512 Or a Delmer Foster, 



(9) I Pt. 5 ; 8 Jas. 4 ; 7 b 



6 avTiBtxoc U1J.WV '§ta|jo}.oc . . . ky-i<j-r{zz Toi %iy.'prj)x,i y^rn 'psu- 



9) w avTricr-YiTs crtrspsoi ttj 7:io"i£i io-ai acp' 'jjj.wv 



Dependence is indisputable in parallels 6—9. The phrasing and 

 general structure are remarkably alike. The sequence cannot well 

 be considered accidental. Following the quotation in both cases 

 is the exhortation to submission to God with the view of exaltation, 

 which will follow after resisting the devil. Ex. 9. The evidence 

 of Ex. 20 should also be considered here. These quotations are 

 too constant and too close to permit a doubt of dependence. 



The importance of these parallels justifies us in quoting some- 

 what at length from Bigg (p. 191) where the priority of our Epistle 

 is defended in a convincing way. " Reasons why we should assign 

 the priority to I Peter ; (1) in James the mention of humility is 

 sudden and unexpected ; (2) though he gives the quotation from 

 Prov. 3 ; 34 in the same shape as I Peter, he writes, in ver. 10, 

 TaxEivoiS-YiTE Evwxiov '70tj Kupiou, as if he were aware that 6 0s6? was 

 not quite correct : we may infer perhaps that he had somewhere seen 

 the quotation in its altered shape ; (3) the mention of the devil in 

 I Peter is not only more natural but more original ; (4) in ver. 8, 

 St. James has ayvicraTs xa? xapBta?, which may be suggested by 

 -b.c, 'Ifu/a? !J[x6)v YjYvtxoTS^ of I Pt. 1 ; 22 : if this is so, St. James is 

 combining different parts of the Petrine Epistle. " 



(10) 1 Pt. 1; 1 Jas. 1; 1 



BiaTTcopa 



This leads one to infer literary dependence. Our Epistle addresses 

 people of a definite location while James refers to the Diaspora 

 in general. Mayor argues that the definiteness of I Peter is an 

 unconscious enlargement of the general address of Jas. 1 ; 1, but 

 others see in it an evidence of originality. Toi? BtoBsxa cpuXaT? cannot 

 be very early if it refers to the children of Abraham by faith, rather 

 than by birth, which the body of the Epistle requires. Many 

 scholars believe that James bears a literary relation to Romans. If 

 this were not so the BiaaTropa might be understood to refer to the 

 Jews as such — assuming an early date — but if James depends upon 

 Romans the Biao-xopa must refer to the faithful regardless of race. 

 That the author had the latter class in mind is evident from the con- 



