Introduction. 377 



certain that I Peter depends upon Pau] and not vice versa as B. Weiss 

 and Kiihl have contended. From the hterary relations alone then 

 Ephesians fixes the terminus a quo for I Peter at about 60 A. D. 

 Granting with Moffatt that " a copy of Ephesians came back to 

 Rome some ye^xs 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 with 

 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 study 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 hmits 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 



