422 Ora Delmer Foster, 



(3) I Pt. 5 ; 3 II Cor. 1 ; 24 



II Cor. 1 ; 24 is a closer parallel to 5 ; 3 than is to be found else- 

 where in the N. T. Dependence is somewhat probable, though not 

 certain since the context is neutral. 



d 



(4) I Pt. 1 ; 8 II Cor. 1 ; 3 

 EuT^oyTj-TO? 6 (dzbc, xai 7:ai:7]p tou EuXoyrj-iro? 6 ©eo? xai T^axYip to!> 



KupiOU "?1[JL0~V 'l7](7O0 XptCTTOO KupiOU Y1[J.0~V 'lYjcroO XpiCTOO 



Holtzmann calls attention to this parallel (Einl. p. 314), but as 

 we have seen the dependence is much more likely upon Eph. 1 ; 3. 

 See discussion on I Pt. 1 ; 3 = Eph. 1 ; 3. 



(5) I Pfc. 1 ; 3 II Cor. 1 ; 3 

 6 xa^a TO %o\u auToO zkzoc, 6 xaTrjp twv oixTip[j.o)v 



Again the thought is not as close as in Ephesians. 



(6) I Pt. 1 ; 8 II Cor. 5 ; 7 



zlc, Gv apTi [i-Y] 6po)VT£<; ■KiGTt'oovztc, tucc :;i'7TS(0(: yap :;£po-a'70!j[xsv oi> 



This thought is too common and the context too different to claim 

 dependence. Cf. Jn. 20 ; 29, Rom. 8 ; 24, 25, I Cor. 13 ; 12, Heb. 

 1 ; 1, 27, I Jn. 4 ; 20. 



(7) I Pt. 1 ; 21 II Cor. 6 ; 6 

 cpilaBsT^cpiav avuTioxpiTOv aydcTUYi avuTcoxpiTw 



Although there is a parallel in I Pt. 2 ; 4 and II Cor. 6 ; 16, there 

 is nothing to indicate dependence at this point. Cf. discussions on 

 I Pt. 1 ; 2 = Eph. 1 ; 20 and I Pt. 2 ; 5 = I Cor. 3 ; 16. 



(8) I Pt. 2 ; 1 II Cor. 12 ; 20 

 •/.ccTcckcckiot. xaxalaT^ia 



This word occurs only in these two places in all the N. T., yet the 

 context is not such as to lead one to infer dependence at this point. 



(9) I Pt. 4; 10 II Cor. 10; 13 

 sxaaTO? xaO^wc £>.a(3sv /^api(7[j.a xara to [j-ETpov toD xavovo^ oS 



£[J.£pi(7£V YIJUV 6 StOq 



Our Epistle finds a closer parallel at this point in Rom. 12 ; 6, 

 I Cor. 12 ; 4, 5 and Eph. 4 ; 7. 



