^{page 97 note 1} Elliott, John Hall, ‘The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Stepchild: I Peter in Recent Research’, J.B.L. 95 (1976), 243–54.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} No doubt the material expressed by the condition or participle was itself exhortation.

^{page 97 note 3} Elliott, John Hall, The Elect and the Holy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), pp. 200 f. and 215–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} See especially Elliott, , The Elect and the Holy;Google Scholar and Best, Ernest, ‘I Peter II 4–10 - A Reconsideration’, Novt 11 (1969), 270–93.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} The frequent claim that all the citations and allusions to the ot in I Peter are from the LXX is not correct. In addition to the two stone quotations, several other passages do not conform to the LXX. See ii. 9, 10, 22; iii. 14; and iv. 8b.

^{page 98 note 2} The omission of ‘the foundations’ is not due to interpretative motive as Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM Press, 1961), p. 178Google Scholar and LGaston, loyd, No Stone On Another (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), pp. 219–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggested. τıθέναı may have been used because of the association with σκάνδαλον in Isa. viii. 14 or more likely to emphasize the activity of God in placing the stone. τıθέναı λιθον in the context of άκρογωνıαīος would point to the foundations even apart from the use of θεμέλıα. (On άκρογωνıαīος see R. J. McKelvey, ‘Christ the Cornerstone’, N.T.S. VIII, 1961–2, 352–9.) Note that IQS VIII.7–8 omits the reference to the foundations in quoting Isa. xxviii. 16 and understands the imagery as referring to a foundation stone. Note also lQH vi.26, where is used to express the idea offounding, and the targum on Isa. xxviii. 16 which uses to express the placing by God and would be parallel to τıθέναı. The form of the NT quotation apparently resulted from the frequent use of Isa. xxviii. 16 in the Jewish world.

^{page 99 note 1} E.g. Hort, F. J. A., The First Epistle of St. Peter I. I–II. 17 (London: Macmillan, 1898), p. 116Google Scholar; and Beare, Francis Wright, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 3rd ed., 1970), p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} On the connection of the two chapters see Hooke, S. H., ‘The Sign of Immanuel’, The Siege Perilous (London: SCM Press, 1956), p. 231Google Scholar and Kissane, E. J., The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1960), 1, 299.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 3} Ziegler, Joseph, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Münster i. W.: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934), P. 95.Google Scholar He also noted the similar change in the targum and concluded that the interpretation is due to a school tradition. Cf. viii. 14 and xxviii. 14 in the targum.

^{page 99 note 4} έπ' αύτῷ is omitted by the hexaplaric recension, 393 and 538, and is accompanied in 88 by an obelus which Ziegler suspected to be a pseudo-obelus. See Isaias, vol. 14, Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1939), pp. 65–92.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 5} Contra Gaston, , p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} The text reads:

(‘Therefore, thus said Yahweh Elohim, “Behold I will appoint in Zion a king, a mighty king, strong and powerful; I will make him mighty and strong.” The prophet said, “And the righteous who trust in these things will not tremble when distress comes”.’)

Other targum passages on OT texts referring to a cornerstone also have been interpreted as referring to rulers. See the targums on Jer. li. 26; Zech. iv. 7, 10, and Ps. cxviii. 22.

^{page 100 note 2} Waard, J. de, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), p. 54. IQS VIII.7 b-8a reads:Google Scholar

(‘This is the tested wall, the precious corner; its foundations will not quake nor be moved from their place.’)

^{page 100 note 3} Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} Mitton, C. L., ‘The Relationship Between I Peter and Ephesians’, J.T.S. n.s. 1 (1950), 67–73Google Scholar; and his The Epistle to the Ephesians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), pp. 186–8 and 195.Google Scholar Note, however, that Elliott, John H., ‘The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Stepchild’, p. 247, is inclined to argue for the priority of I Peter over Ephesians.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} Flusser, David, ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Rabin, Chaim and Yadin, Yigael, 4, Scripta Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 233–5.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} See Elliott, , The Elect and the Holy, p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 3} Bornemann, W., ‘Der erste Petrusbrief – eine Taufrede des Silvanus?’ Z.N.W. 19 (1920), 143–65.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 4 72} for example has the abbreviation for χρηστ⋯ς rather than the word χρηστ⋯ς. See Michel Testuz (ed.), Papyrus Bodmer VII–IX (Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959), p. 41; and F. W. Beare, ‘Some Remarks on the Text of I Peter in the Bodmer Papyrus (⁷²)’, Stud. Ev. III, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), p. 264. The play on words is attested also in Justin, Apology, 1.4. Cf. the confession at Phil. ii. 11.

