First Epistle of Peter. 399 



les of Peter, from whom probably Clement derived the form, as 

 the First Epistle is frequently quoted by him. " (Clem, of Rome 

 I, p. 647.) Cf. also his "Notes on the Epistles of Paul", p. 8. 

 Against this it may be urged that Clement is here borrowing from 

 Daniel instead of from I Peter. Dan. (LXX) 3; 31 has sipYJvY] 

 6p.Tv Tilrib-ovb-ziri. See also Dan. 4; 34. Dan. 11; 39 employs the 

 phrase ::lrj8uvsT Bo'^av. IHyjS^uvco is a very common word in the 

 LXX. It is rarely employed as in I Peter and Clement, but is 

 frequently used to express the growth of evil. Cf. Ps. 118 (119); 

 69, Si. 47 ; 24, Am. 4 ; 4, Jl. 3 (4) ; 13, Is. 57 ; 9, Jer. 5 : 6, 37 

 (30) ; 14, 15, etc. It is also to be observed that the word xavTO- 

 >tpa'u-cop does not appear in Daniel. The word, however, is common 

 in the LXX, especially in Amos, where it is used no less than 

 ten times. But it is never used in the O. T. in a connection 

 similar to the above usage in Clement and I Peter. Nor is ydp^'^ 

 employed in this way in the O. T. It does not seem necessary 

 therefore to think Clement selected words from different O. T. 

 books to compose this clause when he could have taken the major 

 portion of the expression directly from I Peter, from which he 

 apparently drew in other connections. " Jude" has a very simi- 

 lar clause; zkzo<; 6[uv xai stpYjvv] xai aydiz-q izktpwbzit]. but it need 

 not detain us here as a rival of 1. Pt. 1; 1. On the whole it 

 seems Lightfoot's conclusion is well grounded. 



There is a further likeness in the salutation of Clement in the word 

 TiapoixoOo-a. Though Im^rnxoic, is used in I Peter instead, the idea 

 is the same, as may be seen, both by I Pt. 2; 11 (where Tuapoixou? 

 and xaps7uiBr,[j.ou5 are coordinated) and by Clement himself. Cf. 

 salutation for Trapoixouo-a and I, 2 for 7iap£7:i,BYi[j.Yi(Ta?. In the saluta- 

 tion of no other N. T. book does either word, or a word expressing 

 a similar idea occur. The nearest approach is in Jas. 1 ; 1 (toTi; 

 BwBsxa ouXaTc toTc sv t^ BiacTTuopa), But I Pt. 1 ; 1 also employs 

 Stao-Tcopa?. 



Clement uses xAyj-oTc while I Peter has ex7.£>n:oT?. The former 

 occurs in the N. T. salutations only in Romans, I Corinthians and 

 Jude, while the latter appears only in Titus and our Epistle. 

 Though I Peter nowhere uses the form xXy]t6?, the idea is the 

 same. Thayer contrasts these words (Lex. in loco), but evidently 

 there is no contrast to be understood here, since it is improbable 

 that Clement would, in the salutation, upbraid his readers as " those 

 who have shown themselves unfitted to obtain salvation". Paul 

 does not contrast these forms, nor indeed is there a contrast here. 

 (Th. Lex. x}orj't6i;,) Then if Clement shaped his salutation after 



