hterary dependence. (46) I Pt. 3 ; 11 ' Heb. 12 ; 14 ^YjTyiaairw Etpr^vviv xai Siwcairo) £?p"/]vrjV BioV/vE" Our author is quoting directty from Ps. 34, very probably at the suggestion of Paul. (47) I Pt. 5; 7 Heb. 13; 5 OTi. a'jTw [j.£7.£!, x£pi 'jij-olv o'j [J."/) a£ avw o'j^i o'j lyxaTalixco Our author is probably borrowing here from Ps. 55 ; 22. (48) I Pt. 5 ; 13 Heb. 13 ; 24 (49) I Pt. 5 ; 14 Heb. 13 ; 24 dydTTT]!; These greetings are common in the Pauhne literature. Cf. Rom. 16 ; 16, Phil. 4 ; 21-22, II Cor. 13 ; 12-13, etc. First Epistle of Peter. 491 Order of Parallels. I Pet. Heb. I Pet. Heb. I Pet. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 2 14 15 16 17 2 = 3 = 4 = 6 = 8 = 9 = 11 = 12 = 15 = 17 = 18f. 21 = 1 = 2 : O = 5 = 5 -- 12 6 9 12 11 10 12 11 12 12 : 9 2 12 5 6 3 13 24 18 15 11 27 36 2 13 14 28 12f. 9 1 12 5 6 15 18 2 19 2 20 2 21 2 22 2 23 2 24 3 25 3 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 31 3 32 3 33 4 9 = 11 = 22 = 22 = 24 = 25 = 9 = 11 = 16 = 18 = 18b= 20 = 21 = 22 = i = 12 11 12 4 9 13 11 12 12 13 9 12 11 10 1 /. 28 13 3 15 28 20 9 17 14 18 28 22 7 22 2f. 12 34 4 35 4 36 4 37 4 38 4 39 4 40 4 41 4 42 5 43 5 44 5 45 5 46 5 47 5 48 5 2 5 7 8 9 11 14 17 4 4 7 9 10 12 13 14 Heb. 9 ; 14 13 10 13 13 13 13 10 13 2 13 12 13 13 13 13 17 25 1 2 21 13 21 20 7. 9 5 8 20 22 24 24 CONCLUSION The many suggestive parallels between these two Epistles would form a conclusive argument for literary dependence, were we not certain that they both rest upon the Epistles of Paul. It is diffe- cult to determine whether one author is drawing from Paul independ- ently or at the suggestion of the other. Nor is it easy to tel] whether one is drawing directly from the other or whether they are expressing thought due to a common background. Through this labyrinth of possibilities we can only hope to discover a somewhat circuitous trail. From the marked text on page 101 f. it would appear that these authors sometimes fo]low paths over which Paul had never traveled. Since these paths are quite clearly defined in some instances of resemblance here one may readily infer that there is some literarj^ connection between I Peter and Hebrews. Furthermore there are places where we were led to believe that one author pointed out the Pauline path to the other. In view of the many striking parallels one is tempted to assert that these Epistles show a direct literary connection. Though the case seems very certain, the complication of possibilities lessens the degree of cer- tainty until it would seem advisable to claim no more than that one author very probably kne^\' the work of the other. Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 33 January, 1913. 492 Ora Delmer Foster, The next question to be determined is the order of probable dep- endence. We have noted several points in the discussion where Hebrews more probably blazed the way for our author. Cf. Exs. 2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 22, etc. Hebrews is a carefully thought out homily, logical and rethorical, whereas I Peter is halting in its logic and dis- connected at many points. In contrast to the former the latter is a mere literary mosaic. Instances are not wanting in which the contexts of the members of the parallels considered show Hebrews to be the more original. For instance, in Ex. 6 it will be noted that Noah is referred to in Hebrews as but one of a long list of ancient worthies, whereas I Peter alludes to him as if at the suggestion of another. Cf. Exs. 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, etc. It can hardly be accidental that Hebrews 12—13 contain 26 of the 49 possible points of contact with I Peter. The first 8 chapters contain but 9 points of contact, whereas the last 4 chapters have 40. Appar- ently then our author used that part of Hebrews most which is in closest harmony with the purpose for which he was writing, i. e. to strengthen and encourage the Christians during a fiery perse- cution. Although much of the thought and phraseology of these books may be due to common dependence upon Paul or to a common background, it would seeem that we are justified in claiming that our author was very probably acquainted with Hebrews. " Q " SOURCE D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 6, 8 Mt. .5 ; 11, 12 = Lk. 6 ; 22, 23 Bsov 'kwrzr^b'iv'zzc sv TioixtXoi; r^zi- u[xS.i xai Bioj^wo'tv xat, zitzoxtiv paTjj.oT? ... 8 o^yo0.7.iS.TZ X^^p^ ^°^^ "ovTjpov xa&' u[j.wv ^zo^ojjmi. av£xla}>rjT(o /aips-s y.cci ayalT^iaTO-s ' AyoOXiotfjb-z serves as a catch word. Though a rare word in the N. T. it does not show dependence. Cf. Lk. 1 ; 47, 10 ; 21, Acts 2 ; 26, 16 ; 34, Rev. 19 ;7, Jn. 5 ; 35, 8 ; 56. The word does not occur in the parallel account in Luke. There is no more reason to suppose that our author was influenced by " Q " at this point than by Paul Cf. Rom. 12 ; 12, Phil. 3 ; 1, 4 ; 4, I Thes. 5 ; 17, etc. First Epistle of Peter. 493 (2) I Pt. 1 ; 10 Mt. 13 ; 17 = Lk. 10 ; 24 o:j"/. sTBav This is indeed a suggestive parallel. If there is any literary dependence it must be on the side of our author, as " Q " surely antedates our Epistle some decades. But the thought is not close enough to make this probable. Cf. Eph. 3 ; 3 f . Col. 1 ; 25, Rom. 16 ; 25, Eph. 1 ; 9, etc. (3) I Pt 1 ; 17 Mt. 6 ; 9 = Lk. 11 ; 2 xai zl "aTspa ir^i'/.T-Xziab-t [0'j'7('); o3v 7:poo"£tjy£G'8"£] 'jixeTc' "=^-P ... Harnack, in his " Sayings of Jesus" p. 134, does not place the bracketed phrase in the " Q " source, as A. Huck seems to do in his " Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien " s. 28. At all events, this parallel has no evidential value in the solution of our problem, though Bigg, Chase and Holtzmann point it out. (4) I Pt. 3 ; 9 Mt. 5 ; 39 = Lk. 6 ; 29 [j.Y] azoBi^ov-sc xa/wOv avTi xaxoO "Oo-ti? az pa7:{^£i, dc, tt,v [B^liav], •?) }.otBopiav avTt, V^iBopiac tod- o-iaYova [crou], G"Tp£^ov a'jTco xai ^cK.'z-iov Be E'jAoyoijvTEc. Cf. 3 ; 16. tTjV aUrjv. Cf. Mt. 5 ; 44 = Lk. 6 ; 28. The doctrine of " nonresistance " is clearly set forth in both instances, but the words in which it is couched are very different and not at all suggestive either of dependence or of a common source. A close parahel appears in the Markan source, i. e. 15 ; 29. The doctrine here taught is not wholly new in the N. T., e. g. Prov. 17 ; 13, 20 ; 22, 24 ; 29, etc. As we have seen elsewhere I Peter most certainly depends upon Rom. 12, so we need not go back of Paul for the doctrine taught in I Pt. 3 ; 9. See Rom. 12 ; 17, 19, I Thes. 5 ; 15, I Cor. 6 ; 7, etc. Though Chase, Bigg, Holtzmann, Monnier and others have pointed out the above parallel it does not so much as prove a common source. ^5) I Pt. 3; 20 Mt. 24; 37, 38 = Lk. 17; 26 -zoo 0£Otj [j.axpoQ"j[j.ia sv /([j-lpai? coG--£p al r^ixi^ca Toti N(0£ N(0£ Though the reference to Tat? ^xz^mc N(o£ suggests some Hterary connection, it will be observed that the phrase occurs in contexts 494 Ora Delmer Foster, which have nothing else in common. Our author thinks of the ark as a symbol of salvation by water baptism, whereas Q alludes to the unconcern of Noah's contemporaries in view of the approaching destruction as analogous to the conditions at the imminent parousia. There is, therefore, no necessary connection between these passages. (6) I Pt. 4 ; 10 Mt. 24 ; 45 = Lk. 12 ; 42 XaT£(7TYj(7£V 6 V.(i^iOC, i%\ 'VT^C, OtX£- •TY]V TpOCpYjV £V Xatpw Clearly this parallel, cited by Dean Plumtre, does not show the dependence of our Epistle upon " Q " to be any more probable than upon Paul. Cf. I Cor. 4 ; 1, 2, Tit. 1 ; 7. (7) I Pt. 5; 6 Mt. 23; 12 = Lk. 14; 11 TaxsivwB^TS o3v uizo ttjV xpa- "Og"tic O'^toiati latjTov TaTrsivfoB-iQcrs- Tatav /^sTpa tolS 0£Ou, hoc 'j[j.ac xat,, xai ottic TaTcetvcocsi lauxov i)i)b)crri £V xaipw 6d»coOTju/y)v a'jToii I'j-rpov XpiairoO avTi xoaT^wv. Cf. Mk. 14 ; 24. The Markan source represents " the life of the Son of Man " to be the " ransom," whereas our author alludes to the redemption price in symbolic terms, i. e. " the precious blood of Christ." I Tim 2 ; 6. Tit. 2 ; 14, Gal. 1 ; 4, 2 ; 20, Rom. 4 ; 45, etc. resemble the thought of Mark more closely, but Eph. 1 ; 7, 5 ; 2, Col. 1 ; 14, Rom. 3 ; 24, 25, Acts 5 ; 2, etc. are closer to I Peter. Cf. also Heb. 9 ; 12. It is obvious that the Pauline doctrine of the atonement is here heard from the lips of Jesus. No one can be certain as to the genuineness of Mk. 10 ; 45, yet it is conceded by the majority of modern scholars to be more in accord with the theology of Paul than with what we know of the teaching of Jesus concerning himself. That i\Iark was a disciple of Paul we are assured. Cf. Acts 12 ; 25. All things considered there is no reason to claim that there is here any literary' connection. There is, however, an obvious Pauline influence back of the members of this parallel. (2) 1 Pt. 1; 18b Mk. 7; 3 (Mt. 15; 26) iraTpoTcapaBoTOu ~ry TcapaBoo-iv twv -psTjSijTspcov This parallel of Dean Plumtre's need not detain us. 496 Ora Delmer Foster, (3) I Pt. 1 ; 23 Mk. 4 ; 14 (Mt. 13 ; 18 f. = Lk. 8 ; 12f .) a^vaysYevvrj^jivoi o'jx sx. CTCOpa? 6 TTCstpojv Xoyov azzipzi ff. apT"?)? . . . Bta Tvoyou toO 0£ou Bigg thinks that there is some connection here. But cf. I Cor. 4 ; 15, Gal. 3 ; 16, 26, 29, 4 ; 19, etc. There is no reason to think that our author depends upon Mark at this point nor that both draw from a common source. (4) I Pfc. 2 ; 2 Mk. 10 ; 15 (Mt. 18 ; 2 = Lk. 18 ; 17) w? apTiysvvTjTa ppscpv] -o Xoyiy/y^ oc av [j.r, Bscr^Tat tyjv [jocjO.tiocv aBoAov yoO^rx. sTciTcoO'YiTa-s, ivx £v Totj 0ooO CO? TcaiBiov, o'j [XT, d7]T£ £?? C!"