^{page 103 note 1} It is intriguing that the Epistle to Barnabas vi. 3 paraphrases Isa. xxviii. 16b with ός έλπισεı έπ'αύτ⋯ν since one finds ός έλπιεı έπ' αύτ⋯ν in Ps. xxxiv (xxxiii). 9, the verse quoted in I Pet. ii. 3. Barnabas ix. 2 quotes Ps. xxxiv (xxxiii). 13 which is also quoted in I Pet. iii. to. Has Barnabas been influenced by I Peter?

^{page 103 note 2} See Beare, , The First Epistle of Peter, pp. 45–6Google Scholar; and Danker, Frederick W., ‘I Peter i: 24–2: 17 - A Consolatory Pericope’, Z.N. W. 68 (1967), 102Google Scholar, but rejecting the conclusion of both that this fact necessarily proves pseudonymous authorship. See Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 1} There is also the possibility that in I Pet. v. 4 the author made use of the targum on Isa. xxviii. 5 (which speaks of the Messiah being a diadem of joy and a crown of glory to the remnant of his people) although it is conceivable that the dependence is directly on the OT text.

^{page 104 note 2} See Gärtner, Bertil, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar; McKelvey, R. J., The New Temple (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 43–57Google Scholar; and Moule, C. F. D., ‘Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the New Testament’, J.T.S. n.s. 1 (1950), 29–41.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} See Wernberg-Møller, P., The Manual of Discipline (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957), p. 124.Google Scholar This would provide additional evidence that the eschatological interpretation did not originate in Qumran. Lloyd Gaston's attempt (pp. 219–22 and the whole section, pp. 161–243) to view Isa. xxviii. 16 as only secondarily applied to Jesus after it was initially understood of the community cannot be accepted. At several points he has not given sufficient attention to the context or to the theme of the people of God in determining the relation of the stone passages and the temple concept. With regard to I Pet. ii he made several statements that are not justifiable. The following corrections should be noted:

(1) The interest in Isa. xxviii. 16 is not confined to the inscription (that the one who believes will not be put to shame) as Gaston asserts, but is primarily focused on the adjectives ⋯κλεκτ⋯ν and έντıμον, as v. 4 shows.

(2) Jesus is not identified with the cornerstone merely to provide an antecedent for έπ' αύτῷ but because he is the elect ‘stone’ who fulfils the OT promises.

(3) Isa. xxviii. 16 was not the last quotation added to the group, but as we have shown, Isa. viii. 14 and xxviii. 16 were joined in pre-Christian Judaism and were probably joined to Ps. exviii. 22 at the same time.

(4) The claim that none of the stone texts has anything to do with the temple except Isa. xxviii. 16 is incorrect. In their original contexts both Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. viii. 14 were connected with the temple and the author of I Peter was aware of the connection of the latter (see I Pet. iii. 14–15). The NT use of the stone testimonia is frequently in connection with the concept of the people of God.

(5) The source for I Pet. ii. 5 was not the Qumran understanding but a widespread tradition which was shared by Qumran.

(6) The assumption that the author of I Peter knew two interpretations of Isa. xxviii. 16, one in which it was connected to the stone testimonia and one in which it designated the community, is unfounded. It is much more likely that the Qumran community has modified a text understood messianically in Judaism and has reinterpreted it with reference to its own existence. See Gärtner, p. 134, and note that Gaston recognized this practice at Qumran (pp. 1644–8).

(7) The claim that the author has no thought of Jesus as the foundation of the temple and that he was forced to speak of Jesus as a living stone because of the Stichwort association of Isa. xxviii and Ps. cxviii is without justification. Evidently the author was more than glad to speak of Jesus as a living stone, and the idea of foundations would be conveyed by τιθημı λιθον άκρογωνıαίον. (Seep. 98 n. 2.)

^{page 105 note 1} See Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957), pp. 218 f.Google Scholar; and Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1957), pp. 192 f.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} Elliott, , The Elect and the Holy, pp. 141–5.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} See Black, Matthew, ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, N.T.S. 18 (1971–1972), 11–14.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 2} See Kraft, Robert A., ‘Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the “Testimony Book” Hypothesis’, J.B.L. 79 (1960), 344–5.Google Scholar