474 Ora Delmer Foster, 



only furnish these parallels shows that the coincidence is not acci- 

 dental." (Hist, of the N. T. p. 145.) 



Examples like the above might be multiphed indefinitely, but 

 let these suffice. Almost any N. T. Introduction, or Commentary 

 on I Peter, to which we may turn will contain some such view as 

 these cited above. That is to say the overwhelming weight of 

 scholarship supports the claim that I Peter depends upon the Pauline 

 Epistles. In addition to the authorities cited above, we may also 

 add the names of Bleek, Credner, Ewald. Harnack, Hug, Hofmann, 

 Lechler, Mangold, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Schmiedel, Schmidt, Schott, 

 Sieffert, Wellhausen, etc., in Germany ; Alford, Bennett, Davidson, 

 Cook, Farrar, Plumptre, Ramsay, etc., in England ; Loisey, Monnier, 

 etc., in France and Bacon, McGiffert, etc., in America. 



(B) 

 Opposing Considerations. 



As has been noted at various points in the notes on the parallels, 

 B.Weiss, in his " Petrinische Lehrbegriff," has said about all that 

 can be said in favor of the dependence of Paul upon I Peter. He 

 has gained so small a following that we need not discuss his position 

 in detail. Practically all scholars to-day admit that I Peter contains 

 a later stratum of thought than that found in the Pauline Epistles. 

 This, of course, is accounted for by a very small minority, by the 

 theory of a later redaction. (See P. Schmidt's article on " Zwei 

 Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief," in the " Zeitschrift fiir wissen- 

 schafthche Theologie," 1908, p. 24—52.) The above discussion 

 assumes, on the authority of the greater number of scholars, the 

 integrity of the Epistle. This may not be giving due consideration, 

 either to the " partition theory," proposed by Schmidt, or to the 

 claim of Pauline dependence, advocated by Weiss, yet, not only 

 the evidence afforded by the 223 parallels given above, but also 

 the consensus of scholastic opinion, seem to justify an apparently 

 hasty disposition. 



Some, very naturally, question " Petrine dependence," who do 

 not advocate the reverse relation, e. g., Briickner, Davidson, Eadie, 

 Huther, Mayerhoff, Ranch, Ritschl, Steiger, etc. A few of the 

 arguments, which are advanced against the view of Petrine depen- 

 dence, may now be reviewed. 



It is urged that " I Peter has too large a vocabulary of words 

 pecuHar to itself to depend upon Paul." This becomes of little con- 

 sequence, when the possibility of the reverse relationship is sug- 



