^{page 336 note 1} The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1958).Google Scholar Selwyn's method of comparing the paraenetic material in the New Testament epistles does not, in this writer's opinion, seriously take account of the possibility Paul used his own earlier epistles as models in successively later epistles and that I Peter drew from the Pauline epistles. Parallel material in the pastorals loses its argumentative force for the same reasons—if the pastorals are Pauline or at least contain sizeable blocs of Pauline material.

^{page 336 note 2} Z.N.W. xLV (1954), 68–89.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 3} So Perdelwitz, R., ‘Die Mysterienreligionen and das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefs’ (Giessen, 1911Google Scholar), in the series Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, XI, 3Google Scholar: Bornemann, W., Z.N.W. xix (1919/1920), 143–65Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Die katholischen Briefe. Handbuch zum N. T. ³ (Tübingen, 1951Google Scholar), with an important supplement by Preisker, H.; Boismard, M.-E., Revue Biblique, LXIII (1956), 182–208Google Scholar; LXIV (1957), 161–83. At the time of this writing, Boismard's recent book advocating his same thesis has been unavailable to me. The view was taken up in the world of English scholarship by Streeter, B. H. (The Primitive Church (London, 1929), pp. 122–33Google Scholar), but did not gain very many adherents.

^{page 336 note 4} The First Epistle of Peter ² (Oxford, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 5} I Peter: A Paschal Liturgy (London, 1954Google Scholar), with support from Leaney, A. R. C., N.T.S. x (1964), 238–51.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 6} Wand, J. W. C., Interpretation, Lx (1955), 387–9Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., N.T.S. III (1956/1957), 4–6Google Scholar; Thornton, T. C. G., J.T.S. XII (1961), 15 ff.Google Scholar, 22, 25 f.; Van Unnik, W. C., in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, III, 760.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 7} Cf. Beare, , op. cit. 201Google Scholar, who dates I Peter as late as possible (during Trajan's reign) in order to make a temporal connexion between the epistle and Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition feasible.

^{page 337 note 1} It is true that some who hold the liturgical-homiletical view consider the possibility of some connexion with Peter. Bornemann suggests that the epistle is a sermon on Psalm xxxiv by Silvanus, who handed down Petrine tradition. After recognizing that marks of great antiquity in the epistle point toward an early date, Cross writes, ‘Whether it is the work of Peter or Silvanus or of someone else I will not here try to say’ (op. cit. p. 44Google Scholar). Cf. Preisker's remarks in Windisch, , op. cit. pp. 161f.Google Scholar However, the earlier the epistle, the less likely it reflects a highly developed baptismal liturgy.

^{page 337 note 2} Op. Cit. p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} So, e.g., representatives of such widely differing viewpoints as Beare, , op. cit. p. 192Google Scholar, Lohse, , op. cit. p. 85Google Scholar and Selwyn, who calls the verba Christi in I Peter ‘a wide field’ lying open to study (Expository Times, LIX (1948), 258).Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 4} The parallel in Matt. vi. 19 f. is not so close in wording to I Peter.

^{page 337 note 5} So also Boismard, , Revue Biblique, LXIII (1956), 197.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 6} So Hort, F. J. A., The First Epistle of St Peter I. 1–11. 17 (London, 1898), p. 45Google Scholar; Streeter, , op. cit. p. 127Google Scholar; Wand, J. W. C., The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude. Westminster Commentaries (London, 1934), p. 48Google Scholar; and hesitantly, Beare, , op. cit. p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} See Rom, . viii. 24f.Google Scholar; II Cor. V. 7; Heb. xi.

^{page 338 note 2} Also seen in I Pet. iv. 13; v. 1, 10. Cf. Rom, . viii. 17f.Google Scholar; II Cor. iv. 17; Heb. ii. 9.

^{page 338 note 3} So Unnik, Van, N.T.S. I (1954/1955), 98.Google Scholar Selwyn advances the view that the verses in I Peter refer to the message of Christian prophets concerning the time of deliverance from persecution through the return of Christ (The First Epistle of St Peter, pp. 259–68Google Scholar). The sufferings είς χριστóν are then the sufferings of Christians for Christ. But the verbal parallels with reference to Christ's sufferings in Luke xxiv. 26, the general Petrine pattern of thought in which the sufferings and the vindication of Christ form the basis for encouragement of suffering Christians, and the pregnant use of είς, which is overworked in this passage, support the traditional interpretation, ‘sufferings destined for Christ’ (see Moule, , op. cit. p. 5Google Scholar; Beare, , op. cit. ad loc.).Google Scholar Selwyn admits an echo of Luke, xxiv. 26Google Scholar if I Peter refers to Old Testament prophets.

