522 Ora Delmer Foster, 



13) I Pt. 5 ; 13 ■ Rev. 14 ; 8 



(iapuXwvi papuT^wv. Cf. 16 ; 19, 17; 5, 



18; 2, 10; 21. 

 In view both of tradition and history, we need not consider any 

 interpretation which does not identify ^(x^rAm with Rome. On 

 this basis, which is the only tenable view, we must recognize a re- 

 lation between I Peter and the Apocalypse. We cannot claim 

 any literary relation, but that the circumstances and time of writing 

 were closely related seems obvious. Rome was already drunk with 

 the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. 

 Rev. 17 ; 6. C. A. Scott expresses the opinion of many scholars 

 when he makes this passage, just quoted, presuppose the Neronian 

 persecution. (New Cent. Bib. on Rev. p. 262.) On this basis the 

 mystical name has meaning, but to place it before the Neronian 

 persecution, or even at the beginning, as the " traditional view " 

 would claim for I Peter, would be to involve us in an insoluble 

 mystery. It is clear from our Epistle that the persecutions had not 

 made as much progress in Asia Minor as they had in Rome. Cf. 

 Rev. 17 ; 6 f. The persecutions alluded to in I Peter, were a " new 

 thing," whereas in Rome they were of some duration. It would 

 thus appear that the Apocalypse was written soon after I Peter. 



The more obvious points of contact between these writings (e. g. 

 Exs. 1—3) can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for on the basis 

 of a common background, yet the evidence is not such as to make 

 dependence very probable. 



I JOHN 

 B 



b— c 

 (1) I Pt. 1 ; 8 I Jn. 4 ; 20 



6v oux Xboy^zc, ayaTia'irs, zlc, 6v 6v soSpaxsv, xov 0£6v 6v ou/ 

 apTi [XY] opwvTTSi; TciaxsuovTs? . . . £o')pax£v ou Suva-rai ayaTrav 



Dependence here is made very probable by the additional evi- 

 dence of John Ex. 2. 



<2) I Pt. 1 ; 19 I Jn. 1 ; 7 



DvUTpwD-YiTs (cpQ-apToT?) Ti[j.to) at[j.a- to al[xa Tyjo-oo XpiTTOU . . . xa- 

 Tt w? apoCi ajxojptj xai di.>jTdXo'j b-fZpi^zi T,[j.a? axo %(x.<Ti]<; a[xapi:ia; 



XpiO-TOU 



The thought is very similar as well as the phrasing. Here Jesus' 

 blood is thought of as " cleansing from sin," whereas in Jn. 1 ; 29 



