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 



zl xai TiOLrr/oi^z Bia BixaioG-uvY]v, [xaxdcpioi oi BcSuoyijivoi svsxsv 

 [j.axapioi Btxaioo-yvTjC 



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 



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 



(1) I Pt. 1; 11 Lk. 24; 26 



7cv£U[xa XpiCTTOtj 7cpo[j.ap':up6[j.£vov ohyX ^atjira sBst xaO-eTv -6v /pio- 

 Ta £?c XpiG-Tov xa&-/i[j.a-a xai xac tov xai eicrsXQ'sTv zlc, ty]v Bo^av 

 [yz-k TaijTa Bo^a?. Cf. v. 2L wj-zo^j. Cf. vv. 44, 46. 



This close parallel suggests hterary 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. Consequently there need be no literary connection 

 here, though the thought is very suggestive. Both passages bear 

 evidence of Pauline influence. 



i 