(oTr,ptav eXQ-yj £i$ a'jT"^v Chase notices this parallel but he does not advance it as an argu- ment for literary dependence. Closer resemblances both in thought and phraseology are to be found in the Pauline Epistles. Cf . I Cor. 3 ; If., 14 ; 20, Eph. 4 ; 14, etc. (5) I Pt. 2 ; 7 Mk. 12 ; 10 (Mt. 21 ; 42 = Lk. 20 ; 12) "Xib-oc ov a7:£Boxiij.aa'av oi oixo- }a&-ov 6v a-£Boxt[j-ao-av ol oIko- BojxoQvTSi; obxo^ £Y£vrjOT, zlc X£cpa- Bo^j-oOvte?, o5to; iytYCib^ zlc, y.c- Xriv ywviai; cpaXYjv ycovia; Verbal agreement, in tliis quotation from Ps. 118 ; 22, leads us to suspect that some literary connection exists in this parallel. Yet there is nothing in the contexts which suggests it. Mark also quotes Ps. 118 ; 23, showing that he is probably following the original independently. Our Epistle, as we have seen elsewhere, surely depends upon Rom. 9 •; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20—22 at this point. Assum- ing that this is a genuine saying of Jesus, as it purports to be, we still have no special reason to conclude that Peter is the common source back of these quotations. (6) I Pt. 2 ; 13, 17 Mk. 12 ; 17 (Mt. 22 ; 21 = Lk. 20 ; 26) UTcoTrayrjTE 7;aoT| av&"pw7:ivTi xti- 'zcc K.cdmxr^rjr ciTzohoxz KaiTapi xai (7£t BlOC TOV X^jptOV £IT£ yfXGO.zt TOC T03 0£O3 TW Hew (j)$ !JTC£p£/OVTl £IT£ T,Y£[J-6£v UTZsp !j[j.(ov, 'jij.Tv zX TIC O'sAsi brlrn,) ij.ou V/Jj-zvy, 'jT^oh.\ix6LV( xo^.o'jO'fj'rrjTs toT? Xyyzaiv a'jiroLi tov crTaupov a'JTOu xai axc/7.o'j- Dean Plumtre thinks that this is one of " Peter's reminiscences of the Lord's teaching.". But the thought and phraseology of I Pt. 2 ; 21a is too common in the Pauline Epistles to render such a view tenable. Furthermore the i/vo? of I Pt. 2 ; 21 b occurs only here and in Rom. 4 ; 12 and II Cor. 12 ; 18, in which places, significantly enough, it is employed in the same sense in which our author uses it. Hence it is not necessary for us to suppose that these scriptures come from a common Petrine source. ^8) I Pt. 2 ; 23 Mk. 14 ; 61, 15 ; 5 (Mt. 27 ; 14) 6? XoiBopo'J[j.$voLic o^x avTsXot,- 6 Bs satco^a xai cjx axexpivaxo Sopst, ~a<7/(ov o!jx Yj^eilsi ouBsv. 6 Bs 'ItjO"0!jc ouxsxt, o'jBsv axsxpiOTj Our author is drawing from Isa. 53 all through this section. Cf. I Pt. 2 ; 23 with Isa. 53 ; 7. The word }^o!,Bop£co is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, but it is used in I Cor. 4 ; 12 and in the Pauline portion of Acts (23 ; 4). AoiBopoa is used only by Paul and our author, while >>oiBopo? is only to be found in I Cor. 5 ; 11, 6 ; 10. 'Av-!,}vOtBopo; is peculiar to above citation. Hence this would be a slender thread on which to suspend an argument either for literary dependence or a common source. (9) I Pt. 2 ; 24 Mk. 15 ; 15 (Mt. 27 ; 26) oS Tw [j.(o>>(07U!, laO'YjTs. xapsBwxsv Tov 'ItjitoIjv cppayslXo)- Cf. Isa. 53 ; 5. Ta? Again we cannot follow Plumtre in his " reminiscences of St. Peter." The language of Mk. 15 ; 15 is much more in accord with a real reminiscence than I Pt. 2 ; 24. The quotation from Isaiah seems to indicate that our author was musing on the picture of the " Suffering Servant " of II Isaiah rather than upon the concrete instance depicted in Mark. 498 Ora Delmer Foster, (10) T Pt. 2 ; 25 Mk. 6 ; 34 (Mt. 9 ; 36 = Lk. 15 ; 4) }^oi: £7r£aTpacpY]TS vuv sm tov ttoi- [jiva [j.Eva xai smTxoTcov rwv ^u/wv upLwv Chase records this striking parallel, yet he is unable to find any evidence in it for literary dependence. The quotation in Mark does not claim to have come from the lips of Jesus, consequently it is a later interpretation in accord with the O. T. symbohsm. Cf. Num. 27 ; 17, I Ki. 22 ; 17, Ezek. 34 ; 6, 37 ; 24, Zech. 10 ; 2, etc. See Isa. 53 ; 6 for the probable original of I Pt. 2 ; 25. (11) I Pt. 4 ; 7 Mk. 13 ; 33 (Mt. 24 ; 42 = Lk. 12 ; 37) TuavTtov Bs TO Tzkoc, 7]YYix£v. [J).£TC£T£ uy^oiv^zixt o'M ol'SocxE yap aw^^oyi^GOL'^t o3v xai v'f\^oi'xt tic, r.oxz 6 xaipoc [ecttiv]. Cf. Mt.25 ; TcpoffEU/a? 13, 26 ; 41 and Lk. 21 ; 34. Though the thought here is much the same the phraseology is very different. Exhortations to watchfulness in view of the appro- aching parousia were too common during the early period for this parallel to be of any evidential value either for dependence or for a common source. Cf. Rom. 13 ; 11, I Thes. 5 ; 6 f., etc. (12) I Pt. 5 ; 3 Mk. 10 ; 42 (Mt. 20 ; 25 = Lk. 22 ; 24) ^:f^ (oc xaTax!jpi£'JovT£c Ttov xAr^- OiBaTE OTi ot BoxoOvtec ap/Eiv pcov . . . Tcov e&'Vcov xaTax'jpiE'Jo'jTtv a'jTwv xai 01 [j.EyaXoi a'jTwv xaT£'|oua"t,a- 'Corjaiy a'jTwv Ka^ax-jpiEUO) is a rare word in the N.T., yet it is not sufficient in these contexts to make literary acquaintance probable. The reference in I Peter could have been suggested, quite as naturally, by II Cor. 1 ; 24 or Ezek. 34 ; 4. A study of the above points of contact (which, it is believed, exhaust the more important ones) shows that the Pauline Literature, upon which we are quite sure our author depends, furnishes, in nearly every instance, equally close thought and phraseology : and in not a few cases is the resemblance even more striking. It has also been seen that Mark has been influenced by Paul. Whether or not Mark and I Peter alike go back to Peter, we are quite sure that they are deeply indebted to Paul. At all events literary dependence can- not be claimed between I Peter and the Markan Source. First Epistle of Peter. 499 PECULIAR TO MATTHEW D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 4 Mt. 25 ; 34 zlc, xXy)povo[xtav . . . Ts—rjprjijivrjV x7.r|povo[j."/)G-!XT£ tyjv T^TOiij.ac-ijivrjV £V o'jpavoij? SIC !j[j.ac. Cf. 3;9b. fjij.Tv pao-tlsiav a-o /.xTa|jo}.-^c K7vrjpovo[j-siv with its family is a ver}' common word in the N. T., especially in the Pauline Epistles. "Inheriting the Kingdom" is mentioned in I Cor. 6 ; 10, 15 ; 50, Gal. 5 ; 21, Eph. 5 ; 5. That the "inheritance is laid up in heaven" is also alluded to in Col. 1 ; 5 and inferred in Eph. 1 ; 14. 'E-oifJtaro) is a common word in the Gospels, but rare elsewhere, occurring in the Pauline Epistles only three times and in I Peter not at all. Therefore literarj^ dependence cannot be argued from this parallel. (2) I Pt. 2 ; 5 Mt. 16 ; 18 wc AiQ'Oi ^wvTsc oixoBoij-sTtS'S oTxoc (j'j sT ITs-rpo?, xai IrX Ta-J'^r-r) t:y] TTVsujj.aTix.oc . . . -£Tpa oixoBoixrjTco [j.oO tt;/ zv.yS}:r^- Ttav . . . The change of Simon's name to ss^D or Hsirpoi;, and the allusion to IvySkr^aiy. lead many to think that there is here an anachronism. Unfortunately the Siniatic Syriac (Ss) fails us at this point. Both the Curetonian (Sc) and the Peshito (P) follow the Greek text in using -.Lt^ . We have concluded elsewhere that our Epistle de- pends upon Rom. 9 ; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20-21 at this point, so if either of these authors influenced the other, Matthew is the bor- rower. Knowing what we do about the rapidly developing tradition of the early church we should conclude, apart from literary con- siderations, that the thought of Mt. 16 ; 18 antedates our Epistle. Therefore we cannot so much as argue a common source for these scriptures. (3) I Pt. 2 ; 12 Mt. 5 ; 16 TTjV avacTpotpTjV 'jp-wv sv sO-vscriv o'jto)? }xa[j.'|ia':c>) to '.pw; 'j'j.wv s^ovTS? xcckr^v hcc, . , . sx twv xa- sjj.-poG-O'SV twv av8^p(07:(ov o~(o; >>wv spYwv sTCOTCTStJovTsc Bo^dcctoG-i, iBwciv zee xa},a Ipya xai Bo^acrojo-iv Tov Bsov Tov Tcarspa 'jij.fov tov sv toT; oupavoTc Mt. 5 ; 16 resembles our Epistle at this })oint more closely than any other N. T. passage. It is quite natural to suppose that INIatthew 500 Ora Delmer Foster, preserves a genuine logion of our Lord, which was current in the church, but which was not used by the other Synoptic writers. Yet the form in which the thought is expressed suggests that there is here no literary connection. (4) 1 Pt. 3 ; 14 a Mt. 5 ; 10 [xaxaptoi Bi/vaioT'JvY]!: This parallel may be accounted for in the same way as No. 3. Cer- tainly no one will affirm that these must go back to a common origin. (5) I Pt. 3 ; 14 b Mt. 10 ; 26 [j-TiBs TapayO-YJTS Chase calls our attention to this parallel, yet he is unable to find in it any evidence for literary acquaintance. The resemblance can hardly be more than a mere coincidence. We may conclude from the above possible points of contact that there is nothing peculiar to Matthew which warrants any claim for literary acquaintance. PECULIAR TO LUKE D d (1) I Pt. 1; 11 Lk, 24; 26 7;v£tj[JLa Xpto-iTOiI 7:po[j.apT'jp6[j.£vov o'j/\ Ta-jTa sBsi TraO-sTv tov /pto-- Toc £?$ XpicTTov 7:a8'T,p-aTa xai toc; tov xal €\.r;z}h-ixy zkc, tt;/ Bo^av [xsTa TauTa Bo^ac. Cf. v. 21. a'jTO^. Cf. vv. 44, 46. This close parallel suggests Uterary dependence. Acts 26 ; 22, 23, which is in a " speech of Paul," also resembles our Epistle very much at this point. That the sufferings of Christ were foretold was a common doctrine : belief in his subsequent glorification also grew up very early. Consequent^ there need be no Uterary connection here, though the thought is very suggestive. Both passages bear evidence of Pauline influence. First Epistle of Peter. 