426 Ora Delmer Foster, 



sx^exTov axpoycovtaTov £vti^,ov, St. Peter reads axpoywviaTov £x7.£xtov 

 zv^i[yo\/ ; while St. Paul substitutes >>t8'0v xcpo(7x6[j.[j.aToc xai ~i':pixy 

 (TAcahoCkou taken from Isa. 8 ; 14 xa\ ohy w? >.iQ^ov xpo(7x6[j.[j.a-:i C7'j- 

 vavTYiTSG-O-s ouBs OK TvSTpa? xTojfj.airi. Here St. Peter 2 ; 8 agrees 

 with St. Paul in writing Tisxpa crxavBa>.ou for 7;£-pa57:-o)[j.aTt,. (3) The 

 LXX proceeds sic xa S-sfjilia au--?]?, which both St. Peter and 

 St. Paul omit. (4) The LXX proceeds xal 6 ttio-tsucov ou ]^x^ y.o(.^o(.- 

 i>7-/o^b-ri. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal re- 

 ference by inserting iiz auToi while St. Paul reads xaxaicr/uvO-r'TSTai 

 and in 10; 11 adds zuc." (L C. C. p 2801) Cf. also Hilgenfeld's 

 Einleitung p. 633 f . 



We may note in this connection that in the " Petrine " speech 

 of Acts 4 ; 11, reference is made to Ps. 118 ; 22 and not to Isa. 

 28 ; 16. I Pt. 2 ; 6b = Isa. 28 ; 16, 2 ; 7b = Ps. 118 ; 22 and 

 2 ; 8a = Isa. 8 ; 14. Rom. 9 ; 33 combines I Pt. 2 ; 6a, 8a, and 

 6b into one short sentence, i. e,, Isa. 28 ; 16b, 8 ; 14 and 28 ; 16c, 

 omitting I Pt. 2 ; 7 b, the quo-tation from Ps. 118 ; 22 which is given 

 in " Peter's speech " in Acts 4 ; 11. 



That there is literary dependence here scholars agree, and that 

 the dependence is on the part of our author they are nearly all 

 quite as ready to admit. Only B. Weiss and his pupil Kiihl resist 

 this conclusion. It seems fair therefore to say the arguments pre- 

 sented above by representative scholars prove the originality of 

 Paul, who had thoroughly worked over these ideas and put them 

 in compact form, while our author apparently was contented in his 

 " practical treatise " to sort out and string together the scriptural 

 pearls discovered by Paul. (For counter arguments see " Der 

 Petrinische Lehrbegriff " by B. Weiss, p. 421 f.) 



(5) I Pt. 4 ; 10 Rom. 12 ; 6 



IxaTTO? xaS'W? sXapsv /apiqxa, zyov^zc, Vz /^apto-ij-a-ra xara zry 

 dC: sauToij? auxo BiaxovoOvrec , . . xapiv xy]v BoQ^sTcrav yjij.Tv Sioccpopa . . 



Jiilicher (Int. p. 209) agrees with Cone (Com. p. 319) " that the 

 dependence of the writer on the Pauline passage is evident " in 

 this and the following parallels. The Pauline thought is expressed 

 in PauHne terms. Cf. also I Cor. 12 ; 4, 28. 



(6) I Pt. 4 ; 11 Horn. 12 ; 7 



li Tt? BtaxovsT, i)C, zt, layuoc, f^c, sI'ts Btaxoviav, hi ty] Biaxovioc 

 '/op-r\yzi 6 Bso^ 



This citation in I Peter continues the thought of Paul in the 

 same order, noted in the preceding parallel. 



