Chapter VIII: Summing-Up and Formulation of the Problem . . . 237 (9)

Theology has heretofore found itself rather helpless in presence of the votaries of Comparative Religion. It could not accept their results as correct, but on the other hand it was not in a position to explain Paul’s sacramental views, because it had never taken into consideration the possibility that they might have arisen out of the Jewish and primitive Christian future-hope. There was thus no course open to it but to engage in an inglorious guerilla warfare with the new science and skirmish with [pg 244] it over particular passages and statements. It is only the acceptance of the fact that the Apostle’s doctrine is integrally, simply and exclusively eschatological, which puts it in a position to assume the offensive in a systematic way and with good prospect of success.

The Apostle’s most general views must be taken as the starting point from which to explain how he arrives at the paradox that the believer is united with Christ, experiences along with Him death and resurrection, and becomes a new creature, emancipated from fleshly corporeity. The assertion that these statements are meant in a “physical” sense does not carry us very far. The reason which explains their “reality” must be shown. Simply in and by themselves they are not explicable. What has been advanced regarding the solidarity of Jesus with the human race is far from sufficing to make it in any degree intelligible, especially as Paul has not in view Christ and humanity, but Christ and the elect.

The mistake in the attempts at explanation hitherto made consists in the fact that they seek to argue from the facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus, simply as such, directly to that which takes place in the believer. In reality, it can only be a question of a general event, which in the time immediately preceding the End brings about this dying and rising again in Jesus and believers as together forming a single category of mankind, and thus antedates the future into the present. For that which happens both to the Lord and to the elect it must be possible to find some kind of common-denominator which exactly contains the factors, the forces which are at work in the two cases. Since those which produce their effect in Christ are the first to become manifest, Paul can cast his theory into the form that the believers have died and risen again with Him.

The general fact which comes into question must result from the condition of the world between the death of Jesus and His parousia. The Apostle asserts an overlapping of the still natural, and the already supernatural, [pg 245] condition of the world, which becomes real in the case of Christ and believers in the form of an open or hidden working of the forces of death and resurrection—and becomes real in them only. The doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the mystical doctrine of redemption are alike cosmically conditioned.

It is not sufficient, however, to explain the mystical doctrine and the sacramental doctrine which is bound up with it. To the problem of Paulinism belong other distinct questions which have not yet found a solution. The primary questions are the relation of the Apostle to the historical Jesus, his attitude towards universalism_(_195_)_ and towards the law, and the nature of his compromise between predestinarian and sacramental doctrine.

Will his views on these points, which it has hitherto been impossible to grasp clearly, similarly admit of explanation on the basis of the unique cosmic conditions obtaining between the death of Christ and the parousia? It is to be noticed that the Apostle does not advance his assertions with reference either to earlier or to subsequent times, but simply and solely for this short intervening period. Their explanation is therefore doubtless to be looked for here.

Paul must have had more knowledge about Jesus than he uses in his teachings and polemics. His procedure is deliberate. He does not appeal to the Master even where it might seem inevitable to do so, as in regard to the ethics and the doctrine of the significance of His death and resurrection; and in fact declares that as a matter of principle he desires no longer to “know Christ after the flesh.” Psychological considerations are quite inadequate to explain these facts. It is as though he held that between the present world-period and that in which Jesus lived and taught there exists no link of connexion, and was convinced that since the death and resurrection of the Lord conditions were present which [pg 246] were so wholly new that they made His teaching inapplicable, and rendered necessary a new basis for ethics and a deeper knowledge respecting His death and resurrection.

The case lies similarly in regard to the Apostle’s views about universalism and the law.

It was not by his experiences among the Gentiles that he was led to universalism. And the thought is not simply that mission work among the heathen ought to be _permitted._ He maintains the view that there is a pressing necessity to carry the Gospel abroad. It is under the impulsion of this thought that he becomes the Apostle of the Greeks.

The sole and sufficient reason for this view he finds in the peculiar condition of the world between the death and the parousia of Christ. To it are due the conditions in consequence of which a share in the privileges of Israel is open to the Gentiles without their being obliged, by taking upon them the law and its sign, to enter into union with Israel. In saying this it is not the Apostle’s meaning that they merely do not _need_ to do so; they _must not_ do so, on pain of losing their salvation.

Since Ritschl, the representatives of the history of dogma have been concerned to obscure the problem of the law in Paul and to turn theology into paths of easiness. They assert that it was a purely practical question, which did not touch doctrine in the strict sense. This was the expedient by which they escaped from the difficulty when it was raised by Baur. It is time that it should be given up.

When Paul proclaims that the Greeks do not need to submit to the law, he is not led to do so by the experience that this was reasonable and practical. He declares them free because the logical implications of his doctrine compel him to do so. What Jesus thought about the matter is just as indifferent to him as His opinion regarding the legitimacy of preaching to the Gentiles. The peculiar conditions of the time between His death and [pg 247] His parousia forbid any extension of the law to believers outside of Israel. On the other hand, these conditions require that believers belonging to the Chosen People must continue to practise it as before. The assertion of the non-validity of the law is never intended by Paul in a sense which would justify the inference of its total abolition for all believers. It has received its death-blow, but retains its position outwardly up to the time of the parousia. For this limited period the watchword is: he who is under the law shall continue to observe it; he who is free from it shall on no account place himself under it. From one and the same fact two diametrically opposite conclusions are drawn; for so the unique character of the time demands.

What is the relation between predestination and the sacraments? Why do the elect of the final generation need a provision which was not made for those of earlier generations? This too must result from the unique character of the time. The only logical assumption is that to this special provision corresponds a special blessedness, going beyond the ordinary blessedness involved in election as such, which is reserved for the final generation and cannot be obtained otherwise than through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But wherein does it consist?

All these questions are, like the mystical doctrine, to be answered by reference to the special conditions of the period between the death of Jesus and the parousia. It must be possible to refer back the whole of the teachings to one and the same fundamental fact. It follows that there must be no more talking about the “uniqueness of the event at Damascus” and psychologising about Paul’s “religious experience,” no more spiritualising and modernising, no making play with the distinction between religion and theology, or with the discovery or concealment of contradictions and antinomies, or other similar exercises of ingenuity.