501 (2) I Pt. 1 ; 13 Lk. 12 ; 35 Certainly this parallel, cited by Holtzmann and Plumtre, need not detain us. The phrase is not of the sort that suggests dependence Furthermore, a closer resemblance to our Epistle here is to be found in Paul. Cf. Eph. 6 ; 14, which uses the common phrase in a tropical sense more in accord with I Pt. 1 ; 18 than with Lk. 12 ; 35. (3) I Pt. 1 ; 13 b Lk. 17 ; 30 The a-oxa/.'j'kc of Christ is too common in the Pauline Epistles to make it necessary for us to suppose that there is any literary con- nection here. Cf. II Thes. 1 ; 7, I Cor. 1 ; 7, I Thes. 4 ; 16, etc. (4) I Pt. 2 ; 12 Lk. 10 ; 44 That the word l^rioy.oTzri is used in this sense only in these two places in all the N. T. seems quite significant. It would not be wise, however, to place too much stress upon this usage, which is probably accidental. (5) I Pt. 2 ; 23, 4 ; 19 Lk. 23 ; 46 -apsBiBou Bs Tw xptvovTi Bixaiwc llocTsp, dc, /sTpac aou ;:apaTi9-£- 4 ; 19 7:117-0) xTtTTYi ;:apaTiS>£G'Sai, OTi YjYaTCYjasv izoXd Occurring, as it does, in a context so thoroughly Pauhne, this quotation from Prov. 10 ; 12 very probably has no connection with the citation in Luke. (8) I Pt, 5 ; 1 Lk. 24 ; 48 \x6ii^':\jc. Twv ToD XpiaTO^ 7raS>Yi[j.a- u\xt(.c, [j.api:up£? toutwv Connection here is very dubious. Sir John Hawkins shows in his Horae Synopticae (p. 190 f.) that Luke is linguistically more closely related to Paul than either of the other Synoptic Gospels. In \dew of the close dependence of our Epistle upon Paul we should be surprised not to find close parallels between Luke and I Peter. Indeed, these likenesses have been such as lead Bigg to say that " I Peter shows upon the whole the nearest resemblance to Luke " (i. e. of the Gospels). In favor of this it may also be said that the hterary style of Luke and I Peter is much the same. Both have large vocabularies. They very frequently employ compound words. They have an abnormally large number of words peculiar to each, as well as common to each-. Yet with all these likenesses we cannot claim that either author knew the work of the other. ACTS D d (1) I Pt. 1; 4 Acts 20; 32 dc xlrjpovoij.iav . . . TS-:rjpYj[j.£VYjV £v Bofjvy.!, ty;/ xAYjpovojjiav sv -oic, ou^oL'^rKc £1? 'jp-ac Y,YiaG"[J.£VOic r^SLaiy Very clearly these scriptures come from the same circle of ideas. Acts 20 ; 32 purports to give Paul's own words, whereas I Peter, as we have seen elsewhere, very probably depends directly upon Paul. Cf. Eph. 1 ; 14, Col. 1 ; 5, 11 Tim. 4 ; 8. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 11 Acts 26 ; 22-23 Ttpo'-p'^Ta!, . . . xv£'j[j.a Xpi'7-oil ::po- 2>v te ol Tvpocp'^Tai IXaXYjCccv \}.z\- ji.apTup4[J-£vov TOC dc XptTTov Tua- AovTtov yivEG-D-ai aal Mojuo-yJ?, zl First Epistle of Peter. 503 This close parallel suggests literary dependence. Obviously the passage in Acts is closely related to I Cor. 15 ; 20 f. Acts 3 ; 18 is also a close parallel to I Pt. 1 ; Ha, but it makes no reference to Christ's glorification through suffering. Apparently, therefore, the citation in the Pauline portion of Acts affords the closer parallel, although we cannot assert that it shows hterary dependence. (3) I Pt. 1 ; 12 Acts 2 ; 4 oupavou ayioM The doctrine of the gift of the Spirit is too common in the Pauline Literature to make it necessary for us to suppose that there is here any literary connection. (4) I Ft. 1 ; 14 Acts 17 ; .30 TaT? T^poTspov £v T^ ayvoioc 'jij.wv -oU? o5v /^povou? 'zr^c, ayvoiac 6- £7Cl&'U[J.tat? ^TSptBwV 6 0£OC . . It seems significant that ayvoia occurs in " Paul's speech." Thought resembhng this is also to be found in another one of Paul's speeches, i. e. Acts 14 ; 16. These passages suggest acquaintance, yet our Epistle more probably depends upon Rom. 3 ; 25, while Acts 17; 30 comes from the " /[xsT? document," which is obviously older than I Peter. Literary dependence, therefore, cannot be claimed for these passages. (5) I Pt. 1 ; 17 Acts 10 ; 34 TcaTspa . . . Tuv a7i:poc(o-o}.fj[j.7;- oix sttiv 7rpo'7co7:o}vT,[j.--rj? 6 O'so? TWi; . . . That God is no respecter of persons is a common doctrine, both in the N. T. and contemporary literature. Neither of the above words expressing this idea is to be found elsewhere in the N. T. Paul uses 7upo(7Ci)7uo>.r,(|jt!a in Rom. 2 ; 11, Eph. 6 ; 9 and Col. 3 ; 25. Rom. 2 ; 11 alludes, as in I Peter, to the impartial judgment of God ; an idea which is not on the surface in Acts 10 ; 34. The story of Peter's visit with CorneUus in Acts 10 makes Peter the Apostle to the Gen- tiles very early in his ministerial career, whereas we are told in Gal. 2 that this vision of a world wide mission came later : through the medi- ation of Paul. Consequently we are certain that Pauline influence is not wanting here in Acts 10 ; 34. There is, therefore, no literary relation between the members of this parallel. 504 Ora Delmer Foster, (6) I Pt. 1 ; 18, 19 Acts 20 ; 28 Since, as we have seen elsewhere, I Pt. 1 ; 18, 19 quite certainly depends upon Paul (cf. Eph. 1 ; 7, Col. 1 ; 14, I Cor. 6 ; 20, 7 ; 23, Gal. 3 ; 13), and since the account in Acts comes from a document which antedates I Peter, we cannot suppose that there is any hterary connection here. (7) I Pt. 1 ; 21 Acts 2 ; 32 Osov Tov sysipavTa a'jxov ex vs- 'ItiG-ouv av£crTTja"£v 6 Gso?, . . . t9] xpwv xai B62av a-jTw ^ovxa Bs^ta o3v tou Bsotl tj'iiojO-si? . . . There is here a close resemblance. The doctrine of the resur- rection and exaltation of Christ is too common, however, to permit us to use this parallel as an argument for dependence. Cf. Acts 2 ; 32, 3 ; 15, 4 ; 10, 10 ; 40, 13 ; 30, 34, 17 ; 31, Rom. 4 ; 24, 8 ; 11, I Cor. 6 ; 14, 15 ; 15, II Cor. 4 ; 14. Gal. 1 ; 1, Eph. 1 ; 20, Col. 2; 12, I Thes. 1 ; 10, etc. (8) I Pt. 1 ; 22 b Acts 15 ; 9 tjTcaxoT] TTj? aCkfp-ziixc a'jTwv The reference in Acts is a clear allusion to the doctrine of " Justi- fication by Faith," so common with Paul, whereas the citation in I Peter shows progress in the Johannine direction ; cf. Jn. 14 ; 15, 21, 23, 15 ; 7, 10, I Jn. 2 ; 5, 5 ; 3, etc. (9) I Pt. 2; 7 Acts 4; 11 yjS^oc, 6v aTTsBoxCfxacav oi oixoBo- 6 7i9'Oc 6 tc.o'j^z'^r^iic, 'jcp 'j[xcov ytovia? x£cpa).r,v yomai; Ps. 118 ; 22 was, during the early history of the church; a favorite proof text for the Messiahship of Jesus. Mark 12 ; 10, followed by Matthew and Luke, records it as having been quoted by Jesus with reference to himself. It is significant that the text in Mark is exactly the same as that used by our author, whereas the text used in the " speech in Acts," which purports to be Peter's, has important vari- ations. Assuming the historicity of Acts 4 ; 11, tradition, which tells us that Mark drew from Peter, would in that case lead us to First Epistle of Peter. 505 expect closer resemblance between Mark and Acts than between Mark and I Feter, since we are quite certain that the latter depends upon Rom. 9 ; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20—22. Granting that Jesus did allude to this Psalm, there would be no reason for us to suppose that there is any literarj^ relation between Acts and I Peter, nor need we think that they are derived from a common source, unless Paul, upon whom I Peter surely depends, gained his information from Peter, which he would seem in Gal. 1 ; 11 f. to repudiate. (10) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Acts 20 ; 28 Connection here is very doubtful. (11) I Pt. 2; 9 b Acts 26; 18 TO-J £X T/Jj-ryj^ -jij.occ '/.y^.i'j7.'/zrjC.^ TOL) Z7:\.r>~zi'by.i y.T.6 Gy^OTOu; si$ zlc ~b b-y.'M.y(j-ry^ yjj-^yj owr • oto? The PauHne source is too obvious here to require comment. Ci Eph. 5 ; 8, Col. 1 ; 13, I Thes. 5 ; 4, etc. (12) I Pt. 2; 12 Acts 24; 5 sQ-VETtV S/OVTSC XalTjV, IVOC, £V Cb TOT? 'louBatOt; TOT? XaTOC TYjV xaTa}^a}^ouG"iv 'j[j.wv w^ /vocxo'otwv. oixo'jasvTjV Cf. 3 ; 16. Apparently there is here no direct connection. (13) I Pt. 3 ; 8 Acts 4 ; 32 TO Bs -£/,o; ~avT£C 6[j.6opov£c r;/ xapBia xat, 'iy/"/) [Jiia Though the thought is similar the phraseology is different. Pauline influence is obvious here. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 16, 15 ; 5, 6, II Cor. 13 ; 11, Phil. 1 ; 27, 2 ; 2, 3 ; 16. (14) I Pt. 3 ; 22 Acts 10 ; 36 7:op£U&-£i(; £?? oupavov O-OTayevTcov rj^^x^jc^ (T. X.) Ittiv TudcvTOiv Kupioi? a5~a) aYY£}.cov xal Icouciwv xai B'Jva[j.£cov For closer parallels see Eph. 1 ; 20-22, Col. 1 ; 16 f., 2 ; 15, I Cor. 15 ; 24 f. (15) 1 Pt. 4; 1 Acts 17; 3 XpicTToti o5v ;:aO'6vTO? Tapxi . . oti tov /piTTOv eBei TaQ-ETv This thought is too common to show dependence. 506 Ora Delmer Foster, (16) I Pt. 4; 3 Acts 14; 16 apxsTO? yap 6 Tzccpz'krikub-dic, ypo- 6^ sv zcac, 7iapw)rY)[jivaii; ysvsaii; vo? TO j3ouXY][jLa T7WV sO'Vwv xaTstp- zXccGzv Tcavxa Ta sQ^vyj xopeuscrQ'a!, ydab'cci, xs7vop£U[j.evoui; sv aasl- toT? 6BoT(; au-fiiv. Cf. 15 ; 20, yeiaic ... 17 ; 30. Again the Pauline influence is obvious. Cf. Rom. 3 ; 25, Eph. 2; 2. 