Initial commitHEADmain

1 files changed, 10483 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/76284-0.txt b/76284-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e003084
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76284-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,10483 @@
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76284 ***
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PAUL
+
+AND
+
+HIS INTERPRETERS
+
+A CRITICAL HISTORY
+
+BY
+
+ALBERT SCHWEITZER
+
+PRIVATDOZENT IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASSBURG
+
+AUTHOR OF “THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS”
+
+TRANSLATED BY
+
+W. MONTGOMERY, BA., BD.
+
+LONDON
+
+ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
+
+1912
+
+
+
+
+[pg v]
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+THE present work forms the continuation of my History of the Critical
+Study of the Life of Jesus, which appeared in 1906 under the title
+“Von Reimarus zu Wrede.”_(_1_)_
+
+Any one who deals with the teaching and the life and work of Jesus,
+and offers any kind of new reading of it, ought not to stop there, but
+must be held under obligation to trace, from the stand-point at which
+he has arrived, the pathway leading to the history of dogma. Only in
+this way can it be clearly shown what his discovery is worth.
+
+The great and still undischarged task which confronts those engaged in
+the historical study of primitive Christianity is to explain how the
+teaching of Jesus developed into the early Greek theology, in the form
+in which it appears in the works of Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian and
+Irenaeus. How could the doctrinal system of Paul arise on the basis of
+the life and work of Jesus and the beliefs of the primitive community;
+and how did the early Greek theology arise out of Paulinism?
+
+Strauss and Renan recognised the obligation, and each endeavoured in a
+series of works to trace the path leading from Jesus to the history of
+dogma. Since their time no one who has dealt with the life of Jesus
+has attempted to follow this course.
+
+Meanwhile the history of dogma, on its part, has come to place the
+teaching of Jesus, as well as that of Paul, outside the scope of its
+investigations and to regard its own task as [pg vi] beginning at the
+point where the undisputed and general Hellenisation of Christianity
+sets in. It describes therefore the growth of Greek theology, but not
+of Christian theology as a whole. And because it leaves the transition
+from Jesus to Paul, and from Paul to Justin and Ignatius, unexplained,
+and therefore fails to arrive at any intelligible and consistent
+conception of Christian dogma as a whole, the edifice which it erects
+has no secure basis. Any one who knows and admires Harnack’s “History
+of Dogma” is aware that the solid mason-work only begins in the Greek
+period; what precedes is not placed on firm foundations but only
+supported on piles.
+
+Paulinism is an integral part of the history of dogma; for the history
+of dogma begins immediately upon the death of Jesus.
+
+Critical theology, in dividing up the history of the development of
+thought in primitive Christianity into the separate departments, Life
+of Jesus, Apostolic Age, History of Dogma, and clinging to this
+division as if it were something more than a mere convention of the
+academic syllabus, makes a confession of incompetence and resigns all
+hope of putting the history of dogma on a secure basis. Moreover, the
+separate departments thus left isolated are liable to fall into all
+kinds of confusions and errors, and it becomes a necessity of
+existence to them not to be compelled to follow their theories beyond
+the cunningly placed boundaries, or to be prepared to show at any
+moment how their view accords with the preceding and following stages
+in the development of thought.
+
+This independence and autonomy of the different departments of study
+begins with the downfall of the edifice constructed by Baur. He was
+the last who dared to conceive, and to deal with, the history of dogma
+in the large and general sense as the scientific study of the
+development of the teaching of Jesus into the early Greek theology.
+After him begins, with Ritschl, the narrower and more convenient
+conception of the subject, which resigns its imperial authority over
+the departments of study dealing with the Life of Jesus, [pg vii]
+Primitive Christianity and Paulinism, and allows these to become
+independent. In the works of Ritschl himself this new departure is not
+clearly apparent, because he still formally includes the teaching of
+Jesus, of Paul, and of primitive Christianity within the sphere of the
+history of dogma. But instead of explaining the differences between
+the various types of belief and doctrine, he glosses them over in such
+a way that he practically denies the development of the thoughts, and
+makes it impossible for a really scientific study of the teaching of
+Jesus and of Paulinism to fit into the ready-made frame which he
+provides.
+
+Ritschl shares with Baur the presupposition that primitive dogma arose
+out of the teaching of Jesus by an organic and logical process. The
+separate disciplines which began after them have shown that this
+assumption is false. Of a “development” in the ordinary sense there
+can be no question, because closer investigation has not confirmed the
+existence of the natural lines of connexion which might à priori have
+been supposed to be self-evident, but reveals instead unintelligible
+gaps. This is the real reason why the different departments of study
+maintain their independence.
+
+The system of the Apostle of the Gentiles stands over against the
+teaching of Jesus as something of an entirely different character, and
+does not create the impression of having arisen out of it. But how is
+such a new creation of Christian ideas—and that within a bare two or
+three decades after the death of Jesus—at all conceivable?
+
+From Paulinism, again, there are no visible lines of connexion leading
+to early Greek theology. Ignatius and Justin do not take over his
+ideas, but create, in their turn, something new.
+
+According to the assumption which in itself appears most natural, one
+would be prepared to see in the teaching of Jesus a mountain-mass,
+continued by the lofty summits of the Pauline range, and from these
+gradually falling away to the lower levels of the early Catholic
+theology. In reality the teaching of Jesus and that of the great
+Apostle are like two separate ranges of hills, lying irregularly
+disposed in [pg viii] front of the later “Gospel.” Even the relation
+which each severally bears to primitive Christianity remains
+uncertain.
+
+This want of connexion must have some explanation. The task of
+historical science is to understand why these two systems of teaching
+are necessarily independent, and at the same time to point out the
+geological fault and dislocation of the strata, and enable us to
+recognise the essential continuity of these formations and the process
+by which they have taken their present shape.
+
+The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen; but his large and
+comprehensive conception of the history of dogma ought not to be given
+up. It is wholly wrong to ignore the problem at which he laboured and
+so create the false impression that it has been solved. Present day
+criticism is far from having explained how Paulinism and Greek
+theology have arisen out of the teaching of Jesus. All it has really
+done is to have gained some insight into the difficulties, and to have
+made it increasingly evident that the question of the Hellenisation of
+Christianity is the fundamental problem of the history of dogma.
+
+It could not really hope to find a solution, because it is still
+working away with the presuppositions of Baur, Ritschl, and Renan, and
+has already tried three or four times over all the experiments which
+are possible on this basis, without ever attaining to a real insight
+into the course of the development. It has approached this or that
+problem differently, has given a new version—not to say in some cases
+a perversion—of it; but it has not succeeded in giving a satisfactory
+answer to the question when and how the Gospel was Hellenised.
+
+It has not even attained to clearness in regard to the condition in
+which the Gospel existed prior to its Hellenisation. It has not
+ventured to mark off with perfect distinctness the two worlds of
+thought with which the process is concerned, and to formulate the
+problem as being that of explaining how the Gospel, which was
+originally purely Jewish and eschatological, became Greek in form and
+content. That this could really have come about, it takes to be à
+priori [pg ix] impossible. It therefore seeks to soften down the
+antitheses as much as possible, to find in the teaching of Jesus
+thoughts which force their way out of the frame of the Jewish
+eschatological conceptions and have the character of universal
+religion, and in the teaching of Paul to discover a “genuinely
+Christian,” and also a Hellenic element, alongside of the Rabbinic
+material.
+
+Theological science has in fact been dominated by the desire to
+minimise as much as possible the element of Jewish Apocalyptic in
+Jesus and Paul, and so far as possible to represent the Hellenisation
+of the Gospel as having been prepared for by them. It thinks it has
+gained something when in formulating the problem it has done its best
+to soften down the antitheses to the utmost with a view to providing
+every facility for conceiving the transition of the Gospel from one
+world of thought to the other.
+
+In following this method Baur and Renan proceed with a simple
+confidence which is no longer possible to present day theology. But in
+spite of that it must still continue to follow the same lines, because
+it has still to work with the old presuppositions and the weakening
+down of the problem which they imply. The result is in every respect
+unsatisfactory. The solution remains as impossible as it was before,
+and the simplifications which were supposed to be provided in the
+statement of the problem have only created new difficulties.
+
+The thoroughgoing application of Jewish eschatology to the
+interpretation of the teaching and work of Jesus has created a new
+fact upon which to base the history of dogma. If the view developed at
+the close of my “Quest of the Historical Jesus” is sound, the teaching
+of Jesus does not in any of its aspects go outside the Jewish world of
+thought and project itself into a non-Jewish world, but represents a
+deeply ethical and perfected version of the contemporary Apocalyptic.
+
+Therefore the Gospel is at its starting-point exclusively
+Jewish-eschatological. The sharply antithetic formulation of the
+problem of the Hellenisation of Christianity, which it was always
+hoped to avoid, is proved by the facts recorded in the Synoptists to
+be the only admissible one. Accordingly, [pg x] the history of dogma
+has to show how what was originally purely Jewish-eschatological has
+developed into something that is Greek. The expedients and evasions
+hitherto current have been dismissed from circulation.
+
+The primary task is to define the position of Paul. Is he the first
+stage of the Hellenising process, or is his system of thought, like
+that of primitive Christianity, to be conceived as purely
+Jewish-eschatological? Usually the former is taken for granted,
+because he detached Christianity from Judaism, and because otherwise
+his thoughts do not seem to be easily explicable. Besides, it was
+feared that if the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles, as well as
+primitive Christianity, were regarded as purely Jewish-eschatological,
+the problem of the Hellenisation of the Gospel would become so acute
+as to make the possibility of solving it more remote than ever.
+
+Moreover, the theological study of history is apt, even though
+unconsciously, to give ear to practical considerations. At bottom, it
+is guided by the instinct that whatever in the primitive Gospel is
+capable of being Hellenised may also be considered capable of being
+modernised. It therefore seeks to discern in Paul’s teaching—as also
+in that of Jesus—as much as possible that “transcends Judaism,” that
+has the character of “universal religion” and “essential
+Christianity.” It is haunted by the apprehension that the significance
+of Christianity, and its adaptation to our times, is dependent on
+justifying the modernisation of it on the lines hitherto followed and
+in accordance with the historical views hitherto current.
+
+Those who have faced the recognition that the teaching of Jesus is
+eschatologically conditioned cannot be brought by considerations of
+this kind, scientific or unscientific, to entertain any doubt as to
+the task which awaits them. That is, to apply this new view to the
+explanation of the transition to the history of dogma, and as the
+first step in that direction, to undertake a new formulation of the
+problem of Paulinism. They will naturally endeavour to find out how
+far the exclusively eschatological conception of the [pg xi] Gospel
+manifests its influence in the thoughts of the Apostle of the
+Gentiles, and will take into account the possibility that his system,
+strange as this may at first sight appear, may have developed wholly
+and solely out of that conception.
+
+As in the case of the study of the life of Jesus, the problem and the
+way to its solution will be developed by means of a survey of what has
+hitherto been done. At the same time this method of presentation will
+serve to promote the knowledge of the past periods of the science.
+Since it is impossible for students, and indeed for the younger
+teachers, to read for themselves all the works of earlier times, the
+danger arises that on the one hand the names will remain mere empty
+names, and on the other that, from ignorance, solutions will be tried
+over again which have already been advanced and have proved untenable.
+An attempt has therefore been made in this book to give a sufficient
+insight into what has been done so far, and to provide a substitute
+for the reading of such works as are not either of classical
+importance or still generally accessible.
+
+For practical reasons the method adopted in my former book, of
+attaching the statement of the new view to the history of earlier
+views, has not been followed here. This view will be developed and
+defended in a separate work bearing the title “The Pauline Mysticism”
+(“Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus”), which will appear at an early
+date.
+
+The English and American literature of the subject has not been
+included in this study, since the works in question were not in all
+cases accessible to me, and an insufficient acquaintance with the
+language raised a barrier.
+
+Nor have I aimed at giving, even with this limitation, a complete
+enumeration of all the studies of Paul’s teaching. I have only desired
+to cite works which either played a part of some value in the
+development of Pauline study, or were in some way typical. The fact
+that a work has been left unmentioned does not by any means
+necessarily imply that it has not been examined.
+
+ALBERT SCHWEITZER.
+
+19_th Sept_. 1911.
+
+
+
+
+[pg xiii]
+
+Contents
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD . . . [1]
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+BAUR AND HIS CRITICS . . . [12]
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN . . . [22]
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+H. J. HOLTZMANN . . . [100]
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES . . . [117]
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY . . . [151]
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION . . . [179]
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+
+SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM . . . [237]
+
+INDEX . . . 251
+
+ENDNOTES
+
+
+
+
+PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS
+
+
+
+
+[pg 001]
+
+I
+
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
+
+
+_Hugo Grotius._ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 1641-1646.
+
+_Johann Jakob Rambach._ Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. 1723.
+
+_Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten._ Unterricht der Auslegung der heiligen
+Schrift. (Instructions in the art of Expounding Holy Scripture.) 1742.
+
+_Johann Christoph Wolf._ Curae philologicae et criticae. 1741.
+
+_Johann August Ernesti._ Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti. 1762.
+(Eng. Trans., Biblical Interpretation of the New Testament, Edinburgh,
+1832-1833.)
+
+_Johann Salomo Semler._ Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutic.
+(Introduction to Theological Hermeneutic.) 1760-1769.
+
+Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons. (Essay on the free
+Investigation of the Canon.) 1771-1775.
+
+Neuer Versuch die gemeinnützige Auslegung und Anwendung des Neuen
+Testaments zu befördern. (A New Attempt to Promote a Generally
+Profitable Exposition and Application of the New Testament.) 1786.
+
+Latin Paraphrases of the Epistles to the Romans (1769) and Corinthians
+(1770, 1776).
+
+_Johann David Michaelis._ Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des
+Neuen Bundes. (Introduction to the Divine Scriptures of the New
+Covenant.) 1750. (Eng. Trans. by H. Marsh, Cambridge, 1793.)
+
+Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Translation of the New Testament.)
+1790.
+
+Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments.
+(Notes for Unlearned Readers on his Translation of the New Testament.)
+1790-1792.
+
+_Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher._ Über den sogenannten ersten
+Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. (On the so-called First Epistle of
+Paul to Timothy.) 1807.
+
+_Johann Gottfried Eichhorn._ Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das
+Neue Testament. (Historical and Critical Introduction to the New
+Testament.) 3 vols. 1814.
+
+[pg 002]
+
+_Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs.
+(The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1801.
+
+_Leonhard Usteri._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. (The
+Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1824.
+
+_August Ferdinand Dähne._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs.
+(The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1835.
+
+_Karl Schrader._ Der Apostel Paulus. 1830-1836.
+
+_J. A. W. Neander._ Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der
+christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. (History of the Planting and
+Guidance of the Christian Church by the Apostles.) 1832. (Eng. Trans.
+by J. E. Ryland, 1851.)
+
+_W. M. Leberecht De Wette._ Erklärung der Briefe an die Römer,
+Korinther, Galater und Thessalonicher. (Exposition of the Epistles to
+the Romans (2nd ed., 1838), Corinthians, etc. (1841).)
+
+_H. E. G. Paulus._ Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und
+Römer-Christen. (The Apostle Paul’s Doctrinal Epistles to the Galatian
+and Roman Christians.) 1831.
+
+
+THE Reformation fought and conquered in the name of Paul. Consequently
+the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles took a prominent place in
+Protestant study. Nevertheless the labour expended upon it did not, to
+begin with, advance the historical understanding of his system of
+thought. What men looked for in Paul’s writings was proof-texts for
+Lutheran or Reformed theology; and that was what they found.
+Reformation exegesis reads its own ideas into Paul, in order to
+receive them back again clothed with Apostolic authority.
+
+Before this could be altered, the spell which dogma had laid upon
+exegesis needed to be broken. A very promising beginning in this
+direction was made by Hugo Grotius, who in his _Annotationes in Novum
+Testamentum__(_2_)_ rises superior to the limitations of
+ecclesiastical dogma. This work appeared in 1641-1646. The Pauline
+Epistles are treated with especial gusto. The great Netherlander makes
+it his business to bring out by patient study the simple literal
+meaning, and besides referring to patristic exegesis, cites parallels
+from Greek and Roman literature. He does not, however, show any
+special insight into the peculiar character of the Pauline world of
+thought.
+
+[pg 003]
+
+In the ensuing period the principle gradually became established that
+exegesis ought to be independent of dogma. Pietism and Rationalism had
+an equal interest in promoting this result. The accepted formula was
+that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. This thought is
+common ground to the two famous works on exegesis which belong to the
+first half of the eighteenth century, the _Institutiones hermeneuticae
+sacrae__(_3_)_ of Johann Jakob Rambach, which is written from the
+stand-point of a moderate pietism, and Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten’s
+rationalistically inclined “Instruction in the art of expounding Holy
+Scripture.”_(_4_)_
+
+On the soil thus prepared by pietism and rationalism it was possible
+for a philologically sound exegesis to thrive. One of the most
+important attempts in this direction is Johann Christoph Wolf’s _Curae
+philologicae et criticae.__(_5_)_ This was regarded as authoritative
+for several decades, and even later is frequently drawn on by
+exegetes, either with or without acknowledgment. The merit of having
+gained the widest recognition for the principles of philological
+exegesis belongs to Johann August Ernesti, the reformer of the St.
+Thomas’s School at Leipzig and the determined opponent of its famous
+“Preceptor,” Johann Sebastian Bach. His _Institutio interpretis Novi
+Testamenti_ appeared in 1762._(_6_)_ It is on the plan of the
+“Hermeneutics” of Rambach and Baumgarten, and deals with grammar,
+manuscripts, editions, translations, patristic exegesis, history and
+geography as sciences ancillary to exegesis.
+
+But Ernesti’s work suffices to show that the undogmatic philological
+method did not in itself lead to any [pg 004] result. Its author is in
+reality by no means free from dogmatic prepossessions, but he
+skilfully avoids those questions which would bring him into conflict
+with Church doctrine. In fact the use he makes of philology is more or
+less formal. He does not venture to treat the books of the New
+Testament without prepossession as witnesses from the literature of a
+distant period, and to show the peculiar mould in which Christian
+ideas are there cast in comparison with subsequent periods and with
+the period for which he writes. He did not realise that the
+undogmatic, philological method of exegesis must logically lead to a
+method in which philology is the handmaid of historical criticism.
+
+His great contemporary, Johann Salomo Semler, ventures to give
+expression to this truth, and so becomes the creator of historical
+theology. In his theoretical works on the Scriptures and on
+exegesis—“Introduction to theological Hermeneutics”
+(1760-1769),_(_7_)_ “Essay on the free Investigation of the Canon”
+(1771-1775),_(_8_)_ “A new attempt to promote a generally profitable
+Exposition and Application of the New Testament” (1786)_(_9_)_—the
+Halle professor explains again and again what is to be understood by a
+“historical” method of exegesis. He demands that the New Testament
+shall be regarded as a temporally conditioned expression of Christian
+thought, and examined with an unprejudiced eye. In making this claim
+he does not speak as a [pg 005] disinterested representative of
+historical science, but makes it in the name of religion. If religion
+is to develop progressively and purify itself into an ethical belief,
+the special embodiments which it has received in the past must not lay
+the embargo of a false authority upon its progress. We must
+acknowledge to ourselves that many conceptions and arguments, not only
+of the Old Testament but also of the New, have not the same
+significance for us as they had for the early days of Christianity. In
+his work of 1786, Semler even demands that “for present day Christians
+there should be made a generally useful selection from the discourses
+of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles, in which the local
+reference to contemporary readers shall be distinguished or
+eliminated.”
+
+This theory of historical exegesis is carried out in dealing with the
+great Pauline Epistles. Semler points the way to the critical
+investigation of the Apostle’s thought. He gives paraphrases of the
+Epistle to the Romans and the Epistles to the Corinthians, and
+attempts to make clear the content and the connection of thought by a
+paraphrastic and expanded rendering of each individual verse._(_10_)_
+Exegesis is no longer to be encumbered with a panoply of erudition; it
+is no longer to be interpenetrated with homiletic and dogmatic
+considerations, and to defer to the authority of the old Greek
+expositors, who, “when it is a question of historical arguments, had
+no better or clearer knowledge than we have ourselves.” It must let
+the Scriptural [pg 006] phrases say openly and freely what they mean
+in their literal sense, and devote itself simply to that
+dispassionate, objective study of facts which has hitherto been too
+much neglected.
+
+The importance of the paraphrases does not however consist, as might
+be supposed, in their exhibiting the distinctive character of the
+Pauline trains of thought in comparison with the views of the other
+New Testament writers. By his use of a paraphrastic rendering of the
+text Semler puts an obstacle in the way of his gaining an insight into
+the specifically Pauline reasoning, and unconsciously imports his own
+logic into the Apostle’s arguments.
+
+On the other hand, his brilliant powers of observation enable him to
+call attention to some fundamental problems of literary criticism. He
+is the first to point out that we do not possess the Pauline Epistles
+in their original form, but only in the form in which they were read
+in the churches. The canonical Epistle is therefore not, as a matter
+of _a priori_ certainty, identical with the historical letter. It is
+quite possible, he argues, that the letters as read in the churches
+were produced by joining together, or working up together, different
+letters, and also that written directions and messages, which
+originally existed in a separate form, were attached in later copies
+to the Epistles in order that no part of the heritage left by the
+Apostle might be lost.
+
+On the basis of considerations of this kind Semler arrives at the
+result that the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Romans did not
+belong to the original Epistle. The sixteenth is, in his view, a
+series of greetings which Paul—who, it is assumed, was writing from
+Ephesus—gave to the bearers of the Epistle to be conveyed to the
+churches which they would visit on their way through Macedonia and
+Achaia. In the ninth chapter of 2 Corinthians there is preserved, he
+thinks, a writing intended for another city in Achaia, which was only
+later welded into the Epistle to the Corinthians. From the [pg 007]
+fourteenth verse of the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians to the close
+of the thirteenth chapter we have to assume the presence of a separate
+writing, of later date than the original Second Epistle to the
+Corinthians. Thus Semler takes the first steps upon the road of
+literary hypothesis. Theology at first took little notice of these
+investigations. In the third edition of his “New Testament
+Introduction” (1777),_(_11_)_ the great Göttingen philologist and
+theologian J. D. Michaelis treats the letters of the Apostle in a
+quite uncritical spirit, and does not enter at all into the literary
+problems; in his “Translation” and “Exposition” of the New
+Testament_(_12_)_ he follows the old tracks and makes no attempt to
+carry out the task which Semler had assigned to historical exegesis.
+In general the eighteenth century, after Semler, contributed very
+little to the investigation of Paulinism. Schleiermacher was the first
+to take a step forward, when, in a letter to Gass, he expressed his
+doubts as to the genuineness of I Timothy._(_13_)_
+
+Shortly before the battle of Jena—so he recounts in the preface—he had
+communicated his doubts to his friend, but had not got the length of
+setting them forth in a reasoned argument. “The battle—though indeed
+it ended all too quickly—the consequent unrest in the town, and even
+in the house, the confused hurrying to and fro, the sight of the
+French soldiers, which was interesting in so many ways . . . the still
+incomprehensible blow which struck our University even before you
+left, and the sad sight of the students saying their farewells and
+taking their departure,—these were certainly not the surroundings [pg
+008] in which to set up a critical judgment-seat. Although, on the
+other hand, you would perhaps have been more ready then, when all
+seemed lost, to give up a New Testament book, than you are now.” The
+verbal promise then given but not fulfilled is now discharged in
+writing.
+
+Schleiermacher bases his argument against I Timothy upon 2 Timothy and
+Titus. While the same general conceptions are present in the longer
+letter as in the two shorter ones, they are not there found in the
+natural connections in which they occur in the others. It makes the
+impression of being a composite structure, and in its vocabulary, too,
+shows remarkable differences from the remaining letters taken as a
+whole.
