514 Ora Delnier Foster, 



I Peter employs it in a chain of thought whereas James uses it, 

 as if suggested by another, to introduce an exhortation quite foreigen 

 to the previous context. This parallel is made more significant 

 by Exs. 12, 24 and 30. 



(15) I Pt. 2 ; 11 Jas. 4 ; 1 

 TuapaxaAw . . . k%i'/tG^c(.i zS)^^ lap- xoO-sv 7u67.£[xof . . . oux £VT£!j9>£v 

 xuoJv £7ri,Q>u[j.ia)v aiTivE? G~pc(.-zu- Ix twv yiBovwv o^jmv twv cirpaTEU- 

 ovTrat xocTa t-^i; ^u)(Y]? ojjivojv £v -zoic, [ji^ETiv •j[j.o)V 



Obviously these passages are closely related. I Peter depends 

 very probably upon Paul (cf. Rom. 5 ; 17, Gal. 5 ; 17, etc.), rather 

 than upon James, inasmuch as the influence of Romans is apparent 

 all through this section. The verse contains nothing that cannot 

 be duplicated in the Pauline Literature. Jas. 4 ; lb agrees with 

 I Pt. 2 ; 11 in making the warfare internal in accordance with Paul's 

 doctrine of the " (7ap2 against the 7:v£'j[j.a." But the preceding and 

 succeeding contexts lead one to think "James" alludes to social 

 disturbances. If so [xilzfjw should refer to "persons", but this is 

 wresting the word out of its most obvious meaning. The phrase 

 4 ; 1 b, therefore, seems to be borrowed. 



(16) I Pt. 2 ; 12 Jas. 3 ; 13 



TTYiv ava(7T:pocpY]v up-wv . . , £)(0VT£(; B£t,^a-(o £x T7]c xaX-^c avacTTpo- 

 xalYjv I'va . . . £x twv xa>>wv Ipywv otiC toc Ipya auTot) Iv -patJTYjTt 



£7U07iT£UOVT£^ Bo'c^aCTWG'l TOV QzOV. C70Ol(XC 



Cf. 3 ; 2 TY]v £v (p6(3o) ayvYiv ava- 

 G-TpocpYjv, 16, TYjv 'ayaS-yjv Iv Xptcxco 



The sequence of thought is better in I Peter. A difficulty is 

 felt in the attempt to bring the verse in James into connection 

 with the idea implied in the analogies of the foundation, etc. (Cf. 

 Cone's Com. p. 286.) This author says : " the connection, if any, 

 is strained." The writer begins here a new theme of the " Meekness 

 of Wisdom," whereas in I Peter the verse is a continuation of the 

 thought begun in the foregoing context. If I Peter shows depen- 

 dence at this point it is upon Paul. Cf. ver. 11. 



(17) I Pt. 2 ; 15 Jas. 1 ; 25, 2 ; 12 



(J)? £>>£u8>£poi . . . oilX OK 0£OL) v6[j.oc I'kzob'zpiccc 1 ; 1 Szoo BoD- 



This is a close parallel on the Pauline basis. Cf. Gal. 2 ; 4, 5 ; 1, 

 13, etc. We have seen in another connection that this section of 



