1 Peter and Romans

The TC journal keeps giving. This morning let's consider Katie Marcar, "The Quotations of Isaiah in 1 Peter" (pdf).

The letter of Peter is a lord among the so-called Catholic Epistles, next to 1 John. Few disputed it in antiquity, and it was early translated to Syriac (compare, say: James). Marcion spurned it, and we hear of Paulicians rejecting it alongside such pseudoPetrine material I am too polite to bring up here.

Nowadays I understand that 1 Peter is assigned to a second generation of Christianitas. 1 Peter's Greek is good, easily on the level of Luke's almost on par with Hebrews'. I'd assumed these were Septuagint enjoyers. Paul also could use Greek Isaiah (a version of it anyway: pdf) but often did his own translation; much like 1 Peter used Isaiah. Marcar now goes further - 1 Peter uses the LXX... except when paralleling Paul, specifically when writing to the Romans.

The null-hypothesis of mutual independence requires that someone compiled a cheatsheet of proof texts from the MT, and made it available both to Paul and to 1 Peter. Where that collection failed, 1 Peter had to go to his own Bible which was Septuagintal and Greek. That Paul never had to do this implies that Paul was he who did the translation. As to the compilation - Marcar surmises that Romans could simply be that compilation. The null-hypothesis is thus rendered null, and voided.