392 Ora Delnier Foster, 



DIDACHE 



(120 or later) 



D 



d 



(1) Did. I, 3 I Pt. 2 ; 19 



:rota yap /api? sav . . . touto yap ydpK; d . . . 



Though the phrase is similar the passage does not deserve serious 

 attention. 



(2) Did. I, 4 I Pt. 2; 11 



(XTCs/oo Twv crapxixwv xai (7co[xa- uiiiyzab^M twv aapxixwv s7riQ'U[xt5)V 



Professor Lake (N.T, in A.F.) thinks the connection, if any, 

 comes through a later gloss of o-apxixSiv from our Epistle, and as 

 evidence that the tautologous form aapxtxwv xai (70)[j.aTixcov was 

 not original, cites IV Mace. 1; 32, twv Bs smS-upoiv od ^sv stat 

 '\>uyiY.oCi od Bs <7(o[jLaTixai. 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 shght to warrant one recognizing 

 more than a possible connection. 



(3) Did. n, 6 I Pt. 5 ; 5 



uTTsprjcpavoi; uTiepiqcpavoti; 



This parallel, pointed out by Monnier, need not detain us, since 

 the word is not pecuhar to I Peter, nor is the context as suggestive 

 of it as of " James." 



(4) Did. IV, 11 I Pt. 2; 18 



OuisTi; Be oi BoOXoi 67UOTay^cr£ff&"£ oi olxsTai, 67roTao"(76[JLSVoi ev TcavTi 

 TToT? xupioi? 6[j.wv . . . £v (po(3(o cpopw 



In addition to this very similar phrasing, the context also has 

 ideas which suggest our Epistle. Compare ocizb vEOTiqTO? BtBa^Et? tov 

 cpo^ov Tou ©sou, (v. 9,) with such passages as I Pt. 5 ; 5, 2 ; 17. 

 Compare also o5 yap zpyzxcci xaTOC Tipoacoxov xa>.£<7a!, (v. 10) with 

 a7rpO(7(o7io}.Tj7r~co? of I Pt. 1 ; 17 and the Petrine doctrine of election. 

 The combination of these inferences makes dependence somewhat 