^{page 338 note 4} Matt, . xiii. 17Google Scholar; par. Luke, x. 24.Google ScholarHort, , op. cit. p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} Cf. Titus, iii. 5Google Scholar, where παλινγενεσία is used. An Old Latin reading with some minor support might reflect a reading άναγεννάω in John iii, but appears rather to be a mere translation-variant for γεννάω , which in typical Johannine style carries a double meaning, to be born from above and to be born again. See Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (London, 1955), pp. 171 f.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Revue Biblique, LXIII (1956), 203f.Google Scholar; LXIV (1957), 167 ff., 175. It seems to the present writer that the parallels with James i are not basic to James' thought-pattern, but rest on incidental verbal resemblances. Nor does Boismard seem to appreciate the proverbial style of James, in the tradition of wisdom literature. That is, James i. 17 ff. does not appear to be a homogeneous passage with a sustained theme or flow of closely-related thoughts. And I John iii. 1–11 may simply draw on John, iii.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} Cf. Matt, . xxiv. 49Google Scholar; Luke, xxi. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 3} So Selwyn, , The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 456.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 4} A similar expression occurs in Eph. vi. 14: , but the eschatological note is subdued and the allusion is to Isa. xi. 5.

^{page 339 note 5} Revue Biblique, LXIII (1956), 198.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 6} On the unique combination δι’ αύτῦυ, see Hort, , op. cit. pp. 83f.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} Cf. I Pet. iii. 8: φıλάδελφοı.

^{page 340 note 2} Cf. Lohse, , op. cit. p. 85Google Scholar, n. 93; Hort, , op. cit. p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 3} So e.g. Hort, , op. cit. p. 136Google Scholar; Hart, J. H. A., in The Expositor's Greek Testament, v, 59Google Scholar; Selwyn, , The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 171Google Scholar; Beare, , op. cit. p. iiiGoogle Scholar; Windisch, , op. cit. p. 62Google Scholar; Unnik, Van, N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 103Google Scholar; Idem, Expository Times, LXVIII (1956/1917), 82.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} Rom, . vi. 18–22Google Scholar; I Cor. Vii. 22; ix. I, 19; Gal. ii. 4; v. 13f. So Windisch, , op. cit. p. 63Google Scholar; Beare, , op. cit. p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 2} Selwyn supports the allusion to Matt, . xvii. 26Google Scholar(The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 174).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 3} See Hart, , op. cit. v, 60f.Google Scholar; Selwyn, , The First Epistle of St Peter, pp. 89, 176Google Scholar, 429. Van Unnik objects that since άγαθοττοιέω is missing in the Matthaean parallel (v. 43 ff.), in Luke it is due to Luke himself, so that I Peter cannot be an echo of this logion (N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 110Google Scholar). But the other parallels between I Peter and Luke here are striking enough to suggest that Matthew's editorializing has dropped άγαθοποιέω and that Luke's version of the logion was indeed known to the author of I Peter.

^{page 342 note 1} So, e.g., Streeter, , op. cit. p. 120Google Scholar; Nauck, W., Z.X.W. XLVIII (1957), 202.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Against Beare, , op. at. pp. 134f.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 3} Cf. Brown, J. P., N.T.S. x (1963), 30.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} I Pet. i. 6–9 has been subjected to intensive and instructive form-critical analysis by Boismard, who also compares James, i. 2–4, 12Google Scholar and Rom, . v. 3–5(Google ScholarRevue Biblique, LXIV (1957), 162–7Google Scholar). Nauck similarly analyses I Pet. iv. 13f., again bringing into consideration James, i. 2Google Scholar, 12 as well as the beatitude in the gospels (Z.N.W. XLVI (1955), 69–71Google Scholar). Nauck notes the four-step progression in Matthew and Luke: congratulations-persecution-joy-reward. Nauck's view is that ‘Rejoice in suffering’ was an old and widely-used theme dating from the Maccabaean Revolt (cf. Selwyn's, ‘Persecution Fragment’, The First Epistle of St Peter, pp. 439–58Google Scholar) and that I Peter depends on that tradition, not upon the Dominical saying. He asks why I Pet. iv. 13f. should have changed the order to joy-reward-persecution-congratulations. The answer is that the author has adapted the beatitude in order to work it into his sentence structure. He was not a scissors-and-paste redactor. When Nauck asks why I Peter connects άγαλλιάω with the prospect of future glory instead of with the persecution (as in Matthew), he overlooks the facts that I Peter does connect the synonym χαίρω (used also in both gospels) with persecution and that both gospels make the prospect of future glory the basis for joy in present suffering (ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ύτι ό μισθòςùμῶν πολùς έν τοīςοùρανοīς—Matthew, v. 12Google Scholar; Luke uses γάρ). The manifestness of the verbum Christi in I Pet. iii. 14 establishes that the same verbum Christi lies behind I Pet. iv. 13f.

