First Epistle of Peter. 395 



accipiatis et Domi- rificent Deum in die Beco sv Y][jipa s-toxo- 



nus in vobis non visitationis. 5 ; 5 Om- i:%c. uT:o-uyf]-:z Tzdrrfi 



blasphemetur. nes autem invicem, avOpwTiivri Y.-iGzi Bia 



(subditi estote. 5; 4). tov Kyptov. 5;5 7:av- 



T£? Bs oiXkr{koic, {bizo- 



zccf^zz 5 ; 4). 



Benecke, after quoting the above, states : " the second clause in 

 the passage seems to be a certain quotation from I Pt." Bishop 

 Lightfoot thinks there maj?^ be a reference in the first part of the 

 quotation to Eph. 5 ; 21. It is significant that in X. 1 the word 

 " exemplar " occurs, corresponding to the uxoypa^a^ov of Jesus in 

 I Pt. 2; 21, in close conjunction with " fraternitatis," which Hkewise 

 corresponds to another word peculiar to our Epistle, i. e. aBsXcpoTviTa 

 of I Pt. 2 ; 17. These two words, it is noticed, occur in I Peter in 

 rather close contextual connexion. These observations make 

 Benecke's conclusion all the more certain, that Polycarp here shows 

 dependence upon I Peter. 



b 



(10) Pol. II, 1 I Pt. 1 ; 13 



Bio ava^fo(7aij.£voi, Ta? occpua? Bou- Bio ava^ojcajjisvot xa? oo-cpuag zr^c, 



"kzCccczz -to Bsfi) £v (p6[3o) xai alv]- Biavoia^ 6[j-cov 



0>£ta 



Although this citation has a certain affinity with Eph. 6 ; 14 the 

 probabilities are that the Pauline thought reached Polycarp via our 

 Epistle. The context seems to demand such a conclusion. 



(11) Pol. II, 2 I Pt. 3 ; 9 



[XY] azoBiBovTsc xaxov av-i y,xy.o\) [xy] axoBiBovTS? xaxov dcvd /.axoO 

 Y) XotBopiav avTi AoiBopCa? yj XoiBopiav avTt, TvOiBopia? 



Benecke thinks this verbatin agreement may be accounted for, as 

 a common proverb which both are quoting. This however is rendered 

 highly improbable, inasmuch as Polycarp had just quoted from 

 I Peter. If it is a common proverb, in aU probability it was suggested 

 by our Epistle. 



c 



(12) Pol. I, 3 I Pt. 1 ; 12 



SIC y;/ -oXXoi sTCiB'Oij.otiTiv zla- zlc, a sxiO-ufj-ouo-tv ayyeXoi xapa- 

 zVj-zCy wj'\)ca. 



Though Lightfoot, Bigg and others fail to find any reference here 

 to our Epistle, Benecke is correct in claiming a possible connection 

 on the basis of the certain quotation just preceding it. 



Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 27 January, 1913. 