All explanations which represent the system of doctrine [pg 248] as something arising subjectively in the Apostle’s mind may be assumed _a priori_ to be false. Only those which seek to derive it objectively from the fundamental facts of the primitive eschatological belief are to be taken into consideration. The only kind of interpretation which can be considered historical is one which makes it clear how a man who believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus and His imminent parousia was, in virtue of that belief, in a position to understand the thoughts of the Apostle of the Gentiles and to follow his arguments, and was logically obliged to accept them.

And, finally, the solution must explain the enigmatic attitude which subsequent generations take up in regard to the Apostle of the Gentiles. They know him, but they owe no allegiance to him. He created no school. The theology of an Ignatius or a Justin does not attach itself to him. There is something more in this than a simple oversight. If these theologians do not turn to him for aid, though he stands like a giant among them, that must be due to the fact that it is impossible to do so, and that in the course of the natural development of things they have been led to follow quite other paths.

For some reason or other, the conditions under which he created his system must be for them unimaginable. It is true they are still in the period between the death and the parousia of Jesus, but they can no longer interpret it in the same way as the Apostle did. Why are they no longer able to bring into play the forces which he assumes to be in operation when he refers everything to the dying and rising again of Christ and the believer? Which of his presuppositions is for them lacking? May it be that the intensity of the eschatological expectation has so declined that the mysticism associated therewith can no longer maintain its ground?

The Ultra-Tübingen critics demanded of theology proof that the canonical Paul and his Epistles belonged to early Christianity; and the demand was justified.

The question is not to be decided in the domain of [pg 249] literary history, since the only thing we have to deal with is the self-witness of the Epistles, which can neither be strengthened nor shaken by indications drawn from elsewhere.

Argument and counter-argument must be drawn from the contents. The theological scholarship which had to meet the attacks of Steck and van Manen had no solid arguments to oppose to them. Its Paulinism was so complicated, Hellenised and modernised, that it could at need find a place in theological text-books, but not in primitive Christianity. On the other hand, an explanation which shows that the Apostle’s system is based on the most primitive eschatological premises, and at the same time makes it intelligible why subsequent generations could not continue to follow the road on which he started, thereby demonstrates his primitive Christianity and, to this extent, also the genuineness of his chief Epistles. The possibility that they might be primitive-Christian, and yet not written by the historic Apostle of the Gentiles, hardly calls for serious consideration.

Any one who works out this solution is the true pupil of Baur, however widely he may diverge from him in his views and results. By unequivocally determining the date of the writings in question on internal grounds and excluding all other possibilities he is exercising “positive criticism” in the sense intended by the Tübingen master, and justifies him in the face of the adversaries against whom he can no longer defend himself.

It may no doubt prove to be the case that this “positive” criticism will appear distressingly negative to those who look for results which can be immediately coined into dogmatic and homiletic currency.

Their opinion, however, is of small importance.

It is the fate of the “Little-faiths” of truth that they, true followers of Peter, whether they be of the Roman or the Protestant observance, cry out and sink in the sea of ideas, where the followers of Paul, believing in the Spirit, walk secure and undismayed.

[pg 251]

INDEX

Ammon, C. F. von, 3 n.
Anrich, Gustav, 179, 189, 231
Aratus, 94
Aubertin, Charles, 95 n.
Augustine, 95 n.
Aurelian, 181

Baljon, J. M. S., 117, 118, 125, 148 n.
Bauer, Bruno, 24, 28, 117, 120 ff.
Baumgarten, Michael, 96 n.
Baumgarten, S. J., 1, 3
Baur, F. C., 12 ff., 20 f., 25, 33, 81, 118 f.
Baur, F. F., 20 n.
Beyschlag, Willibald, 22, 26, 41
Bousset, W., 48 n., 151, 152, 162
Brandt, W., 24, 60 n.
Brückner, Martin, 152, 171, 179, 193 n.
Brückner, Wilhelm, 118, 134 n.
Bruston, E., 24, 74 n.

Caligula, 184
Calvin, 33
Claudius, 183
Clemen, Karl, 118, 179, 189 n.
Clement of Rome, 119, 128, 135
Cumont, Franz, 179, 181, 183 n., 185 n., 192
Curtius, Ernst, 24, 87, 94 n.

Dähne, A. F., 2, 10 n.
Deissmann, Adolf, 23, 60 n., 153, 172 n., 179, 189 n.
De Jong, H. E., 181
Delitzsch, Franz, 23, 47
De Wette, W. M. L., 2, 10 n.
Dibelius, Martin, 152, 162 n.
Dick, Karl, 151, 155 n.
Dieterich, Albrecht, 179, 186 ff., 190, 193 n., 194, 195, 228 n., 230
Dobschütz, Ernst von, 152, 169
Domitian, 128
Drescher, A., 151, 153, 159 n.
Drews, Arthur, 179, 234 f.

Eichhorn, Albert, 179, 205
Eichhorn, J. G., 1, 8 f., 15
Epictetus, 95
Ernesti, Fr. Th. L., 23, 95 n.
Ernesti, J. A., 1, 3 f.
Evanson, E., 117, 121 n.
Everling, Otto, 23, 55 f.

Feine, Paul, 151, 152, 156 ff., 165
Fleury, Amédée, 95 n.
Friedländer, M., 117, 124 n.
Friedrich (Maehliss), 117, 135 n.

