First Epistle of Peter. 



475 



gested. It would be much more difficult to account for the abscence 

 of all the 61 words, which are peculiar to I Peter, in all the Pauline 

 Literature, on the supposition that Paul depends upon I Peter, 

 than to suppose the dependence is on the side of our author. 



The objection is raised that " many of the PauHne expressions 

 do not appear in the Epistle." This, all will concede, but it is also 

 important to note that the book does contain many of the funda- 

 mental expressions of Paul. The following hst of N. T. words, which 

 occur in I Peter and the Pauline Epistles only, will show that this 

 objection merits but little consideration, ayvojo-ia, axpoywviaTo^, 

 ao-coTta, acpQ^apTOC, slBoAolaxpsia, siTcsp, slVs, IxyOd'yo), sxatvo?, suTipocr- 



XotBopia, vYjCpow, ;:v£U[j-(X-tx6i;, xp6crxo[xp.a, o-uo-/^Yi^aTi^O[xat, Touvavxiov, 

 6%zpiyo), uT^ocpspw, (pQ^apToc, cpiXo^svo^, cppoupso), )(apia-[j.a, )(op"^y£to. 

 Twenty-two appear only in I Peter and the generally accepted 

 Epistles of Paul ; nine more are found in the Pastoral Epistles, 

 making a total of thirty. Several more appear also in Hebrews, 

 which, with I Peter depends upon Paul. Some of Paul's favorite 

 terms may be found in this list, e. g. xpei(rG-o>v, [xiirriTYjc, ztpizoir^Giq, 

 c-apxtxo?, G-uyxlTipovojxos, OTuaxoT^, cpiXaBsXcpCa, etc. 



Bigg argues that " there are none of those words which belong 

 especially to the circle of Paul's ideas to be found in I Peter," hence 

 the inference is that it cannot depend upon Paul. The force of his 

 argument is seen to be nil, by a glance at the following arrangement 

 of the words which he cites. 



^ ^ H 



Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 



32 



January, 1913. 



