The question whether Paul was married. His views on the place of
woman.

35. Perhaps Acts xxvi. 11 may not imply that any of the Christians
yielded to his endeavors to make them blaspheme.

15. _What was the Latin name for a town enjoying the political
privileges possessed by Tarsus?_

16. _What are Paul's principal metaphors?_

17. _Where does he make this boast?_

19. _What was the Latin name for the Roman citizenship, and what
privileges did it include? On what occasions is Paul recorded to have
used it? On what occasions might he have been expected to use it, when
he omitted to do so? What reasons may be given for the omission?_

20. _Name friends of Paul who were engaged in the same trade as he._

21. _Give Paul's quotations from the Greek poets. Do you know the
authors he quoted from? Explain Septuagint and Diaspora._

22. _Where does Paul refer to the sophists and rhetoricians?_

26. _Make a collection of Paul's quotations from the Old Testament,
showing whence each of them was taken._

28. _What does Paul mean by the Law?_

32. _Trace out the points of contact between the language and views of
Stephen's speech and those of Paul. Explain--_

"_Si Stephanus non orasset_,
_Ecclesia Paulum non haberet._"

34. _Where is it said that Paul voted in the Sanhedrim?_

45. _Collect Paul's references to the persecution and bring out how
severe it was._

CHAPTER III

On Paul's mental processes before and at the time of his conversion see
Principal Rainy's lecture, already quoted.

The conversion of Paul is one of the strong apologetic positions of
Christianity. See this worked out in Lyttelton's _Conversion of St.
Paul_. But it might be worked out afresh on more modern lines.

40. Principal Rainy, in the lecture above referred to, says that he
sees no evidence of such a conflict as this in Paul's mind; but what,
then, is the meaning of "It is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks"?

41. The general tenor of the earliest Christian apologetic, as it is
to be found in the speeches of the Acts of the Apostles.

44. Nothing could be more alien to the spirit of the New Testament
than to turn this round the other way, and, assuming that what Paul saw
was only a vision, argue that the other appearances of Christ, because
they are put on the same level, may have been only visions too. This
is a mere stroke of dialectical cleverness, which shows no regard to
the obviou