Gass, J. C., 7
Gass, W., 24, 95 n.
Geffken, J., 179, 189 n.
Gennrich, P., 179, 191 n.
Gloël, J., 23, 78 n.
Godet, F., 22, 26 n.
Goguel, M., 152, 159 f.
Grafe, E., 23, 44, 90 f., 111
Gressmann, H., 152, 162 n.
Grotius, Hugo, 1, 2
Gruppe, Otto, 179, 181 n., 193 n.
Gunkel, H., 23, 78 f., 111, 179, 189 n., 232 f., 236

Hadrian, 122
Harnack, Adolf, vi, 25, 63, 69, 81 f., 83, 84, 90, 113, 114 f., 151,
152, 160, 173, 180, 189 n., 231
Hatch, Edwin, 25, 82
Hausrath, Adolf, 22
Haussleiter, J., 152, 172
Havet, E., 23, 54, 63
Hegel, 15, 16, 21
Heinrici, G. F., 24, 45, 63 n., 67, 80 n., 87, 93, 117, 151, 162 n.
Heitmüller, W., 152, 165, 180, 204 ff., 208 n.
Heliogabalus, 181
Hepding, H., 180, 182, 184
Hilgenfeld, A., 129
Hofmann, C. K. von, 22, 41
Hollmann, G., 151, 211 n.

[pg 252]

Holsten, K., 22, 23, 35, 38 f., 63, 66 ff., 105, 113, 114 f.
Holtzmann, H. J., 22, 24, 25 f., 100, 116, 149 f., 153, 163 f., 221 n.

Ignatius, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 127, 135, 200, 248

Jacoby, Adolf, 180, 193 n.
Jakoby, Hermann, 151, 160 f.
Jerome, 95 n.
Josephus, 51
Julian, 181 n.
Jülicher, Adolf, 22, 152, 170 n.
Juncker, Alfred, 152, 160 f.
Justin Martyr, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 128, 132, 135, 136, 200, 217,
248

Kabisch, R., 23, 58 ff., 74, 76, 108, 111, 168, 174,222
Kalthoff, A., 117, 123 n.
Kant, 112, 118
Karl, W., 81 n., 152
Kautzsch, E. F., 23, 88
Knopf, R., 152, 172 ff.
Kölbing, P., 152, 170 ff.
Kreyer, J., 95 n.

Lechler, G. V., 12, 18
Lightfoot, John, 48 n.
Lipsius, R. A., 12, 19 f., 24, 64 n.
Loman, A. D., 117, 124 f., 140, 153
Loofs, F., 63 n., 173 n.
Lüdemann, H., 23, 28 ff., 34 f., 62 f., 66, 71, 86, 163
Luther, 33, 50

Manen, W. C. van, 117, 125, 129 ff., 140, 153
Marcion, 113, 128 f.
Marcus Aurelius, 96 n., 98, 122
Mau, Georg, 180, 181 n.
Maurenbrecher, Max, 180, 232 f.
Mehlhorn, Karl, 38 n.
Ménégoz, L. E., 23, 31, 35
Meuschen, J. G., 48 n.
Meyer, Arnold, 152, 170 n.
Meyer, G. W., 2, 9 n.
Michaelis, J. D., 1, 5 n., 7
Müller, Iwan, 181 n.
Müller, J., 153, 172 n.
Munzinger, Karl, 152, 154 n.

Naber, S. A., 123
Neander, J. A. W., 2, 10 n.
Nork, J., 48 n.

Olschewski, W., 152, 171 n.

Paulus, H. E. G., 2, 10 f.
Pfleiderer, Otto, 22, 23, 31, 34, 35, 63, 66 ff., 76, 80, 90, 111, 114
f., 151, 154
Philo, 51, 91, 98, 110
Pierson, Allard, 117, 123
Plato, 211
Preuschen, E., 82 n.
Ptolemy Soter, 184

Rambach, J. J., 1, 3
Reinach, S., 180, 181 n.
Reitzenstein, R., 180, 188 n., 208 n., 212 n., 216 n., 218 ff., 225,
230
Renan, Ernest, 22, 35
Resch, A., 23, 42 n.
Reuss, E., 22, 24, 31, 35
Ritschl, Albrecht, 12, 16 f., 23, 40 f., 43, 83, 84
Rohde, E., 180, 181, 185 n.
Roscher, H. R., 180
Rothe, R., 56

Sabatier, A., 22, 32, 35
Schettler, A., 152, 172 n.
Schläger, G., 117
Schlatter, A., 152
Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 1, 7 f.
Schmidt, Ernst, 182 n.
Schmiedel, P. W., 24, 63, 88, 103
Schnedermann, G., 45 n.
Schniewind, J., 153, 172 n.
Scholten, J. H., 117, 134 n.
Schopenhauer, 118
Schöttgen, C., 48 n.
Schrader, Karl, 2, 10 n.
Schürer, Emil, 24, 45
Schwartz, E. E., 180, 219
Schwegler, A., 12, 16
Schweitzer, A., 170
Seeberg, R., 152, 173
Semler, J. S., 1, 4 f., 148
Seneca, 95 f., 122
Siegfried, K., 24, 91 n.
Simon, Theodor, 24, 96 n.
Smith, W. B., 180, 234 f.
Sokolowski, E., 151, 160 n.
Soltau, W., 180, 189 n.
Spiegelberg, W., 212 n.
Spitta, F., 52 n., 118, 149
Steck, Rudolf, 117, 125, 128 n., 129 ff., 140, 141, 153
Sulze, E., 118, 143
Surenhus (Surenhuys), W., 48 n.

Teichmann, Ernst, 24, 74 ff.
Tertullian, v, 95, 128, 129, 200
Titius, Arthur, 151, 156 ff., 165

[pg 253]

Usener, H., 180, 181
Usteri, L., 2, 9 f.

Vischer, E., 152, 153, 172 n.
Volck, W., 26 n., 41 n.
Volkmar, G., 23
Vollmer, H., 24, 48 n., 88, 91
Völter, Daniel, 118, 143 ff.
Volz, Paul, 152, 162 n.

Walther, W., 152, 170 n.
Weber, F., 24, 45
Weinel, Heinrich, 151, 154 f., 165 n.
Weiss, Bernhard, 22, 27 n., 35, 41, 54, 64, 66, 69
Weiss, Johannes, 152, 170 n.
Weisse, C. H., 24, 28, 118, 141 f.
Weizsäcker, Karl von, 23, 35, 64, 65 f., 69, 128 n.
Wellhausen, J., 46 n., 152, 159 n.
Wendland, P., 180, 189 n.
Wendt, H. H., 23, 30 n.
Wernle, P., 24, 60 n., 151, 154 f., 180, 210 f.
Wieseler, K., 12, 15
Windisch, H., 152, 161 n.
Wobbermin, G., 180
Wolf, J. C., 1, 3
Wrede, William, 100, 152, 166 ff., 177
Wünsch, R., 187 n.

