First Epistle of Peter. 517 



(30) I Pt. 4; 14 Jas. 2; 1 



70 Tr,c "^oi-r^c xai to toj <dzo\) tt;/ -ittiv ^\rf>o~j XpiTTOo toO 

 -veii[j.a Ky^cto'j Y,acov. tyjc Bo^yj? 



This furnishes no argument either for or against dependence. 



(31) I Pt. 4 ; 16 Jas. 2 ; 7 



d cbc /pi(7T!,av6c (Tzaoysi) ... to xaXov ovo|j.a to s7:tyAr,&-£v so' 



BofatsTCO TOV ©SOV SV TCO OVOtJ.aTt 'J[J.5CC 

 TO 'J TO) 



While this is suggestive the background is different. 



Conclusion 



J. P. Mayor says : " I think no unprejudiced reader can doubt 

 the resemblances between the Epistle of St. James and the Epistle 

 of St. Peter. The recurrence in them of the same words and phrases 

 and their common quotations from the 0. T. are such as to prove 

 conclusively that the one borrowed from the other. Nor can there 

 be much doubt as to which of the two was the borrower if we ob- 

 serve how in almost every case, the common thought finds fuller 

 expression in St. Peter." (Epis. of St. Jas. p. xcv.) So Zahn 

 says : " it is plain that the author of I Peter was well acquainted 

 with James and had read the letter reflectively." (Int. I, p. 134.) 

 Salmon thinks that " the proofs of the use by Peter of the Epistle 

 of James are decisive." (Int. p. 556.) Falconer maintains that 

 " there is a close relation between the Epistles, but the order of 

 priority can be determined only on the basis of the date of James." 

 (H. B. D. p. 716.) 



That these Epistles are in some way directly related, critics of 

 all schools are agreed, but as to the order of priority they differ 

 widely. Luther long ago contended for the priority of I Peter. 

 He has been followed by an illustrious line of scholars, e. g. W 

 Briickner (S. 35), Hausrath (IV, S. 253), Hilgenfeld (S. 638), Holtz- 

 mann (Einl. S. 315, 336), von Soden (H.C., III 2 ; 2, S. 2 f., 110), 

 Pfleiderer (S. 417, 424, 427), Knopf (N. Z. S. 34), Bacon (Int. p. 160), 

 Bigg (p. 23), Cone (E. B., Com. p. 269). 



Julicher contends that : " James has considerable literature 

 behind it not only O. T. Apocrypha, but Christian writings also : 

 Paul, Hebrews, I Peter and the Gospels. The points of resem- 

 blance, too, between it and the First Epistle of Clement are so many 

 and so striking that it is impossible to explain them satisfactorily 



