case with the other apostles, inasmuch as dialectic discussion very naturally made his style periodic,' so on the other hand, the want of periodic structure is not the effect of a deficiency in acquaintance with the language, so much as the effect of the apostle's character, and this has already been described. There is indeed for his mode of thinking, as of writing no more fitting image than the flood, where one wave overtops another. The frequently recurring où póvov dé and uallov de is the swelling of the wave. Let one only consider how Paul, at the beginning of the epistle to the Romans, never satisfies himself, but adds accessory ideas to every principal word. This is visible in the most characteristic way in the first chapter of his epistle to the Ephesians. Where thought presses upon thought, one feeling upon another, there it is not easily conceivable that regularly constructed parentheses,3 like those which are presented in the epistle to the Hebrews, and which are the result of calm reflection, should be employed. In such cases the anacoluthon is intro

'Lücke, in the second edition of his Comment. on John, Vol. 1. p. 129, makes very correct remarks on this subject. I here select the passage, because it expresses at the same time the view above given of the relation between John and Paul.

"The chief distinction," he says, "between Paul and John lies in the individuality of the two writers. As Paul thinks logically, syllogistically, and besides, in his Epistles, explains the subject-matter of the Gospel in a didactic form, so he writes in the periodic style; but with the periodic and dialectic mode of writing, the Greek peculiarities likewise the more decidedly present themselves. John is almost the opposite of this. As in his mental character he is inclined to the synthetic, rather than to the analytic method; as he is inclined to what is called the intuition of the spirit, rather than to the logical discussion; so likewise in his style of composition he is more simple (than Paul). He is so in his Epistles, and likewise in his Gospel. In the latter, moreover, the historical subject-matter makes a difference between him and his fellow-apostle. His thoughts are arranged, with greater regularity than Paul's; one might almost say that they follow each other in the order of parallelism. The Hebraistic element is therefore visible, both in his mode of representation, and his choice of language; and it is, at least inwardly, the pervading element of his style."

* See for example, Rom. 5: 3, 11. 8: 23, and 34. 10: 14 and 15.

3 [On the parenthetical character of the style of Paul's epistles generally, and of the epistle to the Hebrews in particular, see Stuart's Comm. on Heb. § 22, especially p. 14.—TR.]

duced; the oratio variata also; the siopesis and the laconic.4 The same fervor of spirit is discernible in those words, frequently introduced, which are compounded with υπέρ, as ύπερλίαν, ὑπερνικάω, ὑπερπερισσεύω, ὑπερπλεονάζω ; in the oft repeated use of πᾶς and in other developments. We might hold it scarcely possible, for Paul to make use of such calm and dispassionate forms of speech, as the epistle to the Hebrews everywhere exhibits. Even through the drapery of Luke, the discourses of this apostle, as recorded in the Acts, exhibit the vigorous formation of his style.

That with the apostle's numerous Hebraisms, he had at command no small part of the treasures of the Greek language, is evident from his great variety of particles; his significant variation of prepositions, which he knows how to employ so as to be a true means of conveying thought; his copious use of synonyms; his great variety of expressions for one and the same object; his employment of rare words, and partly of words coined by himself; his rich participial constructions, but especially his copious fulness of paronomasia in all its forms; the antanaklasis, parachesis, annominatio. Without directing the mind expressly to this subject, one cannot imagine how frequently the apostle uses the paronomasia. For managing the figure in a free and spirited way, however, an unembarrassed use of the language is indispensable. Examine the euphonious paronomasia in 1 Tim. 3: 16, ἐφανερώθη--ἐδικαιώθη; also in Eph. 3: 6, συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα; likewise in 2 Cor. 8: 22, ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις σπουδαῖον; and in 9: 8, ἵνα ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε лãσαν avτáρxɛlar xnts. See also in Rom. 1: 29, and 31, the words πορνεία, πονηρία; φθόνου, φόνου, ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστόργους, άoлóvdovs, etc. Especially see those numerous examples, in which the resemblance in the sound in connection at the same time with resemblance or contrast in the sense, becomes in the highest degree significant. In the epistle to the Romans, for example, we have the

1 See for example Rom. 2: 17, 21. 5: 12, 15, 9: 23.

2 See instance in Rom, 12: 1 and 2.

3 See example in Rom. 7: 25.

4 See Rom. 11: 18. 2 Cor. 6: 13.

See Col. 1: 9-11, 28.

