First Epistle of Peter. 393 



probable, yet there is very little here which cannot be paralleled 

 in the Pauline Literature. Cf. Eph. 6 ; 5. 



(5) Did. XVI, 4 I Pt. 4; 3 



Merely accidental. 



(6) Did. XVI, 5 I Pt. 4 ; 12 

 dc TY]v Titipwasv T-Yji; Box.t[j.a(7ta5 TTDpcoo'st %^hc, 7rstpao[j.ov 



I Pt. 1 ; 7 

 Bia TTupoc Bs Boxt[j.a^O[j,£vov 

 This figure is too common to betray dependence. 



The foregoing study justifies us in claiming for the Didache no 

 more than a very doubtful connection with I Peter. 



Harnack, with Lightfoot and others, sees no connection here 

 with our Epistle, but notes certain resemblances to Jude and II Peter. 

 (See Art. in Schaff. Herzog Relig. Enc.) The Oxford committee 

 notes but one parallel. 



POLYCAEP 

 Cir. 115 



A* 



a* 



(1) Poly. I, 3 I Pt. 1; 8 



SIC 6v oux Xhovzzq TciG-TS'JeTs X^pa 6v oux iBovts? ayaTiairs, dc, 6v 

 oLwzyCKoCkfi'n^ Y.(x.i BsBo^aff[j.£VYi apTi [j.y] 6pwvT£(; Tcio-Tsuovirs? Bs 



ayaXXiaaOs X'^'P^ cazv.'koCkf\'XM xal 



This reference clearly depends upon I Peter. 



(2) Pol. II, 1 I Pt. 1 ; 21 



TctCTsuaavTS? dq tov i'^zl^cc^^oi tov toui; B\' aufoD m(7'iroU(; dc, ©sov 



Kupiov ^]xm 'Iy](70uv XpiaTov ^x, tov sysipavTa a^TOv h. vsxpwv 



vexpwv xai Bovra auTw Bo^av xai Bo^av a^Tw Bovra 



The dependence here is too obvious to require any comment. 



(3) Pol. VIU, 1 I Pt. 2 ; 24 



6c avT^veyxsv yijj.wv -zolc, a[j.apTia? oc, iolc, a[j,apTiai; Y]p.wv a^TOS 

 Tw iBiw (7c6[xaTt STU TO '^uXov, avT^vsyxsv sv tw (70)[j.aTi a^ToQ 



S7d TO ^tiXoV. 