+
+Strictly speaking it was not Schleiermacher the critic, but
+Schleiermacher the aesthete who had come to have doubts about 2
+Timothy. The letter does not suit his taste. He fails to perceive
+that, so far as the language goes, the two other letters diverge from
+the rest of the Pauline Epistles in the same way as I Timothy, and
+that they also show the same looseness and disconnectedness; only
+that, in consequence of their smaller extent, it is not so striking.
+And, most important of all, it escapes him that as regards their ideas
+all three letters agree in diverging from the remainder of the Pauline
+Epistles.
+
+Schleiermacher’s omissions are supplied by Eichhorn in his well-known
+Introduction._(_14_)_ He lays it down that the three Epistles are all
+by the same author, and are all spurious. His criticism deals first
+with the language and thought of the letters, which he shows to be
+un-Pauline; then he argues that the implied historical situations
+cannot be fitted into the life of the Apostle, as known to us from the
+remaining letters and the Acts of the Apostles; finally, he points to
+the unnaturalness of the relation [pg 009] between Paul and his
+helpers as it is represented by these Epistles.
+
+The Apostle, he points out, gives them in writing exhortations and
+directions which on the assumption of a real personal acquaintance and
+a long period of joint work with them are in any case unnecessary, and
+become much more so from the fact that the letters look forward to an
+early meeting. From this Eichhorn concludes that “some one else has
+put himself in Paul’s place,” and he sees no possibility of the
+success of any attempt to defend the genuineness of the Epistles
+against the arguments which he has brought forward. In particular he
+gives a warning against the seductive attempt to save the genuineness
+of 2 Timothy by the assumption of a second imprisonment. No
+hypothesis, he declares, can in any way help the Pastorals, since they
+must be pronounced from internal evidence—because of their divergence
+from the remaining Epistles—not to be by the Apostle. This was a long
+step forward. The circle of writings which have come down under the
+name of Paul had undergone a restriction which made it possible to
+give an account of his system of thought without being obliged to find
+a place in it for ideas which already have a quite early-Catholic
+ring.
+
+Ten years after Eichhorn’s literary achievement, in the year 1824, the
+Swiss theologian Leonhard Usteri, a pupil of Schleiermacher’s,
+published his “Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine,”_(_15_)_
+which is generally regarded as the starting-point of the purely
+historical study of Paulinism, the first attempt to give effect to the
+demands of Semler._(_16_)_
+
+Usteri wishes to show the subjective imprint and [pg 010] enrichment
+which ordinary Christianity received at the hands of the Apostle, and
+he sees in the Epistle to the Galatians the outline of his whole
+doctrine. He does not, however, venture to give full recognition to
+the idea of a real antithesis between the Pauline conceptions and
+those of the primitive Apostles, and consequently is led to soften
+down the peculiarities of the former so far as possible. The spirit of
+Schleiermacher, which tended to level down everything of a historical
+character, influences the book more than the author is aware._(_17_)_
+A peculiar interlude in the investigation of Paulinism was due to the
+Heidelberger H. E. G. Paulus._(_18_)_ He published, in the year 1831,
+a study of the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, which was in
+reality an essay on the Apostle’s system of doctrine. The work is
+undertaken entirely in the interests of a rationalism bent on opposing
+the reaction to orthodoxy.
+
+According to the arguments of Paulus it is not the case that the
+letters speak of expiatory suffering and imputed righteousness. Paul
+cannot have upheld “legality” as against “morality” and have
+maintained an “unpurified conception of religion.” The “chief
+sayings,” the characteristic terms, are to be given a purely moral
+interpretation. The Apostle means that “faith in Jesus” must become in
+us “the faith of Jesus,” and the narrower conception of righteousness
+must be enlarged into the [pg 011] conception of “the righteousness of
+God.” The “righteousness of God” betokens righteousness such as it
+exists in God, and is demanded by Him in man’s spirit as its “true
+good,” “the only real atonement which brings us into harmony with the
+Deity.” Thus a proper interpretation enables us to discover in these
+writings “the agreement between the Gospel and a rational faith.”
+
+The book appeared two or three decades too late. The rationalism which
+it represents had had its day. But there is something imposing in this
+determined wresting of the Apostle’s views. It is parallel to that
+which was practised by the Reformation. The latter interpreted the
+whole of Paulinism by the passages on the atoning death, and ignored
+the other thoughts in the Epistles. The Heidelberg rationalist starts
+from the conceptions connected with the “new creature,” which were
+later to be described as the ethical system of the Apostle, and
+interprets everything else by them.
+
+The fact that the two views—the only ones which endeavoured to grasp
+Paulinism as a complete, articulated system—thus stand over against
+each other antithetically is significant for the future. Critical
+study in the course of its investigations was to come to a point where
+it would have to recognise both views as justified, and to point out
+the existence in Paul of a twofold system of doctrine—a juridical
+system based on the idea of justification, and an ethical system
+dominated by the conception of sanctification—without at first being
+able to show how the two are interrelated and together form a unity.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 012]
+
+II
+
+
+BAUR AND HIS CRITICS
+
+
+_Ferdinand Christian Baur._ Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen
+Gemeinde. (The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church.) Appeared in the
+_Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie,_ 1831 and 1836. Über Zweck u.
+Veranlassung des Römerbriefs (Purpose and occasion of Rom.), ib. 1836.
+Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe. (The so-called Pastoral Epistles.)
+1835.
+
+Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1st ed., 1845; 2nd ed., 1866-67).
+(Eng. Trans. by “A. P.” and A. Menzies, 1873-75.)
+
+Beiträge zu den Briefen an die Korinther, Thessalonicher und Römer.
+(Contributions to the elucidation of the Epistles to the Corinthians,
+Thessalonians and Romans.) _Tübinger Jahrbücher für Theologie._
+1850-57.
+
+Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie. 1864. (Lectures on
+New-Testament Theology.)
+
+Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte. (Lectures on the
+History of Dogma.) Vol. i., 1865.
+
+_Albert Schwegler._ Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1846. (The
+Post-Apostolic Age.)
+
+_Carl Wieseler._ Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 1848. (The
+Chronology of the Apostolic Age.) On the Pauline Epp., 225-278.
+
+_Albrecht Ritschl._ Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. (The
+Origin of the Early Catholic Church.) 1st ed., 1850; 2nd ed., 1857.
+
+_Gotthard Viktor Lechler._ Das apostolische und nachapostolische
+Zeitalter. (The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.) 1852. (Eng. Trans.
+by A. J. K. Davidson, Edinburgh, 1886.)
+
+_Richard Adalbert Lipsius._ Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre. (The
+Pauline Doctrine of Justification.) 1853.
+
+
+IN the fourth number of the _Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie_ for
+the year 1831, F. C. Baur gave to the study of Paulinism a new
+direction, by advancing the opinion that the Apostle had developed his
+doctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive Christian
+community, and that only when this is recognised can we expect to
+grasp the peculiar character of the Pauline ideas.
+
+[pg 013]
+
+The great merit of the Tübingen critic was that he allowed the texts
+to speak for themselves, to mean what they said. On the ground of the
+striking difference between Acts and Galatians regarding Paul’s
+relation to the original Apostles, and in view of the divisions and
+contentions which reveal themselves in the Epistles to the
+Corinthians, Baur concludes that in the early days of Christianity two
+parties—a Petrine party or party of the original Apostles, and a
+Pauline party—stood opposed to one another, holding divergent views on
+the subject of the redemption wrought by Christ.
+
+In the gradual adjustment of these differences he sees the development
+which led up to the formation of the early Catholic Church, and he
+traces the evidence for this process in the literature. He thinks he
+can show that the two parties gradually approached each other, making
+concessions on the one side and the other, and finally, under the
+pressure of a movement which was equally inimical to both of them—the
+Gnosticism of the early part of the second century—they coalesced into
+a single united Church.
+
+The recognition of the character and significance of Gnosticism makes
+it possible for Baur to introduce a new kind of criticism. Before him
+it was only possible to arrive at the negative result that a writing
+was not by the author to whom it was traditionally ascribed. Now,
+according to him, it is possible to determine to what period it
+belongs. It is only necessary to show what position it occupies in the
+process of reconciliation of the two parties, and, especially, whether
+it deals with speculative error. This Baur calls “positive” criticism.
+
+He applies it in the first place to the Pastoral Epistles, and argues
+that the heretics combated in them do not belong to primitive
+Christianity but are representatives of the Gnostic movement of the
+second century. By the “myths and genealogies” here mentioned are
+meant the great speculative systems which are known from Church
+history. The description given of the heretics is [pg 014]
+intentionally couched in terms which are neither too general nor too
+special, in order to sustain the fiction that the false doctrine
+arising at this later period only revives a movement which had already
+been attacked and defeated by Paul.
+
+That neither the assumption of a second imprisonment, nor any other
+possible or impossible hypothesis, can restore to the Pastorals their
+lost genuineness is as firm a conviction with Baur as it was with
+Eichhorn.
+
+In the course of his study of the Pastoral Epistles the Tübingen
+master had expressed the opinion that the criticism of the Pauline
+writings would probably not “come to a halt” with these Epistles. The
+results of his further study were offered ten years later (1845) in
+the brilliantly written work, “Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.” He
+here treats first the life and work, then the letters, and lastly the
+system of doctrine. The result arrived at in his investigation of the
+documents is that only the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and
+Romans can be confidently used as sources. Compared with these four,
+all the others must be classed as “anti-legomena,” “which does not at
+all imply the assertion that they are not genuine, but only indicates
+the opposition to which their claim to genuineness is in some cases
+already exposed, in others, may be exposed in the future, since there
+is not a single one of the smaller Pauline epistles against which, if
+the four main epistles are taken as the standard, there cannot be
+raised some objection or other.” There are strong grounds for
+questioning the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians; those to the
+Thessalonians and Philippians are to be suspected because of the small
+amount of dogma they contain. Baur’s reason for taking up such a
+critical attitude towards the “smaller epistles” is that he is bound
+to see in the heritage which has come down to us from the Apostle,
+writings “which belong to the history of the party which based itself
+on his name, and refer to the relations of the various parties,” and
+show us how Gentile Christianity [pg 015] softens down its principles
+and its peculiarities in order to meet the Jewish Christianity, which
+on its part was going through a similar process, in the unity of the
+early Catholic Church.
+
+This radical view was attacked on all sides. It gave rise to a kind of
+reaction even within the sphere of scientific theology, and led to the
+calling in question of results which the labours of Eichhorn had
+brought into general acceptance. Thus Carl Wieseler prefaces his
+detailed study on the date of composition of the Pauline letters with
+the remark that he held all the thirteen letters which are attributed
+to the Apostle in the Canon to be authentic.
+
+The Apostle’s system of doctrine culminates, according to Baur’s
+representation, in the doctrine of the Spirit. In the brilliant
+disquisitions of this section it is not so much the historian who
+speaks as the pupil of Hegel. Paulinism is in its own way an
+announcement of the unity of the subjective spirit with the objective
+spirit. It is only from this point of view that a consciousness of
+freedom such as is found in the Apostle of the Gentiles can exist. His
+doctrine is concerned with union with Christ and with God by faith,
+from which comes Spirit. “Righteousness” is “the proper relation
+towards God, to place men in which is the highest duty of all
+religion.”
+
+Baur does not enter into the details of the Pauline doctrine of
+justification. Detail is in fact somewhat neglected in his treatment.
+Strictly speaking, he only includes that which can be in some way or
+other expressed in Hegelian thought-forms, and that in which Paulinism
+may be exhibited as representing absolute religion. Everything else is
+thrown into the background, and receives only a partial
+appreciation—or depreciation—in a separate chapter entitled “A special
+discussion of some subsidiary dogmatic questions.” The characteristic
+stamp of the Pauline doctrine is largely obliterated. In particular,
+Paul’s views about the “last things” and the angels are not allowed to
+become disturbingly prominent. Baur does not, indeed, hesitate
+practically to eliminate [pg 016] them. The angelology he dismisses
+with the following remark: “Of the angels the Apostle says little in
+the letters which we have here to take into consideration, and that
+little not dogmatically, but only metaphorically and in current
+popular phraseology.”
+
+The Tübingen scholar, in fact, uses the language of Paul in order to
+set forth an imposing philosophy of religion instinct with Hegelian
+influence. He gives no authentic account of the Apostle’s thought.
+Nevertheless this book breathes the spirit of Paul the prophet of
+freedom more fully than almost any other which has been devoted to
+him. That is what gives it its remarkable attractiveness.
+
+A year after the appearance of Baur’s “Paulus”—in 1846—Albert
+Schwegler published his work on the post-apostolic age._(_19_)_ The
+founder of the Tübingen School had hitherto only, so to speak, hinted
+at the phases of development by which the early Church grew up out of
+the controversy between the two parties. Schwegler undertakes a more
+detailed description, and in doing so draws the lines so sharply that,
+along with the greatness of the construction, its faults become
+obvious. He has no deeper knowledge of Paulinism to impart.
+
+Schwegler’s work had made it apparent from what side the Tübingen
+position was open to attack, and on this side Albrecht Ritschl
+proceeded to attack it in his well-known work on the origin of the
+early Catholic Church._(_20_)_ The first edition (1850) is primarily
+directed against Schwegler only; in the second (1857) he develops his
+opposition of [pg 017] principle to Baur. He offers proof that the
+earliest literature is not dominated by the negotiations for a
+compromise between the two parties which was postulated by the
+Tübingen School, and at the same time he attacks the basis of the
+whole hypothetical construction. Baur, he urges, must have formed a
+false conception of Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity,
+since, on his view, it cannot be explained what was the common element
+that held the two together. Had they only, as the Tübingen School was
+obliged to assume, had the external bond of profession of faith in
+Christ, it would never be possible to explain why both parties felt
+the need of approaching one another by mutual concessions until
+finally they coalesced in a single united Church.
+
+The extent of the doctrinal material common to both must, Ritschl
+argues, have been much greater than Baur represents. He has not
+discharged the first duty of a historian of the Apostolic age, for
+this requires “that the points should be clearly shown in which Jewish
+Christianity and Paulinism coincide.” Baur had only given a negative
+description of the Apostle’s doctrine, because he never gives any hint
+“that Paul in very essential points held views which were common also
+to Jewish Christianity.”
+
+The problem regarding the nature of the unity between Paulinism and
+primitive Christianity is thus recognised and formulated.
+
+But it was not so easy for Ritschl to say exactly what constituted the
+common element of doctrine, the existence of which he postulated. That
+is especially evident in the second edition of “The Origin of the
+Early Catholic Church.” He is then only willing to admit an
+“opposition of practice” between Paul and the original apostles; the
+area of this opposition is so restricted that “the essential agreement
+in the leading ideas laid down by Christ will be only the more clearly
+evident.” But since in Paulinism little enough is to be found of the
+“leading [pg 018] ideas laid down by Christ” the proof of the
+“essential agreement” remains a pious aspiration.
+
+The only solid fact which Ritschl is able to adduce is the expectation
+of the parousia. He assumes that it formed a very important part of
+the common doctrinal material, and inclines to believe that Paulinism
+and Jewish Christianity agreed in an ideal-real expectation of the
+Second Coming in order to make common cause against Chiliasm, though
+the latter in its coarser form only appeared later.
+
+But in thus recognising eschatology Ritschl did not take the matter
+very seriously. He uses the eschatology, in fact, only in order to
+score a dialectical point against Baur, who had taken too little
+account of it. In Ritschl’s “Justification and Reconciliation,” where
+he later on had occasion to give a positive description of Paulinism,
+he avoided the faintest hint of any eschatological colouring of the
+Apostle’s ideas.
+
+Another work which is occupied with the question of the unity between
+Paulinism and primitive Christianity is Lechler’s “Apostolic and
+Post-Apostolic Age.”_(_21_)_ The work is a prize essay in answer to
+the problem proposed by the Teylerian Society in Holland, as to what
+constituted “the absolute difference between the doctrine and attitude
+of the Apostle Paul and that of the other Apostles,” by which the
+“so-called Tübingen School endeavours to justify its hostile treatment
+of Christianity.” Lechler opposes his teacher, but is not able to make
+any advance upon Ritschl in producing evidence of the common elements
+in the two doctrinal systems.
+
+[pg 019]
+
+Among the works which controverted the Tübingen view of Paulinism a
+prominent place belongs to an early work of Richard Adalbert Lipsius
+on “the Pauline doctrine of justification.”_(_22_)_ Along with his
+scientific purpose the author also pursues a practical aim. He puts
+himself at the service of the anti-rationalistic reaction which aimed
+at restoring the old evangelical ideas to a position of honour, but in
+doing so did not grasp hands with the orthodoxy of the seventeenth and
+eighteenth centuries, but took as its starting-point the ideas which
+it finds present in the New Testament. In giving an objective
+presentation of the central Pauline doctrine of justification he
+believes that he is offering to the Protestantism of his time a view
+which it can adopt as its own.
+
+For the Apostle of the Gentiles, he argues, justification is not a
+purely legal, forensic act, but also an ethical experience. Faith is
+an ethical attitude which produces an inward righteousness. What is
+really effectual in redemption is the fellowship with Christ in life
+and death. It is brought about by the Spirit of God and of Christ, who
+unites himself with the believer and transforms his personality.
+
+Lipsius is the first to recognise the two trains of thought in
+Paulinism, and to remark that the one is based upon the juridical idea
+of justification, while the other has its starting-point in the
+conception of sanctification—of the real ethical new creation by the
+Spirit. He does not, as had always previously been done, make
+everything of the one and nothing of the other, but aims at showing
+how they are brought together in the Apostle’s thought.
+
+The importance of the eschatological passages does not escape him. He
+assumes that the thought of the parousia gives an inner unity to the
+Apostle’s ideas.
+
+It is true that Lipsius did not succeed in fully discharging the task
+which he laid upon himself. He weakens down one set of ideas in the
+interests of the other, [pg 020] and solders the two together
+externally by the use of skilfully chosen expressions; but it remains
+his great merit that he was the first to recognise this duality in
+Paul’s thought. Had he not been pursuing a dogmatic interest alongside
+of his scientific investigations he would doubtless have come to still
+closer quarters with the problem.
+
+While his critics were at work Baur had not been idle. From 1850
+onwards he published in the _Tübinger Jahrbücher für Theologie,_ which
+had superseded the _Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie,_ a series of
+separate investigations of the Pauline Epistles._(_23_)_ He had
+resolved that the final results of his study of the Apostle of the
+Gentiles, with which he had begun his work, and which throughout his
+whole lifetime had been his favourite study, should be set forth in a
+new edition of his Paulus. This was to be the crown of his work.
+
+But it was not to be. Death snatched him away from his task when he
+had only just cast the first part into its new shape. The second and
+most important, which was to treat the “system of doctrine,” he did
+not reach._(_24_)_
+
+To a certain extent a substitute for what was thus lost was furnished
+by the “Lectures on New Testament Theology,” published by the master’s
+son in 1864._(_25_)_ The chapter on Paulinism is very striking in its
+brevity and clearness, and shows a great advance on the work of 1845.
+At that time Baur had examined and interpreted Paul’s [pg 021]
+teaching by the light of the Hegelian Intellectualism. Now he tries to
+grasp his ideas historically and empirically, and to describe them
+accordingly.
+
+He discusses successively the Pauline views on sin and flesh; law and
+sin; faith in the death of Christ; law and promise; law and freedom;
+the righteousness of faith; faith and works; faith and predestination;
+Christology; baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the parousia of Christ.
+
+Eschatology, which in the first edition was quite overlooked, receives
+here abundant recognition. Baur admits that the Apostle fully shared
+the faith of the primitive community in the nearness of the parousia,
+and was at one with it in all the conceptions referring to the End.
+
+The Pauline theology as thus empirically apprehended has no longer the
+bold effectiveness of the speculatively constructed system of the year
+1845. It becomes apparent in Baur, and increasingly evident in the
+work of subsequent investigators, that the self-consistency and
+logical concatenation of the system become obscured and disturbed in
+proportion as progress is made in the exact apprehension of the
+individual concepts and ideas.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 022]
+
+III
+
+
+FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN
+
+
+MONOGRAPHS UPON PAUL
+
+_Adolf Hausrath._ Der Apostel Paulus (1865, 172 pp.; biographical. 2nd
+ed., 1872, 503 pp.).
+
+_Ernest Renan._ St. Paul (1869, 570 pp.; biographical and
+theological).
+
+_Auguste Sabatier._ L’Apôtre Paul (1870, theological). (E.T. by A. M.
+Hellier, 1891.)
+
+_Otto Pfleiderer._ Der Paulinismus (1873; 2nd ed., 1890; theological).
+(E.T. by E. Peters, 1877.)
+
+_Carl Holsten._ Das Evangelium des Paulus (1st pt., 1880; 2nd pt.,
+1898).
+
+NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS
+
+_Eduard Reuse._ Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testamentes
+(5th ed., 1874). (E.T. History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
+Testament, by E. L. Houghton. Edin. 1884.)
+
+_Christian Karl von Hofmann._ Pt, ix. of “Die Heilige Schrift.” 1881.
+
+_Heinrich Julius Holtzmann._ Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1885.
+
+_Bernhard Weiss._ (Same title.) 1886. (E.T. by A. J. K. Davidson,
+1887).
+
+_Frédéric Godet._ Introduction au Nouveau Testament. 1893.
+
+_Adolf Jülicher._ Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1894. (E.T. by J.
+P. Ward, 1904.)
+
+_Theodor Zahn._ (Same title.) 1897. (E.T. of 3rd ed. 1909).
+
+WORKS ON NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
+
+_Eduard Reuss._ Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle
+apostolique. 3rd ed., 1864. (E.T. by A. Harwood, 1872.)
+
+_Bernhard Weiss._ Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
+Testaments. 1st ed., 1868; 6th ed., 1895. (E.T. Edin. 1882.)
+
+_Christian Karl von Hofmann._ Pt. xi. of “Die Heilige Schrift.” 1886.
+
+_Willibald Beyschlag._ Neutestamentliche Theologie. 1891. 2nd ed.,
+1896. (E.T. Edin. 1895.)
+
+[pg 023]
+
+GENERAL WORKS ON PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY
+
+_Ernest Havet._ Le Christianisme et ses origines (4 vols., 1884).
+
+_Karl von Weizsäcker._ Das apostolische Zeitalter. 1886. (E.T. The
+Apostolic Age, 1894.)
+
+_Otto Pfleiderer._ Das Urchristentum. 1887. (E.T. of 2nd. altered ed.,
+see later.)
+
+STUDIES ON SPECIAL POINTS
+
+_Carl Holsten._ Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. 1868.
+
+_Fr. Th. L. Ernesti._ Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus. 1868.
+
+_Emmanuel Friedrich Kautzsch._ De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo
+apostolo allegatis. 1869.
+
+_Franz Delitzsch._ Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer in das
+Hebräische übersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert. 1870. (The
+Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans translated into Hebrew and
+illustrated from Talmud and Midrash.)
+
+_Hermann Lüdemann._ Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus. 1872.
+
+_Albrecht Ritschl._ Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und
+Versöhnung, vol. ii., 1874. (The Christian Doctrine of Justification
+and Reconciliation.) (E.T. of vols. i. and iii. only).
+
+_H. H. Wendt._ Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist bei Paulus. 1878. (The
+Meaning of the Terms Flesh and Spirit in Paul’s Writings.)
+
+_Louis Eugène Ménégoz._ Le Péché et la redemption d’après St Paul.
+1882.
+
+_Eduard Grafe._ Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. 1884. (The Pauline
+Teaching about the Law.)
+
+_Gustav Volkmar._ Paulus von Damaskus zum Galaterbrief. 1887. (Paul,
+from Damascus to Galatians). A biographical study, with a critical
+comparison between the data of Galatians and Acts.
+
+_Alfred Resch._ Agrapha. Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente. 1888.
+On the Question whether Sayings of Jesus have been preserved in Paul’s
+Writings.