6 See Heb. 6: 1-3. 11: 32.

7 The use of the same word in different senses; of different words resembling each other in sound; of pun.

words ex niσrews is niσtiv in 1: 17; and in 1: 20, the words to ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ καθορᾶται; and in 1: 28, καθώς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν-παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν. Other instances of the same figure are found in Rom. 2: 1. 4: 15. 15: 16, and 19; and also in Rom. 3: 27, 7: 23, and 8: 2, where the term vóuos is used with varied applications. To these numerous other examples might be added from the remaining epistles. Such an accumulation of this figure needs perhaps an apology. There may be some who will agree in opinion with Basilius Faber, when he says, in his Thesaurus, under the word paronomasia, that "in jocular and light compositions nothing can be more grateful than this figure; but in serious discourse nothing is more improper, especially if it be frequently repeated." In order to perceive the incorrectness of this remark, however, one need only be reminded of some instances of paronomasia, that have been famed throughout the world. Such are that in Ovid, "orbis in urbe fuit ;" and that in Schiller, “die Welt-geschichte ist das Weltgericht." "Even in philosophy," says Herder, "happy expressions of this kind are of great force. They fasten in the soul, even by a word, the distinction or the resemblance that is remarked. Here also Luther and Hamann present numerous instances parallel with those of the apostle. We need nothing more however than to refer to that paronomasia which has affected the history of the whole world; the paronomasia employed by the Redeemer himself, in the sixteenth of Matthew, where he calls Peter, the лiga, on which his church was built.1

It cannot by any means be inferred from the use of these puns by Paul, that reflection had triumphed over feeling in his mind, as Les

[For a much larger number of instances in which this figure is used by the writers of the New Testament, especially by Paul, by the writers of the Old Testament also, by classical authors, and even by the Saviour himself, see Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, § 49, and Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, 3d Ed. § 571, and the works referred to in them. Perhaps the paronomasia employed by the Saviour in Matt. 8: 22 has been, in a moral point of view, nearly as much entitled to the epithet, welt-historische, as that in Matt. 16: 18 to which Tholuck refers.-The very frequent use of the paronomasia and the like figures by the sacred penmen, is a proof that their writings are genuine Oriental productions; that the Spirit, who indited for men, adapted himself not only to men in general, but in an especial manner to the communities who were originally addressed; and that the Bible was not designed to teach men rhetoric, more than to teach them astronomy or metaphysics.-TR.]

sing says that the introduction of wit always indicates the want of excited feeling. This is the fact only when the wit seems to have been sought after. Such forms of the paronomasia as betray a previous effort for them; the anagram for instance, and the repetition in one sentence of the last word in the preceding,1 are never found in the apostle's composition. It is well known that, for example, the sarcasm is introduced by men of spirit on occasions of the most highly excited feeling. It is thus used by Paul in Phil. 3: 2, xataroμń —περιτομή; and in 1 Tim. 6: 5, παραδιατριβάς-διατριβαί. And so, on the other hand, the tenderest emotions of love call forth from him a play upon words. An instance of it is the play upon the name of Onesimus in the eleventh verse of Philemon, tov noté σoi ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον. Another illustration of the same is that excellent proverb in Rom. 13: 8, " Be in debt to no man, except in love."

SUPPLEMENT TO THE PRECEDING TREATISE,

Respecting the early life of Paul, compiled from various works, but principally from Hemsen's Der Apostel Paulus. pp. 1-10.

