Mt 5° 25" 6”; 18943) Mt 5"; 1 k 10"; 1% i Lk 24%; ΣῊ Lk 12% 21%; ΤῊ Mt 6” Lk 11"
188 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
2? || Mt 18% 10} Lk 18!7; 24 (wpocepy.) || Mt 11% (cf. Jn 67 757); 2° || Mt 16'8; 27 (Ps 118%) || Mt 21%; 213 (ef. 31%) || Mt 5; 212. 17 || Mt 22%; 23! (ἐπακολ.) || 6.0. Mt 105"; am (οἱ. 41) || Lk 234; 2° || e.g. Mt 9% Lk 15‘; 3° || Lk 6®; 815 || Lk 10% 2118; 314) Mt 5; 314 || Mt 10%-; 36 || Lk 6%; 47 (cf. 5°) || Mt 24# 2518 264 Lk 12° 218; 414|) Mt 54; 419 (9. κτίστῃ) || Mt 6555. δὶ | Lk 24 (Ac 18) Mt 19% Lk 22%; 53 || Mt 2075; δὴ} Mt 23%; (8) recorded in St. John—1 P 15:35} Jn 3; 18) 20%; 119 9% |) 139. 36. 133 y 1341. 1512; οὐ | 8'2 12; 2% (Gentiles) || 1011. 14. 15. 5% 4} 211° 17 (note τὰ ἀρνία μου). It has been already noticed that St. Peter’s imagery diflers from that of St. Paul (see above, p. 782). It may further be remarked that all his metaphors (except those of painting and working in metals) fin pack in the Lord’s ae bat In estimating the force of the list of parallels given above, two points must be borne in mind; (1) We are not here dealing with a question of literary indebtedness. For us the sayings of Christ are preserved in the literature of the Greek Gospels. One who heard them uttered in the original Aramaic would reproduce them, when writing in Greek, in a form peculiar to himself. Hence verbal similarity to the Gospels is not a measure of real coincidence. (2) The Gospels do not give us an exhaustive collection of our Lord’s sayings. Hence, in the case of a document which claims to be the work of an apostle, the Gospels are an imperfect criterion of indebtedness to the Lord’s teaching. Yet, judging the influence of our Lord’s sayings on the writer of 1 P by the admittedly imperfect standard of the written Gospels, it is not too much to say that his mind is saturated with the words of Christ, and that, in dealing with
uestions and circumstances very different from those which called forth the Lord’s teaching, he in- stinctively turns to the substance and to the words of that teaching as bearing upon the actual needs of the present. St. Paul was certainly acquainted with the Lord’s teaching (see, e.g., 1 Co 7), whether in an oral or in some written form; but the whole literature of his Epistles supplies a list of coin- cidences with the Gospels fewer in number and far less close than this one Epistle. Apart from the Johannine Epistles, the only parallel in this respect to 1 P is the Epistle of James.
(5) The objection against the Petrine authorshi of our Epistle on which recent critics have lai most stress is its affinity in doctrine, thought, and language with the Pauline Epistles. Jiilicher (p. 133) brings out three points as to the relation of 1P to the Pauline literature. (i.) There is nothing un-Pauline in it. (ii.) In regard to his conception of Christ, of the saving efficacy of His death, of faith and regeneration, the writer of 1 P breathes the Pauline spirit even as he uses the Pauline formulas (e.g. ἐν Χριστῷ 3° 510. 14. ἑωοποιεῖν 318, ἀποκάλυψις and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι six times, his favourite word ἀναστροφή). (iii.) There are many similarities between 1 P and the Pauline Epistles, especially Ro and Eph, which cannot be acci- dental ; the ascription of Eph and 1 P to the same author is a proposition which has been seriously maintained.+ This whole position has the ap- proval of Harnack (Die Chronol. p. 451ff.). But the words of the latter in maintaining it give expression to significant admissions. ‘The author,’ he writes (p. 452), ‘is completely determined by the spirit of Pauline Christianity. But this de- termination is united with such independence and freedom in regard to religious thought and teach- ing within the limits of this Paulinism, that the assumption is an obvious one that Paul himself is
* Outside the Gospels, Rev 144 is the only passage in NT, except 1 P 221, where ‘ to follow’ is used in this connexion.
t This is the conclusion of Sieffert (Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol. 1881, pp. 178 ff., 332 ff.).
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
—ooos
the author of thedocument.’ And again (B. 364 n.), ‘Were it not for the dependence [of 1 P] on the Pauline Epistles, 1 might perhaps allow myself to maintain its genuineness: that dependence, how- ever, is not accidental, but is of the essence of the Epistle.’
It will be best to clear the ground by indicating the affinities between 1 P and the Epistles of the NT. —(i.) Romans, (ii.) Ephesians, (iii.) other Pauline Epistles, (iv.) James. (i.) Romans, 1 P 11: \| 12?; 117 Ι 96.11 ; 1301. ll 1675"; 121: | 44; 15 Ι 199; 95 ll 12); 98 Ι Q82t. ois, ll 131-7; Qu ll 6511. 3.84, lI 12%18 (οἵ, 1 Th 616); 318 || 6; 372 || 64 (cf. Col 2%); 32 ! 8%; 411. ll 62-0 ; 48 ll 1315. 13135.. 4101. ll 128-8 ; 41 (οἴ. 5%) || 817; 417} 1016.31 (Is 663); δὶ || 8:8, (ii.) Ephesians, 1 P 18 || 18; 114}} 25: 453.18; 25 | Qum, 89 ll 482. 3° (εὐλογία) ll 1; 3h Ι 317; 318 II g18 38; 37 | 1306. (cf. Ro 82). (iii.) Other Pauline Epistles, 1P 172 Th 2" (cf. 1 Th 47); 15.831, Tit 3°; 123 || 2Ti 45; 151. || the Pauline trilogy, e.g. 1 Co 13%; 2'6 || Gal 51 (different sense); 4° || 2 Ti 41 (but ef. Ac 104); 4° || Ph 24; 433 || 2Co 15%, ῬῊ 810. 58 ἢ 1Th5*% Note also 235 5? || Ac 3058 (Pauline speech). (iv.) James, 1 P 11 || 11 (διασπορά) ; 151 || 12 12 (but see Mt Hilt.) 1% ll 118 ; οι ll 13: ; ou Ι 4); 58 Ι 41. 10. 59 Ι 47. Τὸ should further be noted that (a) a phrase from Pr 10” is introduced in 1 P 4° and apparently alluded to in Ja 5”, both Epistles using a render- ing other than that of LXX; (δ) Is 408 is alluded to in Ja 1 and quoted in 1 P 1*; (c) Pr 3% is quoted in Ja 4°, 1 P 5°—both having ὁ θεός, LXX Κύριος."