+
+_Otto Everling._ Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie. 1888.
+
+_Johann Gloël._ Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus.
+1888. (The Holy Spirit in Paul’s Preaching of Salvation.)
+
+_Hermann Gunkel._ Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der
+populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des
+Apostels Paulus. 1888. (The Manifestations of the Holy Spirit
+according to the Popular View of the Apostolic Age and according to
+the Teaching of Paul.)
+
+_Eduard Grafe._ Das Verhältnis der paulinischen Schriften zur
+Sapientia Salamonis. 1892. (The Relation of the Pauline Writings to
+the Book of Wisdom.)
+
+_Adolf Deissmann._ Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu.”
+1892. (The New Testament Formula “in Christ Jesus.”)
+
+_Richard Kabisch._ Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen
+mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus. 1893. (Paul’s Eschatology in
+Relation to his General System.)
+
+[pg 024]
+
+_W. Brandt._ Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des
+Christentums. 1893. (The Gospel History and the Origin of
+Christianity.)
+
+_Ernst Curtius._ Paulus in Athen. 1894.
+
+_E. Bruston._ La Vie future d’après St Paul. 1894.
+
+_Hans Vollmer._ Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus. 1895.
+
+_Ernst Teichmann._ Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und
+Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik. 1896. (The
+Pauline Views of Resurrection and Judgment and their Relation to the
+Jewish Apocalyptic.)
+
+_Theodor Simon._ Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus. 1897.
+
+_Paul Wernle._ Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus. (The Christian and
+Sin in Paul’s Writings.) 1897.
+
+CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS
+
+_Bruno Bauer._ Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. 1850-1851-1852.
+
+_Christian Hermann Weisse._ Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen
+Briefe. 1867. (Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline
+Epistles.)
+
+_H. J. Holtzmann._ Kritik der Epheser und Kolosserbriefe. 1872. Die
+Pastoralbriefe. 1880.
+
+_Eduard Reuss._ Les Épîtres pauliniennes (“La Bible,” pt. iii.). 1878.
+
+_Georg Heinrici._ Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die
+Korinther. 1880. Das zweite, etc. 1887.
+
+_P. W. Schmiedel._ Auslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und
+Korinther in Holtzmann’s “Handkommentar.” 1891. (Exposition of the
+Epistles to the Thessalonians and Corinthians in Holtzmann’s
+“Handkommentar.”)
+
+_R. A. Lipsius._ Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, Römer und
+Philipper in Holtzmann’s “Handkommentar.” 1891.
+
+WORKS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER, OR DEALING WITH COGNATE SUBJECTS
+
+_Emil Schürer._ Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. 1873. From the 2nd
+ed. (1886) onwards the work bears the title: Geschichte des jüdischen
+Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (E.T. History of the Jewish People
+in the time of Jesus Christ. Edin. 1885.)
+
+_Karl Siegfried._ Philo von Alexandrien als Ausleger des alten
+Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss
+betrachtet. 1875. (Philo of Alexandria as an Expositor of the Old
+Testament, considered both in himself and in regard to his historical
+influence.)
+
+_Ferdinand Weber._ System der altsynagogalen palästinenschen
+Theologie. 1880. The second edition (1897) bears the title Jüdische
+Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. (Jewish
+Theology exhibited on the basis of the Talmud and allied writings.)
+
+_W. Gass._ Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1881.
+
+_Theobald Ziegler._ Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1886.
+
+[pg 025]
+
+_Edwin Hatch._ The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
+Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures for 1888).
+
+_Theodor Zahn._ Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum
+Christentum. 1894.
+
+_Adolf Harnack._ Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., 1894. (E.T. History of
+Dogma, 1894-1899). Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis
+Eusebius. Vol. i., 1897.
+
+
+PROBLEMS many and various confronted theological science when it
+attempted to carry forward Pauline studies from the position in which
+they had been left by Baur.
+
+It was needful to clear up once for all the questions of literary
+criticism, to examine in detail the individual conceptions and trains
+of thought, to make clear the unity and inner connexion of the system,
+to show what rôle Paulinism had played in the development of early
+Catholic theology, and how far it was at one with primitive
+Christianity, and to solve the question whether the material employed
+in its construction was of purely Jewish, or in part of Greek origin.
+
+In regard to the literary question a certain measure of agreement was
+in course of time attained. Baur had distinguished three classes of
+Epistles. In the first he placed, as beyond doubt genuine, Galatians,
+Corinthians, and Romans; Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
+Thessalonians, and Philemon formed the second class, being considered
+uncertain; the Pastoral Epistles formed the third class, and were
+regarded as proved to be spurious.
+
+The views of the Tübingen master regarding the first class and the
+third were adopted by the majority of scholars of the next generation.
+No doubts were raised against the great Epistles; the Pastoral
+Epistles were rejected. Holtzmann, in his work on the Letters to
+Timothy and Titus,_(_26_)_ supplied a detailed argument in favour of
+this conclusion.
+
+[pg 026]
+
+Of the letters of the intermediate class, the first to the
+Thessalonians and that to the Philippians were by many rehabilitated
+as Pauline. The second to the Thessalonians was rejected with
+increasing confidence. A special problem was presented by the letters
+to the Colossians and Ephesians, both because of their evident mutual
+relationship and particularly in regard to certain parts of the
+Epistle to the Colossians which made a strong impression of
+genuineness. Holtzmann offered a solution which gave general
+satisfaction. He adopted the hypothesis that Colossians was based upon
+a genuine Pauline letter which had been worked over by a later
+hand._(_27_)_ The redactor he identified with the author of the
+Epistle to the Ephesians.
+
+While there was this general consensus in the critical camp, which was
+ratified in Holtzmann’s “Introduction,”_(_28_)_ the most diverse
+opinions on special points are found. Some attempts were made to save
+the [pg 027] genuineness of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians.
+For some, the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians are genuine
+throughout and represent a later phase of the Pauline theology. Nor
+were there lacking attempts of all kinds to rehabilitate the Pastoral
+Epistles. Those who did not venture to defend them as wholes make a
+point of retaining at least the “personal references.”
+
+The presentation of the Pauline teaching was, however, hardly affected
+by the literary divergences. Not even the most conservative of the
+critics had the boldness to place all the letters which have come down
+under the name of Paul on a footing of equality. Even those who
+regarded the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians as genuine did
+not fuse ideas of these Epistles with the system extracted from the
+four main Epistles, but presented them separately; and any who were
+not converted to the rejection of the Pastorals at all events took the
+precaution to give a separate chapter to the Pauline theology of these
+writings._(_29_)_ If only the personal references might be saved,
+these Epistles were as completely excluded from the presentation of
+the Pauline system as if they had been pronounced wholly spurious.
+
+Thus it continued to be the case, as it had been with Baur, that,
+generally speaking, only the four main epistles were taken into
+account in describing the Pauline system. The only significant change
+was that the epistle to the Philippians began to be put on the same
+footing, and, with a few exceptions, scholars no longer hesitated to
+regard as Pauline the conception of the pre-existence of Christ which
+is expressed in the section on the incarnation and obedience unto
+death. It was realised that the main epistles also presuppose this
+view, even if they do not state it so explicitly.
+
+There were, of course, as time went on, attempts to [pg 028] explain
+the composition of the four main epistles and Philippians as arising
+by the working up together in each single epistle of two or more
+originals, but these were not of any real importance for the study of
+the Pauline doctrine. It was only a carrying out of the task suggested
+by Semler, when he pointed out that we have not got the letters in
+their original form but only as prepared for public reading by the
+early Church. But the constitution of the Pauline material is scarcely
+affected by the attempts to reconstruct these originals. They have a
+purely literary interest.
+
+Theology, so far as it was occupied with the study of the Pauline
+system, did not allow itself to be at all disquieted by the rejection
+of the whole of the Epistles proposed by Bruno Bauer in his “Criticism
+of the Pauline Letters.”_(_30_)_ Nor was its confidence shaken by the
+hypothesis that the letters have been worked over to a very large
+extent and in a very thoroughgoing fashion. Christian Hermann Weisse’s
+“Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles,”_(_31_)_
+which appeared in 1867, where he sets forth the justification and the
+principles of this method, scarcely attracted any attention, as was
+indeed the case with almost all the theological work of this writer.
+
+The elucidation of the details of the Pauline doctrine is vigorously
+pursued. An empirical definition is attempted of the terms sin, law,
+conscience, justification, redemption, election, and freedom. A
+special interest attaches to the study of the terms flesh and spirit.
+After Holsten had endeavoured to trace the significance of the word
+flesh, Lüdemann—in a brilliant work published in 1872—endeavoured to
+arrive at a clear idea of the Apostle’s anthropology and its place in
+his doctrine of salvation.
+
+There are, so runs his thesis, two conceptions of [pg 029] “flesh” in
+Paul. The one agrees with the naive, simple Jewish linguistic usage,
+and means only the natural being of man. The other is much more
+precise and belongs to a dualistic system of thought. In it the flesh
+is defined as the necessary cause of sin and corruption and as the
+absolute antithesis to spirit. On close examination it appears that
+not merely two conceptions of “the flesh” existing side by side, but
+two different doctrines of man’s nature, and consequently two
+different conceptions of redemption, are found in Paul.
+
+According to the system which connects itself with the simpler,
+broader conception of the flesh, sin springs from the freedom of the
+will; the law is assumed to be inherently possible of fulfilment;
+redemption consists in a judgment of acquittal pronounced by God which
+has its ground solely in His mercy; righteousness is imputed; the act
+which brings redemption consists in faith. This circle of ideas, which
+forms a self-consistent whole, is described by Lüdemann as the
+“Jewish-religious,” the “juridical-subjective,” doctrine of
+redemption. It has its source in reflection on the death of Jesus.
+
+The other system of ideas is defined as the “ethico-dualistic.” In
+contradistinction to the former it makes use of an “objectively real”
+conception of redemption. It presupposes the more precise, narrower
+conception of “the flesh,” and regards sin as proceeding from it by a
+natural necessity. The law is the ferment of sin; death the natural
+outcome of the flesh. Redemption can therefore only consist in the
+abolition of the flesh. It is based on the communication of the
+Spirit, which produces in the man a new creature and a real
+righteousness. The redemptive act takes place in baptism. The ideas of
+this second system are based on the Lord’s resurrection.
+
+The coexistence of a juridical and an ethical system of thought in
+Paul had been held by others before Lüdemann. What he did, however,
+was to follow out each separately into its details, and to endeavour
+to prove that all the contradictions and obscurities which are to be
+observed [pg 030] in the conceptions and statements of the Pauline
+theology find their ultimate explanation in the coexistence of two
+different doctrines of man’s nature and two different doctrines of
+redemption.
+
+Hitherto the doctrine of redemption which appears alongside of the
+juridical had been described as “ethical.” He remarks that it is
+conceived not merely ethically, but actually physically, and therefore
+defines it as ethico-physical. Further, he is of opinion that the two
+theories are not co-equal in importance. He holds that in the
+ethico-physical “the real view of the Apostle” is set forth, which
+only tolerates the other alongside of it, and more and more tends to
+push it aside wherever in the discussion Paul can count upon a
+thorough understanding of the real essence of the matter.
+
+In the Epistles the development, he thinks, takes the following
+course. The Letter to the Galatians knows only the primitive Jewish
+system of thought with reference to Christ’s vicarious suffering and
+righteousness by faith; it does not advance to the bolder realistic
+doctrine of righteousness.
+
+In the Epistles to the Corinthians, according to Lüdemann, the Apostle
+does not make much use of dogma. “The less advanced position of the
+church there may have been one cause of this.” But the fundamental
+conceptions of the ethico-physical series of ideas begin to appear in
+them. Later on they attain to “constitutive importance” and “force
+their way into the leading dogmatic statements.” In the first four
+chapters of Romans the old view still finds expression. From the fifth
+onwards the new tenets are developed fully and clearly.
+
+This second series of ideas is not Jewish but Greek. Lüdemann’s view
+is that Paul, “in the attempt to give dogmatic fixity to the doctrine
+of salvation, presses on beyond the horizon of the Old Testament
+consciousness and is carried in the direction of Hellenism.”_(_32_)_
+The latter [pg 031] offered him a clearly-thought-out doctrine of man,
+in which the dominant idea was the antithesis of flesh and spirit, and
+made it necessary for him to think out a physically real doctrine of
+redemption.
+
+Pfleiderer_(_33_)_ also works out the two series of ideas, separating
+them scarcely less sharply than Lüdemann does. But he prefers to
+describe the series which runs parallel to the juridical, not as
+physico-ethical, but as mystico-ethical. Moreover, he does not admit
+that the ethical series expresses Paul’s view more adequately than the
+other. He is of opinion also that the two sets of conceptions held an
+equal place in the consciousness of the Apostle from the first. By
+logically thinking out the Jewish idea of the atoning death, Paul was
+led—according to Pfleiderer—to the anti-Jewish conclusion that
+redemption is for all mankind, and that the law is consequently
+invalidated. With this view there is united another, the source of
+which lies in the Hellenistic anthropology. This is that redemption
+consists in the influence exercised by the Holy Spirit upon the
+fleshly creatureliness, in consequence of which sin and death are
+abolished. The beginning of this process is to be sought in the
+resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the close connexion of the Pharisaic
+and Hellenistic elements “lies the characteristic peculiarity of the
+genuine Pauline theology, which can only be rightly understood when
+these two sides of it both receive equal attention.”
+
+That in Paulinism two lines of thought go side by side is recognised
+by almost all the investigators of this period. But in the importance
+assigned to each of them great divergences appear. Reuss makes the
+juridical ideas entirely subordinate to the ethical; in Ménégoz the
+former are more strongly emphasised than the latter. No one except
+Pfleiderer holds them to be on an exactly equal [pg 032] footing. In
+general the ethical set of ideas is regarded as the original creation
+of the Apostle, and is assumed to represent the deepest stratum in his
+thought. Accordingly, it is generally also held that the doctrine of
+the abolition of the flesh by the Spirit comes to its full development
+later than the other, which is based upon the atonement and imputed
+righteousness. Lüdemann’s theory of a development within the Pauline
+doctrine is adopted by the majority, though only in a less pronounced
+form.
+
+It should be mentioned that the first important attempt to prove the
+existence of different phases in the thought and life of Paul was made
+by Sabatier._(_34_)_ His work _L’Apotre Paul_ appeared in 1870, two
+years before Lüdemann’s study. At first the Apostle held, according to
+the French scholar, a simple doctrine which can be psychologically
+explained from his rabbinic training and his conversion. At the time
+of his great controversies he was compelled to work out for himself a
+philosophy of history which would enable him to prove that the law was
+only a passing episode in the history of salvation, and that
+justification by faith had always lain in the purpose of God. This
+doctrine takes a dominant position in the Epistles to the Galatians,
+Corinthians, and Romans. In the letters written during his
+imprisonment the Apostle advances to a speculative, gnostic
+development of his ideas. The coexistence of the juridical and ethical
+series of ideas does not receive the same prominence in Sabatier as in
+the later writers, who were influenced by Lüdemann and Pfleiderer.
+
+When all is said and done, there is in the works of this period much
+assertion and little proof regarding the development within Paulinism.
+One almost gets the impression that the assumption of different stages
+of thought was chiefly useful as a way of escaping the difficulty
+about the inner unity of the system. This [pg 033] problem is,
+however, rather instinctively felt than clearly grasped. The scholars
+of this period do not feel it incumbent upon them to trace out the
+connexion in which these disparate sets of ideas must have stood in
+the view of Paul. They show no surprise at his passing so easily from
+the one to the other and arguing from each alternately, and they do
+not ask themselves how he conceived the most general ultimate fact of
+redemption which underlies both of them. They do not seek to arrive at
+a really fundamental view of the essence of Paulinism.
+
+Their method of procedure in their presentation of the doctrine is
+itself significant. They do not trace its development from one
+fundamental conception, but treat it under dogmatic _loci,_ as Baur
+had done in his New Testament Theology. The scheme is more or less
+closely based on that of Reformation dogmatics. It is therefore
+assumed _a priori_ that the Pauline theology can be divided into
+practically the same individual doctrines as that of Luther, Zwingli,
+and Calvin. Really, however, a preliminary question arises whether
+this arrangement of the material does not introduce a wrong grouping
+and orientation into the Apostle’s system, and whether it does not
+destroy the natural order and relative importance of the thoughts,
+falsify the perspective, tear asunder what ought not to be disjoined,
+and render impossible the discovery of the fundamental idea in which
+all the utterances find their point of union. This procedure is
+innocently supposed to be scientific; as a matter of fact it leads to
+the result that the study of the subject continues to be embarrassed
+by a considerable remnant of the prepossessions with which the
+interpretation of Paul’s doctrine was approached in the days of the
+Reformation.
+
+It is not less prejudicial when others, as for example
+Holsten,_(_35_)_ adopt an arrangement of the material suggested by
+modern dogmatics. As the Pauline theology has, if possible, less
+affinity with the latter than with the Reformation theology, the error
+is almost more serious.
+
+[pg 034]
+
+In general these scholars are quite unconscious of the decisive
+importance which attaches to the arrangement and articulation of the
+material. It has, indeed, always been weakness of theological
+scholarship to talk much about method and possess little of it.
+
+Otto Pfleiderer, alone, is not entirely in this state of innocence. He
+has an inkling that the usual way of approaching the subject is not
+wholly free from objection. In the first edition of his Paulinism
+(1873)_(_36_)_ he raises the question whether the “genetic method” is
+not demanded by the task of tracing out the organic progress of the
+development of dogma in its Pauline beginnings. Practical
+considerations, however, determine him “to arrange the matter very
+much according to the customary dogmatic _loci,”_ while, however, at
+the same time giving as much attention as possible to the position of
+the dogma in the Pauline system.” He fears that the carrying out of
+the genetic principle would lead to many repetitions, and would make
+it more difficult to get a general view of “the way in which the
+separate doctrines were connected with their bases.”
+
+In order to salve his conscience he gives at the beginning, “by way of
+an introductory outline,” a sketch of the “organic development of the
+Pauline gnosis from its single root.” This general view—it occupies
+twenty-seven pages—is the most important part of the whole book. The
+succeeding chapters treat of sin, flesh, character of the law, aim of
+the law, Christ’s atoning death, Christ’s death as a means of
+liberation from the dominion of sin, the resurrection of Christ, the
+Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God and heavenly
+Christ, the appearing of Christ in the flesh, faith, justification,
+sonship, the beginning and the progress of the new life, the Christian
+Church, the Lord’s Supper, the election of grace, the parousia, and
+the end of the world.
+
+Lüdemann was prevented by the task which he had set himself from
+adopting the division according to _loci._ [pg 035] His object was
+only to investigate Paul’s conception of the fleshly man in its
+relation to his doctrine as a whole. In this way he was led to arrange
+the ideas in their natural order and, without strictly intending to do
+so, to give a general account of Paulinism, which is almost entirely
+free from the defective arrangement of other works, permits something
+of the logical articulation of the Apostle’s circle of ideas to
+appear, and certainly penetrates more deeply than the rest into the
+Apostle’s world of thought.
+
+As the works of Reuss, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Holsten, Renan, Sabatier,
+Ménégoz, Weizsäcker, do not aim at understanding and showing the
+development of this doctrine from a single fundamental thought, there
+are no real divergences in the general view which they take of the
+system. The differences of opinion with their predecessors which the
+authors express in their text and notes relate, in point of fact, only
+to details and minutiae, surprising as this may at first sight appear.
+The plan and design of the system are in general everywhere the same;
+the differences regard only the mixing and application of the colours,
+and the question how far Greek influences are to be recognised.
+
+In going through these works one after another, one is surprised to
+observe how great is their fundamental resemblance. At the same time
+there is something curiously “elusive” about them. At a given point
+one might be inclined to think that one of the authors was formulating
+a thought more clearly, or giving it more exclusive importance than
+the others; and one is just about to note this as a special
+characteristic of his view. A few pages later, however, or in a
+following chapter, one finds additions or reservations which show that
+he does not really think differently from the rest. The differences
+lie not so much in the actual conception as in the literary
+presentation, and in the manner in which the material, which is
+essentially a whole, is parcelled out among the different _loci._
+There is thus nothing to be [pg 036] gained by analysing the various
+conceptions one by one and comparing them with one another. Since
+there is no real difference of fundamental view, the comparison would
+lose itself in endless and unessential detail.
+
+To the general impression of monotony is to be added that of
+complexity. At the end of each of these works one is inclined to
+inquire whether the author really means to ask the reader to regard
+what is here offered as representing a system of thought which once
+existed in the brain of a man belonging to early Christianity, and was
+capable of being understood by his contemporaries. All the arts of
+literary presentation are employed to subtilise the conceptions, to
+describe the thoughts with exactitude, and to bring connexion and
+order into the chaos of ideas. But the result gives no satisfaction.
+No real elucidation and explanation of Paulinism is attained. The
+resulting impression is of something quite artificial.
+
+The welcome which these authors’ works received from their
+contemporaries shows that the latter saw in them an advance in the
+knowledge of Paulinism. They felt them to be satisfactory. That only
+means that the readers’ presuppositions and requirements lay within
+the same limitations as those of the authors.
+
+What had been the result arrived at? A description of the Pauline
+doctrine, a remarkably detailed description, but nothing more. That
+doubtless implied a certain progress. It did not, however, extend so
+far as the authors and their readers assumed. Both innocently supposed
+that in the description they possessed at the same time an
+explanation—as though the descriptive anatomy of this organism
+sufficed to explain its physiology. They were unconscious that they
+had so far only looked at Pauline thought from without, and had never
+gained any insight into the inner essence of the system.
+
+In these works the Apostle’s statements are quoted one after another,
+and developed in his own words. The authors think they have discharged
+their task when they [pg 037] have so arranged the course of the
+investigation that all important passages can be respectably housed.
+
+The odd thing is that they write as if they understood what they were
+writing about. They do not feel compelled to admit that Paul’s
+statements taken by themselves are unintelligible, consist of pure
+paradoxes, and that the point that calls for examination is how far
+they are thought of by their author as having a real meaning, and
+could be understood in this light by his readers. They never call
+attention to the fact that the Apostle always becomes unintelligible
+just at the moment when he begins to explain something; never give a
+hint that while we hear the sound of his words the tune of his logic
+escapes us.
+
+What is his meaning when he asserts that the law is abolished by the
+death of Jesus—according to other passages, by His resurrection? How
+does he represent to himself the process by which, through union with
+the death and resurrection of the Lord a new creaturehood is produced
+in a man, in virtue of which he is released from the conditions of
+fleshly existence, from sin and death? How far is a union possible
+between the natural man, alive in this present world, and the
+glorified Christ who dwells in heaven; and one, moreover, of such a
+kind that it has a retrospective reference to His death? The authors
+we have named do not raise questions of this kind. They feel no need
+to trace out the realities which lie behind these paradoxical
+assertions. They take it for granted that Paul has himself explained
+his statements up to a certain point—so far, in fact, as this is
+possible in the world of feeling to which religion belongs.
+
+This self-deception is made the more easy for them by the fact that
+they are accustomed to clothe their own religious views in Pauline
+phraseology, and consequently they come to treat as the authentic
+logic of Paul, arguments which they have unconsciously imported into
+their account of his teaching. They fail to reckon with the
+possibility that the original significance of his utterances [pg 038]
+may rest on presuppositions which are not present to our apprehension
+and conception. For the same reason they all more or less hold the
+opinion that what they have to do with is mainly a psychological
+problem. They assume that the Pauline system has arisen out of a
+series of reflexions and conclusions, and would be as a whole clear
+and intelligible to any one who could succeed in really thinking
+himself into the psychology of the rabbinic zealot who was overpowered
+by the vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.