4 ; 17, Col. 1 ; 21, 3 ; 7, I Thes. 4 ; 5. See also Ex. 3 above. (17) I Pfc. 4 ; 4 Acts 13 ; 45 |3>>a(7CpYl[J.OUV17£? >>a>.OL»[jivOt? [iXKCrCpYjjXOUVTS? (18) I Pt. 4; 5 Acts 10; 42 TO) STOIJJ-COC XpiVOVTl Zm^ZCCC Xai OOtOC ICTTIV 6 Wpt(7[X£V0$ 6x6 TOU vsxpoui; ©sou xpiTYJ^ (Co)VT(ov xal vexpwv This parallel affords no real evidence either for literary dependence or for a common Petrine source. A common Pauline source seems more apparent. Cf. Acts 17 ; 31, Rom. 2 ; 16, 14 ; 10, 12, II Cor. 5; 10, II Tim. 4 ; 1. It is important to note that Acts 17 ; 31 comes from a much better source than Acts 10 ; 42. (19) I Pt. 4 ; 14 Acts 5 ; 41 si ovsiBi^saS'S sv ovojj-aTi XpiaToO, ol [j.sv o5v sTuopsuovTo y^aipovTsc [jLaxapioi (16) si Bs 6)c XpiG'Ttavoc, utJj . . . oti xaTYj'^tojO'rjirav uxsp [JLYj alcovt:£? oti to Boxt^xiov u[jmv TT,c %ir;xtoK '^i m(7T£w? xaTspya^s'^'' Nearly all commentators have recognized a dependence between these two passages. Mayor says : " it is proven beyond all doubt bv the recurrence in both phrases tzoimIok; xstpaapT? and to Bo- xCpov -J^j-wv TT,? TziG'tcoi with its usual order of words. Assuming then, as we must, that one copied from the other, we find the trial' of faith illustrated in I Peter (as in Ps. 66 ; 10, Prov. 17 ; 3, Job 23 ; 10, Zech. 13 ; 9, Mai. 3 ; 3) by the trying of the precious metals in the fire ; we find also the addition, oJlyo^ apTi, zl Bsov, Xu7c-/ia-£VT£?, which looks as if it were intended to soften down the uncompromising Stoicism of St. James' tmgccv ycc^uv r,yr,<7cccrb-s" . (Com. on Jas. p. xcvi.) That there is here a case of depen- dence, practically all agree, yet the order of dependence many question. Ikipaa^xoTc Tcoixaoi? seems somewhat weak prior to the Neronian persecution, which is assumed in the argument, inasmuch as it refers in I Peter to " trials and persecutions of the Christi- ans". (For TTstpacrp? see any Gk. Lex. Cf. also Cone's com. p. 273 ; Schmidt and Holzendorf Com. Ill, p. 158 ; etc.) First Epistle of Peter 509 Against the argument that the longer form in I Peter is a proof of its priority may be advanced the general consensus of even con- servative opinion regarding the alleged dependence of Romans and Ephesians on I Peter. Cf. Sanday's Com. on Rom. p. Ixxvf. Many of the " illustrations of I Peter," no doubt, were originally from the 0. T., but they do not appear to have been dragged in unnaturally. They have been called out by a concrete situation, whereas the passage in James is lacking not only in local coloring but also in clearness of purpose. The phrase alluded to above may be " a softening down of James' harder expression," but as a matter of fact the tendency was towards an increase in the fanaticism for suffering as we approach the second Century. Cf. Acts 5 ; 41 and the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans. Again, in I Peter, the successful endurance of the present trial has an important bearing on the condition of the Christians at the imminent " parousia," a most vital and burning issue, whereas in James it is advanced merely as a motive for " patience." Jas. 1 ; 2 has nothing to recommend its priority in this context. On the other hand I Pt. 1 ; 6 is the continuation of a line of thought begun in the preceding verses, i. e., (3) God has begotten the believers to a lively hope (4) of an inheritance reserved for those (5) who are kept through faith unto salvation, (6) in which thought they may find comfort in the present persecutions (7) which will turn out to their good in the approaching parousia. In view of the foregoing considerations the position of Mayor and Monnier seems untenable. The probabilities are in favor of the dependence of James on I Peter, at this point. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 23 Jas. 1 ; 18 avaYSYsvvqjivoi . . . Bix Aoyou ^oukcib-iic, ax£xur,o-£v r\[}.oLq Aoyw oCkrib-doLc The " birth " here is accomplished " by the word of God," or " of truth." Mayor thinks that ; " I Peter expanded the simpler thought of James " (p. xcvi), to which Monnier adds : " d'une fagon oratorie" (p. 269). Yet the avaYsysvvYjpivot of 1 ; 23 refers back to the avaYsvvr^Tac of 1 ; 3 which shows close sequence of thought. Some have felt a difficulty here in finding a logical connection of Jas. i ; 18 to its context. (See note on Ex. 11.) 'Atcoxusw is peculiar to James, being found only in 1 ; 15, 18, while avaY£vvaco occurs only in I Pt. 1 ; 3, 23. The closeness of thought and phraseology make dependence probable. The priorit}' seems also to belong to I Peter. 510 Ora Delmer Foster, (3) I Pt. 1 ; 23, 24 Jas. 1 ; 10, 11 7ua(7a Bo^a auT5](;, w? avS-o? )(6p- avsrsiT.ev yap 6 Yi}aO(; . , . xal Tou* s^YipavQ'Y) 6 yo^xoc, xai to s^Yjpavsv tov xop^ov xai to av8-o? avQ-O? £C£7l£(7£V, TO Bs pYi[J.a XUpiOU aUTOti £^£7i;£0-£V [jivei Professor Bacon thinks that ; "the thought here is reproduced from I Peter." He also maintains that James is the borrower in Ex. 2. (Com. on Gal. p. 8 n.) The language of James shows a close relation to Ps. 90 ; 6, 103 ; 15, Job 14 ; 2 and Isa. 40 ; 6-8, but it is more closely related to the last. Dependence here is made very probable by the next parallel. (4) I Pt. 2 ; 1 Jas. 1 ; 21 a7Co9'£[j.£vo!, oSv Tuaaav xaxiav xai ^ib axoO-E^Evoi Tzotaocv puTcapiav 'K.y.^'zv. 'boAO'^ xai UTCOxpiTiv xai xoi x£picrG'£tav xaxia^ £v xpauTVjTi (pS-ovouc xai Tzdaccc, xaTala^.tac, B£'^ao"D'£ tov £[j.cp!jTOv loyov tov 6)C apTiY^vvTjTT, pp£OV] TO Xoyi- Buva[j.£vov crwaai toci; ^"J/a^. Cf . 3 ; xov . . . yaXcc smTcoQ-YjcraTE iva iv 14, 17 and 4 ; 11. a^Tw a!irr]0-rjT£ £ic (TojTrjpiav (re- sumes 1 ; 13). Cf. 3 ; 21 aapxoc The identical use of the introductory participles is striking. The wording and general plan are also very similar. That I Pt. 2 ; 1 is preceded by a possible reference to James is significant, as well as the fact that 2 ; 2 finds a parallel in the " new born babes " to the "new birth " of Jas. 1 ; 18, which is in a close context. Monnier compares the " Word of Truth " which saves our souls (Jas. 1 ; 21) to " le lait Aoyixov par lequel on grandit en vue du salut." I Pt. 2 ; 2 (Com. p. 269). I Pt. 2 ; 1 is an exhortation based upon 1 ; 23a. If Jas. 1 ; 21 is in any way connected with the preceding context, it too must go back a few verses, i. e. to 1 ; 18. Obviously the connection is better in I Peter. That this similar exhortation follows three verses below the common reference to the " new birth," makes a strong case for dependence. I Peter also employs the " Word " in 2 ; 2, which James used in the foregoing connection. (5) I pt. 4 ; 8 Prov. 10 ; 12 Jas. 5 ; 12, 20 xpo 7:avTtov ty]v £i? LXXxavTa^Toy^lJ-YjcpO^o- xpo TuavTcov [xri 6[}y6- zauxoiic, ayaTC'/iv £xt£- v£txoLivTai;xaX'J7:T£t. Heb. £T£ (20) yivo')G'/v£T£ oti First Epistle of Peter. 511 xaX!j7vT£t7:Xrj9"0?a[xap- }/>/ . . . xoO^j'hzi 7:Ar,- Monnier thinks that the thought of James is the more primitive, and that the citation in I Peter is of a homiletical character (Com. p. 270—271). Others take it to be a " proverbial expression not appropriately employed by James." (Cf. Cone's Com. p. 295.) Mayor says : " James makes use of a familiar phrase without regard to the bearing of the context, applying it to the conversion of the erring, while St. Peter keeps the original application " (Com. p. xcix). With this we agree, but on this basis, we are inclined, with Bigg (Com. p. 173), to turn Mayor's argument against himself and infer the priority of I Peter. If our author " keeps the original appU- cation," James cannot have influenced him to any appreciable extent. Bigg gives the following summary of the argument : " If there is any connection here between St. James and St. Peter, it is clear that the former is the borrower, for the connection of his phrase with verse of Proverbs can only be made clear by taking the phrase of the latter as a help. If. St. Peter had not first written aYocTTTj xaXuxTst. zfkr^b'O^ a[j.apTtwv, St. James never could have said that he who converteth a sinner xaX'J'jts!, ■Klrib-oc, ajj.ocp-iwv. " (For more complete discussion see Mayor p. 170 f., and Bigg p. 173.) From the above parallels it is obvious that these N. T. authors do not foUow either the LXX or the original Hebrew as w^e now know them. The verbal agreement, therefore, is best explained on the basis of literary dependence, and reasons have not been wanting to give to I Peter the priority. (6) , I Pt. 5 ; 4 Jas. 1 ; 12 (7j I Pt. 5; 5 Jas. 4; 6 6 Bso? UTcsprjcpavoi; av-tTaTTs-at, 6 Hsoc 'JTrsp'/jcpavotc avTi-ocTToTai, -axsivoTc Bs BiBojci /aptv TaxstvoT? Bs Tiihoiai /apiv (8) I Pt. 5 ; 6 Jas. 4 ; 10 -az£ivo')9TjT£ o3v uizo -zry xpa-ratav Ta7:£!,vo)0T,':£ svtoziov toj /.uoiou, /£Tpa TOL) Heoij, I'va 'j[J.6tc 'j'i/coTfj xai •j'l»o')'j£i 'jixac £v xaipw 512 Or a Delmer Foster, (9) I Pt. 5 ; 8 Jas. 4 ; 7 b 9) & aVTl(7TYlTE (TirepSOl T^ XtO-'irSI, 'fs-OCl deep' U[J.O)V Dependence is indisputable in parallels 6—9. The phrasing and general structure are remarkably alike. The sequence cannot well be considered accidental. Following the quotation in both cases is the exhortation to submission to God with the view of exaltation, which will follow after resisting the devil. Ex. 9. The evidence of Ex. 20 should also be considered here. These quotations are too constant and too close to permit a doubt of dependence. The importance of these parallels justifies us in quoting some- what at length from Bigg (p. 191) where the priority of our Epistle is defended in a convincing way. " Reasons why we should assign the priority to I Peter : (1) in James the mention of humility is sudden and unexpected ; (2) though he gives the quotation from Prov. 3 ; 34 in the same shape as I Peter, he writes, in ver. 10, TaTisivojO'YiTS hoiTZioy -zoo Kupioo, as if he were aware that 6 ©so? was not quite correct : we may infer perhaps that he had somewhere seen the quotation in its altered shape ; (3) the mention of the devil in I Peter is not only more natural but more original ; (4) in ver. 8, St. James has ayvio-aTo Ta; xapBias. which may be suggested by -zot-i; 'j»u/a? 'j[j.o)v YiYvi/.ots; of I Pt. 1 ; 22: if this is so, St. James is combining different parts of the Petrine Epistle. " c (10) 1 Pt. 1; 1 Jas. 1; 1 sx)v£)CToT; 7:ap£XiSrjjj.oic BiaT-opac xoa^ BcoBs/.a o'j'koCic, 'zoac, sv ty, This leads one to infer literary dependence. Our Epistle addresses people of a definite location while James refers to the Diaspora in general. Mayor argues that the definiteness of I Peter is an unconscious enlargement of the general address of Jas. 1 ; 1, but others see in it an evidence of originalit}'. TaT; BcoBsxa oolrxXc, cannot be very early if it refers to the children of Abraham by faith, rather than by birth, which the body of the Epistle requires. Many scholars believe that James bears a literary relation to Romans. If this were not so the SiacTTCOpa might be understood to refer to the Jews as such — assuming an early date — but if James depends upon Romans the Bta(77;opa must refer to the faithful regardless of race. That the author had the latter class in mind is evident from the con- First Epistle oj Peter. 