^{page 95 note 1} Gundry, R. H., “Verba Christi” in I Peter: their implications concerning the authorship of I Peter and the authenticity of the Gospel tradition', N. T. S. XIII (1966–1967), 336–50;Google ScholarSpicq, C., ‘La I^a Petri et le témoignage évangélique de saint Pierre’, St. Theol. XX (1966), 37–61.Google Scholar The discussion has been carried on for a considerable time and we shall also refer to the examinations of Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of Peter (London, 1947), pp. 7–38Google Scholar; Walls, A. F. in Walls, A. F. and Stibbs, A. M., The First Epistle General of Peter (London, 1959), pp. 34 f.Google Scholar; Chase, F. H., H.D.B. III, 787 f.Google Scholar Older than Chase is an interesting attempt, Scharfe, E., Die Petrinische Strömung der Neutestamentlichen Literatur (Berlin, 1893)Google Scholar, to prove Petrine authorship from much wider criteria, e.g. the common use of the LXX in quotations by Mark and I Peter (since the LXX was used by so many N.T. writers this really proves nothing).

^{page 96 note 1} By “original form” we mean the form in which the saying first appeared, whether on the lips of the earthly Jesus or in the primitive Christian community after his death.

^{page 96 note 2} Cf.Best, , ‘ I Peter 2. 4–10; A Reconsideration’, N.T. XI (1969), 270–93.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} Bultmann, Cf. R., ‘Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im I. Petrusbrief’, Con. Neotest. XI (1947), 1–14;Google ScholarCarrington, P., A Primitive Christian Catechism (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar; Selwyn, , op. cit. pp. 363 ff.Google Scholar; Boismard, M. E., Quatre Hymnes Baptismales dans la premiére Épître de Pierre (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar, and D.B.S. VII, 1419 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 4} Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has shown that with some difficulty it is possible to recover some of the underlying tradition.

^{page 96 note 5} Gundry apparently assumes that John repeats verbatim the teaching of Jesus and that therefore reminiscences of John's form of that teaching in I Peter must indicate knowledge of the actual teaching of Jesus.

^{page 96 note 6} The reading πιστεύοντας at I Peter i. 21 is to be rejected as an assimilation to the more normal N.T. idiom.

^{page 98 note 1} Nauck, W., ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnisses’, Z.N.W. XLVIII (1957), 200–20.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} D.B.S. loc. cit.

^{page 98 note 3} We are not concerned in this paper whether i Pet. i. 8 implies that its author was an eye-witness, but only if and how he reflects knowledge of the sayings of Jesus; it is in any case not a necessary implication of I Pet. i. 8 that its author had seen and heard the earthly Jesus.

^{page 98 note 4} P. 39 n. 9.

^{page 99 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 99 note 2} Walls, Selwyn, Scharfe, etc.

^{page 99 note 3} Hill, D., Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 5), Cambridge, 1967, pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} Though in the dative and not the genitive it is reasonably certain that “gold”, “silver”, “blood”, are to be taken as indicating price; consequently “you have been ransomed” is a suitable translation for λντρώθητη here.

^{page 100 note 1} Cf. p. 98 nn. I and 2.

^{page 100 note 2} see on John x. II; xxi. 16 above.

^{page 100 note 3} Cf. Best, , The Templation and the Passion (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 2), Cambridge, 1965, pp. 173 f.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 4} Gundry, p. 344.

^{page 101 note 1} Gundry, p. 340.

^{page 101 note 2} Gundry, p. 346; Stibbs, ad I Pet. ii. 5.

^{page 101 note 3} Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series I), Cambridge, 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Passim.

^{page 102 note 1} P. 29.

^{page 102 note 2} Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1927–1930), II, 248 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 3} Chase apparently considers Matthew's Gospel to be primary and quotes all his parallels from it; in many instances, including the present, the variations between Matthew and Mark or Luke are unimportant for our purpose; we therefore consider the parallels first under Mark and then under Luke.

^{page 102 note 4} Cf. C. H. Dodd, op. cit. pp. 358 f.

^{page 102 note 5} Rebirth was probably a widespread conception: see on John iii. 3 ff. above.

^{page 103 note 1} P. 345.

^{page 104 note 1} Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition (Oxford, 1967), p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 104 note 3} Cf. κληρονομfαν(i. 4), κρυσιου (i. 7), άμνοŨ (i. 19), γάλα (ii. 2), etc.; Cf. Best, , N.T. XI (1969), 270–93.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 4} Cf. Selwyn, pp. 375 ff., 439 ff., who sees a close relationship between I Peter and I Thess. v. I ff.

^{page 104 note 5} See preceding note.

^{page 105 note 1} Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 6), Cambridge, 1967, pp. 114 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} Nauck, W., ‘Freude im Leiden’, Z.N.W. XLVI (1955), 68–80.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Black, op. cit. p. 180.

^{page 106 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 106 note 3} Scharfe, p. 140; Chase.

^{page 107 note 1} Spicq, p. 43.

^{page 107 note 2} Spicq, p. 44.

^{page 107 note 3} Spicq, p. 44.

^{page 107 note 4} Gundry, pp. 344 f.

^{page 107 note 5} Gundry, p. 344.

^{page 107 note 6} Walls-Stibbs, p. 34.

^{page 107 note 7} Spicq, p. 44.

^{page 108 note 1} Spicq, p. 43.

^{page 108 note 2} Cf. van Unnik, W. C., ‘The Teaching of Good Works in I Peter’, N.T.S. I (1954), 91–110.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Cf. Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St Luke (London, 1960), pp. 153 f., 157 ff., 202Google Scholar; Flender, H., St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History (London, 1967), pp. 143 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 4} Spicq, p. 43, has Matt. v. 4 but he must mean v. 5.

^{page 109 note 1} Gundry, p. 342.

^{page 109 note 2} The change from δΙώΚΕΙη (Matt. v. 10) to πάσKhgr;εΙν (I Pet. iii. 14) is probably not important since the meaning is not greatly affected and the latter word is a particular favourite in I Peter.

^{page 109 note 3} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1963), p. 110Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origin of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Oxford, 1946), pp. 16 f.Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Les Béatitudes (Louvain, 1954), pp. 85 f.Google Scholar; and many others consider v. 10 to be a secondary Matthean formation modelled on v. 11.

^{page 110 note 1} Cf. Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 24 ff.

^{page 110 note 2} Spicq, p. 43.

^{page 110 note 3} Chase.

^{page 110 note 4} Gundry, pp. 340 f.

^{page 112 note 1} See my forthcoming commentrary on I Peter in the new edition of the Century Bible.

^{page 113 note 1} Cf. Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (T. u. U. 65), Berlin, 1957, pp. 16–19Google Scholar; A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford, 1905), pp. 58–61.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} It is possible that I Pet. iii. 9^b may represent a phrase cast in the same pattern as those in I Clement, namely εύλογΕΙΤΕ Ινα Εύλογιαν Κλeegr;ρονομήσηΤΕ. When I Peter quotes the O.T. he frequently adapts its words into the form which enables him to express his argument; cf. p. 96 n. 2.