+
+The writer who goes furthest in this direction is Holsten. In his work
+on the “Gospel of Paul and of Peter”_(_37_)_ he describes how Paul,
+while he was persecuting the new faith, was, as a Jewish thinker,
+occupied with the thought of the offence of the cross and the alleged
+resurrection. While still a fanatical zealot “he constantly carried
+with him in his consciousness the elements of the Messianic faith,
+even though as negative and negated.” By the keenness of his
+theological dialectic he was compelled to imagine what the alleged
+facts would really signify if the belief of the disciples were
+justified. The “principle of the Messianic faith” was, in him, “alive
+in greater definiteness than even in the consciousness of the
+followers of the Messiah whom he persecuted.” The Messiahship of Jesus
+could not for him take its place as a hope and faith within the Jewish
+system of thought and religious life, [pg 039] but necessarily implied
+the destruction of what he had hitherto held to be true. Thus the
+persecutor had in principle thought out for himself to its ultimate
+consequences the revolution which would result from the acceptance of
+the Messiahship of Jesus. And this he translated into word and deed
+after he had experienced the vision on the Damascus road.
+
+Other writers take as the starting-point for their psychological
+arguments the passage in Romans vii., where Paul depicts the despair
+of the man who recognises that the law, although it is spiritual and
+was given with a view to life, can only in the fleshly man produce
+sin, condemnation, and death. What we there read concerning the
+struggle between the natural, powerful will of the flesh and the law,
+is, they think, written from the point of view of the pre-Christian
+consciousness of the Apostle. He had experienced this agony of soul,
+and it was by this that the Jewish religious attitude had been broken
+down in him. Therefore in his Gospel he does not desire to retain
+anything from the faith of his fathers.
+
+These two main lines of psychological theory are followed for a longer
+or shorter distance in all the works of this period. Hand in hand with
+this psychologising goes a tendency to modernisation. The scholars of
+this period spiritualise Paul’s thought. The transformation varies in
+extent for the different ideas. The statements about the atonement and
+imputed righteousness are the least affected by it. What is
+unintelligible in these is put down to the account of the Jewish
+Rabbinic mode of thought in which Paul is supposed to be held
+prisoner. On the other hand, the conceptions regarding union with
+Christ in his death and passion, and the new life in Him through the
+Spirit, are subjected to paraphrase and explanation until nothing of
+the realistic sense is left remaining. The question is not faced why
+Paul, if he wanted to say anything so “spiritual” and general as this,
+should have adopted so exaggerated, paradoxical, and materialistic a
+method of expression.
+
+[pg 040]
+
+Whatever remains unexplained after the psychologising, the
+depotentiation, and modernisation, is referred to the peculiar
+character of the religious experience which the Apostle is supposed to
+have undergone in the vision on the Damascus road. What essential
+difference there was between this appearance of the Lord and those
+experienced by the other disciples is nowhere clearly worked out, not
+even by Holsten, who makes the most extensive use of this vision. It
+is simply taken for granted by them all that in the vision itself is
+to be found the explanation, not only of Paul’s conversion, but also
+in some way or other of his call to be a missionary to the Gentiles
+and of the peculiar character of his doctrine.
+
+All these accounts of his teaching agree in assuming that Paul’s
+system of doctrine was in the main a purely personal creation of his
+own, and is in some way to be explained by the special character of
+his religious experience. The question whether in this way his
+integral connexion with primitive Christianity is sufficiently
+preserved receives but little attention. In none of these works is the
+investigation of the doctrinal material common to Paul and his
+opponents seriously taken in hand. The writers are content with the
+affirmation that both parties took as their starting-point the fact of
+the death and resurrection of Jesus, without entering into any
+consideration of the question how far Paul’s reasonings, which they
+refer back to his inner personal experience, reproduce generally
+current ideas of primitive Christianity and simply carry them out to
+their logical issue.
+
+The question which Ritschl had formerly forced on the consideration of
+Baur has therefore not been faced or solved. It is true the author of
+“Justification and Reconciliation”_(_38_)_ thinks that he has not only
+raised the question but also answered it. He undertakes to explain all
+the Pauline doctrinal passages on the basis of [pg 041] Old Testament
+conceptions. In this way he hopes to work out the Apostle’s real
+conception of the atoning death of Jesus, and of “righteousness,” and
+believes that these will then, since they have been gained from the
+Old Testament, coincide with the primitive Christian views in all
+essential points.
+
+Speaking generally, Ritschl’s tendency is to make the differences
+between Paulinism and primitive Christianity as small as possible, and
+to find them, as he had already done in the “Origin of the early
+Catholic Church,” not so much in his doctrine proper as in his
+attitude to certain practical questions. Ritschl employs the
+dialectical skill with which nature had richly endowed him to
+transform and shade off the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles
+until it harmonises with the fundamental Christian teaching which he
+assumes for the earliest period and finds necessary for his dogmatics.
+
+He entirely depotentiates the juridical series of ideas. Moreover, he
+refuses to admit that Paulinism constitutes a speculative system. He
+assumes that the Apostle moved in a free, untrammelled fashion among
+the various sets of ideas and felt no real need to combine them into a
+unity.
+
+In addition to Ritschl, Bernhard Weiss_(_39_)_ and Willibald
+Beyschlag,_(_40_)_ in their New Testament Theologies, endeavour to
+make clear the relations between Paul and primitive Christianity from
+the stand-point of critical conservatism. In order to secure a broad
+basis for the primitive form of apostolic doctrine, they pronounce I
+Peter and the Epistle of James to be documents of the pre-Pauline
+period.
+
+The writer who makes things easiest for himself is Von
+Hofmann._(_41_)_ For him there is no “Pauline system [pg 042] of
+doctrine.” The Apostle never uttered anything that did not belong to
+the common doctrine of Christianity, but “according to the difference
+of the occasion” brought into prominence this or that aspect of the
+saving acts of God or of the condition of salvation, and what he thus
+brought forward, now under one designation now under another, he sets
+forth now in this relation and now in that one. Therefore this writer,
+who was vaunted by the orthodox as a brilliant opponent of Tübingen
+errors, has no scruple in working up together the Pauline ideas along
+with those of the other New Testament Epistles into a single whole,
+which he offers as apostolic doctrine.
+
+Another problem which is hardly apprehended in its full difficulty by
+the scholars of this period is that of the total neglect in the
+Pauline gospel of the proclamation of the kingdom of God and His
+righteousness which Jesus committed to His followers. They seem to
+feel no surprise at the fact that the Apostle, even where it would be
+the most natural thing in the world, never appeals to the sayings and
+commands of the Master. Many of them never touch on this question at
+all.
+
+Resch, however, in his collection of extra-canonical Gospel-fragments,
+even undertakes to show that in the Pauline letters a whole series of
+otherwise unrecorded sayings of Jesus are embodied, and defends the
+hypothesis that the Apostle had taken them from a pre-canonical Gospel
+which ranked for him as an authority of equal value with the Old
+Testament. The enigma of the untraced quotation, “What eye hath not
+seen, neither hath ear heard,” etc., in I Cor. ii. 9 ff., is solved by
+referring the “as it is written” to the written Gospel on which Paul
+draws._(_42_)_
+
+It is curious that most of these authors believe that they reduce the
+acuteness of the problem by pointing [pg 043] out in the Epistles as
+many reminiscences of Synoptic sayings as possible. That, of course,
+only makes the matter more complicated. If so many utterances of Jesus
+are hovering before Paul’s mind, how comes it that he always merely
+paraphrases them, instead of quoting them as sayings of Jesus, and
+thus sheltering himself behind their authority?
+
+As for those who have some inkling of the problem, their one thought
+is to dispose of it as rapidly as possible, instead of first exposing
+it in its full extent. Among them is Ritschl, who here employs all the
+arts and artifices of his exegesis and dialectic. That Jesus and Paul
+did not at bottom teach the same thing is to this undogmatic dogmatist
+unthinkable.
+
+In general the writers of this period are involved in the most curious
+confusions regarding the problem of “Jesus and Paul.” They fail to
+perceive that these two magnitudes are not directly comparable with
+one another because they think of Paul in complete isolation, and not
+as a feature of primitive Christianity. The differences and
+oppositions which reveal themselves between the teaching of Jesus and
+that of Paul exist also as between the teaching of Jesus and that of
+primitive Christianity itself. The momentous development did not arise
+first with Paul, but earlier, in the community of the first disciples.
+Their “religion” is not identical with the “teaching of Jesus,” and
+did not simply grow out of it; it is founded upon His death and
+resurrection. The “new element” was not brought into Christianity by
+Paul; he found it there before him, and what he did was to think it
+out in its logical implications. The difference of teaching between
+Paul and Jesus is not a difference between individuals, it is—in
+almost its whole extent—due to the fact that the Apostle belongs to
+primitive Christianity.
+
+In its false statement of the problem of Jesus and Paul the
+scholarship of the period after Baur shows that it has not yet
+succeeded in understanding the Apostle of [pg 044] the Gentiles as a
+phenomenon, an aspect, of primitive Christianity.
+
+There is frequent mention, in all these studies, of the Jewish roots
+of the Pauline thought. They attempt to explain his views, so far as
+possible, from the materials given in the Law and the Prophets. Some
+authors had been inclined to assume that in regard to his conception
+of the Law he did not stand wholly upon Old Testament ground, in the
+sense that he sometimes means by it a narrower ceremonial code of
+temporary validity, and sometimes a universal ethical law which has
+not been invalidated by the death of Christ. These confusions were put
+an end to by a study of Edward Grafe._(_43_)_ He shows that Paul when
+he speaks of the law, alike when he uses the article or does not use
+it, always has in mind the whole legal code, and never varies from the
+conviction that this has been set aside by the death and resurrection
+of Christ.
+
+That in Galatians the ritual aspect of the law, in Romans the ethical,
+is the more prominent, does not alter this fact. Nor is the
+consistency of the Apostle’s view annulled by the fact that in many
+places he formulates the negative judgment quite definitely, while in
+others he softens it by an admission of the historical and ethical
+significance of the law.
+
+That Paul’s thinking follows the lines of Old Testament conceptions is
+self-evident. The only question is whether the motive forces which
+make their appearance in his gospel are derived in some way or other
+from the Old Testament Scriptures.
+
+That is not the case. In working up the primitive Christian views he
+does not have recourse to the ideas of the ancient Judaism. Nowhere
+does Paul attach himself to these. He takes no ideas from the Old
+Testament with a view to giving them a new development, [pg 045] but
+uses only what he can take from it ready formed. His new discovery
+rests on a different basis. The Law and the Prophets serve only to
+supply him with the Scriptural arguments, positive and negative, of
+which he stands in need.
+
+On the essential nature of the distinctively Pauline world of thought
+the Old Testament therefore throws no light. This negative result is
+not, indeed, everywhere clearly formulated. There are some students of
+Paulinism who simply ignore it. Heinrici, in the preface to his study
+of 2 Corinthians (1887), ventures on the assertion that in Paul the
+“spirit of Old Testament prophecy” triumphs over contemporary Judaism.
+
+And he is not the only one who clings to the illusion that much help
+is to be gained from the Old Testament for the understanding of the
+Apostle’s world of thought. By way of proof they cite every possible
+parallel, even the most remote. But the disproportion between the
+amount of the material offered and the smallness of the result
+established tells against them.
+
+That Paul is a child of late Judaism only began to be generally taken
+into account when its world of thought was made known to theology by
+Schürer’s “History of New Testament Times,”_(_44_)_ and Weber’s
+“System of Palestinian Theology in the Early Synagogues.”_(_45_)_ But
+even after this most scholars shared a certain disinclination to
+recognise a real connexion between the Apostle’s world of thought and
+that of late Judaism. Heinrici, who in [pg 046] his study in the
+Corinthian Epistles gives great attention to the question regarding
+the source of his ideas, definitely denies that “the intellectual and
+religious forces of Late Judaism exercised a dominant influence” on
+the Apostle. He holds, like many others, that Paul, passing over his
+own time, grasped hands with the classical Judaism of the prophets,
+and that one source of his strength is to be found in this fact. This
+prejudice is to be explained by the low estimation in which late
+Judaism had always been held by theologians. It was identified,
+without examination, on the one hand with “fantastic apocalyptic
+views,” and on the other with a “soulless Rabbinism.”
+
+The admission, however, that Paul in the principles of his exegesis
+was in agreement with Rabbinism was made by theologians with
+comparative readiness. This did not carry with it the surrender of
+anything that had been much valued, since the verbal comparison and
+contrast of passages which he practises, and the illogical and
+fantastic reasoning which appears in his arguments, had always been
+distasteful to theological science. It was therefore rather welcome to
+it than otherwise, to find, in consequence of the increased knowledge
+of parallel products of late Judaism, an explanation of a weakness
+which did not properly harmonise with the greatness of this heroic
+spirit, in the influences to which he had been subjected by reason of
+his theological education._(_46_)_
+
+Along with this was accepted the fact that, in common with his
+contemporaries, he naively treats the Haggadic embellishments of Old
+Testament stories as on the same footing with the Scripture itself.
+His assumption that the Law was given by the angels (Gal. iii. 19),
+and his reference to the rock that followed the children of Israel in
+the wilderness and poured out water (I Cor. x. 4), are to be explained
+from passages in the Rabbinic literature. [pg 047] No thoroughgoing
+investigation was undertaken with a view to determining whether the
+Rabbinic principles suffice to explain Paul’s method of scriptural
+argument. In general the view prevails that his “typological” and
+“spiritualising” _(pneumatisch)_ interpretation goes beyond what can
+elsewhere be shown in Palestinian theology. It is true these two
+methods of exegesis, going beyond the simple literal sense, are not
+wholly unknown, but they only came to their full development in
+contemporary Alexandrian Biblical scholarship. For this reason it is
+proposed to assume that Paul had also received an influence from this
+side.
+
+As examples of Alexandrian exegesis are quoted the interpretation of
+Hagar and Sarah as representing the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem
+(Gal. iv. 22 f.), that of the water-giving rock as representing Christ
+(I Cor. x. 4), and the argument from the threshing oxen to the
+preachers of the gospel (I Cor. ix. 9 ff.).
+
+One of the greatest problems of the Pauline use of Scripture is not
+mentioned in these works. It is assumed that the Apostle attached
+special importance to proving the Messiahship of the crucified Jesus.
+How then can we explain the fact that he never makes any use of the
+passage about the Suffering Servant of the Lord in Isaiah liii? This
+fact is the more surprising because it may be taken as certain that
+the apologetic of the primitive Christian community gave this passage
+a most prominent place in its plan of operations.
+
+A scientific attempt to adduce from the Rabbinic literature
+explanatory parallels to Pauline thought was made by Franz Delitzsch
+in 1870 in connexion with his Hebrew translation of the Epistle to the
+Romans._(_47_)_ The [pg 048] net result is not great. The parallels
+adduced are so uncharacteristic that they throw no new light on the
+Apostle’s ideas.
+
+No further considerable attempts were made in this direction. Nor did
+Weber’s “Theology of the Early Synagogue” lead to any other important
+works being undertaken in that department. On the contrary, his sketch
+of the Rabbinic world of ideas makes it apparent that Pauline thought
+does not become any more intelligible by its aid than it is in itself,
+even though one parallel or another may be unearthed. Moreover, it is
+to be remarked that the discovery of such parallels would only become
+of importance if proof could be given that they really date from the
+beginning of the first century. Such proof is, however, quite
+impossible.
+
+Of the “Rabbinism” of Paul’s day we know practically nothing. Even the
+earliest strata of the literature which is at our disposal were not
+formed before the beginning of the third century A.D._(_48_)_ It
+consists of a codification of tradition carried out by the later
+Rabbinic scholasticism. How far it offers us a faithful representation
+of the ideas and character of Rabbinic thought at the beginning of the
+first century must remain an open question.
+
+Even if Paul, in virtue of his dialectic and certain external
+characteristics, belongs to the world which this literature reveals to
+us, in regard to the content of his ideas and his creative force as a
+thinker he is not to be understood by its aid. To register this fact
+is, however, by no means to deny that he has his roots in the Jewish
+theology of his time, but only to say that he shows no affinity as
+regards the inner essence of his problems and [pg 049] ideas with what
+a later age offers us as the Rabbinism of the first century. It is
+possible, indeed it is in the highest degree probable, that many of
+his ideas for which no “Rabbinic” parallels can be adduced,
+nevertheless have their origin in the Jewish theology of his time. Who
+is to guarantee that the later scholasticism has faithfully preserved
+for us the Jewish theology which was contemporary with Christianity?
+It may well have been more living in thought and more profound than
+the men of the after-time could understand, or their tradition
+preserve. The picture which they draw for us shows only a sun-scorched
+plain, but this yellow, wilted grass was green and fresh once. What
+did the meadows look like then?
+
+It is to be remembered that the Apocalypse of Ezra, which shows in its
+own way such depth, while it is derived from the Scribal theology of
+the first century, is as little to be explained from what on the basis
+of the later literature we think of as the Rabbinism of the period as
+are the Pauline Epistles. Had this writing not been preserved, it
+would never have occurred to anyone that at that time men belonging to
+the circle of the Scribes had been tormented in this way by the
+primary problems of religion, and had brought the questions arising
+out of them into such close relations with eschatology.
+
+Further, it is to be taken into account that Palestinian Scribism,
+even though it was an independent entity, did not, at the time when it
+has to be considered in connexion with Paul, exist in absolute
+exclusiveness, but maintained relations with Jewish Hellenism. The
+latter worked on a basis of ideas which it had in large measure taken
+over from Rabbinism and held in common with the latter. This
+relationship becomes in the case of Philo clearly apparent. With him
+one can never tell where the “Rabbinist” ends and the Hellenist
+begins. But if the theology of the Scribes stood in any kind of
+relation with Jewish Hellenism, it cannot have been so poor in ideas
+and unspiritual as it appears in the later tradition.
+
+[pg 050]
+
+Even the discourses of Jesus, in spite of the polemical picture which
+they give of it, create the impression that He had to do with a
+Rabbinism which was interested in really religious questions, even
+though it showed itself incapable of rising to the height of the
+simple piety to which His preaching of the Kingdom of God and the
+repentance necessary thereto made its appeal.
+
+It seems therefore probable that the Epistles of Paul and the
+Apocalypse of Ezra, along with its satellite the Apocalypse of Baruch,
+are witnesses to a Rabbinism, or a movement within its sphere, of
+which the Rabbinic tradition which later became fixed in written form
+gives us no information.
+
+What should we know of the moving forces of the Reformation as they
+manifest themselves in Luther’s works of the year 1521, if we were
+dependent for our information on the Lutheran scholasticism of the
+sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? How would we think of the
+Reformation as a whole if we possessed only these witnesses? With all
+due respect to the vaunted faithfulness of Rabbinic tradition, which
+after all we are not in a position to check, was it capable of
+preserving the record of a period of living thought? Is an oral
+tradition ever capable of doing so?
+
+The historical examples in which we are able to test the tradition of
+later generations by the reality which has subsequently come to light,
+are calculated to shake our faith in the assumption that it can do so.
+What did Beethoven’s time know of the achievements of the period of
+Bach? Mention is made of the elaborate fugues which had their origin
+at that time; but that the eighteenth century had produced choral
+works of deep feeling and an elevation secure against change of
+fashion, was entirely unknown to the second generation after Bach,
+although there had been nothing to interrupt tradition.
+
+Moreover, it ought not to be forgotten that we possess the history of
+Judaism only in fragments. As regards the political events of the
+first century we are [pg 051] comparatively well informed, but of the
+religious movements we know little, and what does come to our
+knowledge is so disconnected and self-contradictory that it cannot be
+combined into a single picture. The Baptist, Jesus, Philo, Paul,
+Josephus, and the authors of the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch cover
+together about two generations. They are at first sight as entirely
+different as if they belonged to widely separated periods.
+
+The destruction of Jerusalem interrupts the continuity of development
+of the Jewish people and of its thought. Its life is extinguished.
+Hellenism dies out. There arises a Rabbinism which is no longer borne
+on the tide of great national and spiritual movements. It becomes
+ossified, and confines itself to mere unproductive commentating upon
+the law. From the past its tradition takes only what lies within the
+field of its own narrow interests. The problems and ideas which moved
+the earlier, many-sided period no longer come into view, but fall into
+as complete oblivion as if they had never occupied Jewish religious
+thought.
+
+The scholarship of the period after Baur is indeed far enough from
+embarking on reflexions of this kind. It takes scarcely any notice of
+what remains of the Late-Jewish non-Hellenistic literature. Even the
+commentators make scarcely any use of the parallels to Pauline ideas
+and conceptions which are found in Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch,
+the Apocalypse of Ezra, and here and there in the Testaments of the
+Twelve Patriarchs.
+
+It is nothing less than astonishing that the close affinities with the
+Apocalypse of Ezra do not receive any recognition. In this work there
+are elaborate discussions of the problems of sin, the Fall of our
+first parents, Election, the wrath, long-suffering, and mercy of God,
+the prerogative of Israel, the significance of the law, the temporal
+and the eternal Jerusalem, of the prospect of dying or surviving to
+the Parousia, the tribulation of the times of the End, and the
+Judgment. The close affinity between this writer and Paul strikes the
+eye at once. [pg 052] Writers on Paulinism are, however, so obsessed
+by the idea that the teaching of Paul is a “personal creation” that
+they cannot bring themselves to accept the view that the religious
+problems which struggle for solution in his letters had also occupied
+his Jewish contemporaries or at least a section of them._(_49_)_
+
+The claims of Late Judaism on Paul were therefore taken to be
+discharged when his Rabbinic dialectic and exegesis, and to a certain
+extent his eschatology also, had been ascribed to it.
+
+The chapter on the future-hope which connected Paul on the one hand
+with Judaism and on the other with primitive Christianity, is never
+omitted in any account of his teaching given by the scholars of the
+post-Baur period. In it is collected all that the Epistles have to say
+regarding the parousia, the resurrection, the judgment, and the
+Kingdom of the Last Times. The treatment, however, is by no means
+thorough. Scarcely anywhere is there an attempt to arrange the
+scattered notices in an orderly way and bring them into relation with
+one another. It is taken for granted that they are inconsistent with
+one another, as a necessary consequence of the fantastic character of
+the material. That Paul may have had a clear plan of the events of the
+End in which all his statements can find a place, is not taken into
+account. These writers therefore set no limit to the admission of
+inconsistencies, and draw a picture which is, to put it plainly,
+meaningless.
+
+So far, it occurs to no one that the want of connexion may perhaps
+result from the fact that the separate [pg 053] statements have not
+been carefully examined in regard to what they actually mean, and to
+their mutual relations. It is taken as quite certain that the “simple”
+eschatology of I Thessalonians is superseded by the more complicated
+view of the Corinthian letters; and these in turn are not the last
+stage in this “development” of the Apostle’s thought. No attempt is
+made to get a clear idea in what order he thinks of the judgment and
+the resurrection of the dead, or as to whether he holds that there is
+one resurrection and one judgment, or a resurrection of the
+“righteous,” and another besides, and whether he assumes this to be
+accompanied by one judgment or two.
+
+The authors regard with a certain amount of self-satisfaction the way
+in which they have emphasised the importance given to the eschatology
+by Paul. In the chapter devoted to it they have certainly emphasised
+again and again, “with the utmost energy,” the fact that he really
+“shared” the eschatological expectations of his time and admitted them
+to an important place in his creed. The chapter in question, however,
+only gets its turn after the whole “system of doctrine” has been
+safely housed in the earlier chapters without seeking any aid from the
+eschatology or even saying a word about it. As in the Church prayers
+of to-day, one catches an echo of it only at the end. This means that,
+when all is said and done, these writers regard it only as a kind of
+annexe to the main edifice of Pauline doctrine. That is a fact which
+their brave words about the importance attributed to it in their
+account do not alter in the slightest. None of these students of
+Paulinism asks himself whether there is an organic connexion between
+the eschatological expectations and the system as such, and whether
+the fundamental conceptions and concatenation of ideas are not somehow
+or other conditioned by the hope of the final consummation. It is
+simply taken as self-evident that eschatology can only form an
+incidental chapter in Paul’s teaching.
