478 Ora Delmer Foster, 



On Bigg's premise, we should expect the particle to be of rare 

 occurence in the " Petrine portion " of Acts, whereas out of its 

 twenty appearances in the entire book, thirteen are in the first ten 

 chapters. Many of them are also in the " speeches of Peter." It 

 would seem, therefore, that the absence of av, instead of being an 

 argument against the dependence of our Epistle upon Paul, rather 

 indicates the opposite, since the " Pauline portion " of Acts uses 

 the word but rarely. 



The study of apa yields a similar result to that obtained through 

 av. It appears four times in the Petrine portion of Acts, and 

 but twice in the Pauline section. It also shows a great variation 

 of usage in the Pauline Epistles. Fs is found in Acts only in the 

 first eleven chapters, which again would seem to show a closer 

 relation between our Epistle and the Pauhne section than with 

 the Petrine portion, as might be expected. " Luke ", who also 

 " uses the language with freedom and not with an inconsiderable 

 degree of correctness ", does not use stisC in the Acts at all, and 

 but twice in the Gospel. If in fifty-two chapters he uses the word 

 but twice, and in the acts not at all, we should not be surprised 

 at its absence in a short Epistle of but five chapters. 'EtoiBt^ is 

 used but six times by Paul and but five times by all the rest of 

 the N. T. authors, so we should not think it strange that it does 

 not appear in this little Epistle. Ts affords a good example of 

 how an author may vary in the use of a particular word in diffe- 

 rent writings. It appears sixteen times in Romans, and not at 

 all in Galatians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and the Pastoral 

 Epistles. " Luke " also employs it but seven times in his Gospel, 

 whereas it appears one hundred and thirty-six times in Acts, fifty- 

 four of which are in the " Petrine division." Ayj is a very rare 

 word in the N. T. The absence of the particle from I Peter is 

 just what would be expected by those who assert its dependence, 

 since Paul only uses it twice. IIou is only used once in all the 

 letters of Paul. Uoi(; is strictly a Pauline term, yet heroes not 

 use it in seven of his Epistles. IIw? is not used by our author, 

 yet it occurs nine times in Acts, seven of which are in the Petrine 

 section. 



On the whole, therefore, the hst of " missing particles," cited 

 by Bigg, does not argue against, but for Petrine dependence upon 

 the Pauhne Epistles. 



As a further test of the verbal argument, a careful classification 

 and count has been made of all the words used in I Peter, which 

 are also employed by no more than six other N. T. writers. 



