First Epistle of Peter. 455 



only that the writers were of the same school of thought but also 

 that one was actually depending upon the other. Instances were 

 noted in which the thought of our Epistle shows a development 

 of the thought of Ephesians, while the latter, at many points, appeared 

 to be the more original and logical. There are other considerations, 

 not coming under the scope of this paper, which confirm the results 

 of the foregoing study. 



Practical^ all scholars agree that there is here a clear case of 

 dependence. Von Soden is undecided on which side it should be 

 reckoned. Hilgenfeld, B. ^^■eiss and Kiihl contend for the priority 

 of I Peter, but the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports its 

 dependence upon Ephesians. 



Abbot concludes that " the parallels are so numerous that the 

 Epistles may almost be compared throughout." (I. I. C. on Eph. 

 xxiv.) In harmony with this observation Monnier remarks : L'epitre 

 a ete redigee en toute liberte d'esprit par un ecrivain qui connaissait 

 parfaitement les Ephesiens, et en reproduisait instinctivement les 

 expressions essentielles. (Com. p. 261.) Dr. Hort thinks that " the 

 connection, though close, does not lie on the surface, and that the 

 question must be settled by identities of thought and similarities 

 of structure rather than by identities of phrase." (Epis. of I Pt. 

 p. 5.) Professor RopeT^ees such a close similarity that he is ready 

 to say " there is here a closer parallel to Paul's thought than some 

 of the Epistles which bear Paul's own name." (Apos. Age, p. 213 f.) 

 Seufert stands almost alone in ascribing to the two Epistles the 

 same author, of course neither Paul nor Peter. 



Numerous other authorities might be cited, but the general con- 

 sensus of opinion is that " the acquaintance of our author with the 

 Epistle to the Ephesians is especially evident." (Purves' " Chris- 

 tianity in the Apos. Age," p. 280.) 



COLOSSIANS 

 D 



d 



(1) I Pt. 1 ; 4 Col. 1 ; 5 



x};"/]povo[J.i;av . . . T£— rj[:rjij.£vrjV iv tTjV zkrl^oL tyjv a-ox£iiJ.svY]v (jijIv 

 o^pavoTc dc 'j[j.ac Iv toT? oupavoT? 



" The thought of the ' hope ', i. e., the blessing hoped for, being 

 already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, 

 except perhaps in I Tim. 6 ; 19, but is clearly put in I Pt. 1 ; 4. In 



