502 Ora Delmer Foster, 



(7) I Pt. 4 ; 8 Lk. 7 ; 47 



■KoXkcci, OTI Y)Ya7CY]0-SV 7C0>.U 



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 



Tfov 



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 view 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 Uterary 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 



tic x>.Tjpovo[jiav . . . -sTTjpTiijivrjv Iv Bouvat tyjv x>.rjpovo[xiav sv xdiq 

 OJjpavoTc zlc 'j[J.ac r'ytocjiJ.svot,? Traatv 



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. II Tim. 4 ; 8. 



Acts 26; 22-23 



(ov T£ 01 xpocp-^-ai sXaXYjaav [xsX- 



