432 Ora Delmer Foster, 



(28) I Pt. 3; 11 Rom. 12; 18, 14; 19 



^Y]TYio"aTw sipYjVYjv xal Bioi^dirto \jsxcc xavirtov avQ-po)7:ojv £lpY]V£6ov- 

 aui77]'v TTS?. 14 ; 19 Ta tyJ? £ipY]VT,? Bio)- 



xa)[j.£v 



The thought, phrasing and context are very suggestive of Hterary 

 dependence. 



(29) I Pt. 3 ; 18 Rom. 5 ; 6, 8 



XpicTTO? axa^ x£pt a[xap-io)v a- Xpio-tr6(; . . . 67r£p a<T£[3o)v a7i£8'av£, 

 TOQ^avEv. [£7vaQ>£v] W. H. 5 ; 8 XpiTTO? u^p yjij-wv axEQ-avE 



W. H. prefer axEQ-avEv to £7i;aQ"£v, on the authority of sAC and 

 all the versions. This rendering makes a very close parallel with 

 Romans, yet the thought would not be materially altered by octte- 

 ^-avE, which has in its favor BKLP. 



(30) I Pt. 3 ; 18 Rom. 5 ; 7 



Bixaio? 67V£p aSixcDV \t.6Xi^ yap 67r£p Bixaw-j Tt? a7:o&>av- 



An important parallel as Rom. 5 ; 7 connects vs. 6 and 8 given 

 in the example I Pt. 3 ; 18 = Rom. 5 ; 6, 8. Rom. 5 ; 9 is also in 

 accord with the Petrine doctrine. 



(31) I Pt. 3; 18 Rom. 5; 10 



iva 6[j.ac xpocraYayifi Toi 0eo) xai:Tri>.>>aY'''ip-£v tw 0eo) Sia to3 



D'avdcTOU Toti uioO au-oiS. Cf. 5 ; 2. 



This parallel is obvious. Jiilicher thinks the agreement is closer 

 with Rom. 5 ; 2. (St' oO xai tyjv Tipoo-ayoiyYiv £(7/Tjxa[j.£v) " Intro- 

 duction " p. 209. This appears to be another example of con- 

 densing. What was done elsewhere in words is here done in phrases 

 and clauses, as 3 ; 18 seems to be an abstract of Rom. 5 ; 2 — 10. 

 The combined evidence of the last three parallels in direct contextual 

 sequence makes dependence here very probable. 



(32) I Pt. 3 ; 22 Rom. 8 ; 34 



0? £(7Tiv Iv Be'^ioc 0EOIJ xopEuO'Ei? syEpQ-Ei?, 0? i(T^w £v Be^iS -ou 

 El? oupavov . . . 0EoO 



This parallel is too close to require comment. 