+
+[pg 054]
+
+The most natural course to follow in the investigation would have been
+to begin with the eschatology as the most general and
+“primitive-Christian” element, and then to have tried to find a path
+leading from here to the central doctrine of the new life in union
+with the dying and resurrection of Christ. This course is nowhere
+followed.
+
+That is the more surprising as it is generally assumed that the
+“missionary preaching” of the Apostle took an almost purely
+eschatological form, and was scarcely distinguishable from the
+primitive-Christian preaching of repentance, the judgment, and the
+parousia. The point to examine would therefore have been precisely how
+the “Pauline theology” grew out of the eschatology which Paul shared
+with primitive Christianity. Instead of that, these writers begin with
+the “doctrinal system,” and attach to that by way of appendix an
+account of the eschatology. It here first becomes fully apparent what
+a misfortune it was for Pauline study in the post-Baur period that it
+kept to the method of presentation under _loci,_ and consequently
+accorded eschatology, in principle, no greater importance for
+Paulinism than it had had for Reformation theology.
+
+Bernard Weiss, agreeing in this with Havet, lays strong emphasis on
+the eschatology, and makes a beginning in the direction of an
+intelligent presentation of Paulinism. Instead of beginning, like the
+others, with the “doctrine of man,” or with “sin and the law,” he
+first sets forth “the earliest preaching of Paul as Apostle of the
+Gentiles,” which he makes to consist of nothing but the proclamation
+of the judgment and the parousia. But having got this length, he does
+not feel any need to point out the paths which lead from here to the
+“teaching of the four great doctrinal and polemical epistles.” He
+simply puts the two sections side by side, and even falls into the
+inconsistency of devoting another chapter to the eschatology at a
+later point. The doctrine of Paul consists therefore for these
+scholars of a theology of the [pg 055] present and a theology of the
+future which have no inner connexion with one another. It is indeed
+cited as an achievement on his part that he turned the eye of faith
+from the exclusive contemplation of the “hereafter” to take in the
+present also. How he came to do so—he alone of this first Christian
+generation—to point to present “blessings of salvation” in addition to
+those of the future, is not explained. The co-existence of the two is
+simply noted as a fact.
+
+How far the scholars of this period were from taking the Pauline
+eschatology seriously, is evident from the fact that they neglected to
+enquire into its connexion with that of Late Judaism. Otto Everling,
+who in 1888 took in hand to give an account of one of its main
+features, its angelology and demonology, was not able to refer to any
+previous work in this department._(_50_)_ A theologian to whom he
+spoke of his design answered that “one ought not to examine the
+birth-marks of a genius like the Apostle.”
+
+Everling brings forward the passages which speak of Satan, the angels,
+and the demons, one after another, and adduces parallels from Enoch,
+the Ascension of Isaiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jubilees,
+the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
+His review of the material shows in what a step-motherly fashion it
+had been treated by previous commentators of all shades of opinion.
+
+In the result it appears that the Pauline statements about angelology
+and demonology have not sprung from his own imagination, but all have
+their earlier analogues in the Late-Jewish theology, or at any rate
+can be understood as inferences from the conceptions there laid down.
+It further appears that his statements stand in systematic connexion
+and mutually supplement one another.
+
+In its main lines the Pauline doctrine of the angels shows us the
+following picture. Spiritual beings who, in accordance with the
+hierarchic arrangement adopted in [pg 056] Late-Jewish theology, are
+divided into various classes, played a prominent part at the giving of
+the law. From that time forward they acted as overseers of the chosen
+people, and also as the real powers behind the gods of the heathen. By
+the death and resurrection of Christ their power has been in principle
+abolished, although it continues to be still in some way exercised
+upon those who offer sacrifices to idols or submit themselves to the
+law.
+
+Believers in Christ, however, stand over against them as a class of
+men who are liberated from their sway, and who possess a wisdom which
+understands better than their own the great events in which the
+history of the world is about to close.
+
+These angelic existences feel that their domination is threatened, and
+fight with all the weapons at their command. It is at their
+instigation that the attempt is made to corrupt the Gospel by
+legalism; all the difficulties which the Apostle encounters, all the
+corporeal sufferings which he has to bear, are to be attributed to
+them. It is on their account that women must be veiled when attending
+the services of the Church, since otherwise they run the risk of
+becoming the victims of their lust, as of old their mother Eve was
+seduced by the devil. Most dangerous of all is their skill in
+deception: Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.
+
+With the appearance of the Lord begins the decisive struggle which is
+to lead to the destruction of these powers. They are to be delivered
+up to judgment, to receive their sentence at the mouth of the saints,
+whom, until the parousia, they have still the power to harass with
+cunning and cruelty, though not to destroy.
+
+“In its proper historical surroundings Christianity shows up in its
+true majesty,” said Richard Rothe once. Everling drew from these
+words, which he placed at the beginning of his book, courage to make a
+thorough investigation of matters which had previously been timidly
+avoided because of their strangeness.
+
+How wide-reaching was the significance of his synthetic [pg 057] study
+he had hardly realised. His intention was to depict clearly and in
+vivid colours the imposingly fantastic Late-Jewish background of
+Pauline theology. The theology of his time took the same view. It
+accepted the offered gift somewhat constrainedly, but on the whole
+gratefully enough. If it had the impression that the background as
+thus restored, while no doubt “interesting,” was somewhat too glaring
+and obtrusive, it remained confident that the “doctrinal system” which
+it throws into relief is not otherwise affected by it. The
+appendix-chapter on eschatology grows in size and acquires a certain
+connectedness. But there seemed no reason to fear that it might grow
+so vigorously as to overpower those into which the Pauline theology
+proper is neatly parcelled out.
+
+In reality, however, there was quite sufficient reason for anxiety.
+Everling had shown that angelology and demonology were, as a matter of
+fact, component parts of Paul’s cosmology. That they consequently also
+entered into his fundamental conception of redemption was a point
+which he had not especially emphasised. But the fact was written in
+giant characters across his work. From the moment when Paul’s
+statements regarding God, the devil, the angels, and the world are
+apprehended in their organic connexion, it becomes abundantly evident
+that for him redemption, in its primary and fundamental sense,
+consists in a deliverance from the powers which have their abode
+between heaven and earth. It is therefore essentially a future good,
+dependent on a cosmic event of universal scope.
+
+It at once becomes evident that the investigation of Paulinism must
+take as its starting-point these ideas as being of the most general
+character, and endeavour to show how the other statements regarding
+redemption are derived from them. Theological science was thus forced
+into the road which it had hitherto sedulously avoided. The deceptive
+character of the division of Paulinism under _loci,_ by which it had
+long been kept in [pg 058] an unhappy state of subservience to
+Reformation and modern prejudices, now became apparent. But for all
+that theology held to the old way and was determined to cast out
+anyone who set foot upon the new. That is the explanation of the fate
+which befel Richard Kabisch’s “Eschatology of Paul.”_(_51_)_ Kabisch
+had been considering the plan of a work on the Pauline Ethic, and in
+doing so had become aware that it was to a large extent conditioned by
+the eschatological expectations. Thereupon he resolved to begin with a
+preliminary study of the eschatology._(_52_)_
+
+“Salvation,” so runs his argument, is thought of by Paul as
+“deliverance” from judgment and destruction. “Justification” and
+“reconciliation” are subservient to this deliverance and do not
+describe a state of salvation independent of it. The spiritual goods
+which are characterised by many theologians as the object of the
+Apostle’s wrestling and striving are in reality only the anticipatory
+first-fruits of the blessedness which the future has in store. This
+blessedness consists in the believer’s being freed at the parousia
+from the fleshly body in order to put on the heavenly robe of glory.
+Thus eschatology is the foundation both of the dogmatics and ethics of
+the Apostle.
+
+Life and death are for him physical conceptions. Spiritual death and
+spiritual life in the modern religious sense are unknown to him. Even
+where, as in Rom. vi., he speaks of a dying and rising again which are
+not accompanied by any change in the outward and visible existence of
+the individual, he does not mean a spiritual dying and rising again
+but, inconceivable as it may [pg 059] appear, a physical occurrence.
+Everything spiritual goes back to something corporeal. That is true
+also as regards the ethics. It is not from the consciousness of the
+“ideal possession of eternal life” that he infers the duty of walking
+in newness of life, but from the fact that one who shares the death of
+Christ must also share His resurrection. Both events have reference to
+the present. It is “a simple logical consequence” that we should walk
+in accordance with this physical newness of life in order to show that
+the fleshly, _sarkic,_ body has been put off.
+
+The new life of which Paul speaks as a present spirit is therefore
+based on the “repetition” of Christ’s bodily resurrection, which is
+rendered possible by the _unio mystica_ with him. It guarantees to the
+individual his indestructibility even though the corruptible world, to
+which his fleshly corporeity belongs, falls a prey to destruction. The
+believer will then have a part in the new world-substance.
+
+Paul’s soul is therefore thrilled with the eager desire for life,
+shaken with the dread of destruction. His faith, hope, and fear all
+revolve about one centre—the abolition of corruption and the bestowal
+of incorruption. His religion is a “will-to-live” in a large elemental
+sense. He yearns for redemption from the creaturehood which is under
+the sway of Satan and his powers, and from the body which they hold in
+thrall. The moment in which the relative positions of the world of
+spirits and the world of men are to be reversed, and a great final
+renewal of all things is to be brought in—that moment cannot come
+quickly enough for him. Therefore he seeks in some way to antedate it.
+
+The future condition of existence is that of “glory.” It is
+anticipated in the present life by the possession of the “Spirit”
+which belongs essentially to the heavenly light substance.
+
+Thus Kabisch endeavours to explain the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit
+purely on the ground of the Late-Jewish metaphysic. A super-earthly
+substance enters [pg 060] into the corporeity of those who in virtue
+of the _unio mystica_ with Christ have entered into the experience of
+His death and resurrection. It produces in them a new being, and gives
+them a claim to the future perfected glory, and this while their
+fleshly existence still continues to the outward eye unaltered.
+
+The great paradoxes of Paulinism are here for the first time clearly
+pointed out and so described that their real eschatological essence
+appears._(_53_)_ But Kabisch did not succeed in explaining them. In
+what sense is a “repetition” in the believer of the dying and rising
+again of Christ possible? How can it produce a reconstitution of their
+creaturely being while their fleshly existence continues outwardly as
+before? To these questions Kabisch gives no answer.
+
+In the account of the eschatological events and their issue it is
+shown that the blessings and anticipations referred to by Paul are
+also present in the Late-Jewish theology. That the Apostle expresses
+his views about the future world in disconnected fragments, apparently
+distributed fortuitously through the text, does not show that it was
+not clear and consistent in his own mind, but exactly the opposite.
+The eschatological remarks come in so naturally and without appearing
+to need [pg 061] explanation just because this whole set of
+conceptions was to the Apostle so long familiar and self-explanatory,
+that he can draw on it whenever he wishes as easily as an educated
+European uses the multiplication table.
+
+Strangely, however, Kabisch does not succeed in giving a clear and
+simple picture of the order and relation of the final events
+presupposed in the letters. He gets confused over the various
+resurrections and judgments, and finds the sole way of escape in
+attributing to the Apostle a resurrection of the righteous only, and
+not a general resurrection in addition. In consequence he is forced to
+the conclusion that the righteous enter the Kingdom without passing
+through a judgment, and that what is meant by the judgment is always
+the destruction of the wicked at the parousia.
+
+That is to make the Apostle contradict not only Jewish apocalyptic,
+but his own utterances, since it is certain that the Epistles
+frequently make mention of believers appearing at the judgment.
+
+The difficulties which Kabisch here encounters are significant. They
+show that it is not possible to understand the Pauline statements
+simply by the light of the Late-Jewish eschatology. What for the
+Apostle composed a simple picture remains for the writer who
+endeavours to describe his apocalyptic full of obscurities and
+contradictions. It is as if one or two conceptions were lacking which
+would have enabled him to “get out” his game of patience
+satisfactorily.
+
+It is true Kabisch has not done everything possible in order to attain
+clearness. He has neglected to adduce for comparison the eschatology
+of the Baptist and of Jesus, and to examine how far the Pauline
+simplification of apocalyptic is here prefigured. He thus falls into
+the universal but none the less unintelligible error of failing to
+call the two most important witnesses to the Late-Jewish
+eschatological expectations. Are they the less so because they belong
+to the New Testament? Further, he neglects, as do all the other
+writers, to consider what [pg 062] are the primary questions which the
+theory of the events of the End had to answer.
+
+What happens at the parousia to the non-elect? And what to the elect
+who have not become believers because the Gospel message has not
+reached them? The ultimate fate of these two classes of men can surely
+not be the same? Do those who at the parousia do not enter into glory
+suffer “death” or “destruction”? What is the relation between these
+two conceptions?
+
+According to I Cor. xv. 26, death is only to be vanquished at the end
+of the Messianic kingdom. Is a general resurrection before that
+conceivable? Does it follow as a consequence of this triumph over
+death?
+
+Since Kabisch does not raise these and similar questions, he does not
+find the path which alone can lead to the understanding of the logic
+of the events of the End. Undoubtedly, in the eschatology of a thinker
+like Paul, all these problems must have been considered and thought
+out. They form the implicit presuppositions which guarantee and make
+clear the inner logic of his scattered and seemingly disconnected
+statements.
+
+Although he has not explained the paradoxes of the Pauline mysticism,
+nor succeeded in making clear the ground-plan of his eschatology,
+Kabisch’s book is one of the most striking achievements, not only in
+the department of Pauline study, but in historical theology as a
+whole. For the first time since Lüdemann’s investigation of the
+Apostle’s doctrine of man, in 1872, the problem of the Pauline
+doctrine of redemption receives a new formulation.
+
+The two works show a curious analogy. Their authors have a
+consciousness of the fact that the theology of the Apostle is a living
+organism, and are preserved by some good genius from splitting it up
+into Reformation or modern _loci._ They endeavour to grasp the
+thoughts and connecting links of the doctrine of redemption from a
+single point of view. Lüdemann makes the “anthropology” his
+starting-point, Kabisch the eschatology. [pg 063] Both are led, almost
+contrary to their intention, to give a general account of Paulinism.
+Both see in the paradoxical statements about the abolition of the
+flesh in the union with the death and resurrection of Christ the
+centre of his doctrine; both arrive at the result that what is in view
+is a really physical redemption.
+
+In the explanation of the facts which they agree in observing they
+diverge widely. Lüdemann claims the Pauline doctrine of redemption as
+Hellenistic; Kabisch endeavours to understand it on the basis of Late
+Judaism. Theological science cast out the innovator and held to the
+conviction that the Apostle’s system of thought was Greek. It was
+acknowledged that he had made the eschatology of the Apostle
+intelligible; but in the attempt to pass from the eschatology to the
+centre of the Apostle’s system of doctrine, contemporary scholarship
+saw only an extreme onesidedness for which there was no justification
+in the documents, which deserved neither examination nor refutation,
+but simply rejection.
+
+On what lines had theology developed and defended the theory of Greek
+elements in Paulinism? In the first place, it is to be remarked that
+in regard to the extent and importance of the influence which is
+supposed to have been exercised, various groupings are to be observed
+among the different writers. Pfleiderer, Holsten, Heinrici,_(_54_)_
+Havet, and others see in Paulinism the actual first step in the
+Hellenisation of Christianity. They assume, as Baur also had taken for
+granted before them, that the ethical series of ideas, the series
+dominated by the antithesis of flesh and spirit, is derived from Greek
+influences.
+
+Schmiedel,_(_55_)_ in his commentaries, and Harnack_(_56_)_ express
+[pg 064] themselves with more reserve. According to the latter,
+Hellenism, no doubt, “had its share” in Paul. The Apostle of the
+Gentiles “prepared the way for the projection of the Gospel upon the
+Graeco-Roman world of thought,” but he never gave to Greek ideas “any
+influence upon his doctrine of salvation.” Lipsius,_(_57_)_ Bernhard
+Weiss, and Weizsäcker do not take much account of borrowings from
+Greek sources, but are concerned to explain Paul from and by himself
+so far as possible.
+
+It is not so easy as might be supposed to determine the attitude of
+the various authors towards the problem of the Hellenic influence in
+Paul. This is partly due to want of accuracy in the terminology.
+“Hellenistic” is used to mean both Jewish-Hellenistic and Greek in the
+strict sense. The authors frequently express themselves in such a way
+that it is not obvious whether they mean the one, or the other, or
+both together. Attempts to establish an accurate terminology, to
+confine “Hellenistic” to the meaning “Jewish-Hellenistic,” and to use
+Hellenic for Greek in the full sense, have not succeeded.
+
+But the want of clearness is not wholly to be put down to the account
+of the language; it is partly due to the mental attitude of the
+writers. The problem really includes two questions. First, Was Paul
+under the influence of Jewish Hellenism? Secondly, Did Greek thought
+in itself, apart from the alliance into which it had entered with
+Judaism, exercise any influence upon his views? Instead of keeping
+these questions separate these writers constantly confuse them, and
+assume that they have proved the existence of Greek ideas in the [pg
+065] Apostle’s system of doctrine when they have only discussed his
+relations with Jewish-Hellenism.
+
+Sometimes one actually gets the impression that in this difficult
+question they intentionally make their discussions a little obscure
+and inconsistent, and are more concerned to conceal than to reveal
+their views, in order not to lay themselves open to attack.
+
+The discovery and the grouping of their opinions is therefore
+associated with difficulties, and can never be carried out in a way
+entirely free from objection. Fortunately the discussion and decision
+of the question does not depend on drawing them up in three divisions,
+each under the banner of its particular view, and so putting them
+through their facings.
+
+It suffices to note the fact that in the study of the subject from
+Baur onward the greatly predominating opinion is that Paul was not
+only influenced by Jewish Hellenism but also derived some of his ideas
+directly from Greek thought. It is also safe to assert that of all the
+writers in question—even though some of them take up an attitude of
+reserve to Pfleiderer’s more thoroughgoing views, none of them denies
+the influence of Jewish Hellenism on Paul. The difference between them
+consists rather in the fact that some assume in addition to this what
+may be called “free” Greek influence, while others are sceptical on
+this point and think that the facts can be explained without this
+assumption.
+
+It is to be expressly remarked that the latter do not try to arrive at
+an understanding of the essence of Paul’s thought by a different
+method, but only to clothe the usual explanations in different words.
+This is the case with Weizsäcker.
+
+The well-known account of Paulinism in his “Apostolic Age”_(_58_)_
+neither offers any new idea nor raises any new problem. Though he is
+in some respects more cautious than Pfleiderer, because he feels the
+difficulty of proving Greek influence more strongly than the latter,
+in other [pg 066] respects he is less exacting than Pfleiderer with
+his logical development of Baur’s ideas, since he is content with
+explanations which do not satisfy Pfleiderer.
+
+That Bernard Weiss in dealing with Pauline theology dispenses with the
+assumption of Greek influence is due to the fact that his
+investigation holds strictly to the lines of “Biblical theology,” and
+on principle takes no account of anything beyond the borders of the
+Canon.
+
+It is interesting to note that both Weiss and Weizsäcker deliberately
+avoid a discussion of Greek and Hellenistic influence on Paul, and
+confine themselves to an objective account of Paul’s doctrine. Indeed,
+it may be remarked that in the study of the subject between Baur and
+Holtzmann the problem is never thoroughly discussed.
+
+The question how far the alleged influences are proved or provable may
+be held over for the present, and in the first place we may
+interrogate Holsten, Pfleiderer and their followers as to what their
+view really means, and what they think they can explain by means of
+it.
+
+At bottom the question turns on the antithesis of flesh and spirit. In
+the clearly defined form in which this antithesis presents itself in
+Paul, it is held that it must be regarded as Greek. This view had been
+expressed by Lüdemann, who was the first to develop it clearly.
+Independently of him, Holsten_(_59_)_ and Pfleiderer brought it into
+general currency.
+
+It is universally taken for granted that the dualism is derived from
+Platonism. Whether Paul took it direct from Greek sources or from
+Jewish Hellenism is not clearly explained. Lüdemann seems to assume
+the former, Holsten to imply the latter; Pfleiderer is doubtless to be
+understood in the sense that both possibilities have to be taken into
+account, separately and in combination.
+
+The psychological process is differently conceived by [pg 067] Holsten
+and by Pfleiderer. The former holds that Greek ideas were already in
+his pre-Christian period present to the mind of the Apostle, who had
+been in touch with Jewish Hellenism, but they had as yet played no
+part in his thinking. By his religious experience at the vision of
+Christ on the Damascus road they were called into activity and helped
+him to give form to his new knowledge. In this way Holsten thinks it
+possible to understand Paulinism as both a personal creation of the
+Apostle and at the same time a product of the influence of Greek
+ideas. The emphasis lies, however, on the personal creation; the
+influence of the Greek ideas is thought of as subsidiary.
+
+For Pfleiderer the process was more largely determined from without.
+Paul’s conversion creates as it were a void in his Jewish
+consciousness. The thought-forms which he has hitherto used prove
+incapable of dealing satisfactorily with the implications of his new
+faith. So the Apostle is driven to have recourse to another system of
+ideas. He no longer remains indifferent to the ideas which stream in
+upon him from Jewish Hellenism and Greek thought. They become
+significant to him; he allows them to exercise their influence upon
+him. In this way there arises a remarkable duality in his thought.
+Pharisaic and Hellenistic trains of ideas form two streams “which in
+Paulinism meet in one bed without really coalescing.” By way of
+conjecture Pfleiderer several times advances the suggestion that
+Apollos the Alexandrian may have introduced the Apostle to the
+Alexandrian Platonism.
+
+Heinrici, again, in his commentaries on the Corinthian Epistles
+suggests that the Apostle’s doctrine is a synthesis of elements taken
+on the one hand from the Jewish prophets and on the other from Greek
+thought._(_60_)_ Paul, he thinks, reached back beyond Late Judaism to
+join hands with the ancient prophetism, and similarly rose [pg 068]
+superior to Alexandrianism and drew direct from Greek thought. In both
+cases what he seeks is an ethical force. That he possessed the insight
+and the power to find this in the thought of the ancient world and to
+apply it to the formation of a Christian system of thought was a great
+spiritual achievement, pregnant with consequences for the future
+development of Christianity.
+
+One might have expected that these various views would be worked out
+in detail. That is not the case. In the last resort none of these
+writers gets beyond the general and simple assertion that the
+antithesis of flesh and spirit is Greek. But even this is not further
+explained by means of parallels from Greek literature. There is no
+attempt to show in what sense Paul’s utterances become more
+intelligible in the light of these analogies than they are in
+themselves.
+
+“The Greek dualism,” writes Holsten, “underlies all the decisive
+elements of his thought, and makes itself apparent in a series of
+individual traits.” Any one who goes through his work in the
+expectation of finding evidence adduced in support of this statement
+will be disappointed. It is as though the author had forgotten as he
+went on writing what he had set out to do.
+
+It is also matter for astonishment that no serious attempt is made to
+extend the range of the Greek elements beyond the single antithesis of
+flesh and spirit. The suggestion is no doubt met with that the
+pessimism, the longing for death, and the ethical teaching of the
+Apostle, belong essentially to the tone of thought prevalent in the
+Hellenic world. But these remain mere _obiter dicta_ which are not
+worked out in any way.
+
+It is as though these writers one and all had an instinctive feeling
+that their thesis, so long as it is kept quite general, has an
+admirable air of credibility and admits of being nicely formulated,
+but that when any attempt is made to follow it out into detail it
+yields little in the way of tangible results. Paulinism is deceptive.
+Its outward appearance is such that the assertion that [pg 069] here
+Greek influences have been at work seems the most self-evident
+possible, but when this has to be shown in detail it leaves the
+investigator whom it has drawn on by its specious appearance
+completely in the lurch.