Zahn, Theodor, 22, 25, 96 n.
Zeller, E., 20 n.
Ziegler, Theobald, 24, 95 n.
Zwingli, 33

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. Clark, Limited, _Edinburgh_.

FOOTNOTES

NOTES FOR PREFACE

1 Sub-title: _“Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung.”_ English translation “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” London, A. & C. Black, 1910, 2nd ed. 1911.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

2 In the Amsterdam edition of the whole in 1679, the _Annotationes_ on the Pauline Epistles (1009 pp.), with those on the other Epistles and the Apocalypse, form vol. iii.

3 1723, 822 pp.

4 1st ed. 1742; 2nd, 1745, 232 pp. (For title see head of chapter.)

5 Bâle, 1741. Five vols., covering the whole of the New Testament. The Pauline Epistles are treated in the 3rd (820 pp.) and 4th (837 pp.). The full title is: Curae philologicae et criticae . . . quibus integritati contextus Graeci consulitur, sensus verborum ex praesidiis philologicis illustratur, diversae Interpretum Sententiae summatim enarrantur et modesto examini subjectae vel approbantur vel repelluntur.

6 135 pp. Later editions 1765, 1774, 1792, 1809. The last two were brought out under the care of Ammon.

7 Four parts. Parts i. and ii. form the first volume (424 pp.), part iii. = vol. ii. (396 pp.), part iv. = vol. iii. (396 pp.). Part i. is occupied with the general principles of exegesis, part ii. with the text of the Old Testament, parts iii. and iv. with that of the New Testament.

8 Four volumes. The first (in the reprint of 1776, 333 pp.): On the natural conception of Scripture. The second (in the first edition, 1772, 608 pp.): On Inspiration and the Canon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. Third (1st ed., 1773, 567 pp.): On the History of the Canon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. The fourth (1775, 460 pp.) is wholly occupied by an answer to the work of a certain Dr. Schubert.

This often mentioned but little read work does not therefore present exactly the appearance that might be expected from its title. The polemical replies occupy a much larger space than the original arguments.

9 298 pp. A striking and brilliantly written work.

10 _Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Romanos . . . cum Dissertatione de Appendice, capp._ xv. et xvi., 1769, 311 pp. (Dedicated to Johann August Ernesti.)

_Paraphrasis in Primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam,_ 1770, 540 pp. (Dedicated to Johann David Michaelis.)

_Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthios,_ 1776, 388 pp. Each of these works contains a preface of some length on the principles of historical exegesis. As a specimen of the paraphrase we may quote that of Rom. vi. I: Jam si haec est Evangelii tam exoptata hominibusque cunctis tam frugifera doctrina, num audebimus statuere, perseverare nos tamen posse in ista peccandi consuetudine, ut quasi eo fiat amplior gratiae divinae locus?

11 Johann David Michaelis, _Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Bundes,_ 1st ed., 1750. In its successive editions this work dominates the theology of all the latter half of the eighteenth century; at the beginning of the nineteenth it is superseded by Eichhorn’s Introduction. The third edition (1777) contains 1356 pp. The Pauline Epistles occupy pp. 1001-1128.

12 _Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1790, 566 pp. _Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 4 vols., 1790-92. The Pauline Epistles are treated in vols. iii. and iv.

13 Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher, _Über den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an Joachim Christian Gass,_ 1807. In his complete works this is to be found in the second volume of the first division, 1836, pp. 223-320.

14 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, _Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1st ed., vol. iii., second half (1814), pp. 315-410.

Eichhorn points out that he had recognised the spuriousness of the three Pastoral Epistles, and had expressed his conviction in his University lectures before Schleiermacher published his criticisms of the First Epistle of Timothy.

15 Leonhard Usteri, _Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_ 1824, 191 pp. The editions of 1829, 1830, and 1832 were revised by the author, who died in 1833. After his death two more appeared (1834, 1851). Reference may be made also to Usteri’s “Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,” 1833, 252 pp.

16 The first work which undertook to give an account of the Apostle’s system of thought as such is Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer’s _Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_ 1801, 380 pp. The author has collected the material well, but does not know in what direction Paul’s peculiarity lies.

17 Of the works which criticise Usteri and mark an advance in Pauline study the following may be named:—

Karl Schrader, _Der Apostel Paulus;_ vols. i., 1830 (264 pp.), and ii., 1832 (373 pp.), deal with the life of the Apostle Paul; vol. iii., 1833 (331 pp.), with the doctrine; vols. iv., 1835 (490 pp.), and v., 1836 (574 pp.), contain the exposition of the Epistles.

August Ferdinand Dähne, _Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_ 1835, 211 pp.

Mention may also be made of the chapter on Paulinism in J. A. W. Neander’s _Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel,_ 1st ed., 1832; 2nd ed., 1st vol., 1838 (433 pp.). Paul is treated in pp. 102-433; 4th ed., 1847; 5th, 1862. As typical of the exegesis of the period prior to Baur may be mentioned the Commentaries of W. M. L. de Wette on Romans (2nd ed.), 1838; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1841; Galatians and Thessalonians, 1841.

18 H. E. G. Paulus, _Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und Römer-Christen,_ 1831, 368 pp.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER II BAUR AND HIS CRITICS

19 Albert Schwegler, _Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung_ (“The Post-Apostolic Age in the main Features of its Development”), 1846, vol. i. 522 pp., vol. ii. 392 pp. In the writings which mark the course of the development of Paulinism three groups are distinguished. To the first, the apologetic group, belongs the First Epistle of Peter; to the second, the conciliatory writings, are to be reckoned the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Epistle to the Philippians; the third is represented by the catholicising writings, the Pastorals, the Letter of Polycarp, and the Ignatian Letters.

