i 



First Epistle of Peter. 519 



us to infer dependence. Yet the superscriptions Jas. 1 ; 1 and Jude 

 1—2 are peculiarly open to the suspicion of adjustment and as- 

 similation in the process of formation of the canon. 



(3) I Pt. 2 ; 8 Jude 4 



. . . a-si&-oOv~$" zic 6 xai Its- ol izdlxi Tipoysypaij-ijivot sic touto 

 b%(jOcv TO xpi[jLa 



This parallel affords no argument for dependence. Cf. Rom. 9 ; 

 21, 22, I Thes. 5 ; 9, Prov. 16 ; 4, Jer. 18 ; 6 etc. 



(4) I Pt. 3 ; 19 Jude 6 



There is here no obvious connection. 



The evidence afforded by the above possible points of contact 

 is not such as to warrant the claim that one author knew the work 

 of the other. 



eevelatio:n 

 c 



c 



(1) I Pt. 1 ; 19 Eev. 1 ; 5 



s>>UTpoj&-rjT£ . . . Ti[j.to) al'jj.aTt, w; X'Jo-avTi, Yi[j.a<; sx twv ap.ap-iwv 

 ocpoO a[j.w[j.oo xai acrraXoo Xpio-- y)[xwv sv -ttco at[JLaTrt auToO. 5 ; 6 

 Tou. 1 ; 2 pavTtG-[j.6v at[j.aTo; apviov so-tyixo^ w? so-cpay^ivov 

 'Irj(70u Xpic-oO 5 ; 9 Yiyopaca? tw Osw ev irw od- 



[i.y.-i GOO 



The purchase was made with the blood of the lamb. (Cf. Acts 

 20 ; 28, I Cor. 6 ; 20, Heb. 9 ; 14.) The words used for " lamb " 

 and for " purchase " are different, yet the ideas are the same. It 

 can hardly be accidental that this reference to " redemption " or 

 " washing from sin " is contextually connected with parallels 2 

 and 3. 



(2) I Pt. 2 ; 9 Rev. 1 ; 6 



b[Kzi<; Vz ysvoc sx^xxrov, pac- lizoiriazy -/jp.a^ (3aG-i};£iav, IspsTc Toi 

 iXsiov i£p2c-:£!j[j.a, Ibyog ayiov, }.a6c Osw. 5 ; 10 tco 0£co 7][j.o)v (3oco-i- 

 £15 7U£pt7ioirjC-i.v Xzit; xai ispsT? 



Both authors may be following the original independently (i. e. 

 Exod. 19 ; 6), yet the context in Revelation makes this very im- 

 probable. 