+
+The curious thing is that Holsten, Pfleiderer, and their followers do
+not venture to formulate the unwelcome admission which may be read
+between their lines, but keep up the game with one another as if
+everything was going as well as heart could wish. They overdo their
+air of unconcern, as though from an uncomfortable sense that they
+might in the end lose confidence in their assertion, and so find
+themselves unable to explain how Paul arrived at his dualistic
+antithesis between flesh and spirit.
+
+For this is what it all ultimately comes to. The assertion of Greek
+influence is a kind of pillared portico behind which they construct
+the edifice of Paulinism as they understand it. The style, however, is
+only maintained as regards the front. What lies behind that is
+styleless, neither Greek nor Jewish, without plan, without character,
+without proportion. Those writers who wholly or partially dissent from
+the assumption of Greek influences carry out the same plan with the
+same materials, and with the same unconcern as regards the style. The
+only difference is that they do not conceal it by building a special
+façade in front of it, whether it be that, like Harnack, they have a
+fuller sense of the difficulties, or, like Weiss and Weizsäcker,
+persuade themselves that Paulinism, according to their construction of
+it, looks sufficiently well as it is.
+
+There is, however, one point on which Pfleiderer and his followers
+think that they can point to definite results of the influence of
+Greek ideas. They maintain that the Apostle’s eschatological
+expectations have been transformed by them. This has reference to the
+passage in 2 Cor. v. I ff. in which Paul gives expression to his
+desire not to be “unclothed” but to be “clothed upon.” The natural
+interpretation which is given by Bernard Weiss and others understands
+the Apostle as speaking [pg 070] of his eager desire to experience the
+parousia while still alive in the body, in order to share that
+transformation in which “what is mortal will be swallowed up by life,”
+and not to have to pass through a time of waiting in an intermediate
+state of non-being or death.
+
+Pfleiderer in his “Primitive Christianity” does not accept this
+explanation, but maintains that this passage and two others—Phil. i.
+21 f. and iii. 8 f._(_61_)_—imply a departure from the Pharisaic
+eschatological hope in which the Apostle’s thought elsewhere moves. In
+this later period of his life, represented by 2 Corinthians and
+Philippians, he turns away—so runs the theory—from the primitive view
+of an intermediate state of death, followed by a subsequent
+resurrection, and comes to hold that his soul, immediately after his
+departure, will pass into the presence of Christ in order to dwell
+with Him. And Paul is more and more driven to adopt this view in
+proportion as his life is daily exposed to greater danger, and he has
+to reckon with the possibility of dying before the parousia takes
+place. Under the pressure of this inward anxiety, guided by
+Platonising Alexandrianism, illuminated by the Greek spirit, he
+creates—we are still following Pfleiderer—a spiritualising hope of
+future blessedness, which in the sequel becomes of the utmost value to
+Gentile Christianity by enabling it to reconcile itself to the delay
+of the parousia.
+
+[pg 071]
+
+Pfleiderer believes also that he can show the course of the
+development by which the new conception was arrived at. In I
+Thessalonians, he thinks, the Apostle still rested unquestioningly in
+that notion of a corporeal resurrection which primitive Christianity
+shared with Judaism. But in the explanations in I Cor. xv. the
+influence of the Greek ideas becomes observable, while in 2
+Corinthians and Philippians it becomes dominant.
+
+This construction of the course of events is defended by Pfleiderer
+and his followers—Holsten here stands apart—with fanatical energy, as
+though they wished to make noise enough to distract attention from the
+fact that they have so very little else to point to in the shape of
+positive evidence of Greek influence in Paul.
+
+What are the difficulties which are raised by the assumption of Greek
+ideas in Paul’s doctrine? They are many and various, and they grow
+greater in proportion as the new element in Paul is more strongly
+emphasised. Take the problem of explaining the dualism of flesh and
+spirit. It is assumed that this has been done when it has been
+declared to be Greek. But in doing so a duality has been introduced
+into Paul himself which creates many more difficulties than the
+dualism it was invoked to solve.
+
+The Apostle is made to think Judaically with one-half of his mind and
+Hellenically with the other, and nevertheless is supposed to be
+capable of being conceived as a single integral personality. In the
+writings of Lüdemann and Holsten the difficulty does not yet appear in
+its full magnitude. They understand by the Jewish element especially
+the juridical series of ideas referring to the atonement and imputed
+righteousness. Holsten is, moreover, in a specially favourable
+position, because in the last resort he ascribes the origin of the
+system not so much to the influence of Greek ideas as to the inward
+experience on the Damascus road, which of course eludes analysis. If
+they are thus referred exclusively to the separate but coexistent
+juridical and mystical sets of [pg 072] ideas, a Jewish and a Greek
+element can at need be thought of as in some way or other combined in
+a single consciousness.
+
+But for Pfleiderer the conception of the Jewish element has become
+much more comprehensive and vital, because he appreciates the
+significance of the eschatological ideas. The result of that is to
+make the opposition which has to be recognised much more acute. And,
+nevertheless, it must continue to be asserted that Paul was
+unconscious of the inconsistencies!
+
+If the difficulty could be got over by pointing to an opposition of
+which the Apostle was conscious, and which he had made an effort to
+reconcile, the position of the theory would be much more favourable.
+But for that it would be a necessary condition that he should
+somewhere have expressed the consciousness that he bore two souls
+within his breast,_(_62_)_ and that the marks of compromise should
+appear in his work as they do, for example, in that of Philo. That,
+however, is not the case. He is conscious of no opposition, and steps
+unconcernedly from the one world into the other, turns back again to
+the first, and keeps on doing this over and over again. Where,
+according to Pfleiderer’s view, he is venturing a leap over the abyss,
+he has all the air of putting one foot calmly before the other on a
+level road. We must, therefore, take it to be the case that he had not
+the slightest inkling of the opposition.
+
+This conclusion seems to negate psychology and render a historical
+comprehension of the Apostle impossible, but Pfleiderer hardens his
+heart and boldly accepts it. There remains, he says, “no alternative
+but to admit that Paul kept the two different kinds of conceptions in
+his consciousness side by side but unrelated, and jumped from one to
+the other without being aware of the opposition between them.”
+
+There is, however, a further complication in the [pg 073] question.
+Pfleiderer holds that in 2nd Corinthians and Philippians a Greek
+spiritualising future-hope has displaced the Jewish Pharisaic hope. In
+the last period of his life, he maintains, the Apostle no longer
+believes in a corporeal resurrection, but in a presence of the soul
+with Christ which begins immediately after death.
+
+But the new conception does not in fact displace the old, although it
+is diametrically opposed to it. Pfleiderer has to admit that Paul,
+even in the writings of the latest period, advances without misgiving
+the doctrine of the “awakening of the whole man from the sleep of
+death,” just as if the new doctrine of “the presence with the Lord
+beginning immediately after death” were not in existence, although it
+is the outcome of long years of mental struggle.
+
+Pfleiderer, however, is prepared to accept even this portentous fact
+also, and to go on contentedly believing that Paul lived in a kind of
+mental twilight which is at once Jewish-eschatological and
+Greek-spiritualistic. He expresses this euphemistically by speaking of
+the Pauline eschatology as “hovering between the Pharisaic hope of the
+here and the Greek hope of the hereafter.” The way to a scientific
+understanding of Paulinism lies, therefore, for Pfleiderer through a
+_credo quia absurdum._
+
+By his assertions about 2 Cor. v. I ff. he had brought the assumption
+of Hellenistic ideas in Paul into a dangerous position. Previously
+when a student of the subject had stated it to be his view that the
+sharp antithesis of flesh and spirit was Greek, there was no way in
+which this belief could be countered. If he was, further, convinced
+that the Apostle’s brain was so organised that he could at the same
+time think consistently along two separate lines, Greek-spiritualistic
+and Jewish-eschatological, without noticing their divergence and
+without ever mingling the two sets of ideas, a mind accustomed to work
+by the methods of historical criticism was similarly powerless against
+views arrived at as if by revelation.
+
+Pfleiderer, however, makes the mistake of referring [pg 074] to a
+matter of fact when he asserts that the Apostle’s conception of a life
+after death became Hellenised. Thereupon controversy about the Greek
+element in Paul rages furiously over 2 Cor. v. I ff.—it was only now
+that controversy had become possible. The simple wording of the
+passage is against Pfleiderer, for its subject is not the soul’s being
+“at home with Christ,” but the Apostle’s longing for the parousia.
+Pfleiderer himself would never have arrived at his exposition had it
+not been for the laudable desire to produce at last some tangible
+example of the influence of Greek thought upon the Apostle’s ideas.
+
+The point which Pfleiderer raised here was after all only a particular
+case in relation to the general question whether a Hellenistic
+influence is to be recognised in the Apostle’s conceptions of the
+final state and the times of the End. It was in this wider aspect that
+Kabisch dealt with the problem in his work on the Pauline eschatology.
+His decision is in the negative. The much-discussed “development” of
+the views of I Thessalonians into those of I Corinthians xv., and of
+these again into those of 2 Corinthians and Philippians, is, he
+maintains, a delusion. The conception of the things of the End is a
+unity, and remains the same throughout.
+
+To oppose this view Teichmann entered the lists._(_63_)_ In his
+over-confident zeal he plays the part of Polos in Plato’s Gorgias.
+
+He goes much further than Pfleiderer, and seeks to show that Greek
+ideas actually superseded the whole Jewish Eschatology of Paul. In
+consequence of the [pg 075] influx of new thoughts one antinomy after
+another arises in the Apostle’s conception of the things of the End.
+To trace out and exhibit these in detail is the goal of Teichmann’s
+endeavour.
+
+He arrives at the following conclusions:—In I Thessalonians Paul still
+assumes that Christians will enter the kingdom of heaven with their
+_earthly_ bodies. Not before I Corinthians xv. does he introduce the
+idea of a “transformation.” He is then led to do so by the development
+of the Greek doctrine of flesh and spirit. In the second Epistle to
+the Corinthians he carries out this new conception to its logical
+issue. “The compromise which he had attempted in I Cor. is abandoned,
+and the result is that the conception of the resurrection of the dead
+is set aside.” Along with the resurrection of the dead the Apostle
+also strikes out from his programme of the future the parousia. “For
+the expectation of the descent of Christ to earth he substitutes the
+entry of the believer into the heavenly world. A resurrection of the
+dead, a descent of Christ to earth, was now no longer necessary.”
+
+Not only so, but the conception of the judgment is also abolished. In
+the first place, Paul draws this inference “at least so far as
+Christians are concerned.” That subsequently, in following out his
+ideas, “he should also arrive at the conception of universal
+blessedness, can in view of his universalism cause no surprise.” “As
+all men were included in Christ at His resurrection, so all must
+receive the Spirit, they must all be made alive.” The End does not,
+therefore, mean blessedness for some and destruction for others, but
+eternal life for all. But since eternal life depends on the possession
+of the Spirit, it must be assumed that those who are not believers at
+their death “come to faith in Christ in the period between the
+parousia and the delivery of all authority into the hands of God, and
+in consequence of this the Spirit is given to them.”
+
+Teichmann professes to have demonstrated the [pg 076] Hellenisation of
+the Pauline eschatology. What he actually shows is what it would have
+become if it had really undergone Greek influence.
+
+Not one of his “results” can be proved from the Apostle’s letters.
+Where is there a single word to suggest that the Apostle abandoned the
+conception of the judgment and that of predestination to life or to
+damnation? Where does he ever speak of universal blessedness? Where
+does he hint at the possibility that mankind as a whole is to be
+converted to belief in Christ between the parousia and the delivery of
+all authority into the hands of God, and will thereupon receive the
+Spirit? What grounds are there for supposing that he gives up the idea
+of the parousia as superfluous? In his zeal to discover antinomies and
+trace developments, Teichmann forgets to take account of the most
+elementary facts. He asserts, for instance, that in I Thessalonians
+those who arise from the dead enter the kingdom of God in their
+earthly bodies. But from the Jewish Apocalyptic and from the teaching
+of Jesus it clearly appears that the resurrection included within
+itself a transformation of this creaturely corporeity into a glorified
+corporeity. It would not do for Teichmann to remember this. He is
+bound, even where he represents the Apostle as still wholly under the
+sway of Jewish conceptions, to bring him into an inconceivable
+opposition to these in order that the transformation which is taught
+in I Corinthians xv.—entirely in accordance with Jewish
+eschatology—may be represented as derived from the Greek doctrine of
+the Spirit.
+
+Without intending it, he thus supplies the most brilliant refutation
+of the theory of the Hellenisation of the Pauline eschatology. He
+engaged battle on ground on which Pfleiderer and his school had
+incautiously ventured forth in the heat of action, and he has to find
+by experience that he is unable to make good a single position. A
+Hellenisation of the eschatology is quite impossible to prove. Kabisch
+turns out to have been right. The [pg 077] Apostle holds on this point
+too vigorous and too clear a language.
+
+But if that be so, the theory that the doctrine of flesh and spirit is
+Greek is itself most seriously imperilled. Teichmann felt, and therein
+he was more logical and consistent than the rest, that if there were
+any Hellenistic ideas in Paulinism they must necessarily have attacked
+and displaced the Jewish eschatology. Pfleiderer’s view that the two
+could have subsisted side by side without—except in the case of 2
+Corinthians v. I ff.—influencing and interpenetrating one another is
+an untenable theoretical hypothesis. From the whole range of the
+history of thought no analogy could be produced for this harmonious
+coexistence of two different worlds of thought.
+
+A further difficulty of the theory of the Hellenisation of Paulinism
+arises from the fact that the Apostle’s views have to be more and more
+spiritualised in proportion as the Greek element is emphasised.
+Lüdemann, overpowered by the impression of the documents, had
+expressly characterised the doctrine of redemption which is bound up
+with the dualism of flesh and spirit as not ethical but physical.
+Holsten and Pfleiderer do not venture to follow him in that. The
+Platonism which they seek to discover in Paulinism cannot be brought
+into connexion with a physical doctrine of redemption, but is thought
+of as the antithesis of the “crude Jewish ideas.” The whole of the
+mystical teaching about dying and rising again with Christ, about the
+new creature and the influence of the Spirit, has therefore to be
+spiritualised.
+
+This brings them into conflict with the natural, literal meaning of
+the Apostle’s statements, in which the materialistic character of his
+conceptions maintains itself against all the arts of exegesis. The
+interpretation given by Pfleiderer and his school deprives them of
+their original meaning to an even greater extent than the modern
+interpretation in general does.
+
+Most unfortunately for those who seek to spiritualise Paul, his
+doctrine of the Spirit in particular shows no [pg 078] trace of Greek
+influence. As though from an apprehension that they might be deprived
+of one of their most indispensable illusions, for thirty years after
+Baur the students of Paulinism had neglected to deal with this
+subject. At last in the year 1888 Gunkel undertook the task._(_64_)_
+He investigates the influence of the Holy Spirit as conceived by the
+popular view of the Apostolic age, and according to the doctrine of
+the Apostle, and is obliged to come to the conclusion that a Greek
+element in the latter is not to be assumed.
+
+The Apostle, according to Gunkel’s exposition, takes over the
+primitive Christian view and accepts it in all points. His own
+doctrine merely represents an elevation, a development of what he
+found already present. He introduces—I Cor. xii.-xiv.—an ethical
+judgment and valuation of spiritual gifts, which was new to the
+Christian community. While the latter had regarded “speaking with
+tongues” as the highest manifestation of supernatural power, he puts
+all the _charismata_ on a lower footing than love. He gives a further
+development to the primitive Christian doctrine by attributing to the
+influence of the Spirit a large number of the characteristics of the
+Christian life which were not so regarded by the primitive community.
+Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness,
+meekness, chastity are, according to Gal. v. 22, fruits of His power.
+He generalises, therefore, in such a way that all Christian willing,
+feeling, knowledge, hope, and action proceed from the _pneuma_, which
+for the common view was only thought of in connexion with revelations
+and miracles.
+
+[pg 079]
+
+There is a further point in which, according to Gunkel, Paul raises to
+a higher level the view which he took over. By the possession of the
+Spirit the primitive Church was made certain that the end of the
+present age was at hand and the new age was about to dawn. For the
+Apostle the temporal relation becomes an inner one. The Spirit is for
+him the earnest of the coming kingdom of God. Already in the present
+he calls into being the future life in believers and gives them the
+certainty, and to some extent even the reality, of the life which is
+about to dawn for them.
+
+The Pauline doctrine of the Spirit is therefore simply a development
+of the primitive Christian doctrine. That it was so long regarded as
+Greek is due, according to Gunkel, to the fact that scholars never
+examined it as a whole, but always confined themselves to the
+discussion of the dualism of spirit and flesh. This prevents the
+relation of the doctrine to the views of the primitive community, and
+especially its relation to the doctrine of the future age, from
+becoming apparent.
+
+One very weighty theoretic objection to the admission of Greek
+elements in Paulinism is passed over by its defenders in complete
+silence. If the thoughts developed by the Apostle of the Gentiles had
+grown up upon the soil of Hellenism, the original apostles and those
+closely associated with them would certainly have been aware of this
+and attacked them on that ground. From the records, however, as we
+have them in the letters, it appears certain that they only reproached
+him with his attitude towards the law, and found no other point to
+object to in his teaching. The primitive Christian community at
+Jerusalem accused him of keeping back something from his churches; it
+did not discover anything new and essentially foreign in his thought.
+In spite of the keenness of the struggle, it was never made a charge
+against him that he had “heathenised” the Gospel. That shows how
+completely out of the question the assumption of Greek influences was
+for his [pg 080] opponents. But the fact that his contemporaries
+discovered nothing of the kind in him forms a strong presumption
+against any such theory when brought forward in later times.
+
+The objection which arises from the side of the history of dogma tends
+to the same result. Those who hold the theory of Greek elements in
+Paul must, if they are to be consistent, assert that he pioneered a
+path for the Gospel into the Hellenic world and prepared the way for
+the early Greek theology. And they do so most emphatically. Pfleiderer
+explains_(_65_)_ that the Greek Church-theology arose by the expulsion
+from Paulinism of its specifically Jewish elements, and by the free
+development of its “universally intelligible Hellenistic side.” The
+noble Platonic idealism had a place in the doctrinal system of the
+Apostle of the Gentiles, “and conferred on it its capacity to win the
+Graeco-Roman world for Christianity.” “The understanding of Paulinism
+is therefore a fundamental condition for the understanding of the
+Early Church.” And all the adherents of the theory, whatever their
+precise shade of opinion, express themselves to the same effect.
+
+But the history of dogma holds a different language. It has to record
+the fact, inconceivable as it may appear, that on the generations in
+which Greek dogma was taking shape Paul exercised no influence
+whatever. Even the external literary influence is very slight. If one
+sets aside the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians it is not even
+possible to speak of a deutero-Pauline literature. The Pastoral
+Epistles and the second letter to the Thessalonians profess to be
+written by the Apostle, but contain not a single thought which is
+characteristic of his teaching. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 1
+Clement, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the writings of Ignatius, in
+the works of Justin, expressions occur which show acquaintance with
+the Epistles of Paul, and may have [pg 081] been influenced by him in
+respect to their wording; but beyond that they show no trace of his
+conceptions or his spirit.
+
+The remarkable point, therefore, is that the post-Apostolic writers,
+though they are acquainted with the works of the Apostle of the
+Gentiles, make no real use of them. His ideas remain foreign,
+lifeless, so far as they are concerned.
+
+That is also shown by the fact that early Greek Church-theology is
+quite independent of him. It is concerned with the incarnation and
+resurrection of Christ and with regeneration; Paul’s speculations deal
+with the death and resurrection of the Lord, and he never speaks of
+regeneration. The underlying logic is in the two cases so different
+that the representatives of Greek theology, even if they wished to do
+so, could not appeal to the Apostle. No community of thought between
+him and Justin is to be discovered.
+
+Even Baur had to learn how little Greek theology attached itself to
+Paul,_(_66_)_ although he wished to derive it from a compromise
+between the Pauline and the Petrine Gospel. So long as he is carrying
+out his theory on the lines of the history of the Church and its
+literature, the mistake does not become so apparent, because the
+universalism and freedom from the law which gradually establish
+themselves are set down as Graeco-Pauline. In treating the history of
+dogma, however, where he is dealing exclusively with the development
+of the Greek conception of the Person of Christ and of the redemption
+effected through Him, he can, as a matter of fact, make nothing of
+Paul. He hardly mentions him.
+
+What Baur was unwilling to acknowledge to himself, Harnack has
+irrefutably proved._(_67_)_ According to his [pg 082] showing there is
+no bridge leading from the Pauline Gospel to the doctrine of the Early
+Greek Church. The “history of dogma,” strange as it may appear, only
+begins after Paul. The forces which are there at work have not been
+set in motion by him.
+
+The same result is arrived at by Edwin Hatch in his work on Hellenism
+and Christianity._(_68_)_ A trained philological scholar possessing
+great knowledge of and insight into the late Greek and early Christian
+literatures, he endeavours to describe in detail the process by which
+Christianity became Hellenised. In doing so he does not find it
+necessary to deal with Paul. For the points of contact which he finds
+to exist between the two worlds no examples are to be discovered in
+the letters of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hatch’s observations lead
+him to make the process of Hellenisation only begin with the second
+century.
+
+The history of dogma cannot, therefore, accept the suggestion that
+Paul recast the Gospel in the moulds of Greek thought. The process
+began later, and of its own motion. It did not derive its impulse from
+a single great personality, but began gradually and on all sides. It
+was the Greek popular mind as represented by the members of the
+Gentile churches which Hellenised the Gospel for itself. Men like
+Ignatius and Justin bring this work to a provisional completeness by
+combining the current ideas into a primitive but in its own fashion
+impressively clear and living system, and creating a connexion between
+Christology, the conception of redemption and the doctrine of the
+sacraments; the [pg 083] Fourth Evangelist carries this system of
+doctrine back into the preaching of the historic Jesus. These men
+received no kind of impulse from Paul. Of the work which he did they
+make no use. They know it, but it seems as if it were impossible for
+them to use it.
+
+The recognition of the true state of the case begins when one gets rid
+of the seemingly so natural but in reality unjustified assumption that
+the universalism_(_69_)_ and freedom from the law for which Paul
+fought his battles, imply a Hellenisation of Christianity and form the
+Greek element in his doctrine.
+
+Ritschl and Harnack, in opposing this assumption of Baur and his
+successors, went to the other extreme. They maintained that
+universalism and freedom from the law were purely practical and
+separable views, which had, properly speaking, nothing to do with the
+fundamental ideas of the doctrine of redemption. In this way they
+succeeded, no doubt, in liberating the history of dogma from the
+prejudices of the Tübingen school; but they did less justice to the
+Apostle’s statements than those whom they were attacking, since on
+every page of his writings he implies an actual connexion between his
+doctrines and the practical views which he is defending. It is to be
+noted that Ritschl and Harnack never clearly explain why Paul holds a
+different view on these points from that of the primitive community.
+
+Truth here appears as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis.
+Universalism and freedom from the law do in fact belong to the history
+of dogma, but not in the way Baur thought. And they are in themselves
+practical views, but at the same time they claim to be logically
+derived from the system of doctrine. The presuppositions on which they
+are based have nothing to do with Greek thought; it was purely by
+systematically thinking out to its conclusions the primitive Christian
+doctrine that Paul was led to his theories of the universal [pg 084]
+destination of the Gospel and of emancipation from the law.
+
+These are the facts as they lie clearly before us in the letters. But
+to register them is not to explain them. How, exactly, do these
+conclusions result from the logic of the primitive Christian belief as
+rightly worked out in the Apostle’s mind? That is the form which the
+question takes as the next stage, after Baur, Ritschl, and Harnack.