513 text. Cf. ver. 18. The distorting effect that a theory of date may have an interpretation is ilhistrated by Mayor, not only when he makes " James" address "the Jews of the Eastern Dispersion," but also when he says ; " St. Peter addresses the Jews of Asia Minor". (Com. on Jas. p. xcvi.) (11) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Jas. 1 ; 18 The reference to the " new birth " comes in more naturally in I Peter than in James. It is difficult to see any connection with the context in the latter, unless it be preparatory to the following exhortation. (Cf. Cone p. 277.) Since there is nothing in the preceding context to suggest it, the probabilities are that the bor- rowing is on the part of James. (12) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Jas. 1 ; 27, 2 ; 5 'A[j.tavTO? occurs in the N.T. only here and in Heb. 7 ; 26 ; and 13 ; 4. Dependence here is made probable by the possible points of contact in the immediate context of James. Cf. parallels 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 30. (13) I Pt. 1 ; 12 Jas. 1 ; 25 zlc y. £7ut0-u[i,o0(7iv ayyeT^oi 7:apa- 6 Ss ~apax'j'|»a; si; voij.ov tsXsiov xu'j»ai Tov ~'7\(; £};£u8'£pia; Hapax'JTTTO) is a rare word in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in Lk. 24 ; 12 and Jn. 20 ; 5, 11. It is used in the perceptual sense in the latter references, whereas it is employed in the con- ceptual sense in the above parallel. The context in James is sug- gestive of I Peter. Dependence here seems quite probable. (14) I Pt. 1 ; 17 Jas. 2 ; 1 Tov a7:pocr(o-o}vYip.7CTO)C xpivovca [j.y, £v 7:po(7(o7:oAY/|iiaic . . . npOTcoTTOAr/liia is found also in Rom. 2 ; 11, 3 ; 25, 6 ; 9, and may suggest dependence of James upon Paul. The verbal form appears only in Jas. 2 ; 9. npoTWTCoT.YiTUTYi; occurs in " Peter's speech " in Acts 10 ; 34. "A" privative is employed with this word only by our author. It appears then that Paul is the source for I Petel". The usage in I Peter is more in favor of its priority than in James. 514 Or a Delmer Foster, I Peter employs it in a chain of thought whereas James uses it, as if suggested by another, to introduce an exhortation quite foreigen to the previous context. This parallel is made more significant by Exs. 12, 24 and 30. (15) I Pt. 2 ; 11 Jas. 4 ; 1 zapaxalw . . . aziyza^cci twv Tap- t^oO-sv 7l67v£1j-oi' . . . oux svTsOO-ev xixwv STCiQ'tjiJ-wov odrivzc, cr-pccTSU- Ix -oJv TjBovwv 'j[j.cov tcov cr-pa'su- Obviously these passages are closely related. I Peter depends very probably upon Paul (cf. Rom. 5 ; 17, Gal. 5 ; 17, etc.), rather than upon James, inasmuch as the influence of Romans is apparent all through this section. The verse contains nothing that cannot be duplicated in the Pauline Literature. Jas. 4 ; lb agrees with I Pt. 2 ; 11 in making the warfare internal in accordance with Paul's doctrine of the " aapi against the ruvs'jjj.a." But the preceding and succeeding contexts lead one to think "James" alludes to social disturbances. If so iji}>£'7i,v should refer to "persons", but this is wresting the word out of its most obvious meaning. The phrase 4 ; 1 b, therefore, seems to be borrowed. (16) I Pt. 2 ; 12 Jas. 3 ; 13 ^A.>avw[j.£voi sTvSfTTptx'iirjTi lav ti; Iv 6[jIv 7i>.avY]!j-?| . . . xai £7:!,'7'7p£CpY] Ti; aUTOV Suggestive but not conclusive. (29) I Pt. 3; 15 Jas. 1; 21 [j.£Ta TcpaoTYj'^oi;. Cf. v. 4. Iv TrpauTr^Ti Probably accidental. First Epistle of Peter. 517 (30) I Pt. 4; 14 Jas. 2; 1 -zh 'xr^c ^otr^^ xai to zoZ StoZ rr^v Tyin-iv '1y]0'0'j Xpi(j~oZ ■zoo This furnishes no argument either for or against dependence. (31) I Pt. 4 ; 16 Jas. 2 ; 7 zl 6k /pio-Ttavoc (x(X(7/£i) ... TO xa7.6v ovotj.a to s7ri,xl"r]D'£v s'^' BoSa^sToj Tov Bsov Iv Toi ovop.aT!, 'j(j.a? TOUTO) While this is suggestive the background is different. Conclusion J. P. Mayor says : " I think no unprejudiced reader can doubt the resemblances between the Epistle of St. James and the Epistle of St. Peter. The recurrence in them of the same words and phrases and their common quotations from the 0. T. are such as to prove conclusively that the one borrowed from the other. Nor can there be much doubt as to which of the two was the borrower if we ob- serve how in ahnost every case, the common thought finds fuller expression in St. Peter." (Epis. of St. Jas. p. xcv.) So Zahn says : " it is plain that the author of I Peter was well acquainted with James and had read the letter reflectively." (Int. I, p. 134.) Salmon thinks that " the proofs of the use by Peter of the Epistle of James are decisive." (Int. p. 556.) Falconer maintains that " there is a close relation between the Epistles, but the order of priority can be determined only on the basis of the date of James." (H. B. D. p. 716.) That these Epistles are in some way directly related, critics of all schools are agreed, but as to the order of priority they differ widely. Luther long ago contended for the priority of I Peter. He has been followed by an illustrious line of scholars, e. g. W Bruckner (S. 35), Hausrath (IV, S. 253), Hilgenfeld (S. 638), Holtz- mann (Einl. S. 315, 336), von Soden (H.C., III 2 ; 2, S. 2 f., 110). Pfleiderer (S. 417, 424, 427), Knopf (N. Z. S. 34), Bacon (Int. p. 160), Bigg (p. 23), Cone (E. B., Com. p. 269). Jiilicher contends that : " James has considerable literature behind it not only 0. T. Apocrypha, but Christian writings also : Paul, Hebrews, I Peter and the Gospels. The points of resem- blance, too, between it and the First Epistle of Clement are so man}^ and so striking that it is impossible to explain them satisfactorily 518 Or a Deliner Foster, except by supposing our author to have been acquainted with that Epistle. James shares its fundamental ideas with those of the Shepherd of Hermas, and even in expression it often approaches the latter remarkably closely." (Int. p. 224.) Were we to grant the truth of Mayor's assertion — which is not supported by the facts — that " the common thought finds fuller expression in I Peter," it would still afford no conclusive argument for the priority of James. Cf. the relation of I Peter to Ephesians and Romans. What is much more conclusive is the naturalness with which the citations in question occur in their respective contexts. It has been noted at various points in the above study that the contextual connection is much better in I Peter and not unfrequently does it appear that the thought of James has been introduced at the suggestion of another. The priority of our Epistle seems evident in no less than half of the parallels, e. g. 1—9, 11, 14—17, 19. Appa- rently therefore those are correct who claim James depends directly upon the First Epistle of Peter. JUDE D d (1) I Pt. 1 ; 1, 5 Jude 1 STcTvS/.ToT? . . . £v aYiaajxto :z^z^- toT? Iv Bsw Tiaxpi YiYa;cY][j.£voi? . . . [xoccoc 5 (TSTTjpTjijivYjv) cppo'jfo'j- TSTTjprj^j.svoi? xXyjtoTi; [j.£vo'Jc Bia rAiyztoic . . . The occurence of the doctrines of the believers' election, sancti- fication and security in such close contextual connection makes dependence seem probable at the very outset. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 2 Jude 2 •/apic 6[j.Tv xal oiprjVr, TzAY^S-jvO'Sir, zlzoc, 6[j.Tv y.cd sipr^vr, xai 'X'^trrrti Jude reproduces the phraseology of our Epistle more perfectly at this point than any other N. T. writing, excepting II Pt. 1 ; 2, which was borrowed either from Jude or from I Peter. II Peter has the exact form found in I Peter, but it is a recasting of Jude by a student of I Peter, hence the priority must be given to our Epistle. The direct sequence of this close parallel with the one preceding it leads First Epistle of Peter. 519 us to infer dependence. Yet the superscriptions Jas. 1 ; 1 and Jude 1—2 are peculiarly open to the suspicion of adjustment and as- similation in the process of formation of the canon. (3) I Pt. 2 ; 8 Jude 4 . . . (XTTsiG'otiv'U'sc* SIC 6 xal Itz- ol 7:a}.at, xpoysYpaij-ijivot zlc Toti'o This parallel affords no argument for dependence. Cf. Rom. 9 ; 21, 22, I Thes. 5 ; 9, Prov. 16 ; 4, Jer. 18 ; 6 etc. (4) I Pt. 3 ; 19 Jude 6 ■ZOIC sv ou7.ax^ TwVSUij.aTiv ^fy^xoX^ aVBioi? bizb Zooov -zt'c^zc/.z^* There is here no obvious connection. The evidence afforded by the above possible points of contact is not such as to warrant the claim that one author knew the work of the other. REVELATION C c (1) I Pt. 1 ; 19 Eev. 1 ; 5 s};tjTpt60'YjT£ . . . Tiij.wo rA\xy.~i wc X'JTav-i v][J.a^ sz twv aixapTtoiv a|j.vo!J a[j.t6[j.0!j xat, (xo-tciXou Xpi. 5 ; 10 tw 0£w v][xwv |3a(7i- £1? x£pi7roiYi.% x6(7[jiou and l^'^ayfJ-svov. Bigg so interprets it. (Com. p. 120.) " Qui occisus est ab origine mundi," of the Textum Vaticanum, and J X)\\? oi^-uiiiL ^ •■ I flg . T I 001 jv^DJJ ' of the Peshito, can only be taken as our revisers of 1881 rendered the Greek text. This parallel, therefore, is very significant, especially when taken in connection with Ex. 1. (5) I Pt. 2 ; 25 Rev. 7 ; 17 ^T£ yap oic, xp6[3aTa xXavcojJxvoi to apviov to ava ixsaov ~o\) O-povou oiX}\ £7U£(7TpacpTjT£ vOv llZl TOV TiOtjj.avsT ailTOU? . . . ::oi[jiva . . . It is interesting to note that our author uses the word referring to Christ, which is common with later authors. Cf. Jn. 10 ; 2, 11, 12, 14, 16, Heb. 13 ; 20, etc. See John Exs. 11-12. (6) I Pt. 4 ; 8 Rev. 12 ; 12 OTi 6 avTiBtxo? 