^{page 343 note 2} Cf. Dodd, C. H., in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester, 1959), pp. 113, 117f.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Luke, xxi. 34Google Scholar, 36 (for quotation see above). Cf. also the use of γρηγορέω in Mark xiii. 35, 37, (33); Matt, . xxv. 13.Google Scholar Selwyn notes that I Peter iv. 7 preserves the eschatological note, but I Pet. v. 8 does not and is therefore more closely linked with the command in Gethsemane (The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 381).Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} The several patent parallels with Luke show that J. P. Brown's involved attempt to link I Pet. v. 8f. with Matt, . v. 39Google Scholar should not be accepted (op. cit. p. 33).Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 3} The western text in Luke, xxii. 26Google Scholar has μικρότερος (D it vg^{3, cl} sy sa) instead of νεώτερος. If original, the reading would weaken the parallel with I Peter; but it must be considered a scribal ‘improvement’ designed to form a neater contrast with . At this point it should be noted from the fore-going review of Petrine verba Christi that Selwyn is not correct in saying they are predominantly Matthaean, (The First Epistle of St Peter, p. 24).Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} Cf. Hart, , op. cit. p. 77.Google Scholar Pollux says that the έγκόμβωμα is an apron which the slave tied over his undergarment (Onomasticon, iv, 119Google Scholar, cited by Beare, , op. cit. p. 176Google Scholar). Van Unnik seeks to ascribe the further part of I Pet. v. 5, ‘For God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’, to the saying of Jesus in Matt, . xxiii. 12Google Scholar; Luke, xiv. IIGoogle Scholar; xviii. 14 (N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 103 f.Google Scholar). But that thought was a common proverb (as is shown by Jesus’ repeated use of it), and in I Peter the statement takes its form from Prov. iii. 34.

^{page 346 note 1} Beare thinks I Peter depends on Romans (op. cit. p. 193Google Scholar). But Romans has nothing about Jesus as the rejected stone.

^{page 346 note 2} See Selwyn, , The First Epistle of St Peter, pp. 268–77.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 3} The stone-tradition regarding Peter is supported by three gospels in differing contexts (Matt, . xvi. 18Google Scholar; Mark iii. 16; John, i. 42Google Scholar). See Cullmann, O., Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr ², trans. Filson, F. V. (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 22f.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 4} It is true that Peter uses λίθος, whereas the words πέτρος and πέτρα figure in the gospel texts concerning Peter's name. But this is due to the influence of the Old Testament quotation which I Peter draws from the lips of Jesus. The fact these words are synonyms makes the association easy, as is shown by Paul's conflation of Isa, . xxviii. 16Google Scholar and viii. 14 with πέτρα and λίθος synonymously co-ordinated as figures for Jesus (Rom, . ix. 33Google Scholar). See Seitz, O. J. F., J.B.L. LXIX (1950), 331.Google Scholar The Petrine concept of Christians as living stones in relation to Christ, the living stone par excellence, has no parallel in the other stone-passages and may well derive from Peter's own experience, namely, his being named Πίτρος because of his disciple-relationship to Christ.

^{page 347 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 83 f.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 2} Because of the topical concern of Matthew and the consequent greater freedom with which he treated his material, we are bound to prefer Luke's setting for the sermon.

