First Epistle of Peter. 401 



In the beginning of no other N. T. book is the same emphasis 

 laid on " election," with the single exception of Ephesians, and there 

 the dependence is on the side of I Peter. Cf. xXtjtoT? of I Clem. 

 Int. and ixXexToT? of I Clem. 1 ; 1 with sxXsxtoTc of I Pt. 1 ; 1 

 and TrpoyvcoG-iv of I Pt. 1 ; 2. Cf. also 1 ; 3ff. 



Though some of the above " likenesses " may be imaginary, there 

 seems to be, on the whole, a good basis for maintaining, notwith- 

 standing Professor Carlyle's adverse conclusion (N. T. in Apos. 

 Fathers p. 57), that the salutation of I Clement is in some \\ay 

 dependent upon I Peter. 



(3) I Clem. 22 ; 2—6 I Pt. 3 ; 10-12 



xic, e^Tiv av&>pto7ro? 6 b-sXcov ^coy;v, 6 yap d-sXcov ^wr,v aya^rav xal 



ayaxfiiv Yjjxspac iBsTv ayaO^a?; (3) iBsTv ri[jlpag ayaQ-a?. 7i;a!j(rai:o) 



7:aOo"ov tt;/ yT.coc'G'av i70l» axo xaxou tTjV yX6)G"a"av auToO octco xaxoO 



(4) £xx}>tvov dC7:6 xaxou xai tzoiTj- B6).ov, (11) IxxlivdcTco Bs octto 



(70V ayaO-ov (5) ^YiTrTiTOv sip^^vYjv xaxoD xal 7;oirjO-aTO) ayaO-ov, 



xai Biwcov auTYjv. (6) dcp&-a}.[j.o\ ^YjTVjc-a-irw sipYjVTjV xal Bioj^octo) 



KupiOD sTvi Btxaiouc, xai co^a atj- rx.hvf\v. (12) oti, ocpQ-aXjxoi Kupio'j 



ToO r^poc BsTjaiv auTcov T^po-jco^ov sTii BixaCou? xai oira au'^oO etc 



Bs Kupiou l-i TToioOvTac xaxa .... B£t,(71v au-oiv, -p6(70)-ov Bs Kupioo 



Cf. Ps. 34 ; 13^ — 17a. lizi 'Koioo\t'^(x.c v.yyA 



We are certain that Clement is quoting here from the LXX, not 

 only because of the verbatim agreement but also because he quotes 

 at greater length. But that the scripture was suggested by I Peter 

 (3 ; 10—12) is made most probable, since it is used as the scriptural 

 authority for the lengthy Petrine exhortations just given in Chap. 21, 

 precisely as it is employed in I Pt. 3 ; 10—12 after 3 ; 1—9. It is 

 especialty significant that the quotation is followed in both instances 

 with a buoyant expression of God's providential care for His fol- 

 lowers. Cf. Clem. 22 ; 1 with I Pt. 3 ; 13. This sequence can hardly 

 be accidental. 



(4) I Clem. 49 : 5 I Pt. 4 ; 8 Ja?. 5 ; 20 

 ayaTTfj xa>.'j--ei ttItj- ayaTrr^ xa>«!j7vTsi rC)c[- 6 £mG":p£'!»as aij.ap- 

 d>0(; aixapTuov u^o? aixapTioiv -:co}.6v Ix -lavrj? 6BoO 



auToO o-ojo-si 'j»u/r,v Ix 

 Prov. 10; 12 OavaTOU xai xa>,tJ'j»£i 



z,6l>^'^:rxc.%z -ohc [j.y] oi}.ov£ixo^vTacxa}>07i~£i oi}ia. ;:}.rjCi'0^ a|j.ap~io)v 



Lightfoot, Monnier and others think we have here a certain quo- 

 tation from our Epistle. Professor Carlyle, however, views it as a 



