424 Ora Delmer Foster, 



EOMANS 



A* 



a* — b 

 (1) I Pt. I ; 20 Rom. 16 ; 25 



7:po£Yvco(7[X£vou [xsv Tcpo xaTa(3oX-^c xocTOC a7cpoxa>.ucjJi.v [xucnnripiou y^po- 

 x6cr[j.0'j, (pavepfod-svTO? Be stu sa/a- voic akovioi? (7SO-iyy][xsvou, cpavEpw- 



TOU TfOV /pOVWV S'SVTOC Bs VUV 



The significance of this parallel has been noted by many scholars. 

 Professor Sanday (Com. on Rom.' p. 434) makes the following comment 

 on the passage in Romans ; " This is the thought which underlies 

 much of the argument of chapters 9-11, and is directly implied in 

 the first eight chapters. It represents in fact the conclusion which 

 the Apostle had arrived at in musing over the difficulties which the 

 problems of human history, as he knew them, had suggested. God 



is working out a purpose in the world. For ages it was a mystery, 



now in these last days it has been revealed ; and this revelation ex- 

 plains the meaning of God's working in the past." That I Peter here 

 alludes to the Pauline idea of the ixuT^rlpiov is very probable. It is wholly 

 in accord with the non-speculative nature of the author, as well as 

 in harmony with his characteristic trait of expressing in a simple 

 phrase or clause the equivalent of the more elaborate reasoning of 

 Paul. This brevity has led B. Weiss to advocate the dependence 

 of Paul. Yet Professor Sanday follows the general consensus of 

 scholastic opinion in contending for the originahty of Paul. That 

 the above reference occurs in connection with the Pauline doctrine 

 of the preexistence of Christ is very important to note. 



(2j I Pt. 2 ; 6 Eom. 9 ; 33 



'IBo'j TiD'TjiJ.!, £v Iiwv . . . iBoij Tii>rjp £v luov 



(3) I Pt. 2; 6 b Rom. 9; 33 b 



6 7:i,G-T£!J(ov £X auTco o5 [r/] xa- 6 tcicteucov iiz auTw ou xaira- 

 Tai(j/tjv9'^ io-/^uv8-TjO-£Tai 



(4) I Pt. 2 ; 8 Rom. 9 ; 33 a 



Xiboc, 7cpoffx6[j.[j.a^O(: xai z£Tpa \ibov xpO(7x6[j.[j.aTO(; xa\ xsTpav 

 (7xavBa>.ou (jxavBaXou 



The very important place these three parallels have in the problem 

 of literary relation, necessitates quite extensive comment. Bigg 

 says " It is unnecessary to suppose that St. Peter's version of Isaiah 

 is derived from St. Paul." (I. C. C. p. 132.) B. Weiss after arguing 



