know’ (Job 38% AV ‘answer thou me’); ‘Gather my saints together unto me’ (Ps 50°). Nay, even sayings of Jesus are reported which exhibit the use of Irony. Amongst these we do not include xafev- dere TO Nourdy Kal dvamavecbe, AV and RV ‘Sleep on now and take your rest’ (Mt 26% || Mk 14%), for 7d Nourdy means ‘ later,’ ‘afterwards.’* But Irony is present (cf. Stilistik, p. 43) in the words ‘ Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition’ (Mk 7°). There are other undoubted occurrences of the same figure, as, for instance, in Jn 7%8 ‘ Ye both know me, and ye know whence Iam.’ To the Biblical writers Irony was simply what it is to human speech in general—a means of heightening the effect of an utterance. A similar intention underlies the occurrence of Sarcasm in Scripture. There is a scoff in David’s question to Abner, ‘Art thou not a valiant man?’ (1 S 26), as well as in the exclamation ‘ How hast thou helped him that is without power !’ (Job 267), or the statement ‘As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discre- tion’ (Pr. 11”). Then there are the numerous familiar passages in which the gods of the heathen are the object of satirical persiflage: ‘ Elijah mocked them and said, Cry aloud, for he isa god, either he is talking,’ ete. (1 K 18; cf. Ps 115**, Ts 409 etc.). We have similar instances of satire in the question ‘Is this the city that men called the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth ?’ (La 2'5); in the affirmation ‘They that be whole need not a physician’ (Mt 9); and in the indig- nant substitution of ‘concision’ (xararouj) for ‘circumcision’ (mepiroun) in Ph 3? (cf. Stilistik, pp. 42-45). The Biblical writers, in short, avail themselves of all natural means of reaching their end, to teach and to warn men. In this respect as in others their heart was filled with the wish ex- pressed by the apostle in the words ‘I desire to change my voice’ (Gal. 4°).
4, The writers of Scripture sought to give to their words that ennobling effect which springs from regard to purity or chastity. Of this we find a considerable number of positive traces in the so- called Euphemisms such as the following: ‘Adam knew Eve his wife’ (Gn 41”; cf. v.17 19% 8 2416 3826, Nu 3] '%- aos Jg 11°9 1925 oy. nS bees 1K 12 Mt 1°, Lk 1%); ‘The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men’ (Gn 61; ef. 16? 19%! 29% 308: 16 38% 8 etc., Ps 512 etc.) ; ‘come near her’ (Gn 204, Lv 1814, Dt 2214, Is 83, Ezk 188) ; ‘to touch her’ (Gn 20°, Pr 6, 1 Co 7!); ‘lie with’ (Gn 19% 261° 301! 342-7 35” ete.) ; ‘Thou wentest up to thy father’s bed’ (494); ‘discover his father’s skirt’ (Dt 22°° 27°°) ; ‘she eateth,’ said of the adulteress (Pr 30°; cf. Stiistik, p. 39); ‘Let the husband render unto the wife dwe benevolence’ (1 Co 73). Another series is Pe estat by euphemistice ex- pressions like the following : ‘the nakedness’ (Gn g72t-, Ex 20% 28% Ly 18% 20U%, 1S 20° Is 478, La 18, Ezk 16° 2910 231); «her young one that cometh out from between her feet’ (Dt 28°"); “he covereth his feet’ (Jg 34, 1S 24°, cf. Is 7°); ‘flesh? (Liv 15% 9 164, Ezk 167 23° 447 ete. ; cf. Stilistik, pp. 36-38).—There are only a few passages where it appears to us that the Biblical writers might have shown a little more reserve in dealing with ‘the secrets’ (Dt 25"). We have no exception to take to those instances in which ‘shame’ is employed (Is 204 47%), for this is still a veiled epithet. But the impression of a want of delicacy is given by modes of speech like the following: ‘He lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill,’ ete. (1S 28); ‘I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets’ (Ps 18%) ; ‘Thou didst make us as the off.
* The present writer in his Stilistik (p. 48) anticipated Pro-
fessor Potwin (see Hapos. Times, Aug. 1901, p. 481), who rightly denies the presence of Irony in the above passage.
| ‘and I will bring into desolation .
STYLE OF SCRIPTURE
scouring,’ ete. (La 3%, 1 Co 41°); ‘ Dost thou pursue after a dead dog, after a flea?’ (18 24"); ‘Am TI a dog’s head?’ (2S 38); ‘a dead dog’ (98 17%) ; ‘The carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the earth’ (2 K 9%); ‘They made it a draught-house’ (102) ; ‘that they may eat their own dung,’ ete. (1827 || Is 36") ; ‘They became as dung for the earth’ (Ps 834). Two facts, however, have to be taken into account with reference to such modes of expression. In the first place, they are in accordance with the fashion of earlier times, and were not so repugnant to men then as they are tous. But, further, the choice of such strong ex- pressions served in some of the passages in question to increase the emphasis of the prophetic denuncia- tion. This latter point of view helps us also to explain and to excuse certain passages in Ezekiel, notably 16°": and 23°%-, We may assume that in these passages the idolatry of Israel is described in such detail as adultery, in order to deter sub- sequent generations from a repetition of this sin. At the same time, it must be admitted that the pisehes could equally have achieved his purpose by a different method of treatment. In like manner, the description of the ‘navel’ and the ‘belly’ of the Shulammite (Ca 72") is somewhat too realistic.