20 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, eine kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Monographie,_ 1850, 622 pp.; 2nd ed., 1857, 605 pp.

21 Gotthard Viktor Lechler, _Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rücksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben_ ( . . . with special reference to their difference and unity in life and doctrine), 1st ed., 1852; 2nd ed., 1857, 536 pp. The portion dealing with Paul is pp. 33-154; in the 3rd ed., 1885 (635 pp.) Paul is treated on pp. 269-407.

In the first two editions the whole of the Pauline epistles are regarded as genuine; in the third the author no longer ventures to treat the Pastorals as on the same footing with the other Epistles. The very clearly and comprehensively stated problem is printed at the beginning.

22 _Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre,_ 1853, 219 pp.

23 In 1850, _Beiträge zur Erklärung der Korinthesbriefe,_ pp. 139-185. Continued in 1852, pp. 1-40 and 535-574. In 1855, _Die beiden Briefe an die Thessalonicher; ihre Achtheit und Bedeutung für die Lehre der Parusie Christi, pp._ 141-168 ( . . . their genuineness and their significance for the doctrine of the parousia of Christ). In 1857, _Über Zweck und Gedankengang des Römerbriefs nebst der Erörterung einiger paulinischen Begriffe,_ pp. 60-108 and 184-209 (“On the Purpose and the Argument of Romans, with a Discussion of certain Pauline Conceptions.”)

24 _Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi,_ 2nd ed., edited by Zeller, 1866-1867, vol. i. 469 pp., revised by Baur; vol. ii. 376 pp. contains a reprint of the chapter on Paul’s doctrine from the first edition.

25 _Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie._ Published by Ferdinand Friedrich Baur, 1864, 407 pp. Pages 128-207 deal with the doctrinal system of Paul.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER III FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN

26 _Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt,_ 1880, 504 pp. Adolf Harnack (in _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius,_ vol. i., 1897, 732 pp.—on Paul, 233-239) is disposed to regard the personal notices of the Pastorals as genuine with the aid of the hypothesis of the second imprisonment.

27 _Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe,_ 1872, 338 pp.

28 _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1885; 2nd ed., 1886; 3rd ed., 1892. Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, spurious; Colossians, worked over. A similar critical stand-point is occupied by Adolf Jülicher, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1894, 404 pp. The Pauline Epistles are treated in pp. 19-128.

A mediating position is taken up by E. Reuss, _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_ (5th ed., 1874, 352 pp.; 6th ed., 1887). All that can be said in favour of the genuineness of the Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians is set forth with the greatest completeness, since the author is very reluctant to give up these writings. See the same author’s _Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique_ (1852; 2nd ed., 1860, 2 vols., i. 489 pp., ii. 629 pp. Paulinism is treated in vol. ii., 3-262; 3rd ed., 1864). Mild polemic against Baur. Another mediating work is Willibald Beyschlag’s _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ 1891; 2nd ed., 1896. Only the Pastorals spurious.

A conservative stand-point is occupied by Bernhard Weiss, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1886, 652 pp. Paul and his Epistles occupy pp. 112-332. The Pastoral Epistles are saved by the hypothesis of the second imprisonment. 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are held to be genuine (3rd ed., 1897, 617 pp.). Conservative also is Theodor Zahn, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1st ed., 1897, vol. i., 489 pp. Pauline Epistles, pp. 109-489. Ch. K. v. Hofmann in his _Einleitung_ (pt. ix. of “Die Heilige Schrift,” edited by Volck, 1881, 411 pp. Pauline Epistles, 1-200) proposes by means of the hypothesis of a liberation of the Apostle from his first imprisonment to make not only the Pastorals, but also the Epistle to the Hebrews genuine. That 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are genuine is for him self-evident. Frédéric Godet too _(Introduction au Nouveau Testament,_ 1893, 737 pp.) regards all thirteen Epistles as genuine.

29 Typical in this respect is the procedure of Bernhard Weiss in his _Neutestamentliche Theologie_ (1868). He treats the doctrine of the Epistles of the imprisonment and that of the Pastorals by themselves after he has developed that of the main Epistles, although he regards them all as Pauline.

30 _Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ 3 pts., 1850, 74 pp.; 1851, 76 pp.; 1852, 129 pp.; _Christus und die Cäsaren,_ 1877, 387 pp.

31 _Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe an die Galater, Römer Philipper und Kolosser._ Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp.

32 Lüdemann was opposed by H. H. Wendt in his work _Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch,_ 1878, 219 pp.

At the suggestion of Ritschl he undertook to prove that the meaning of these two words confined itself “within the boundaries set by Old Testament usage,” and that therefore the assumption of Greek influence was unnecessary.

33 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1887.

34 Auguste Sabatier, _L’Apôtre Paul, esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée,_ 1870, 296 pp. (2nd ed., 1881; 3rd ed., 1897).

35 _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ pt. 2 (edited by Mehlhorn), 1898, 172 pp.

36 P. 31.

37 _Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus,_ 1868, 447 pp. In this work the author collects some of his earlier and later essays. The following are its component parts, “Paul’s Vision of Christ” (1861), “Peter’s Vision of the Messiah” (1868), “Contents and Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians” (1859), “The Significance of the word _σάρξ_ (flesh) in Paul’s System of Doctrine” (1855). The collection is dedicated to F. C. Baur, “who though dead yet lives.” In the first part of the work _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1880, 498 pp., Holsten deals with the Epistle to the Galatians and the First to the Corinthians. The second part was intended to give an exposition of Romans and 2 Corinthians and to close with a systematic account of the Pauline theology. At Holsten’s death only the closing section was found to be ready for printing. It was published in 1898 under the editorship of Carl Mehlhorn, and bears the title “Carl Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, part ii., Paulinische Theologie,” 173 pp. What was thus published is based on a manuscript prepared for his lectures in the winter session of 1893-1894, and on students’ notes.

38 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,_ 1874, vol. ii. 377 pp. On Paul, pp. 215-259 and 300-369.

