First Epistle of Peter. 409 



(34) I Clem. 21 ; 6 I Pt. 5 ; 5 



TOUC VSOUC TCaiBsUdfOjJLEV TYjV Tcai- 



Bsiav Tou (po[3ou toO O^eoO 



This is quite suggestive of our Epistle, 



(35) 1 Clem. 21 ; 6 I Pt. 3 ; 1 f. 



xoLc YUvaTxai; 7][j.wv It:! to ayaS-ov yuvaTxs?, 6-OTa'70-0[j-£vai . . . 

 .op9>(oo-c6u,$0^a 



The thought is in accord but the phrasing is different. 



(36) I Clem. 21 ; 7 I Pt. 3 ; 2 



-0 a^iayaTrrj-ov t-^c ayvsiac ^jQ^Oi; sTiOTCTsytravTe? TYiv sv cpd[3w ayvYiv 

 IvBsi'fao-Q'to'jav avaaTpocpTjV 6[j.tov 



The terms employed do not indicate acquaintance, yet the sequence 

 (No. 35 and 36) is very suggestive. 



(37) I Clem. 21 ; 7 I Pt. 3 ; 1 b 



TO l-Kizivkq T% yXcocTT/jc . . . Bta B/a ty]c -rwv yuvaixwv avao-TpocpYjc 

 'Vf\c, ciy^? . . avsu lojoo . . . 



This citation finds a closer parallel in Paul's letters, and can have 

 no value here further than to show that Clement thought in a sphere 

 akin to that of our Epistle. 



(38) I Clem. 21 ; 8 I Pt. 5 ; 5 



TOC T£/vV7. , . . [XaS-STWO-aV, Tl Ta7C£l- V£0)T£pOl . . . TTjV Ta7l£tVOCppO(7UVr]V 



vocppoo-'JvY) TC(xpa Q-Eco Icyuzi £yxo[x[3(oo-acr&'8 



There is here a close parallel, though in itself not sufficient to make 

 dependence probable. 



None of the citations of chapter 21 considered separately justify 

 any claim for dependence, but when the combined evidence is pre- 

 sented, the probabiUties are increased in geometrical ratio of the 

 number of the possible points of contect. See No. 32—38. 



