460 Ora Delmer Foster, 



(6) I Pt. 5; 3 Phil. 3; 17 



-UTuot yivojjxvoi ToQ Tcotptou xaihw? s/s'ts tutvov Yi[j,a(; 



Cf. II Thes. 3 ; 9, I Tim. 4 ; 12, Tit. 2 ; 7. 



(7) I Pt. 5 ; 5 Phil. 2 ; 3 



/wO[j.(jo)'7a'j&'£ aX>.a v?] TaTiJsivocppoa-uvYi a>.};Yi}^oui; 



fjoy[j-£voi UTispsy^ovTa? sauTwv. 



See Rom. 12 ; 10 for better context and equally close wording. 

 Cf. also Eph. 5 ; 21. 



(8) I Pt. 5 ; 13 Phil. 4 ; 22 



(9) I Pt. 5 ; 14 Phil. 4 ; 21 



a(77uao-aT0'£ ocXkr^ouc Iv (pi,}^Tj[j.aTt, ao-Tiao-ao-B'S -KOt-yzcc aytov . . . 

 ayaxYjc 



The last two parallels are common in the Pauline Epistles. 



The foregoing study makes it clear that we have no real evidence 

 that I Peter in any way rests upon PhiUppians. 



I TIMOTHY 



D 



d 



(1) I Pt. 3; 3 I Tim 2; 9 



cT)v It-o) ou/ 6 l^o)&>£v sjxxT^ox^i; -zccc yuvaTxai; Iv xaTaa-ol^ Y.oa- 

 Tpiy^oiv xai 7:£ptS>£(7£0)? /pu(7to)v Y) [jiw [j.£-a aiBou? xai a-focppoTUV/]?, 

 £vB'J(7£(o? i[j.a-uov x6<7[j.o? xo(7[j.£Tv £auTac, [J.Y) £v 7i;}iY[j.a(7tv, 



•?] XpUTw, Y] [j^apyapiTai?, yj i[j.aTt- 



qj.(0 7iO}<UT£}v£T 



Although this is suggestive it need not presuppose dependence, for 

 exhortations to plainness seem to have been common in the early 

 church. 



(2) I Pt. 3 ; 4 I Tim. 2 ; 10 



aXT.' 6 xpuTiTO? TYj? xap^ia? av- oOX (6 T^psTrsi, yuvaittv £7caYY£X- 

 b-pomoc, >.o[Ji£vaic 6-£0<7£(jiav) Bi' Ipycov a- 



yaO^wv 



The wording is not close enough to show dependence, yet the 

 antithesis leads one to suspect it. 