39 _Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments,_ 1st ed. 1868, 756 pp. On Paulinism, pp. 216-507; 6th ed. 1895, 677 pp. On Paulinism, 201-463.

40 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ 1st ed. 1891; 2nd ed. 1896, vol. ii. 552 pp. On Paul, pp. 1-285.

41 Ch. K. v. Hofmann, _Biblische Theologie_ (vol. xi. of “Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments”; edited by Volck), 1886, 328 pp.

42 _Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Kirche,_ vol. v., 1888, part iv. Alfred Resch, “Agrapha. Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente gesammelt und untersucht,” 480 pp. The “logia” numbered 13-46 he holds, on the evidence of echoes in the letters, to have been known to Paul. See pp. 152-243.

43 _Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz_ (“The Pauline Doctrine of the Law”). Based on the four main Epistles, 1884, 26 pp. The second edition (1893, 33 pp.) is a revision of the first, but in the results arrived at both agree.

44 _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte._ In the second edition the work bears the title _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (English Translation: “History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” Edinburgh, 1885). The second volume deals with the literature and the various currents of thought. There have since appeared a third and fourth edition.

45 _System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt,_ 399 pp. (Edited after the author’s death by Delitzsch and Schnedermann.)

The second edition (1897, 427 pp.) bears the title _Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften_ (“Jewish Theology described on the Basis of the Talmud and cognate Writings”).

The earlier literature is referred to in Hans Vollmer’s _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus_ (1895), 81 pp.

46 A typical utterance is that of J. Wellhausen _(Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte,_ 6th ed. 1907, 386 pp.), “Paul has not been able to free himself from the Rabbinic methods of exegesis. He employs it in his arguments, especially in connexion with justification by faith. But the inner essence of his religious conviction was not affected by it.”

47 _Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer in das Hebräische übersetzt, und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert,_ 1870, 122 pp.

At the beginning the author gives an interesting review of previous Hebrew translations of the whole New Testament or of single books. He also refers to the Rabbinic reasoning in the apostle’s arguments. The illustrations from the Rabbinic literature, pp. 73-100, follow the translation.

He expects as a result of this translation that it will bring into prominence the Old Testament, Rabbinic, and Hellenistic elements in the early Christian modes of thought and expression.

Earlier attempts to point out Rabbinic parallels to Pauline ideas were made by Lightfoot, Surenhus, Schöttgen, Meuschen, and Nork. Information about this literature will be found in Hans Vollmer’s work _(Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80, 81).

48 A good general idea of the Rabbinic literature as a whole is given by Bousset in his work _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_ 1903, 2nd ed., 1906, pp. 45-53.

49 Among the few scholars who stem the tide of conventional stupidity Frederick Spitta deserves a foremost place. In his printed works, no doubt—those in question are _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885, 544 pp.) and the studies _Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums_ (vol. i. 1893; vol. ii. 1896)—he is chiefly engaged in maintaining the general thesis that the earliest Christian literature shows much more dependence on the Late-Jewish than is generally admitted. A detailed proof of this kind for the Pauline letters has only been given in his exegetical lectures, which have not been published. The stimulus which he gave to others is clearly apparent in the literature of the nineties. Kabisch’s study of the eschatology of Paul (1893) is partly based on the foundation which he had prepared.

50 _Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie,_ 1888, 126 pp.

51 _Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus_ ( ... in its relations with the general conception of Paulinism), 1893, 338 pp. The work is dedicated to Friedrich Spitta. After a historical introduction, the principal passages which come into question are examined. After that the eschatology is developed according to its contents and motives, and in the process its relations with the various doctrines of the Pauline theology come up for discussion.

52 He did not, unfortunately, follow it up with the work on the Ethics.

53 The eschatological character of the Pauline mysticism is also pointed out by Paul Wernle in his suggestive study _Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus_ (1897, 138 pp.), but he does not follow out the idea in all its consequences.

A certain recognition of the “physical” character of the doctrine of redemption is also arrived at by Adolf Deissmann. In his study, _Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu”_ (1892, 136 pp.) he comes to the conviction that Paul had created the formula on the analogy of a linguistic usage already obtaining in non-biblical Greek, and intended in using it to indicate the relation to Christ as an existence within the pneumatic Christ which was to be locally conceived. He does not, however, think of explaining it from eschatology.

The old psychologising and spiritualising methods are in no way departed from by W. Brandt. In his work, _Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums_ (“The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity,” 1893, 591 pp.; on Paul, pp. 515-524), he maintains that it was the visions of the disciples which first made Jesus into the Messiah. Paul, he thinks, “in his profound reflexion over his conversion, came to think of this revolution in his life as a dying and rising again of his inner man.”

54 Georg Heinrici, _Auslegung der Korintherbriefe_ (I Cor., 1880, 574 pp.; 2 Cor., 1887, 606 pp.).

55 P. W. Schmiedel, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und Korinther,” in Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i.; 1st ed., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892.

56 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 3rd ed., 1894, vol. i. On Paul, pp. 83-95. Friedrich Loofs in his _Dogmengeschichte_ (1890, 443 pp.) takes up no definite attitude towards the Pauline problem. Reinhold Seeberg, too _(Dogmengeschichte,_ first half, 1895, 332 pp.), does not go into the doctrine of the Apostle.

57 R. A. Lipsius, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, Römer und Philipper,” in Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i. 1st ed., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892. This commentator’s position is indicated by the following remarks: “The great antithesis between flesh and spirit gradually forces out the Jewish conceptions one after another, though it is not right to say that Hebrew ideas are driven out by Hellenic ones. When Paul goes outside the circle of Old Testament views he does so in consequence of a deeper ethical grasp of the originally Hebrew antithesis between flesh and spirit, not by a borrowing of Greek ideas.”

58 _Das apostolische Zeitalter,_ 1886, pp. 105-151.

59 It is most clearly developed by Holsten on pp. 37 and 38 of the second part of his _Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1896.

