First Epistle of Peter. 433 



(33) I Pt. 3 ; 22 b Rom. 8 ; 38 



ayyeXcov xai zio'jnuZ^ xoci B-jvajj.scov ay^zloi outs ap/^ai o'jts Buva[j.si? 



Christ's leadership over angels, authorities and powers is distinctly 

 a Pauline teaching. Bigg thinks the reference to Noah in I Pt. 3 ; 

 20 is a proof that our author was not borrowing from Paul but 

 from Enoch 61 ; 10, " since the passage comes just before one of 

 the Noachic fragments." (Com. p. 166.) Enoch 61 ; 10 reads as 

 follows ; " And He will call on all the host of the heavens and all 

 the holy ones above, and all the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, 

 and Ophanim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of 

 principalities, and the Elect one, and the other powers on the earth, 

 over the water, on that day." Charles says " the other persons 

 on the earth, over the water, etc., refer to the lower angel-powers 

 over nature." The " Noachic fragment " therefore seems too frag- 

 mentary^ to merit attention. On the other hand Charles says these 

 (referring to Enoch 61 ; 10) are exactly St. Paul's principalities 

 and powers. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 38, Eph. 1 ; 21, Col. 1 ; 16." (Book of 

 Enoch p. 162.) Professor Sanday refers to the same passage in 

 Enoch as a probable source of Paul's terminology. Cf. Com. on 

 Rom. p. 222. The commonness of the idea with Paul, along with 

 the variety of expression argue for his independence of I Peter. 

 In addition to the passages cited by Charles cf. I Cor. 15 ; 24, Eph. 

 3 ; 10, 6 ; 12, Col. 2 ; 10, 15. This and the preceding parallel taken 

 together makes the dependence of our author upon Paul highly 

 probable, and very likely on Romans. 



(34) I Pt. 4; 1 Rom. 6 ; 7, 2 



6 Tia&tov crapxt, TusTcauTai a[j.apTiaic 6 aTCO&avwv BsBixawo^ai aizb ■vr^q 



a^apTiac. 6 f 2 oitivs^ aTreO-avo- 



£V OCUTT] 



This seems to be a very probable case of dependence " for the 

 thought that death annuls man's relationship to sin, which is only 

 differently expressed in the two instances is very boldly applied 

 in both cases, first to the death of Christ and then as the ground 

 of moral obligation on the part of those who have been redeemed 

 through His death. Similar relations do not exist between I Peter 

 and any other. of Paul's letters." (Zahn's Intro. II, p. 188.) Gal. 

 3 ; 23 and I Pt. 1 ; 5, quoted by Hilgenfeld, (Einl. p. 633), agree 

 o ily in the use of the word cppoupsTv. B. Weiss, whose judgment 