61J.WV Bta|3o}vOC, ok oti xaTsp-/] 6 Bia[3oXo? zpbc, b\xotq T^scov wpuo^svoc, ;:£pt7:aT£T trjTwv £)ro)v D-ufj-ov [XEyav, siSw? oti oT^Cyov Ttva xaTaTCrfi xaipov £/£i. First Epistle of Peter. 521 These passage show a common belief in the devil's activity during the fiery persecution then waging. Rome appears to be the base of his operations in the world and apart from there he is thought of as " a roaring Hon going about seeking whom he may devour." I Pt. 1 ; 8. These references therefore, show similar conditions to have existed when the books were written, if, indeed, they do not show dependence. d (7) I Pt. 1 ; 7 Rev. 3 ; 18 Though this parallel is suggestive it is not conclusive. It only shows that the two books have a common background, (8) I Pt 2 ; 16 Eev. 1 ; 1 BoDloi ©sou Bo'JXoic auToO A very common thought in the N. T. (9) I Pt. 3 ; 10 Rev. 14 ; 5 These passages suggest dependence, yet they may be drawn from the original directly. Cf. Ps. 34 ; 13 and 32 ; 2. (10) I Pt. 4 ; 7 Rev. 1 ; 3 TuavTwv Bs TO t£7.o? T^yyixs 6 Y^^p y-oci^oc syyuc This idea is very common in the N. T. (11) I Pt. 5 ; 1 Rev. 1 ; 9 xapaxa}i.w 6 (TO\k'izpzG^6xt^oc xai syw 'IcoavvY]^, 6 xat, aBsXcpo? 6[JL5iv [xapTUi; Twv Tou XptaTOij zaO'Tj- xai guyxoivtovoc sv ty) 8>}^i(j;£i . . . [xaTOJv Bta . . . TYjv [lapTuptav 'IyjctoO" This similarity is probably due to the similar conditions out of which these writings were produced. (12) I Pt. 5; 4 Rev. 2; 10 TV]? Bo^v]!; CTscpavou axsfpavov •ttji; (^wyjc Though suggestive, dependence here is very doubtful. 522 Ora Delmer Foster, 13) I Pt. 5 ; 13 Rev. 14 ; 8 ^apuKivi (^a^'jlcov. Cf. 16 ; 19, 17; 5, 18; 2, 10; 21. In view both of tradition and history, we need not consider any interpretation which does not identify (3a[3u}vaJv with Rome. On this basis, which is the only tenable view, we must recognize a re- lation between I Peter and the Apocalypse. We cannot claim any literary relation, but that the circumstances and time of writing were closely related seems obvious. Rome was already drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Rev. 17 ; 6. C. A. Scott expresses the opinion of many scholars when he makes this passage, just quoted, presuppose the Neronian persecution. (New Cent. Bib. on Rev. p. 262.) On this basis the mystical name has meaning, but to place it before the Neronian persecution, or even at the beginning, as the " traditional view " would claim for I Peter, would be to involve us in an insoluble mystery. It is clear from our Epistle that the persecutions had not made as much progress in Asia Minor as they had in Rome. Cf. Rev. 17 ; 6 f . The persecutions alluded to in I Peter, were a " new thing," whereas in Rome they were of some duration. It would thus appear that the Apocalypse was written soon after I Peter. The more obvious points of contact between these writings (e. g. Exs. 1—3) can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for on the basis of a common background, yet the evidence is not such as to make dependence very probable. I JOHN B b— c (1) I Pt. 1; 8 I Jn. 4; 20 6v oux iBovTSi; ayaTTaTs, £i$ 6v 6v sojpaxsv, tov Bsov 6v ouy apTi [J.Y] opwvTsc TTKJTS'JovTs? . . . soSpaxsv 00 Byvaxai ayaxav Dependence here is made very probable by the additional evi- dence of John Ex. 2. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 19 I Jn. 1 ; 7 £>>UTpa)Q'TjT£ (cpO-ocpToT;) Ttjjio) atjj.a- -6 aljxa 'l7](7on XpiTTOtj . . . xa- Ti MC, a^voij a[j.a)[j-0'j xai arj-Kilou b-ocpiZzi ri[xdtz Yi<7Y]T£ ToTc lyyzGVj xaS-wi; sxsTvo? TispisTcaTYjas, xol See John Ex. 15 for a closer parallel in the fore part. Yet the ::£pi7ca-r$Tv of I John is more in accord with I Pt. 2 ; 21b than is John 13 ; 15. I Peter is probably the basis for Jn. 13 ; 15 and I Jn. 2 ; 6. (7) I Pt. 2 ; 22 I Jn. 3 ; 5 b 6? ajj.apTiav o'jx. szoltjTsv a[xapTia sv a'jTw oux Icti Cf. John 8 ; 46, Ex. 7. It is to be noted again that this doctrine is taught by Jesus himself in the Fourth Gospel. (8) I Pt. 2 ; 24 I Jn. 3 ; 5 a 6c Toc; a[j,apTia? t^jxcov auro? avv;- icpavepwS-Y], iva xkc, a|j,apTia<; i^[xwv vsyxsv £v Tw Tcop-aTi aoTO-j £~i apr,. Cf. 2 ; 2, 4 ; 10. TO CtJXoV I Jn. 4 ; 10 has D.aTp-o? corresponding to llaa-fjptov of Rom. 3 ; 25. Rom. 5 ; 8, 10 expresses in abstract form what is given in I Pt. 3 ; 18 and I Jn. 3 ; 16. I Pt. 2 ; 24 thinks of Jesus " bearing our sins in his own body," while I Jn. 3 ; 5 says ; " he bears them away," in accordance with the testimony of John the Baptist. Cf. John Exs. 2 and 3. d (9) I Pt. 1 ; 24 I Jn. 2 ; 17 BioTt zaaa cap; o>c /opTO?, xai xai 6 x6(r[j.o? TLapaysirat, xai y r.^a% Boia oi\rzr\c, mc, avO-Oi; )(6p- s-iO-ufj-ia au-ou' Bs izoii^)'^ ^q %•£- Tou . . . Bs p^^a Kupiou [JLSVst si? Xr^jxa TOii ©eo'j [jivst ets; tov Tov aiwva auova. Cf. 1 ; 1, 3. There is probably no connection here. (10) I Pt. 4 ; 7 I Jn. 2 ; 18 7iavT(ov -h -zkoc TjYyixsv sT/arrj wpa IttC This idea is too common to trace its course down to the Johannine Literature. First Epistle of Peter. 525 II JOHN D I Pt. 4 ; 8 II Jn. 5 Tipo TiavTfov — f|V Etc sa'jTO'j; aya- I'va aya'wij.ev oCO.r^'kooq ;ur,v IxTsv?) lyov-zc Dependence cannot be argued here, unless through the relation this parallel sustains to the other Johannine Literature. Cf. Jn. 13 ; 34, 15 ; 12, I Jn. 3 ; 23. in JOHN D I Pt. 3 ; 11 III Jn. 11 ixxlivGCTO) Ss a;:o xaxoS xat, tioiyj- [iy] [jit[j.o!j to xaxov aX}.a to ayaO ov, cocTco ayaO'Ov, ^rjTri(7aT(o £ip-/ivr,v 6 ayaO'0::ot,cov , , . xai BuoSaTco auTTjv. ayaOoTTOisco 2 ; 15, 20, 3 ; 6, 17. This parallel is quite suggestive, yet since it is the only real point of contact between these Epistles, and the reference in I Peter is a quotation from the O.T., III John can have no voice in determin- ing the relation the Johannine Literature sustains to I Peter, JOHN B b— c (1) I Pt. 1; 3b Jn. 8 •, 3 avaysvvTjCra? Y;[xac. Cf. 1 ; 23. ysvvrjO-?] avwQ-ev Cf. 3 ; 5 The idea of the " new birth " is found in the Pauhne writings. Cf. I Cor. 4 ; 15, Gal. 4 ; 19, 6 ; 15, Tit. 3 ; 5. It is more clearly set forth in our Epistle. Cf. 1 ; 3, 23. It would seem that the author of the Fourth Gospel took up the idea as our author had developed it and incorporated it into a narrative. (2) I Pt. 1 ; 8, 9 Jn. 20 ; 29, 31 6v oux iBovTE? (xyaTcocTS, dc ov o-t swpaxac [xs, [0waa] Tusmairsu- apTi [j/f] opoivTsr, TTiTTc'JovTsc (>£ xar * [xaxocptot 01 [xr^ iBovTSC, xal 526 Ora Delmer Foster, uyaXkiotzz X^^P^ aysxTva^YiTo) xal maxtbaixvzzq . . . hapTOU, Bia [xcczoq Gocpy.bc ouVz Ix b-zk"f\\}.(x.^oc "koyo'j uWVTOc Bsotj xai [xsvov- avBpoc a}X Ix (")20^ lYoVvrjO-/i<7av TO? . . . Attention has been called in Ex. 1 to the idea of the " new birth," but in the above parallel we are also told how it was brought about. In both instances the negative aspect precedes the positive. Our author says that "we are born not of corruptible seed," whereas " John " puts it, " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man," w^hich is clearly an expansion of the thought of I Peter. " Virtually CKopcc and Xoyoq (of I Peter) are the same thing seen in different lights. Aoyoc is of course not used in the sense which it ultimately reaches in St. John." (Hort's First Epistle of James," p. 93.) I Peter seems again to form a connection between the " logos " idea of Paul and the complete expression of it in John. The phrase of John, "born of God," or of the " will of God," as the case may be, is suggestive of Jas. 1 ; 18, which indeed combines the ideas of Jn. 1 ; 13 and I Pt. 1 ; 23. We have found reason elsewhere to believe that this verse in James depends upon our Epistle. I Peter understood the " new birth " to have been effected " by the word of a living and abiding God. The loyo^ is God Himself speaking, speaking not once only but with renewed utterance, kindling life not 528 Ora Delnier Foster, only by recollection but by a present power " (Hort p. 92). The tendency toward hypostatization is more marked here than in the impUed Xoyo? doctrine of the Pauline Epistles. Nor does it seem to be a violation of the text to say Jas. 1 ; 18 shows a still greater tendency in this direction. That " John " was acquainted with I Peter is made very probable both by the structure and the sense of Jn. 1 ; 13 a and I Pt. 1 ; 23a. The antithesis is significant, especi- ally since it is followed by phrases similar in form and meaning. John 1 ; 14 takes up the word \6y->c, again, as if at the suggestion of another, which would come quite naturally from I Pt. 1 ; 23—25 or Jas. 1 ; 18. Hort thinks that " St. James is speaking here of the original creation of man." Granting the truth of his contention, the Epistle maystiU show an influence upon Jn. 1 ; 1—14. (Cf. Jn. 1; 3). I Pt. 1 ; 23 b would have been a very suggestive text for the author who wrote Jn. 1 ; 4a, the content of which, significantly enough, is put into a discourse of Jesus (Jn. 5 ; 26). Compare I Pt. 2 ; 9b also with Jn. 1 ; 4b, which idea is also put into the mouth of Jesus (Jn. 8 ; 12, 9 ; 5, 12 ; 36, 37. On the whole then this parallel seems to indicate that the implied " logos doctrine " of Paul was taken up. in connection with the idea of the " new birth," b\ our author, who put it in a suggestive fashion for " James," all of which — with the possible exception of James — paved the way for the fully developed form found in the Fourth Gospel. (7) I Pt. 2 ; 22 Jn. 8 ; 46 a[j.apTtai; The doctrine of Christ's sinlessness is too common, in itself, to be certain that there is here any literary dependence. Cf. Isa. 53 ; 9, Lk. 23 ; 41, II Cor. 5 ; 21, Heb. 4 ; 15, etc. Yet the following con- text in both books makes dependence here very probable. Cf. Ex. 8. (8) I Pt. 2 ; 23 Jn. 8 ; 48-50 bt; }vOi^opou[JL£vo? ooTi avirsXoiBopei, Hx^xpsizr^c, sT <7tj xai Baijj.6vtov Tztkaym o6x YjTJsQvSt l/si? (;) axexpiQ-Tj Tvjo-olI^ 'Eyw Bai[j.6viov o'jY. lyoi, ocXkoc '!ri[ji,o)' Tov TcaTspa [j,otj, xat ujjlsT^ airi- ^apsBt^o'j Be Tto xpivovTi Bixaioic Icr-iv 6 ^t^tcov xai xpivcov First Epistle of Peter. 