60 Vol. i., 1880; vol. ii., 1887. See especially the Introduction and the Epilogue to vol. ii.

61 In Phil. i. 21 f. the reference is to an inner struggle which the Apostle experiences. He desires to depart and be with Christ, which, indeed, would be much better, but he knows that to remain in the flesh is more needful for the sake of his churches. From this conviction he draws the confident conclusion that he will remain with them for their progress and joy in the faith.

In Phil. iii. 8 he declares that he has counted all things but loss in order to win Christ and be found in Him, to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, to be conformed unto His death, if so be that he might attain (?) to the resurrection of the dead.

Both passages are certainly obscure, and do not to a literal interpretation yield any satisfactory meaning. One feels that the logic of these close-packed assertions is not self-evident, but must somehow depend on presuppositions of which the basis is not here given. It cannot, however, be maintained that the assumption of a spiritualising hope regarding the future makes all clear.

62 An allusion to the passage in _Faust,_ “Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in meiner Brust.”—TRANSLATOR.

63 Ernst Teichmann, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik_ (“The Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment and their relation to Jewish Apocalyptic”), 1896, 125 pp. Akin to Teichmann’s study is that of C. Bruston, “La Vie future d’après St Paul” in the _Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie_ (Lausanne), 1894, pp. 506-530. The author maintains that Paul had never really held the conceptions connected with the resurrection of the dead at the parousia, but had always thought “spiritually” and assumed a passing into glory immediately after death. But while in his earlier writings he still used certain expressions borrowed from the “Rabbinic eschatology,” later he quite abandoned these.

64 Hermann Gunkel, _Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus_ (“The Manifestations of the Holy Spirit according to the Popular View of the Apostolic Age and according to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul”), 1888, 110 pp. Shortly before that appeared the purely biblico-theological treatment of it by Johannes Gloël, _Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus_ (“The Holy Spirit in Paul’s Preaching of Salvation”), 1888, 402 pp. It keeps entirely to description and does not enter into the question regarding the origin and innermost essence of the Pauline doctrine. Pfleiderer’s view is, however, called in question.

65 _Urchristentum,_ 1887. Similarly Heinrici in his commentary on 2 Corinthians.

66 F. C. Baur, _Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte_ (“Lectures on the History of Dogma”), vol. i. From the apostolic period to the synod of Nicaea, 1865 (edited by Ferdinand Friedrich Baur).

67 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 1885, vol. i.; 3rd ed., 1894; 4th ed., 1909. Wilhelm Karl, too, in his _Beiträge zum Verständnis der soteriologischen Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus_ (“Contributions to the Understanding of the Soteriological Experiences and Speculations of the Apostle Paul,” 1899, 116 pp.), does not feel obliged to have recourse to Greek thought in order to explain the Apostle’s doctrine. He offers a thorough and independent analysis of the system which in many points is much superior to the ordinary view.

68 Edwin Hatch, Hibbert Lectures on “The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church.” The work was translated into German by Erwin Preuschen in 1892. Its divisions are: (i.) Introductory, (ii.) Greek culture, (iii.) Greek and Christian Exegesis, (iv.) Rhetoric, (v.) Philosophy, (vi.) Ethics, (vii.-ix.) Theology, (x.) Mysteries, (xi.) Corpus doctrinae, (xii.) The Transformation of the basis of Christian Unity: Doctrine in the Place of Conduct.

69 _i.e._ as used in this connexion, here and later, the belief in the universal destination of the Gospel, not in universal salvation.

70 _Paulus in Athen._ Collected Essays, vol. ii., 1894, pp. 527-543 In this essay the author seeks to exhibit with some fulness the view, which seems to him self-evident, that the Apostle was filled with the Hellenic spirit.

71 Preface to his Exposition of 2 Corinthians, 1887.

72 Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ 2nd ed. The Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 92.

73 Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, _De veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo allegatis,_ 1869, 110 pp.

74 Hans Vollmer, _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus . . . nebst einem Anhang über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ 1895, 103 pp. (“The Old Testament quotations in Paul . . . with an Appendix on the Apostle’s relation to Philo”).

75 The author has had occasion to observe this in Alsatian theologians and in himself. One who is equally familiar with French and German will never, either in preaching or in conversation, give his own version of Biblical passages, but will without exception keep to the traditional form in the language which he is using, and this even where he would be capable of giving a more exact rendering. And in preaching he will turn to account the peculiarities of the wording of the version, if it lends itself to his thought, and will even perhaps use an argument which goes against the sense of the original, which he is supposed to be acquainted with—exactly as Paul does.

76 Eduard Grafe, _Das Verhältnis der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salamonis_ (“The Relation of the Pauline Writings to the Book of Wisdom”), in the Theological Essays dedicated to Carl von Weizsäcker on his seventieth birthday, 1892, pp. 251-286.

77 _Über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ an appendix to his work on _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80-98. See also Carl Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet_ (“Philo of Alexandria as an Expositor of Scripture, considered both in Himself and in Regard to his Historical Influence”), 1875, 418 pp. In pp. 304-10 thoughts and passages are cited from Paul which are supposed to show affinity with Philo. The resemblance is, however, so general and colourless that it cannot be considered as proving anything. The author quotes the passages without drawing any conclusion.

78 Ernst Curtius in the essay cited above defends the historicity of Acts xvii.

79 W. Gass, _Geschichte der christlichen Ethik,_ 1881, vol. i. 457 pp. On Paul, pp. 34-38. Theobald Ziegler, _Geschichte der christlichen Ethik,_ 1886, 593 pp. On Paul, pp. 72-90.

80 Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ 1868, 155 pp.; 3rd ed., 1880.

81 The Christian character of Seneca’s thought was remarked as early as Tertullian, who in _de Anima,_ xx., when he quotes a phrase from him, describes him as “saepe noster.” Augustine and Jerome know of a correspondence between Seneca and the Apostle. From the literature we may mention the following works: Amédée Fleury, _Saint Paul et Sénèque. Recherches sur les rapports du philosophe avec l’apôtre et sur l’infiltration du Christianisme naissant à travers le paganisme,_ 2 vols., 1853, 404 and 383 pp. Seneca is supposed to have drawn on Paul. At the end of the second part the correspondence between them is printed. The work is uncritical in character. Johann Kreyher, L. _Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zur Urchristentum_ ( . . . and his relations with early Christianity), 1887, 198 pp. Seneca is supposed to have had some relations with Christianity in Rome even before the Apostle’s coming, and thenceforward to have entered into a close relationship with him. Charles Aubertin, _Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et St Paul,_ 1857, 442 pp. All connexion between Seneca and Christianity is denied. In the work of Michael Baumgarten, _Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christentum_ (1895, 368 pp.) no connexion between Seneca and Paul is admitted.