Name of the Apostle. Paul received from his parents the name Saul. Neander states as a conjecture, that this name was derived from to ask, and signified that Saul was a long-desired, first-born son, a child of prayers. Why and when the name Saul was changed into Paul is doubtful. The Jews, when among the Heathen, often altered their Hebrew names, and sometimes entirely dropped them. Thus Dosthai was changed into Dositheus, Jesus into Jason, Tarphon into Trypho, Silas into Sylvanus; and Onias was

1. Αναγραμματισμοί and επαναστροφαί.

2

[Ονήσιμος, being derived from ὀνίημι, would of course have about the same meaning with sonorov. Another instance of paronomasia on the same name, is in the twentieth verse of the same epistle; Nai, adsλøè, ¿ya̸ oov ovaíunv iv nvpią. Some of the instances of paronomasia, collected by commentators from the writings of Paul, give no evidence of having been designed by him. Others were doubtless designed. In the discourses of Jesus," says Winer," which were spoken in the Syro Chaldaic, there were probably many examples of paronomasia, which would of course be entirely lost in a Greek translation."-TR.]

dropped for Menelaus, Hillel for Pollio, Joakim for Alcimus, Joannes for Hyrcanus: see Grot. ad. Act. xiii. 9. Whether Paul conformed to this custom, or whether, as other converted Jews did, he changed his name at the same time with his faith, cannot be determined. Ammon on Rom 1: 1, supposes the latter to be the fact. Jerome, Catal. C. 5. supposes that he changed his name as soon as he had been made the instrument of converting Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul of Cyprus: Acts 13: 6—12. This is mere conjecture. Chrysost., On the Change of Men's Names, states various reasons for the change of Saul into Paul. He rejects the idea that the etymology of the words determined the change; that the word Saul was derived from σaleve and designated a persecutor, and the word Paul from лavoaodai and designated a protector, defender of the church. He seems to think that the Holy Spirit gave a new name to Paul, so that He might signify his authority over the converted man; just as a master gives a new name to a slave whom he purchases. The name is a sign of ownership. He supposes that Paul did not change his name immediately after his conversion, because by so early a change, it would not be so extensively known that he was the same Saul who once persecuted the church. Neander says, that Saul was the Hebrew, and Paul the Hellenistic name; Lightfoot, that he was called Saul as a Jew and Paul as a Gentile, particularly as the apostle to the Gentiles: Light. Works, VIII. pp. 462, 463. XII. p. 456.

Family connections of the Apostle. His parents were descendants of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Phil. 3: 5. Rom. 11:1. His father was a Pharisee, Acts 23: 6. 26: 5. Phil. 3: 5. He had a sister whose son was a Christian, and a discreet person, and very useful to his uncle Paul when a prisoner at Jerusalem, Acts 23: 16-22. This nephew's conduct cannot be thought of without admiration and gratitude. Some others of his relatives are mentioned by him in his epistle to the Romans, who also were believers in Jesus, and several of them had been so before himself; which may be reckoned a proof of the virtue and piety of this family. Their names are Andronicus and Junias, whom he calls his kinsmen.' By the words σvyyeviç μov, Rom. 16: 7, he must mean something more than his countrymen.' He speaks in the like manner of Herodian, v. 11, and also of Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, v. 21.' Lardner, Works, Vol. V. p. 473. Tholuck on Rom. 16: 7 says, "Zvyyɛvns may designate these individuals as the apostle's relatives, and may also merely denote that they were of Jewish extraction. The latter is the more probable. See vs. 11 and 21, and also Rom. 9: 3." See also Wahl's Lexicon on the word συγγενῆς.

66

66

· Birth-place of the Apostle. Jerome says, Catal. c. 5, " Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, and of the city of Gischala, in Galilee. When this city was taken by the Romans, he removed with his parents to Tarsus in Cilicia." This assertion is directly opposed to the account in Acts 22: 3, that he was "born in Tarsus in Cilicia." See also