First Epistle of Peter. 439 



(59) 1 Pt. 4; 3 Rom. 13; 13 



Tot^, xai a8>£[jLiT0ti; siBo)>.o>.ai:ptai? 



Though the thought is similar, the context is hardly in favor of 

 dependence. 



(60i I Pt. 4; 11 Rom. 3; 3 



Xoyicc Qzoo Xoytcc -voo 0sou 



In all probabiHtj- this parallel is due to accident. 



(61) I Pt. 5 ; 5 Rom. 12 ; 10 



TY]v Ta7r£ivocpocruvr,v £Yxo[x[3o>(ra(>&>£ fj-opyov t^ Ttjj.^ ullrp.ooc, zpor^- 



YO'J[J.£VOl 



The thought is similar but the form is different. 



(62) I Pt. 6 ; 13 Rom. 16 ; 16 



Xpta-oti 



/g3) I Pt. 5; 14 Rom. 16; 16 



acTrao-acrS-E, a>vXY]>.ouc Iv cpiXr'aairi aa--a(7a(7&-£ oCkXr^ryjc, h cpdTjij.a-i-t 

 aYax-/]c aYU;) 



These salutations are clearly built on the same specifications. 

 The form is common with Paul, hence its occurence in I Peter can 

 be no proof of dependence upon Romans. 



The following table of parallel references will serve to make more 

 apparent the relationship between Romans and I Peter. 