529 Jn. 9 ; 48—49 gives a concrete case of what is mentioned in I Pt. 1 ; 23a. I Pt. 2 ; 23b is also parallel in 8 ; 50 by " Jesus' own" words. These close parallels in their sequence, with Ex. 7, can hardly be accidental. (9) I Pt. 3 ; 21 Jn. 3 ; 5, 6 6 xa\ {i]j.3.c. avTiTU~ov vuv cw^st lav \^:'r^ tic ^^zyyr^\i-r\ 1% uBaTO? . . . (^a-Ti-jp-a. o'j c-apxo; a-oO'cTi? o5 B'JvaTat stTslO'sTv si; -rr;/ jia- p'jxou . . . TtAsiav TOiI (■)£0'j. TO yoysvvTjij.s- vov I/. TTjC Tapxo; crap; Ittiv This very suggestive parallel is made even more significant by the probable reference in Jn. 3 ; 7 to I Pt. 1 ; 23. Apparently I Peter depends upon Paul in this section, but it seems quite as evident that the author of the Fourth Gospel took up the Pauline thought of 1 Peter and developed it into a narrative. See Note on Ex. 4. (10) I Pt. 4; 11 Jn. 14; 13 tva Iv "aTiv Bo'fa^TjTat 6 Wso; I'va Bo'faa&'Ti 6 7:aTY)p sv tw uko Bta TtjCtoo XpwTO^ Eph. 5 ; 20 probably furnished the suggestion for our author, but clearly the parallel is closer between John and I Peter than between John and Ephesians. " The glorification of God through Christ," as alluded to in I Peter, is a common doctrine in the Fourth Gospel (13 ; 31, 17 ; 1, 4, 5, 6, etc.), and is frequently found in " speeches of Jesus." It seems probable therefore that this too is a case of natural development. (11) I Pt. 5 ; 2 Jn. 21 ; 15, 16 f 7:oi[j.avaTc to sv U[j.Tv -oi[j.viov to^ - [ioT/wS Ta apvia [j.o'j. 16, 17 |36(jX£ ©soj -a TcpojjaTa [J-oli I Peter alludes to the general oversight and succor of the church, such as an elder could have and give, quite in harmony with what is taught in Jn. 21. noi[xaivet,v is used of Christ (Mt. 2 ; 6, Rev. 2 ; 17, 7 ; 17, 12 ; 5, 19 ; 15) in the sense of " govern," and of Chris- tian ministers (Jn. 21 ; 16, Acts 20 ; 28, I Pt. 5 ; 2, 3). Iloiij-vr, is used of the Christian flock, Mt. 26 ; 31, Jn. 10 ; 16 ; Tcoipiov, Lk. 12 ; 32, Acts 20 ; 28, I Pt. 5 ; 2, 3. See Bigg ad loc. Whatever view be taken of the alleged speech of Paul in Acts 20 ; 28, it shows a movement in the Johannine direction. Again the Fourth Gospel, even in its appendix, permits us to hear from the lips of Jesus himself ideas found in I Peter. This parallel is made more significant by the one following. 530 Oya Delmer Foster, (12) I Pt. 5 ; 4 Jn. 10 ; 11 f. Tou ap)ri7:oi[j.£vo?. Cf. 2 ; 25. We are certain that the Fourth Gospel depends upon Mark, hence Mk. 6 ; 34 may have suggested this O. T. figure (Isa. 40 ; 11, 53 ; 6, Ezek. 34 ; 23, 37 ; 24, Ps. 23, Zech. 13 ; 7), which " John " elaborates. What Mark only implies our author explicitly states, whereas the author of the Fourth Gospel takes up the form given in I Peter and puts it in a teaching of Jesus concerning himself. In Heb. 13 ; 20 Jesus is spoken of as tov 7:oi[jiva twv zpopa-cov tov [j-syav. The context, however, has nothing to suggest John. On the other hand the " Parable of the Good Shepherd " contains much to suggest I Pt. 5 ; 2—4 and 2 ; 25. It would seem, therefore, that our Epistle served again as a connecting link between the earlier tradition and the later development. c (13) I Pt. 1 ; 5 Jn. 10 ; 28 f. Toue £v Buva[j.£i HsoU (ppo'jpou[j-£- . . . ou/ apTcacst -ziq auxa t% ty]? vou? . . . X^'-P'^? l-'-^^- ^^- 1^ ' ^^ ^• We have noted in Galatians (Ex. 5) the idea of " the believer's security," and have been led to believe that our Epistle depends there upon Paul. The Fourth Gospel has an extended discussion on the subject (e. g. 10 ; 28, 29, 17 ; 11, 12, 15) and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the development may have traveled by way of I Peter. (14) I Pt. 1 ; 25 Jn. 1 ; 1 TO Bs p7][j.a Kupio'j pv£i dz tov sv ap/Tj t,v 6 Xoyo?, xai 6 Xoyo? aiwva. ttoSto Bs laTi to prj[j.(x ry Tzpoc tov Osov, xai Bso? tjv TO £uaYY£};i(j8"£v si? i)\i.di.c 6 aoyoc. Cf. v. 14. The relationship between these citations has been touched upon in the note on Ex. 6. Dependence here seems probable. (15) I Pt. 2 ; 21 Jn. 13 ; 15 YjfxTv oTzo'ki\).%(x.yo)v 6xoYpa[j.[j.6v, tva U7:6'hzr(\}.u yap IBwxa yplv, iva £7raxo}iou&"'^OTjT£ Tot^ i/v£(7iv auTotj Y.ix\>d)C lyco £^oiT|(ja u[j.Tv, xal U\).ZIC 7:01YJT£ This parallel is suggestive especially since the " example " occurs in a narrative in John. It is to be noted also that our Epistle has much to say about " humility." First Epistle oj Peter. i31 (16) I Pt. 4 ; 5 Jn. 5 ; 22 -Zb) £-Ol[JlWC XpiVOVTl ^(OVTa? vS\ TT^V Xpi(7lV T^^GCCV B£Bo)/v£V TO) vexpou? uuo It is not clear from this passage in I Peter which is to be understood, Christ or God. Judging from the Pauhne Hterature upon which I Peter surely depends, it would seem necessary to conclude that the author had the former in mind. It would readily be interpreted as such by anyone in the latter part of the First Century. Apparently " John " so understood it. Reference in Jn. 5 ; 21 to quickening the dead, is very suggestive of the quick and the dead of I Pt. 4 ; 5. That it is found in a speech of Jesus is again indicative of a natural development. We cannot be certain, however, for " John " may draw from Paul directly, at this point, or even from some other source. (17) I Pt. 4 ; 8 a Trpo TcavTwv ':rYjv dc, iixuzooc aya- TC'/jv IxTsv"^ lyovzzc, Jn. 15; 12 It is to be noted again that the thought of I Peter is found in John as the subject matter of a discourse by Jesus, in which the atonement doctrine (15 ; 13) is set forth in harmony with I Pt. 2 ; 24. It is very significant that the general statement made in the O. T. quota- tion in I Pt. 4 ; 8b is paralleled in Jn. 15 ; 13a by a concrete example. Note also that Jn. 15 ; 16 may allude to the Petrine doctrine of election, which is again incorporated in a speech of Jesus. (18) I Pt. 1 ; 1 TuapsTciMjij.otc BiaTTTopai; Probably accidental. Jn. 7 ; 35 b tic zry BiaTTropocv tcov'EXItvwv (19) I Pt. 1; 11 Jn. 12; 41 Tup6[j-£vov T7a zli; Xpicrov izcc- Bo'^av auroij, xai sXa^.TjTo -tp\ Q^yj^aTa xai tocc [xztcc -zxZ-y. ^oiccc y.'j~o\) . Again the Pauline thought occurs in John in a narrative, but the similarity is not close enough to indicate dependence. Cf. also Lk. 24 ; 25, 26. 44, 46 and Acts 26 ; 22, 23. 532 Ora Delmer Foster, (20) I Pt. 1 ; 21 Jn. 12 ; 44 . . , Bt, auTOtj TTtTTOtJC SIC ©sov "^O 7:i(7T£UCi)v zlc, l\^Z 00 Z<.(j'lz6zI . . . COffTS TYJV TZIG'ZIV OIJ.WV Xal £1? £IJ.£ a}Aa £15 TOV TiljldiaVTa IXmBa sTvai £ic 0£6v [X£ Though John verj^ probably depends here upon Mk. 9 ; 37,. it is suggestive in this connection. (21) I Pt. 3 ; 12 Jn. 9 ; 31 xai w~a auToU £i? BEYjaiv auTwv oiBa[j.£v Bs oti ocfj-apTOj^jov 6 0s- xpoffcoTiov Be Kupioy Itti, Tiowovra? 6c oijx axotist, a}^^ lav Tt^ 0-so- xaxa (7£|3y]c t^ xai to biXr^ixcx. ocj-zoo TrOlYj TOOTOU aXO!J£l There is here no necessary connection. (22) I Pt. 3 ; 14 Jn. 14 ; 27 irov Bs (popov auTwv [j.t, cpo|jr,0-/;Ts, [xy; TapacTsaO-co ofj-fov r^ xapBia p,Y)B£ Tapa/O'-^TS" (Cf. 3 ; 15) xap- [j.r,Bs BstXiairo) Biaii; The phraseology is suggestive, yet the similarity is probably acci- dental. (23) I Pt. 5 ; 1 Jn. 15 ; 27 a [xupzoc Tcov To5 Xpwro^i Tiau-r,- sxsTvoc [j-apT-jpTjO-st, 7:£pl £[j-o^i" xai [xaTwv u[j.sTc Bs [j-apTupsTirs Connection here is very doubtful. Conclusion on the Johannine Literature. Professor Cone notes that " distinct foreshadowings of the ideas of the Fourth Gospel and the epistles ascribed to John are indeed not wanting. The absence of the mystical profundity of Paul and the softening of some of the harsher lines of his teaching as well as several striking accords with Hebrews, shows the writer (of our Epistle) to have been in contact with the later Paulinism which marks the transision to the Johannine theology," (Encyc. Bib. p. 3680). First Epistle of Peter. 533 We have noted at many points in the Gospels and the First Epistle of John where these " foreshadowings " have been developed into extended discourses and not unfrequently have we been permitted, in the former, to hear them from the mouth of Jesus, as a teaching of his own. Ideas of Paul have been taken up by our author and treated in a suggestive fashion for later writers. I Peter not only " marks the transition," but also plays no small part in making the later literature possible. From the parallels cited above it would seem that our Epistle formed a bridge, as it were, between the Pauline and the Johannine Literatures. Our study, therefore, seems to require us to conclude that the Johannine Literature (especiall}^ I John and the Gospel) depends directly upon the First Epistle of Peter. TABLES OF RESULTS Table I APOSTOLIC FATHEBS Classification No. of References Tertullian Clement of Alex. . . Irenaeus II Clement Papias Justin Martyr .... Test. XII Pat Barnabas Hermas Didache Polycarp Ig^natius Clement of Rome . . A A A C A B D A* B D A* B A* 1 1 3 2 1 8 13 10 6 13 5 41 Total 104 534 Ora Delnier Foster, Table II CANONICAL BOOKS Classification N( ). of References Galatians . . . B 9 I Thessalonians D 10 II Thessalonians D 5 I Corinthians . C 23 II Corinthians C-D 13 Romans . . . A* 63 Ephesians . A* 45 Colossians . D 14 Philemon D — Philippians , D 9 I Timothy ? D 9 II Timothy ? D 5 Titus ? . . C-D 14 219 Total in Pauline Hebrews B 49 Epistles " Q " Source D 9 Markan Source D 12 Matthew D 5 Luke . . D 8 Acts . . D 22 James A* 31 Jude . . D 4 140 Revelation C 13 I John . B 10 II John . D 1 Ill John . D 1 John . . ! B 23 48 Total in Joh. Lit. II Peter . A 1 1 Total in Canonical Literature 408 Total in Apostolic Fathers . 