First Epistle of Peter. 495 



(9) I Pt. 5; 10 Mt. 7; 25 = Lk. 6; 48 



Granting that this word belonged originally in I Peter, we should 

 still have to question the propriety of considering it as a datum to proove 

 that " Peter was influenced by the personal teaching of our Lord." 

 Especially is it hazardous to depend upon this " datum," since 

 many of the best Manuscripts do not contain the word. See W. H. 

 in loco. 



It seems quite clear from the above study that we cannot claim 

 either that there is any literary connection between " Q" and I Peter 

 or that they both go back to a common source. 



MARKAN SOURCE 

 D 



d 



(1) IPt. 1;18 Mk. 10; 45 (Mt. 20 ; 28) 



£>>UTpwQ-Y]T£ . . . -iijio) od[j.ixzi . . . Bouvai TYjv '\)oyy]v ocu-zoo Xuzpov 

 XpiaToti dvTi 7:oXko)v. 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 Mark 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) 

 Tca-rpoTiapaBoTOu tv]v TcapaBocriv twv 7ip£G-(3uT£pcov 



This parallel of Dean Plumtre's need not detain us. 