^{page 347 note 3} i 11, 19; ii. 23f.; iii. 18; iv. 1, 13; v. I. See especially F. Chase, H., in H.D.B. III, 787.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 4} A point missed by Beare, , op. cit. p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 1} Nauck compares the association in the Zadokite Documents and brings into connexion various Old Testament passages (op. cit. pp. 200–7).Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} For recent answers to objections against Petrine authorship as well as for positive arguments in favour, see Selwyn, , Expository Times, LIX (1948), 256–8Google Scholar; Unnik, Van, N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 102Google Scholar; Idem, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, III, 760, 762–4Google Scholar; Wand, J. W. C., Interpretation, IX (1955), 2f.Google Scholar; Love, J. P., Interpretation, viii (1954), 65–8Google Scholar; Filson, F. V., Interpretation, IX (1955), 401–3.Google Scholar Concerning Silvanus as amanuensis, Hart makes a balanced statement that the activity of Silvanus affected the grammatical form, but not the subject-matter (op. cit. v, 15Google Scholar). Selwyn's casting Silvanus in a larger role has rightly been criticized (Lohse, , op. cit. pp. 71 f.Google Scholar); Fascher, E., R.G.G.3 ³ v, col. 258Google Scholar; Rigaux, B., Les Épîres aux Thessaloniciens. Etudes Bibliques (Paris, 1956), pp. 105–11, especially p. 107Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., Theology, XLIX (1946), 343Google Scholar; Beare, , op. cit. p. 189.Google Scholar F. H. Chase emphasizes the presence of numerous verba Christi in I Peter against those who are that the epistle does not contain the vivid reminiscences of Jesus' life and teachings which we would expect in the writing of an apostolic eye-witness (in H.D.B. III, 787Google Scholar). However, the list given by Chase contains several doubtful verba Christi, and he has missed the Petrine pattern which forms the basis of this article. Chase writes that verbal similarity with the gospels is not the measure of real coincidence, because of translation from Aramaic. But there must be some verbal similarity before we can detect verba Christi; and different translations into Greek by the evangelists and the writer of the epistle should at least be similar. Chase does make a good point of the fact that since the gospels do not give an exhaustive collection of Jesus’ sayings, there may be more verba Christi in I Peter than we realize, so that those which we can recognize gain in significance by implying others which we cannot recognize. G. Braumann also strains for allusions in I Peter-to almost every beatitude in Matthew v in support of his thesis that the Matthaean form of the beatitudes is the result of the same baptismal theology which he thinks lies behind I Peter (Novum Testamentum, Iv (1960), 253–60Google Scholar). A corollary to Petrine authorship of I Peter is that if the epistle reflects Ephesians, as it almost certainly does, Ephesians belongs to Paul's lifetime and must have been written by Paul. Taking for granted later, non-Pauline authorship of Ephesians, Beare argues that since I Peter reflects Ephesians, it must likewise be later than Peter's death (op. cit. pp. 25f.Google Scholar). This reversed interpretation of the evidence is upset by the Petrine pattern of the verba Christi.

^{page 349 note 2} By the same token the parallel phraseology between I Peter and the Petrine speeches in Acts should not be lightly dismissed with the remark that the speeches in Acts do not reflect what was actually said. The very correspondence speaks in favour of accurate reporting by Luke of the gist of these speeches; for the correspondence can hardly be due to accident. And to say that the author of the epistle introduced such incidental allusions in conscious imitation of unauthentic Petrine speeches in Acts for verisimilitude attributes to the author a degree of ingenuity and subtlety that requires greater credulity on our part than does belief in Luke's accuracy and Petrine authorship of the epistle. Cf. Wand, , The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 3} See e.g. McNeile, A. H., The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1947), p. 259Google Scholar; Beare, F. W., The Earliest Records of Jesus (New York, 1962), p. 147.Google Scholar But cf. J. D. M. Derrett's recent defence of the story from the standpoint of historical background (Novum Testamentum, vi (1963), 1–15Google Scholar).

^{page 350 note 1} But cf. Cullmann's, statement: ‘The fact that a saying belongs to the so-called special material of Matthew is no justification at all for even raising the question of genuineness’ (op. cit. p. 176).Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 2} Cf. the upgrading of the Johannine (sayings-) tradition by Guilding, A., The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960Google Scholar), and Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 3} Beare, , The First Epistle of Peter, p. 191Google Scholar; cf. Barrett, , op. cit. pp. 480f.Google Scholar Beare seeks to turn the evidence around by saying that a reference to John, xxiGoogle Scholar in I Pet. v would constitute evidence that the epistle is later than John (i.e. post-A.D. 100) and therefore non-Petrine. Such an argument could stand only by ignoring that I Pet. v. 2 is but one from a large group of verba Christi which come from Petrine contexts in the gospels.

^{page 350 note 4} So Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935), p. 128Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Marsh, J. (Oxford, 1963), p. 177Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Markus-Evangelium ⁴ (Tubingen, 1950), pp. 122f.Google Scholar; Beare, , Earliest Records, p. 209.Google Scholar But C. E. B. Cranfield argues forcefully for the authenticity of Mark xii. 10f. (The Gospel according to St Mark (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 368 f.Google Scholar; cf. Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), pp. 473, 476Google Scholar). Fiebig, P. notes that rabbinic parables sometimes concluded with a scripture-quotation (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen, 1912), p. 78).Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 5} Beare is typical of those who reject the story, saying that the details were supplied by Christian imagination, for Jesus was removed and the disciples asleep (Earliest Records, p. 230Google Scholar). But Jesus may have been within earshot, and falling asleep usually takes a little time. Bultmann says that the story has ‘a thoroughgoing legendary character’ (op. cit. p. 267Google Scholar), but V. Taylor argues on the opposite side that ‘only as dependent on the testimony of Peter himself is a story so damaging to his reputation and to that of all the disciples conceivable’ (op. cit. p. 551Google Scholar).