(lo; 



First Epistle of Peter. 505 



expect closer resemblance between Mark and Acts than between 

 :\Iark and I Feter, since we are quite certain that the latter depends 

 upon Rom. 9 ; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20—22. Granting that Jesus did 

 allude to this Psabn, there would be no reason for us to suppose that 

 there is any literary relation between Acts and I Peter, nor need we 

 think that they are derived from a common source, unless Paul, 

 upon whom I Peter surely depends, gained his information from Peter, 

 which he would seem in Gal. 1 ; 11 f. to repudiate. 



I Pt. 2 ; 9 Acts 20 ; 28 



lube dc r.zpi-oir^Giv £Xx}.Y]criav . . . TvepisTroiYicraTro 



Connection here is very doubtful. 

 (11) I Pt. 2; 9b Acts 26; 18 



-roti £X oxoTO'j; 'Va? xaT^so-avTOC, xoZ Ixiry-pi'liM o^%b ctxotou? s?; 

 zlc -zb 9>au[JLaG"u6v cco'zou cpwc " '^o)(; 



The Pauline source is too obvious here to require comment. CI 

 Eph. 5 ; 8, Col. 1 ; 13, I Thes. 5 ; 4, etc. 



(12, I Pt. 2; 12 Acts 24; 5 



T7]v ava(7TpocpY]v i)[XiZv Im toT^ }^otpv xai xivouvtoc (jzdazii; izoiGi 

 IS-vsw/ l/^ovTc? xa>.7]v, tva, sv cb ^oT? 'lou^ociot? toT? xaToc tyjv 

 xccTaXaXouTtv 'jp-wv wc xaxoTuoiwv. otxotj[jivYiv 

 Cf. 3 ; 16. 



Apparently there is here no direct connection. 



(13^ I Pt. 3 ; 8 Acts 4 ; 32 



TO Bs TsAoc TiavTSC 6[j.6cppov£c T,v xapBia xai '^^uyji \}lx 



Though the thought is similar the phraseology is different. Pauhne 

 influence is obvious here. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 16, 15 ; 5, 6, II Cor. 13 ; 11, 

 Phil. 1 ; 27, 2 ; 2, 3 ; 16. 



(14) I Pt. 3 ; 22 Acts 10 ; 36 



7iOp£L»8"£\? £1? oupavov uxoTayEViwv oi>^o<; (T. X.) Icr-iv TuavTOiv Ktjpt,o; 



auTco (xyyET^tov xa\ E^ouaiwv xal 



Buva[j.£cov 



For closer parallels see Eph. 1 ; 20-22, Col. 1 ; 16 f., 2 ; 15, I Cor. 

 15 ; 24 f. 



(15) 1 Pt. 4 ; 1 ■. Acts 17 ; 3 

 Xct,(7T0!j ouv TzaO'OVTO? (Tapxi . . OTt Tov ■ipi'j^bv zbsi 7Ta9>£~V 



This thought is too common to show dependence. 



