First Epistle of Peter. 443 



(2) I Pt. 1 ; 3 Epli. 1 ; 3 



z'jXoyr^-zbc 6 Hsoc xai Tzxrf^p Toti ^•J\oyr^zb(; 6 ©so; xai -aTVip toU 



xupiou -^[jLwv 'Iyjo-oO Xfto-ToD, 6 xyptou i^jxwv 'Iyjo-oO XptcTToO, 6 



. . . avayswr'aac Tj[xac s'jloyTj'o-a; i^'J.a; 



Only in II Cor. 1 ; 3 is there to be found a duplicate of this perfect 

 parallel. Though the " evidence for dependence here is weakened 

 by II Cor. 1 ; 3 " (Salmon's Int. p. 553), the " weakening " is more 

 than counterbalanced by the occurrence, in the immediate context 

 of Ephesians, of the " Petrine " emphasis on the predestination of 

 believers, which is wholly wanting in II Cor. 1 ; 1 ff. Eph. 1 ; 3b 

 also leads off with " b " and an aorist active participle used sub- 

 stantivety (Burton's Moods and Tenses p. 165), governing rj[xa? just 

 as in I Pt. 1 ; 3b. II Cor. 1 ; 4 has a similar construction but the 

 participle is a present of simultaneous action, and is separated from 

 its antecedent by an interpreting phrase. Though ooxTipjxwv of 

 II Cor. 1 ; 3 b is synonymous \\dth slso? of I Pt. 1 ; 3b, the thought 

 is closer in the Petrine parallel. The evidence is in favor of the 

 dependence of I Peter upon Ephesians at this point. 



Zahn says : " In favor of the conscious dependence of I Peter 

 upon Ephesians is the fact that they begin with exactly the same 

 word, " £i»}.0Yr,T6? .... XpiaTroO, 6 " followed by a participle, — a 

 construction which does not occur in this or similar form in any other 

 N. T. Epistle. . . . The reference to the future x>.rjpovo[jLia, (cf. 

 ex. I Pt. 1 ; 4, is found also in Eph., only farther from the beginning, 

 1 ; 14 ; while the thought which immediately follows Eph. 1 ; 4 f . 

 (cf. 1 ; 9, 11), namely, that of election through the divine foresight 

 and predestination, has been utilized already in I Pt. 1 ; If. (Int. 

 II, p. 186.) AUuding to 1 ; 5-13 and Eph. 1 ; 5-15, T. K. Abbot 

 says : " the alternation of participles and relative pronouns is the 

 same until the transition to the succeeding period is made, in the 

 one case by ^lo, in the other by Bia -oLi';:o ". (I C. C. on Eph. 

 p.xxivf.) The substance of the passage in I Pt. 1 ; 3 — 5 corresponds 

 to that of the following passage in Eph. 1 ; 18 — 20, llr.i(: (Ex. 34) 

 being emphasised in both, and its object being designated the 

 y.}>r,povo[j.ia (Ex. 23), the connection with the resurrection (Ex. 35) 

 of Christ as its ground being the same, and in both the 

 B'jvap? Hsoj being put in relation to the 7:igti?. (Ex. 24.) 

 After making a careful analysis of the foregoing parallels Von 

 Soden says : " the priority cannot be determined with certainty 

 by the text itself." (" Hand commentar zum Neuen Testament," III, 

 p. 122.) He also considers the text of our Epistle to be more compact 



Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 30 January, 1913. 



