First Epistle of Peter. 461 



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



This word appears only in these references in all the N. T. and 

 suggests dependence, yet the context does not seem favorable. 



(4) I Pt. 3 ; 9 I Tim. 5 ; 14 



Although this word also appears only in these two places in the 

 N. T-, it seems to have been accidentally so employed. 



(5) I Pt. 4; II I Tim. 6; 16 



CO saTiv r, ?)o;a xat, to v.^ol^zoc dc w Ti[j.rj xa\ xpdcTO? aio)viov a[j.TjV 

 TO'jc aioivar tcov auovcov, ajxr^v 



This thought is too common in the Pauline literature to afford an 

 argument for dependence. 



(6) I Pt. 4 ; 15 I Tim. 5 ; 13 



([J.Y; . . . -XG/i-o)) oic . . a>.}.OTpio- -spisp/ojj.svat xac olmca;, ou [Jiovov 

 tT.i'TAOT.rjC Be apyat, Sckloc xai cpXoapoi xal 



"spLspyoi 



I Timothy refers to " tattling and meddlesome women," whereas 

 I Peter alludes to fanatical zealots inspired either by religious or 

 civil motives. "Erst unter K. Trajanus finden wir den aW^oxpio- 

 zmTAOizoc, Oder delator, den Denuncianten als Criminalverbrecher." 

 (Hilgenfeld's Einl. p. 360.) It seems clear that I Timothy alludes 

 to an individual weakness while our author had in mind a more 

 serious offense. 



(7) 



I Pt. 5 ; 2 I Tim. 3 ; 3, 8 



[XYj^s a'-G-/pox£pBw$ ul^Xoc 7cpo8>[j[;.to? (stcig-xotcov) . . . aicr/pox£pB9], 3; 8, 



p.Y] aiG-ypoxspBsT? 



This qualification seems to have been a general requirement of 

 church officials, especially of bishops. 



(8) I Pt. 5; 3 I Tim. 4; 12 



TUTiOl Ylv6[J.£V0I, TOO ;:01[J.V10'J TUTTOC \'iyOO Toiv TltTTWV 



The thought is similar, yet compare Phil. 3; 17 and II Thes. 3; 9. 