104 Grand total . . . 512 Tables of Results. 535 Table III The Literature Showins: a Probable Connection with. I Peter Classification Place of Date A A* B C C-D Circulation Writing Galatians . . . B Asia Corinth 50 I Corinthians . . C Rome Ephesus 54 II Corinthians C-D Corinth Ephesus 54 Romans .... A* Rome Corinth 55 Ephesians . . . A* Asia, Rome Rome 59 Titus C ? ? p Hebrews . . . B FIRST PEI Rome Rome ? ? 85-90 James .... A* Rome ? ? 90-95 Revelation . . . C Ephesus 95 Clement of Rome A* Rome 95 I John .... B Ephesus 95-100 John B Ephesus 100 Ignatius .... B Smyrna 115 Polycarp . . . A* Smyrna 115 Hermas .... B Rome 140 Barnabas . . . A* Alexandria ? 130-160 Justin B Rome 155 Papias .... A HierapoUs 145-160 II Clement A Alexandria 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Histories Mc GiFFERT. History of the Apostolic Age. 1897. Wbizsacker. Apostolic Age. Eng. tr. 1895 DoBSCHiJTZ. Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Eng. tr. 1904. The Apostolic Age. Eng. tr. 1909. Hadsrath. History of the New Testament Times. Ropes. The Apostolic Age. 1907. PuRTES. Christianity in the Apostolic Age. 1901. Harnack. Expansion of Christianity. Wernle. Beginnings of Christianity. Eng. tr. 1904. Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1905. Pfleiderer. Primitive Christianity. Eng. tr. 1906. Bartlet. The Apostolic Age. 1899. VoN SoDEN. Early Christian Literature. Eng. tr. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire. 1893. St. Paul the Traveller. Neander. Planting of the Christian Church. 1899. ScHAFF. History of the Clu'istiau Church. Vol. I. 1882. Moeller. History of the Christian Church. A. D. 1—600. Eng. tr. 1892. Fisher. History of the Christian Church. 1896. Von Schubert. Outlines of Church Historj'. Bacon. The Story of St. Paul. 1904. Farrar. The Early Days of Christianity. Vol. I. 1882. Mommsen. The Provinces of the Roman Empire. Eng. tr. 1887. Hardy. Christianity and the Roman Government. 1894. Buss. Roman Law and History in the New Testament. 1901. Ramsay, G. G. The Annals of Tacitus, Vol. II. 1909. Arnold. Die Neronische Christenverfolgung. Histories of Suetonius, Dion Cassius, and Eusebius. Reuss. History of the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1884. MoFFATT. The Historical New Testament. 1901. Introductions. Bacon. An Introduction to the New Testament. 1905. Zahn. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eng. tr. 1909. Holtzmann. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1892. ^ Only the most important of those works which have been consulted in the preparation of this monograph are included in this list. Ora Delnier Foster, Bibliography 537 JiJLiCHER. An Introduction to the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1904. HiLGENFELD. Historisch-Kritisdie Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1875. Peake. a Critical Introduction to the New Testament. 1910. Davidson. Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. III. 1851. Salmon. Historical Introduction to the Studj' of the Books of the New Testament. Gloag. Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 1887. B. Weiss. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1888. Bleek. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eng. tr. 1870. DoDS. An Introduction to the New Testament. Commentaries. Bigg. On I Peter, International Critical Commentary. 1905. MoNNiER. La prem. Ep. de I'apotre Pierre. 1900. GuNKEL. On Der erste Brief des Petrus, in Die Schriften des N. T. 1907. HoLTZMANN. On Der erste Brief des Petrus, in Commentar zum N. T. III. Bennett. On General Epistles, in the Century Bible. 1901. Plumptre. On I Peter, in Cambridge Bible for Schools. 1880. Cone. On I Peter and other Epistles, in the International Handbook to the New Testament Series. 1901. Hart. On I Peter in Expositor's Greek Testament. 1910. Meyer. Commentary on I Peter. Eng. tr. 1891. Godet. Commentary on I Peter. Eng. tr. 1886. HiLGENFELD. On I Peter in Schmidt and Holzendorff's Short Commentary on the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1884. Bacon. On Galatians in The Bible for Home and School. 1909. LiGHTFOOT. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. 1869. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. 1895. DRDJfMOND. On Gal. and other Epistles, in International Handbook to the New Testament Series. Sanday and Headlam. On Romans, in the Int. Crit. Com. 1902. HoRT. The Romans and the Ephesians, Prolegomena. 1895. Garvie. On Romans, in the Century Bible. 1901. Westcott. The Epistle to the Ephesians. 1906. Robinson. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. 1903. Beet. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. 1888. Abbott. On Ephesians and Colossians, in Int. Crit. Com. 1897. Martin. On Ephesians and Colossians, in The Century Bible. IjIghtfoot. The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon. 1892. Vincent. The Epistle to the Philippians and to Philemon, I. C. C. 1897 Milligan. St. Paul's Epistles to the Tessalonians. 1908. Goodspeed. On Hebrews, in The Bible for Home and School. Peake. On Hebrews, in The Century Bible. Mayor. The Epistle of St. James. 1892. HoRT. The Epistle of St. James. 538 Ora Delmer Foster, Bibliography. SwETE. Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. 1898. Allen. On Matthew, in the Int. Crit. Com. 1907. Plummer. On Luke, in Int. Crit. Com. 1896. HeitmIjller. Das Johannes-Evangelium, in Weiss' Die Schriften des N. T. Zeller. The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles. Eng. tr. Gilbert. On Acts, in The Bible for Home and School. 1908. Bartlet. On Acts, in The Century Bible. 1901. Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. Article on I Peter, by Chase. Hasting's One Volume Bible Dictionar3^ Article on I Peter, by Palconer. Encj'clopsedia Biblica, Article on I Peter, by Cone. Standard Bible Dictionary. Article on I Peter by, Dods. Encyclopaedia Britanuica. Article on I Peter, by Harnack. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. Article on Peter the Apostle, by Seiffert. General. Weiss, B. Der Petrinische Ijehrbegriff. 1855. ScHARFE. Die Petrinische Stromung der neutestamentlichen Literatur. Harnack. Die Chronologie. 1H97. LiGHTFOOT. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. The Ante-!Nicene Fathers, Published by the Christian Lit. Co. 1896. Oxford Committee of Hist. Theol. The N. T. in Apostolic Fathers. 1905. DiTTMAR. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Toy. Quotations in the New Testament. 1884. Hawkins. Horae Synopticae. 1899. Vincent. Word Studies. Thayer. W^ord Lists in Appendix to the Greek-English Lexicon of N. T. Harnack. Sayings of Jesus. Eng. tr. 1908. Also on Acts. Smith, W^. B. Der vorchristliche Jesus. 1906. Schmidt. Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief, in Zeitschrift fiir wissen- schaftliche Theologie. 1908. P. 24-52. Ramsay. The Flavian Persecution in the Province of Asia, Expositor Vol. X, p. 241 ff. The Church and the Empii-e in the First Century. Expositor 1893, pages 8 ff., 110 ff. and 283 ff.. Harris. Expositor 1909, p. 155 ff. Charles. Greek Version of the XII Patriarchs. 1908. CoNEYBEARE and Kohler. On the XII Patriarchs, in Jewish Encyclopedia. TRSNSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Incorporated A. D. 1799 VOLUME XVII 1912-15 Publications of Yale University M YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1913 THt R. WAGNKR SOHN TRESS OFFICERS FOR 1911-12. President. His Excellency SIMEON E. BALDWIN. Vice-PresidetUa. Prof. ALEXANDER W. EVANS, Prof. CLIVE DAY, Prof. HANNS OERTEL. Secretary. Dr. GEORGE F. EATON. Treasurer. Mr. GEORGE PARMLY DAY. Librarian. Mr. JOHN CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB. Committee on Publication. Exc. S. E. BALDWIN, Chairman, Prof. A. S. COOK, Prof. E. S. DANA, Prof. E. P. MORRIS, Prof. A. W. EVANS, Prof. CLIVE DAY, Prof. H. OERTEL, Mr. J. C. SCHWAB. I* COISTTENTS. PAGE Additions to the Library, July 1, 1911, to Art. I. — The Financial History of Connecticut, 1789 — 1861. By Henry F. Walradt 1—139 Art. II. — The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts OF "King Henry VI". By C. F. Tucker Brooke . 141-211 Art. III. — The Date of the Ruthwell and Newcastle Crosses. By Albert S. Cook 213-361 Art. IV. — The Literary Relations of the First Epistle OF Peter with their Bearing on the Date and Place OF Authorship. By Ora D. Foster .... 863—538 ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES By Gift and Exchange from Jdly 1, 1911, to Aug. 31, 1912. Aix-en-Provence.— Universite. Faculte des lettres. Annales. IV, 1-2. 1910. Amiens. — Academe des sciences, des lettres et des arts. Memoires. LVIl. 1910. Amsterdam. — Akademie van wetenschappen. Jaarboek. 1910. Section of sciences. Proceedings. XIII, 1—2. Af deling Natuur- kunde. Verliandelingen. Sectie I, X, 2, XI, 1-2 ; Sectie 11, XVI, 4-5. Verslagen van de vergaderingen. Deel XIX, 1—2. 1910—11. Maatschappij tot nut van t'algemeen. Jaarboek. 1911-12. Publications. 95-99, Meteorologisch instituut. Annuaire. 1910, A— B. Mededeelingen en verliandelingen. CII, 1912. Angers. — Societe Nationale d' agricidture, sciences et arts. Memoires. Ser. V, T. Xni, 1910. Antwerp. — Academic Royale d'archeologie de Belgique. Bulletin. 1911, 1-1912, 2. Argentine Republic. — Comision del censo agro-pecuario. 1908, I-III, with maps. A0GSBDR(;. — Naturivissenschaftlicher Verein fur Schivaben und Neuburg. Bericht. XXXIX-XL, 1911. Basel. —i\''ah