+
+The negative result that the Pauline attitude in regard to these
+points is not Greek is in any case established. And so too is the
+other result that the creators of Greek dogma did not take him as
+their starting-point, and cannot therefore have discovered anything
+Hellenic in him. They had no consciousness that he had already
+quarried and shaped the material which they needed for their edifice.
+
+But if they did not recognise in him one who had made a beginning in
+their direction, it is more than questionable whether modern
+historical criticism is right in professing to find Greek elements in
+him. If so, it must be supposed to have a better instinct for what is
+Hellenic than the men who Hellenised Christianity.
+
+In any case it has no right to talk at large about the significance of
+Paulinism for Greek Christianity, as though the history of dogma was
+not there to prove the contrary.
+
+How do the Debit and Credit of the theory stand at this point? For the
+credit side, it claims that the dualism of flesh and spirit is of
+Greek origin, but it does not get beyond the general assertion. No
+serious attempt has been made to demonstrate the existence of Greek
+conceptions in the particular aspects of the doctrine, and to explain
+the pessimism, the desire for death, and the ethical teaching of the
+Apostle as derived from the non-Jewish world of thought. That the
+Pauline universalism and doctrine of freedom from the law are directly
+inspired by the Greek spirit it no longer has the right to assert.
+
+[pg 085]
+
+In a single instance its defenders venture to point to the influence
+of Greek religious thought on the Apostle’s views. They seek to show
+that his Jewish, eschatological conception of the future life and his
+view of the events of the End were in time entirely transformed by it,
+if not actually cancelled. But the attempt to prove this from the
+documents has not been successful.
+
+Meanwhile the following difficulties appear. The theory is obliged to
+assume a dualism between Jewish and Greek elements in Paul, and to
+assert that on the one hand he never allowed the two systems of
+thought to coalesce, while on the other he never became conscious of
+their disparity; it has to attribute to him a capacity for combining
+contradictions, which allows him to maintain alongside of one another
+a spiritualistic doctrine of immortality and a crudely materialistic
+notion of resurrection without becoming aware of their
+incompatibility; it is logically forced to the conclusion that he set
+aside the Jewish eschatology, with its conceptions of judgment and
+condemnation, in favour of a doctrine of universal blessedness,
+whereas there is in the Epistles not a single hint pointing in this
+direction; it is forced, in order to make his statements appear
+“Platonic,” so to spiritualise them that the natural sense of the
+words disappears; it must ignore the proved fact that his doctrine of
+the spirit, when taken in its full compass and not confined to the
+antithesis of spirit and flesh, is most naturally explained as a mere
+development of the primitive Christian view; it must meet the
+objection—which it never can do—that the original apostles never
+discovered anything of an essentially foreign, Greek character in
+Paul’s views; it must, when confronted with the history of dogma, bend
+itself with what grace it may to the admission that Paulinism
+exercised no influence upon the formation of early Greek theology, and
+cannot therefore have been felt by the men who were concerned in that
+process as itself representing a first stage in the Hellenisation of
+Christianity.
+
+[pg 086]
+
+The theory therefore explains nothing, but creates difficulty upon
+difficulty.
+
+In view of this relation of its assets to its liabilities it would
+have no alternative but to declare itself bankrupt, had it not
+astutely refrained from keeping any accounts.
+
+And so far we have considered the mere for and against. Even if the
+balance had here inclined in favour of the theory, that would not have
+proved anything. The ideas in question ought not to be considered as
+Greek until it had been shown that they actually were so. But this
+would require it to be shown that exactly corresponding ideas were to
+be found in the preceding or contemporary Greek literature, and that
+Paul betrayed some kind of acquaintance with this literature. The
+possibility that it was a mere case of analogy would have to be
+systematically excluded, so far as that is possible.
+
+But such a method of proof has never been seriously contemplated by
+the adherents of the theory. In going through their works one is
+astonished to see how lightly they have treated their task. They have
+never properly collected the material; it is much if here and there a
+point is thoroughly considered.
+
+The assumption of Greek elements in Paulinism appeared something so
+self-evident, and indeed, if one desired to arrive at any
+understanding of him, so necessary, that from the first it came
+forward with an assurance which secured credit for it everywhere
+without its needing to produce adequate guarantees.
+
+When Lüdemann in the year 1872 worked out clearly the dualism of flesh
+and spirit, he added, as a thing to be taken for granted, that it was
+Greek in character. His successors show a similar absence of
+misgiving.
+
+In order to bring the question once for all to an issue, let us gather
+up and put to the test, along with the poor fragments of attempted
+proof, every consideration that can be cited in favour of the
+assumption of Greek elements in Paulinism.
+
+The Apostle was born and grew up in Tarsus, the [pg 087] “Athens of
+Asia Minor” as Ernest Curtius has called it._(_70_)_ In his native
+city, as Heinrici expresses himself, “rhetoric and Stoic philosophy
+were to be met with in the market-place.”_(_71_)_
+
+No limits are set to the estimate of what the child of the Diaspora
+may have absorbed, retained, and laid up in his mind from the
+intellectual life by which he was surrounded.
+
+But just as large a place might be claimed for the contrary argument,
+which would lay stress upon the exclusiveness of strictly Jewish
+circles of the Diaspora in regard to the Greek culture by which they
+were surrounded.
+
+Neither argument proves anything. A thousand possibilities on the one
+side do not produce a certainty any more than on the other.
+
+The greater probability, however, is on the side of the assumption of
+exclusiveness. Although he lived in the middle of Hellenism, it is
+possible that Paul absorbed no more of it than a Catholic parish
+priest of the twentieth century does of the critical theology, and
+knew no more about it than an Evangelical pastor knows of theosophy.
+
+The decision lies solely with his works.
+
+The case is similar as regards the argument from his language. It is
+inconceivable, so writers like Heinrici and Curtius urge, that a
+language like Greek could be familiar to a man like Paul without
+causing a flood of ancient conceptions and ideas to stream in upon
+him. Heinrici, indeed, is prepared to decide the question on this
+ground alone, and concludes his exposition of the Corinthian Epistles
+with a close analysis of their vocabulary. This shows, he thinks, that
+Greek concepts and expressions far outweigh in number and importance
+the “specifically Christian” and those which show the influence of the
+Old Testament or the language of the synagogue. [pg 088] But in
+opposition to this, Schmiedel,_(_72_)_ a not less thorough
+commentator, expresses himself as follows: “We must be on our guard
+against concluding too hastily from the predominantly Hellenistic
+character of Paul’s language to a Hellenistic mode of thought. With a
+language of which one learns colloquially the current use, one does
+not by any means necessarily assimilate all the thought-forms of which
+it contains, so to speak, the geological record.”
+
+Here too, therefore, one argument is balanced by another.
+
+A fact which seems to carry us a little further is the Apostle’s
+exclusive use of the Greek version of the Old Testament. In a detailed
+study, of the year 1869, Kautzsch_(_73_)_ showed that out of
+eighty-four quotations which occur in the Epistles thirty-four agree
+exactly with the Septuagint, thirty-six show small deviations, and ten
+depart from it more widely. Two others show a considerable difference,
+without, however, throwing doubt upon the author’s acquaintance with
+the wording of the ordinary translation; two others, again, from Job,
+differ from it entirely.
+
+This investigation was carried further by Hans Vollmer_(_74_)_ and
+brought to a provisional conclusion. According to him the deviations
+are to be explained by the fact that Paul did not use a single
+complete recension of the LXX, but had recourse to different editions
+for different books. In Job he had before him a version which shows
+affinity with the later Jewish translations. To explain the remaining
+peculiarities Vollmer brings forward a hypothesis. He is inclined to
+assume that the Apostle used Greek Scriptural anthologies in which [pg
+089] separate passages were collocated, or freely combined with one
+another. In such collections—their existence is not
+demonstrable—various versions were, he thinks, used promiscuously.
+Perhaps the passage quoted as Scripture in I Corinthians ii. 9, which
+is not traceable in the Old Testament,—“As it is written, what eye
+hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart
+of man, hath God prepared for them that love Him”—may be derived from
+an anthology of this kind.
+
+It is in any case certain that the Apostle always makes use of Greek
+translations; and it is further certain that he argues from
+peculiarities in their wording which for one who knew Hebrew, as he
+also certainly did, must have been recognisable as mistranslations. He
+therefore goes so far as to ignore the original.
+
+Nevertheless these facts do not warrant us in drawing conclusions of a
+too far-reaching character. If he wrote in Greek at all he could not
+do otherwise than use the Greek translations which were familiar to
+him, and in the synagogues of the Diaspora were regarded as
+“authentic,” as the Vulgate is for the Latin Church according to the
+decrees of the Council of Trent. That being so, it was out of the
+question for him, in making quotations, to introduce renderings of his
+own from the original.
+
+In all historical cases of theological bilingualism the same fact is
+to be observed. Scripture is never “personally” translated, but always
+cited in accordance with a recognised version._(_75_)_
+
+That Paul should turn to account the mistakes of the version need not,
+in view of his exegetical principles, cause us any surprise. Whether
+he forces his thought [pg 090] directly upon the original, or gets it
+expressed by the Greek version, comes to much the same thing. The fact
+that he adopts the errors of the LXX and finds his account in them
+does not make him a Greek. It only shows that he belongs to the Jewish
+Diaspora. But does this imply that he has his place in the
+Jewish-Hellenistic movement?
+
+This assumption is often taken as so self-evident that any examination
+of it appears superfluous. The defenders of the theory of Greek
+influence in Paul, therefore, feel themselves dispensed from this duty
+and act accordingly.
+
+Even those who, like Harnack, do not admit a more far-reaching direct
+influence of Greek ideas upon the Apostle, do not feel any doubt about
+his relations with Jewish Hellenism.
+
+But the sceptics of the self-evident, with whom science can never
+dispense, must dare to be tactless enough to put the question here
+also, “What is really proved?” As we have to do with a characteristic
+literature which lies before us with some measure of completeness, the
+verdict cannot be difficult to arrive at.
+
+Pfleiderer and his followers had all along asserted that Paul in his
+eschatology and anthropology showed dependence on the Wisdom of
+Solomon, which doubtless dates from the first century before Christ.
+Others denied this. In an essay which appeared in 1892, Grafe sought
+to sift the material and decide the question._(_76_)_
+
+As “crucial” instances for the relationship he thinks the following
+may safely be taken: Romans ix. shows affinity with Wisdom xii. and
+xv. in regard to what is said of the Divine omnipotence and mercy; in
+their references to heathen idolatry the two authors coincide in a
+remarkable way; the views regarding the relationship of body and soul
+which are implied in 2 Cor. v. I ff. find a parallel in Wisd. ix. 15,
+where there is a reference to [pg 091] the earthly tabernacle which
+weighs down the thinking soul. The facts do not, according to Grafe,
+justify the conclusion that Paul is dependent on the pseudo-Salamonian
+Book of Wisdom, but he does regard it as having been made highly
+probable that the Apostle knew and had read the book.
+
+It is not a clear “yes” that one hears in Grafe’s essay. When it is
+quoted, however, by writers on Paulinism it gets a push towards the
+positive side which makes it say exactly what Grafe did not venture to
+assert.
+
+Scarcely more productive is Vollmer’s cast of his net into the works
+of Philo._(_77_)_ He thinks that, in view of the affinities pointed
+out by him, “the acquaintance of the Apostle with the works of the
+Alexandrian writer will have become less improbable to others besides
+himself.”
+
+But that is not the point at all. That Paul, a scholar of the
+Diaspora, would have been aware of the existence of so important a
+work as the Wisdom of Solomon, and would not have been wholly ignorant
+of its contents, is really self-evident. And is it likely that none of
+the writings of his older Alexandrian contemporary—Philo died probably
+about the beginning of the forties—would have come to his knowledge?
+On the contrary, the most probable assumption is that he was
+acquainted with the whole of the earlier and later Hellenistic
+literature. Whether this can be more or less clearly proved by certain
+real or supposed parallels does not really matter.
+
+The important point is that he does not use the ideas which are here
+offered to him. Jewish-Hellenistic theology is so characteristic a
+product that it can never [pg 092] be overlooked even where it is only
+a subsidiary element. But in Paul no trace of it can be shown. Its
+problems, its speculations regarding the Logos, Spirit, and Wisdom,
+its ethics, do not interest him; he makes no use of its theories. On
+the other hand he is concerned with eschatology and with the person of
+the Messiah, which for it seem to have no existence.
+
+The characteristic mark of Jewish Hellenism is that it brings the
+different ideas into an external juxtaposition without effecting their
+interpenetration. Whether it is a question of philosophical or other
+writings, of problems of ethics, or of the doctrine of God and the
+Divine administration of the world, the Greek element always shows up
+plainly in contrast with the Jewish, and can be clearly recognised as
+Platonic or Stoic. It is a case of mosaic work, better or worse
+executed as the case may be.
+
+Any one who proposes to show that Paul was influenced by Jewish
+Hellenism ought, therefore, to begin by recognising that the union of
+the two worlds of thought which is supposed to have taken place in him
+is of an entirely different order from that found in other cases,
+inasmuch as a real synthesis is effected, and the problems involved
+are such as do not elsewhere occupy Jewish Hellenism, while on the
+other hand those which interest it are here left out of account. How
+much is left then by way of a common element?
+
+Paul’s attitude towards Jewish Hellenism is one of indifference. From
+his letters, written as they are in Greek, we should never learn that
+in his time there existed a literature in which the old Jewish
+theology, using the universal language of the period, entered into
+discussion with Greek philosophy and religious thought, and formed an
+external combination with them.
+
+All the proofs which are offered of his acquaintance with this
+literature only serve to render more unintelligible the fact that he
+is not in the slightest degree influenced by it.
+
+The phrase-making by which theologians of the [pg 093] post-Baur
+period disposed of Paul’s independence in regard to Jewish
+Hellenism—so far as they became aware of it—is quite inept. Heinrici,
+as we have seen, maintained that he had risen superior to
+Alexandrianism.
+
+It is to be remarked that the theoretic question whether he was never
+influenced by this movement, or whether the influence only ceased when
+he became a Christian, must remain open. In the latter case he must
+have put off along with what was specifically Jewish also what was
+Jewish-Hellenistic. It would then belong to the things which,
+according to Philippians, were formerly gain to him, but which now he
+counted dross, and had cast aside in order to gain Christ.
+
+This latter view is inherently possible if one is prepared to take
+literally what the Apostle says about that radical breach with the
+past to which we can apply no standard of measurement, and which we
+are unable to conceive. But the other alternative—that he had never
+been influenced by it—is the more probable.
+
+Practically both come to much the same thing. We know only the
+Christian Paul, and we find it to be a fact that in his letters no
+specifically Jewish-Hellenistic conceptions are to be found.
+
+The “self-evident” is therefore once more negated by the facts.
+
+We may call attention to a curious parallel. _A priori_ the assumption
+might appear justified that the Apostle of the Gentiles would have
+taken from Jewish Hellenism material wherewith to Hellenise
+Christianity. In reality he did not do so. _A priori_ it was to be
+expected that the creators of Greek theology would have taken from
+Paulinism material for the construction of their doctrines. In reality
+they did not do so. The three points which it seemed would allow
+themselves to be joined to form a triangle, lie, in reality, in
+different planes, belong to different systems, and have no natural
+relation to one another.
+
+If Paul stands solitary, without receiving or exercising [pg 094]
+influence, between these two factors in which Greek characteristics
+are manifest, it follows that he does not exhibit their common
+element. If he did not adopt Platonism and Stoicism in the convenient
+compound which Jewish Hellenism had mixed ready for him, it is
+antecedently little probable that he made use of the uncompounded
+substances in the form in which they are to be met with in Greek life
+and literature.
+
+What are the possibilities of direct influences which have to be taken
+into account?
+
+It is to be remarked that Paul never gives the slightest hint that he
+is making use of something which is familiar to and valued by the
+Greeks in his churches. The Acts of the Apostles indeed pictures him
+as a preacher who in the Areopagus at Athens takes as his
+starting-point an inscription upon an altar, and quotes from the Greek
+poet Aratus the pantheistic saying that men are of the Divine race
+(Acts xvii. 28). But for this Paul, the author of Acts, must take, all
+responsibility._(_78_)_
+
+The Apostle of the Gentiles who is made known to us by the Epistles
+wears a different aspect. In this sense he never became a Greek to the
+Greeks. We find in him no trace of any high estimation of heathenism
+and its thought. It is for him idolatry, nothing less nor more. His
+estimate is purely negative.
+
+He can therefore hardly have intentionally taken over anything from
+Greek thought. It is possible, however, that he did so unconsciously.
+
+The most obvious suggestion is to assume that this was the case in
+regard to ethics. What he says in Rom. ii. about conscience, which in
+the heathen takes the place of the law, might be based on ideas
+derived from Greek rationalism. But on close examination what we find
+here is not so much a positive valuation of natural ethical feeling,
+but rather the creation for dialectic purposes of something to serve
+as an analogue to the law. Paul’s [pg 095] purpose is to prove that
+Jew and Greek are alike delivered over to sin; consequently the
+position in the two cases, if an injustice on the part of God is not
+to be suggested, must be made as similar as possible.
+
+The assumption of Greek ideas here is rendered improbable by the fact
+that Paul’s ethic as a whole is not to be explained as Hellenic.
+Neither Gass nor Ziegler in their works on the history of Christian
+ethics have ventured any attempt in this direction._(_79_)_ In general
+the Pauline ethic has been little treated by the students of Paulinism
+of the post-Baur period. The only monograph dedicated to the subject
+took a form that was purely biblico-theological and without
+interest._(_80_)_ It is interesting to note that Kabisch, when he
+planned to work up the ethical material, found it necessary first to
+deal with the eschatology. That does not suggest the presence of
+Hellenic influences.
+
+It has also been maintained with a certain confidence that the
+pessimism of the Apostle is Greek, because it recalls the view of the
+world which we find in the writings of Seneca and Epictetus.
+
+Seneca was his contemporary. That the Apostle knew the works of this
+writer is not held by any one to be proved._(_81_)_ Epictetus worked
+at the end of the first century, [pg 096] was himself acquainted with
+Christianity, and was doubtless influenced by it, even if
+unconsciously._(_82_)_
+
+All that could come into question, even as a possibility, is that the
+Apostle might have adopted the same generally current ideas of his
+period which are expressed by these two writers.
+
+The expressions which are quoted as parallel have only an external
+resemblance. They are not really analogous. The roots from which the
+pessimism springs are entirely different in the two cases.
+
+In the philosophers it is purely a result of reflection on the
+conditions of the present life. Existence appears to Seneca a burden
+which one may at any time cast off—by suicide. For Paul the present
+world is evil because it is sinful, lies under the dominion of the
+angel powers, and is subject to corruption. He judges it, not in
+itself, but with reference to a new and perfect world which is soon to
+appear. The idea of suicide does not enter into his thoughts, indeed
+he dreads that he might be released from the present earthly existence
+before the parousia occurs.
+
+Seneca’s religion is resignation, Paul’s is enthusiasm. The two may
+show verbal similarities, but no affinity of thought exists between
+them.
+
+Further, the anthropology and psychology_(_83_)_ of the Apostle are
+claimed as Greek. Pfleiderer lays great stress upon this point. He
+does not, however, offer any proofs.
+
+What Paul has to say about man rests in the first place [pg 097] on
+ordinary observation and is of a self-evident character. The special
+features of his view which go beyond this are to be explained from
+eschatology and not from Greek thought. Anthropology and psychology,
+in the development which he gives them, have reference not to the
+natural man but to the redeemed man, who is risen with Christ, endowed
+with the Spirit, and already living in a supernatural condition. His
+conception of the natural condition of man is determined by reference
+to its actual abolition, and therefore has quite a different
+orientation from that of the Greek thinkers.
+
+How do matters stand in regard to the assertion that his system
+contains Platonic elements?
+
+What comes into question is not Platonism proper, but the religious
+modification and popularisation of it which later on, in the third
+century, came to completion in Neo-Platonism. What this philosophy has
+in common with Paul is the general desire for deliverance from
+corporeity. When it is more closely considered, however,
+characteristic differences appear.
+
+Platonism as a religion has to do with the deliverance of the soul
+from its imprisonment in the body, Paul looks for the deliverance of
+the whole human personality. In the one case the antithesis is between
+soul and body, in the other between the supernatural body and the
+corruptible flesh. Platonic religious feeling desires release from all
+corporeity, what Paul hopes for is a different kind of materiality. He
+believes in a resurrection, Platonism in mere immortality. For him the
+fate of the individual is so bound up with cosmical, eschatological
+events that the new state of existence can only result from a cosmical
+revolution. Platonism knows nothing of a temporally conditioned
+redemption of this kind, but represents it as coming to pass
+immediately after death.
+
+The materialism which is implicate in eschatology thus opposes a
+barrier to the Platonising of Paul’s religious thought.
+
+For his conception of spirit a parallel might be sought [pg 098] in
+Stoicism, which teaches that a spiritual substance proceeding from God
+permeates the universe, including corporeal organisms, and manifests
+itself in man as the rational soul. Common to this philosophy and to
+Paul is the material conception of spirit. But the differences which
+it exhibits are of such a kind that there can be no question of the
+Apostle’s dependence upon it. In the Stoic philosophy the spirit is
+identical with the rational soul; in Paul it is introduced as
+something new alongside of the latter, and ends by displacing it.
+
+According to the philosophic conception it is active in the world from
+all eternity; according to the doctrine of the Apostle it first
+appears in the times of the End, and is only bestowed upon a limited
+section of mankind. The one view is a pantheistic monism, the other is
+a theistic dualism.
+
+The Book of Wisdom and Philo are Stoic in their mode of thought, but
+Paul is not so.
+
+It is inconceivable how the Stoic _heimarmene_ can have been brought
+into connexion with the Pauline doctrine of predestination.
+
+The philosophic conception of fate thinks of the world-process as an
+unbroken chain of cause and effect in which also the actions of living
+beings have their place. Pauline foreordination is a pure will-act of
+God, non-rational and non-moral, and has to do with the ultimate
+issues of existence, not with the vicissitudes of life. To see a
+connexion between the two doctrines of predestination is as
+unjustifiable as it would be to identify the cosmic conflagration of
+the Pauline eschatology with that of the Stoic theory.
+
+Paulinism has, in general, a different spirit from that of the Stoa.
+Its author is moved by the fear of death and corruption and yearns for
+a new being. To the Stoic such ideas are, as “passion,” contemptible.
+He reckons—as you may read in Marcus Aurelius—with the present world
+as the only one there is, and with the present life as the only one
+which he has to live.
+
+[pg 099]
+
+Whatever views and conceptions are brought up for comparison, the
+result is always the same—that Paulinism and Greek thought have
+nothing, absolutely nothing, in common. Their relation is not even one
+of indifference, they stand opposed to one another. Had the Apostle
+been influenced by Hellenism in any shape or form, he could never have
+conceived his system in the way he did.
+
+Nevertheless it is possible to understand how theology came to class
+his doctrine as Greek. The mysticism which enters into it bears a
+certain analogy to that which springs from Greek religious thought and
+feeling. Since Judaism, itself guileless of any mysticism, produced
+nothing of the kind, could not create out of itself anything of the
+kind, the only possible alternative seemed to be to explain it as due
+to Greek influences, and to explain the essential character of
+Paulinism in accordance with this hypothesis.
+
+But this road leads to an impasse. In this way it is possible only to
+misinterpret the mysticism of the Apostle, not to understand it.
+Critical theology is confronted with the at first apparently
+inexplicable fact that there has arisen on Jewish-Christian soil a
+system of thought which externally has all the air of being a twin
+formation to that of Greek religious mysticism, but inwardly has
+nothing whatever to do with it.
