206 BERNARDO ESTRADA Best answers him saying that 1 Pet could be evidence of how a common tradition underlying Matthew and Luke had influenced the early church, seen in: – a knowledge in 1 Pet of Jesus’ logia, but not of his parables or miracles ; – lack of connection between Peter and Mark; – a contact with a developed gospel tradition, rather than with the gospel’s text; – quotations from the OT which are taken from the gospels. At the end he states that contacts with gospels lie essentially in two blocks in Luke and 3 isolated sayings in Matthew. Coincidences in 1 Clement help to see that they depended on oral rather than written tradition, especially in catechetical usage 99. In a further answer to Best, Gundry argues that the case for Peter’s authorship rests on reminiscences which are neither small nor few. At the same time he holds that a less original form of gospel tradition does not necessarily imply that the author of the letter did not see or hear Jesus firsthand 100. Luke’s frequent avoidance of Semitic expressions seems to lead 1 Pet closer to Jesus’ tradition through Matthew 101. Both Best and Gundry agree however that there is an exception with the verb ephreazein in ß ¥ Luke 6,28 and 1 Pet 3,16, the only two places in the whole Greek Bible where it appears, as Schlosser has well remarked. Finally, in their discussion is also mentioned Spicq’s thesis about Ps 118 and its link with Petrine tradition 102. That interesting debate regarding the fidelity to Jesus’ tradition finishes without a winner. What Lohse had enunciated some years ago 103, continues to be discussed in several contributions and studies. Brox, saying that the Cf. E. BEST, “1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition”, NTS 16 (1969/70) 99 111-113. Cf. R.H. GUNDRY, “Further Verba on “Verba Christi” in 1 Peter ”, Bib 55 100 (1974) 213. Cf. METZNER, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1. Petrusbrief, 101 44-48 ; GUNDRY, “Further Verba”, 229. Cf. C. SPICQ, “La 1a. Petri et le témoignage évangélique de saint 102 Pierre ”, StTh 20 (1966) 59. Cf. E. LOHSE, “Paränese und Kerygma im ersten Petrusbrief”, ZNW 45 103 (1954) 68-89. For him, there are no proofs in 1 Pet, of dependence on the gospels or other NT writings: 70.