82 See Theodor Zahn, _Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum Christentum._ A Rectorial address at Erlangen, 1894, 27 pp. The lecture offers proof that in spite of many resemblances of expression and in spite of his acquaintance with Christianity, the teaching of Epictetus contains nothing which really connects it with the new religion.

Inconceivable as it may appear, even the _Meditations_ of Marcus Aurelius—of the second half of the second century—have been sometimes cited to prove the Greek character of Paul’s religious thought.

83 Theodor Simon, _Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus,_ 1897, 118 pp. A leisurely analysis of the material.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER IV H. J. HOLTZMANN

84 In connexion with the following remarks on questions of principle, see also W. Wrede, _Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie,_ 1897, 80 pp.

The essay discusses the plan and arrangement of Holtzmann’s work. On p. 32 Wrede remarks: “The treatment is far too much influenced by the desire to include all kinds of opinions from other writers. To a large extent my objections have to do with these methodological questions.”

85 Holtzmann, p. 111.

86 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 6, where Paul speaks of himself as “inexpert in speech, but not in knowledge” (_τῇ γνώσει_). See also I Cor. i. 5, viii. I; Phil. i. 9, etc. “Gnostic” is used above in the general sense of one who lays stress on theoretic religious knowledge.—TRANSLATOR.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER V CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

87 _Die Apostelgeschichte,_ 1850, 143 pp. Acts, it is argued, is a work of “free reflexion” in which various hands have had a part.

_Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ part i., The Origin of Galatians (1850, 74 pp.); part ii., The Origin of I Corinthians (1851, 76 pp.); part iii., 2 Corinthians, Romans, the Pastoral Epistles, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians (1852, 129 pp.). The greater part of the epistles were not written until after Acts. Certainly Galatians is later. I Corinthians is earlier than Acts, and is doubtless drawn from common sources.

The first to venture an attack on one of the main Epistles was Edward Evanson, _The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the evidence of their respective authenticity examined_ (translated into Dutch, 1796), who holds Romans, as well as Hebrews, Colossians, and Ephesians, to be spurious. Further information regarding this, as it seems, rather rare book would be desirable. Whether any great critical importance is to be attached to it remains questionable. [Evanson (1731-1805), a Cambridge graduate, vicar of Tewkesbury, adopted Unitarian views, and resigned his living in 1778. His grounds for rejecting Romans are, the difficulty about the existence of a church at Rome prior to Paul’s visit, the number of greetings in chapter xvi., and supposed references to the destruction of Jerusalem in xi. 12, 15, 21, 22. The treatment of the Epistles is much slighter than that of the Gospels, where he shows some insight into the difficulties of what is now known as the Synoptic problem. The _Dissonance_ made some stir, and was answered by Joseph Priestley in _Letters to a Young Man,_ 1792-93, and by T. Falconer, Bampton Lecture, 1810.—TRANSLATOR.]

88 See A. Schweitzer, _Von Reimarus zu Wrede,_ pp. 137-159 (Eng. trans., _The Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ pp. 137-160).

89 _Christus und die Cäsaren,_ 1877, 387 pp. What the diffusely told story of the Roman court has to do with the origin of Christianity has certainly never been quite clear to any reader. In attempting to describe its contents one is never quite certain whether the author’s meaning has been rightly represented.

90 A spiritual descendant of Bauer’s who writes on popular lines is Albert Kalthoff _(Die Entstehung des Christentums,_ 1904, 155 pp.). But neither as regards the problem nor its solution has he contributed anything to Pauline scholarship.

91 Allard Pierson, _De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten,_ 1878, 260 pp.; on Paul, 98-112. With his doubt of the Epistles the author associates a doubt of the Gospels, and asks whether Christianity as they represent it can have been founded by a historical Jesus.

92 A. Pierson and S. A. Naber, _Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt,_ 1886, 295 pp. The work gives a running analysis of the letters in the course of which very interesting questions are thrown out. Why is nothing said about the earthly life of Jesus? Why is no trace of the influence of this Paul’s thought to be found in history? Do the various characteristics and actions of his which are recorded show us a character which is at all intelligible?

The authors assume that the Jewish movement which led up to “Christianity” at first had only to do with the Messianic belief in general. Only later, through the blending of Greek myths with Isaiah liii., did the belief arise that the expected Messiah had already come and had passed through death and resurrection.

The analysis of the Pauline Epistles is followed by essays upon the Paul of Acts and some chapters on the Fourth Gospel. The close is formed by an essay on the gradual origin of the conception of Christ in the New Testament.

The theory that Christianity developed out of an already existing Jewish movement is maintained also by M. Friedländer in his popular and unimportant work, _Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt,_ a contribution towards explaining the origin of Christianity (1897, 74 pp.). The opposition between a conservative and a freer tendency as regards the law, which appear in the primitive Church, are here held to have appeared previously in the Judaism from which Christianity originated.

93 A. D. Loman, “Quaestiones Paulinae,” _Theol. Tijdschrift,_ 1882, pp. 141-185, 302-328, 452-487; 1883, pp. 14-51. 1886, 42-113 (Dutch). In the prologue he tells us about the first impression which Bauer’s criticism of the Pauline epistles made upon him: “With an _Apage Satana!_ I took leave of this antipathetic critic, firmly resolved to take no further notice of him.” The order followed is to treat first the relation of Acts to Galatians, then to discuss the “necessary proofs” of the genuineness of this work, while the witnesses from the literature, and the history of the Canon, are examined later, in the second part, 1886.