+
+The actual result of the study of Paulinism in the post-Baur period is
+therefore wholly negative, and it must become evident that it is so
+the moment any one attempts to substitute references and proofs for
+mere assertions. This the scholars of that period avoided doing; they
+were prevented from making the attempt by the scientific instinct of
+self-preservation.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 100]
+
+IV
+
+
+H. J. HOLTZMANN
+
+
+_Heinrich Julius Holtzmann._ Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen
+Theologie. 1897. Vol. ii., 532 pp. On Paulinism, 1-225.
+
+_William Wrede._ Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten
+Neutestamentlichen Theologie. (1897.) (On the Task and the Method of
+the so-called New Testament Theology.)
+
+
+HOLTZMANN’S “New Testament Theology” was eagerly awaited on all sides.
+It was hoped that it would bring about a clearing of ideas such as had
+been produced in regard to questions of criticism by his
+“Introduction.”
+
+In the new work the author follows the method which seemed to him to
+have proved its usefulness in the former work. He lets every writer
+who has dealt with the subject have his say at the appropriate place,
+even though he runs the risk of not making his own opinion distinctly
+heard amid the strife of tongues._(_84_)_
+
+While in the “Introduction” the advantages of the method predominate,
+in the “Theology” its disadvantages are conspicuous. The former work
+dealt with a series of questions which are already formulated and can
+be answered with a clear yes or no. There is therefore some sense in
+taking the suffrages of the writers, living and dead. It leads up to a
+verdict which in a certain sense [pg 101] may be given forth as the
+objective result of the period under survey.
+
+But when it is a question of the content of thought in the New
+Testament writings, the questions are not so clearly formulated. The
+continual hearing of opinions has not the same usefulness. On the
+contrary, the account of the subject becomes thereby only the more
+complicated and confused.
+
+Here the result of Holtzmann’s threading his own view through those of
+others is that neither the one nor the other stands out with any
+clearness. Undoubtedly, he knows the literature as no one else does,
+and has absorbed into his own mind and worked up all that it has to
+offer. But a clear view of the state of opinion is what he does not in
+the end succeed in conveying, since he intentionally omits to give a
+sketch and criticism of the works cited and contents himself with
+quoting passages from them.
+
+This unfortunate atomistic method does not even allow the individual
+problems to appear as clearly as would be desirable. In the post-Baur
+study of Paulinism, various questions had come up one after another
+which, taken together, form its fundamental problem. The most natural
+procedure for one who intended to make critical use of the work
+already done would have been to sketch these in their full extent and
+then formulate them more exactly and exhibit their inner connexions.
+
+But that is not the kind of treatment which Holtzmann aims at. He has
+the feeling that this is no longer necessary, and agrees with
+contemporary scholars in thinking that assured results have been
+attained in sufficient number to admit of a simple positive account of
+the system. In accordance with this view he feels it to be his duty to
+act as a critical camera, focussing the views on his lens and
+combining them into a picture.
+
+One looks, therefore, in vain in his work for a fundamental statement
+and solution of the problems. They are mentioned where they happen to
+come up, and are [pg 102] there discussed in a fragmentary fashion. In
+addition to this the author’s peculiarly subtle and delicately shaded
+method of exposition has to be reckoned with. Any one who is not
+familiar with it runs the risk of passing too lightly over these
+passages and failing to appreciate the significance which Holtzmann
+himself attaches to his remarks. What he intends to give is a
+General-staff map of the results of investigation. The heights and
+hollows are not shown as such, but represented by curves which are
+only later to be carried out in relief.
+
+Holtzmann does not stand above the post-Baur study of the subject, but
+within it.
+
+That is immediately evident from the fact that, speaking generally, he
+takes as the plan of his exposition the scheme, partially
+“Reformation,” partially modern, which the head of the Tübingen school
+had used in his theology and left as a legacy to his successors. After
+dealing with the doctrine of man, law, sin, and corruption, he
+describes the “revolution” (conversion). Then follow Christology, the
+work of redemption, and the Divine righteousness. The close is formed
+by the chapters on the “ethical” material, the “mystical,” and
+“eschatology.”
+
+The difficulties and errors which are involved in this division of the
+subject have not been escaped by Holtzmann any more than by others. At
+every step it is evident how unnatural is an arrangement of the
+material which leaves out of account the connexions inherent in the
+system. How much art is expended on breaking off the thread at a given
+moment, in order to take it up again in a later chapter! How many
+unnecessarily fragmentary representations! How many annoying
+repetitions! How many references forward and backward! Thus, for
+example, what Paul has to say of redemption is not developed
+connectedly but split up among a number of chapters. And the same
+thing happens with regard to the doctrine of the death and
+resurrection of Christ.
+
+The division which he has taken over leads Holtzmann [pg 103] to
+regard the Pauline teaching on redemption from the stand-point of the
+Reformation doctrine. Involuntarily he always thinks either of the
+individual man, or humanity, instead of the entity always present to
+the mind of the Apostle, the group of the elect of the last
+generation, who have been subjected to the influence of the death and
+resurrection of Christ. He quotes the acute remark of
+Schmiedel_(_85_)_ that “the men who had sought (and found) in Jesus
+before His death forgiveness and peace of soul” are left out of
+account by the Apostle, but he does not go further into the problem
+which this suggests. The temporally conditioned character and the
+general point of view of the Pauline doctrine of redemption is, owing
+to the faulty division, practically overlooked.
+
+Not less unfortunate is the plan on which the significance of the
+death and resurrection of Christ is dealt with. Having begun with the
+psychology of the natural man, and the man in process of conversion,
+Holtzmann endeavours to explain the facts by which redemption is
+conditioned from this starting-point. He asks what these two events,
+the death and resurrection, signified for Jesus and what they
+signified for the believers. Jesus is thereby proved to be the
+Messiah; the influence upon believers is described on the basis of the
+classical passages in the Epistles. But the inner connexion of the two
+effects is not clear, and it is equally unintelligible wherein the
+saving significance of the death and resurrection consists.
+
+Holtzmann is, in fact, still straitly confined to the Reformation and
+modern point of view, from which the twofold event of the death and
+resurrection of Christ is considered by itself, in isolation, and an
+attempt is made to get behind it by psychologising, and thus to
+discover how, according to the statements of Paul, it produced a
+complete change in God and man, and effected justification and
+reconciliation. This attempt overlooks the fact that on the Apostle’s
+view it is primarily a cosmic [pg 104] event which alters the
+condition of the whole creation and introduces a new Age, and that
+everything else is only a consequence of this fundamental effect.
+
+As Holtzmann, like his predecessors, has thus omitted to consider the
+most fundamental aspect of redemption as conceived by Paul, he is not
+concerned to trace out the most general conception of the effect of
+the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is as much as to say
+that he, like the rest, is condemned to a mere descriptive treatment,
+using Pauline phraseology, and is practically unable to give any
+explanation.
+
+This unfortunate result becomes apparent in regard to the question of
+the Law. He is unable to make it in any way intelligible how Paul was
+necessarily led, as a matter of reasoning, to the conviction that it
+was no longer valid. In the last resort he can only appeal to the
+unique character of the vision on the Damascus road. He assumes that
+this “brought to an issue in the zealous Pharisee not only a
+theoretic, but also an ethical crisis, terminating that painful
+condition of inner division which Paul pictures out of his own inmost
+consciousness when he speaks of the experiences which are associated
+with subjection to the law.” “Previously,” he continues, “the Pharisee
+had anxiously sought to conceal from himself, or to argue away, the
+fact that the law was impossible of fulfilment, and was therefore no
+way of salvation, but rather the contrary. There now rose upon this
+melancholy scene, strewn with the shattered fragments of attempts to
+gain righteousness, a new light streaming from the Christ, whom the
+legalists had delivered to death, whereas His being raised again by
+God guaranteed the actual presence of another way of salvation. Not
+only did his former legal service appear to him a life of sin, his
+Pharisaic rabbinism as foolishness, his attack upon the Messianic
+community as enmity to God, but even in his inmost being a crisis had
+taken place in consequence of which a tension, under which he had
+hitherto groaned, had suddenly been relaxed.”
+
+[pg 105]
+
+How do we know that Paul when he was still a persecutor of the
+Christians was suffering inward distress from his experiences of the
+powerlessness of the law? How did the vision of Christ bring about the
+resolution of this tension? How, exactly, did it reveal a way of
+salvation by which the abolition of the law was implied?
+
+In themselves the vision of Christ, and the law, have nothing to do
+with one another. What Paul received in that moment was the conviction
+of the Messiahship of Jesus. While other believers were content simply
+to adopt this conviction, he proceeds to draw from it in some way or
+other the conclusion that the law was henceforth invalidated. Whether
+he did that at the moment or only later, we do not know. What is
+certain is only that he does draw this conclusion, though it is not
+contemplated either in the thoughts of Jesus or in those of the
+primitive community.
+
+How he came to draw it is not explained by Holtzmann, any more than by
+the scholars of the post-Baur period generally. The assumption that
+the Apostle experienced along with the vision an ethical crisis which
+set him free from the law, is a psychological hypothesis about which
+the letters have nothing whatever to say. It does not even prove what
+it professes to prove. Exactly how the abrogation of the law is
+supposed to be effected by the death and resurrection of Christ is not
+obvious. It is to be remarked, too, that Paul always treats the
+abolition of the law as a logical conclusion, not as a psychological
+experience.
+
+In other connexions, too, Holtzmann often has recourse to Holsten’s
+expedient of taking what is unintelligible in the Apostle’s statements
+as accounted for by the Damascus vision.
+
+In this way the doctrine of the “new creature” is made to go back to a
+“personal experience,” and “a perception so keen as to be apprehended
+by the senses, of the destruction of the law of sin in the members.”
+
+“The complex of new ethical powers, motives, duties, [pg 106] and aims
+. . . which formed itself in him has as its centre the risen Christ
+who had appeared to him in that moment as light, to be henceforth the
+vital centre and the guiding star of his individual life. . . . Hence
+the ‘new creation.’ It is a simple generalisation and application of
+this personal experience to cover all analogous cases, since now all
+baptized persons appear as, on the negative side, dead to sin, on the
+positive side as walking in a ‘newness of life’ corresponding to the
+resurrection.”
+
+So Holtzmann. Paul, however, never speaks of his theory of the new
+creature as if he were expressing by it the generalisation and
+objectivation of an inner experience, but represents it as being
+logically and actually involved in the death and resurrection of the
+Lord for those who believe in him, and regards his own renewal as only
+a special case of the general law which operates in all the believing
+elect.
+
+That is just the characteristic and unintelligible thing about
+Paulinism, that its creator does not seem to have the faintest
+consciousness of holding up his personal experiences as something to
+be imitated, but presents his whole system as something that
+immediately and objectively grows out of the facts, something which
+can be examined by the higher, but in its own way logical
+understanding from which “gnosis” is derived.
+
+To treat his Damascus “experience” as a source of theoretic knowledge,
+as is done by modern theology, in order to be dispensed from rendering
+any account to ordinary or philosophic thought, would have been out of
+the question for an unsophisticated mind such as his, and indeed for
+the mental attitude of antiquity in general.
+
+Of Paul’s objective statements Holtzmann always, in order to be able
+to interpret them, makes something subjective.
+
+This error in method—which he shares with scholars of the post-Baur
+period generally—runs through the whole of his undertaking.
+
+He frequently takes occasion to point to the element of [pg 107]
+“gnosis” in the Apostle’s doctrine. At bottom, however, he is afraid
+that his doctrine may be too much considered as an intellectual
+construction. For that reason he provides a special section on “the
+religious character of the doctrine.” “Paul’s world of thought,” he
+there tells us, “is, to put it in a word, not merely a product of
+intellection, it is antecedently to that a product of experience also;
+in this it differs fundamentally from any of the artificially
+excogitated gospels of Gnosticism proper. . . . The first condition
+for any understanding of Paulinism is that we should not obscure the
+volcanic character of its origin by any method which implies the
+gradual addition of one grain of sand to another. The whole system of
+doctrine means nothing more nor less than the way in which the Apostle
+objectified to himself the fundamental decisive experience of his life
+and theoretically explained its presuppositions and consequences. The
+doctrine fits the experience with a theory.”
+
+How, then, does Holtzmann know that Paul is not after all a Gnostic
+pure and simple? The whole character of his system makes him appear
+so. He himself claims to be one,_(_86_)_ and is quite unaware that his
+doctrine is nothing more than the form given by the constructive
+imagination to a personal experience.
+
+He knows no distinction between “gnostic” and “religious.” What is
+religious is for him gnostic, and what is gnostic, religious. Any one
+who strictly distinguishes the two in him is modernising.
+
+His mission to the Gentiles and his universalism are also, according
+to Holtzmann, to be explained directly from the vision at his
+conversion. The Christ who has won through to triumph by way of death,
+so Holtzmann explains, implies for the Apostle the purification of the
+Messianic idea from all the carnal elements which in Judaism still
+cling to it. In the exalted Christ he sees [pg 108] also the head of
+the Church gathered out from both Jews and Gentiles.
+
+How, exactly, does the vision at the conversion carry with it the
+elimination of the carnal elements which in Judaism cleave to the
+Messianic idea? Paul, it is true, sees a glorified Person; but the
+Jewish Son-of-Man Messiah also belongs to the supernatural world.
+Further, universalism is provided for in the eschatology of Late
+Judaism, and in that preached by Jesus, since it is assumed that among
+those elected to the Kingdom of God others will be revealed who do not
+belong to the people of Israel. Universalism is therefore involved in
+the Jewish conception of the Messiah. Whereas, however, Late Judaism
+and Jesus only represent it as realised in the coming supernatural
+Age, Paul antedates it and affirms that distinctions are already
+abolished in consequence of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and
+infers from this the justification and the duty of preaching to the
+heathen. The problem has therefore nothing to do with the
+“purification of the Messianic idea,” and consists simply in the fact
+that the Apostle assumes this universalism to be already applicable to
+the present natural era, just as he also asserts that believers are
+already in a condition of resurrection life.
+
+Holtzmann is not much concerned to show the connexion of the Pauline
+statements with Jewish theology and eschatology in order to arrive in
+this way at a new formulation of the problems. In fact he clearly
+betrays the tendency to make as little use as possible of eschatology
+in explaining the Pauline system of doctrine.
+
+Kabisch’s work is in the highest degree distasteful to him. He refers
+to it only occasionally, and with reserve. It is true he cannot avoid
+acknowledging that, “with all the exaggerations, monstrosities, and
+inconsistencies which may be pointed out” in its emphasising of the
+physical character of the conceptions and ideas associated with the
+dualism of flesh and spirit, the work embodies a sound idea. But he
+never so much as mentions that this [pg 109] insistance on the
+“physical” is ultimately due to the fact that all the conceptions and
+ideas are traced back to eschatology. Any one who is not already
+acquainted with Kabisch’s fundamental idea will not learn it from
+Holtzmann.
+
+True to the Baur and post-Baur tradition, Holtzmann postpones the
+chapter on eschatology to the end. That this arrangement does not
+contribute to a satisfactory treatment of the ethics is not
+surprising. The eschatological roots of the conception of
+predestination discussed in this chapter, or of the designation of
+believers as “saints” are hardly visible. That the most general
+ethical maxims of the Apostle are conditioned by the expectation of
+the nearness of the parousia, and that the ethical implications of the
+mystical dying and rising again with Christ have also in the last
+resort an eschatological orientation, is never fairly recognised.
+Holtzmann finds himself, therefore, rather helpless when he has to
+deal with points in which the eschatological character of Paul’s ethic
+comes most clearly to light. In the directions given in I Corinthians
+vii. about married and unmarried persons, about marrying or remaining
+single, he finds a certain “hesitation.” In a quite general way, he is
+willing to assume that “the so closely bounded view of the future
+explains why in this and other departments there was no complete
+development of the ethics.”
+
+This halting estimate of the ethical significance of eschatology shows
+that Holtzmann regards the Pauline ethical teaching from the modern
+point of view.
+
+He is bound to take this course with regard to eschatology because he
+agrees with Pfleiderer and the rest in admitting a comprehensive
+influence of Greek ideas upon Paul, and is well aware that a man
+cannot serve two masters.
+
+Even in the Apostle’s doctrine of man he finds a Hellenistic factor
+alongside of the Jewish, and asserts that the “emphasis rests on the
+former.” Wherever reference is made to the antithesis of flesh and
+spirit [pg 110] he thinks that the influence of the Greek element is
+manifest. By regarding sin as implicate in the empirical nature of man
+“Paul abandons in principle the ultimate basis of the Jewish
+philosophy and ethic.”
+
+Greek, or to speak more precisely, Alexandrian, is the metaphysical
+background of his conception of Christ. According to Holtzmann, Paul
+never really goes back expressly to Daniel or the Apocalyptic Messiah.
+His own special view grew up, Holtzmann thinks, out of speculations
+allied to those of Philo about the two accounts of the creation and
+the heavenly and earthly Adam. The primary point for him is “the
+metaphysical hypothesis of the two classes of mankind” which stand
+opposed to each other as the “psychic” and the “pneumatic” creation.
+
+That the “subjective,” ethical interpretation of the work of
+redemption is based on Hellenistic ideas is for Holtzmann
+self-evident. It is not less certain for him that the idea of
+predestination is “borrowed” from the Book of Wisdom, and consequently
+“in one of the most conspicuous points of the Pauline world of thought
+its Hellenistic origin” must be regarded as proved. That the idea of
+predestination is inherent in eschatology, and that Jesus Himself
+makes use of it, is not taken into account.
+
+The doctrine of baptism “comes to base itself entirely on the
+Hellenistic side of Paul’s theology.” In general, he transformed the
+two sacred ceremonies of primitive Christianity after the analogy of
+the Greek mystery-cults, and thus “opened up for the early Catholic
+Church a way” into which it was forced by the natural progress of
+events.
+
+Holtzmann sees in Paul’s system of thought the first, but at the same
+time a far-reaching Hellenisation of Christianity. The Apostle, so
+runs his verdict, “by bringing Hellenistic forms of thought to bear
+for the first time upon Christian conceptions, prepared the way for
+the passing over of the latter from the Semitic to the Hellenic world,
+and beyond this again to the modern world.”
+
+[pg 111]
+
+The influx of Greek ideas is thought of, as by Pfleiderer, as coming
+through the intermediary channel of Jewish Hellenism. The question
+whether any literary relationship to the latter can be detected in
+Paul is dismissed in a few lines. Holtzmann admits that “no tangible
+influence” of Philo’s writings is to be recognised. He is, however, of
+opinion that Grafe has proved “with all the greater certainty” the
+Apostle’s dependence on the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom.
+
+Instead of giving a regular proof he confines himself, as his
+predecessors had done, entirely to general considerations, which he
+sums up in the following sentences “In any case Paul was by birth and
+parentage a son of the Diaspora, and from his youth up breathed at any
+rate at times a Greek atmosphere. His letters show, in regard to
+vocabulary and rhetoric, sometimes even as regards tone of feeling and
+mental attitude, not a few surprising affinities with Greek thought.
+Some kind of communication from this side, and that not merely
+occasional or accidental, one must certainly assume. The only question
+which remains is in regard to the extent and intensity of this
+Hellenistic, or even it may be Hellenic, admixture, which became
+amalgamated with his Jewish scholasticism. This is certainly the point
+on which depend all the problems which Pauline study is called on at
+the present day to face. . . .”
+
+With this the matter is disposed of—on the third page of the work!
+Gunkel’s and Kabisch’s arguments to show that the doctrine of the
+Spirit is intelligible apart from Greek influences, are left out of
+account; that Hatch in his “Influence of Greek Ideas” had nothing to
+say about any Hellenisation of the Gospel on the part of Paul is not
+mentioned. On the contrary there follows a profession of faith in
+Pfleiderer’s doctrine that Paul in the course of his career even
+advanced to the Hellenisation of his eschatology. Holtzmann cheerfully
+and courageously defends this theory to its ultimate consequences, and
+holds that in Paul’s dread of being found unclothed [pg 112] (2 Cor.
+v. 3) his national mode of feeling and a Greek mode of thought “are
+combined in a fashion which no one would have dreamed of inventing.”
+
+The usually so cautious scholar goes in this case unhesitatingly
+forward. The difficulties which arise out of the assumed collocation
+and opposition of Jewish and Greek ideas fascinate instead of alarming
+him.
+
+Here, as in some other points, Holtzmann betrays Kantian tendencies
+and instincts, and is inclined to exhibit the problems as antinomies.
+Paul’s system of teaching, as it had shaped itself in the course of
+the study of the subject since Baur, appears to him a unique
+formation, since in it are combined two worlds of thought and two
+different sets of religious ideas which are supposed to hold each
+other in equipoise and mutually interpenetrate one another. He takes
+it to be his task to lay bare this remarkable construction in its
+minutest details, and to show how the most diverse thoughts sometimes
+conflict, sometimes stand in a state of tension, sometimes mutually
+limit, and sometimes supplement each other. If he succeeds in making
+clear the position and relation of the various strata of thought, the
+system, he believes, will become intelligible.
+
+This idea runs through his whole treatment of the subject, and gives
+him courage to take over all the contradictions and compromises which
+scholars from Baur onwards have discovered, and even to add new ones
+in addition. He is especially interested in the questions regarding
+the juridical and ethical sets of ideas, the relation of the “popular”
+missionary preaching to the “system of doctrine,” the antithesis
+between “theory” and “practice” in the ethics, and the inconsistencies
+of the eschatology.
+
+In these discussions there is much penetrating observation. The
+picture, however, does not become clearer, but rather more confused.
+
+His predecessors had done their best in their treatment of the subject
+to conceal its fragmentary character, and [pg 113] when all was said
+and done had been content to put in the foreground only a few leading
+ideas, which could be brought under a single point of view. They
+worked with perspective, light and shade. Holtzmann brings all the
+detail into one line and places it under the same illumination. The
+fact that the system becomes in this way much more complicated than it
+had already been made by the scholarship of the period awakes in him
+no misgivings, but increases his confidence, since he sees in it one
+of those offences which needs must come.
+
+Even the objection that so complicated a system of doctrine could not
+have been understood in primitive Christian times does not alarm him.
+He anticipates it by declaring that the actual contemporaries and
+adherents of the Apostle could neither understand nor imitate him,
+even if they had wished to do so. How, indeed, could they possibly
+have done so! The whole of Paulinism is a “systematisation of the
+Christ-vision” and a “generalisation” of that which the Apostle had
+experienced in his own soul, and consequently ascribed to all who walk
+in the same way as an experience which they must necessarily undergo.
+“What this man with his unique spiritual endowment had experienced,
+felt, and thought amid influences and surroundings which could only
+once have arisen, could never be exactly in the same way experienced,
+felt, and thought by any other man.”
+
+Holtzmann, therefore, like Harnack, accepts the saying that no one
+ever understood Paul, with the sole exception of Marcion . . . who
+misunderstood him! It is not enough for him to regard the system, as
+had been usual among scholars since Baur, as a personal creation of
+the Apostle; he goes the whole way with Holsten in maintaining that
+the personal creation was nothing else than the interpretation of a
+unique personal experience.
+
+But that is to admit that no connecting links between Paulinism and
+primitive Christianity can be discovered; and does not that really
+imply an abandonment of all attempt to explain the Apostle’s doctrine?
+Is it [pg 114] understood at all if it is not understood in relation
+to primitive Christianity?
+
+What right has any one to assert that it was unintelligible to his
+contemporaries? Paul confidently ascribes to them an understanding of
+it. And how are we to explain the success which is evidenced by the
+establishment of the Pauline churches and the victorious struggle for
+freedom from the law? Can the least understood of all early Christians
+have exercised the greatest influence? These fundamental questions are
+not asked by Holtzmann. His confidence in the results already attained
+left no room for them.
+
+What he aimed at he has successfully accomplished. He has worked up
+into one great symphony the themes and motifs of the Pauline
+scholarship of the post-Baur period, a symphony such as he alone, at
+once critic and artist, could have written. Even one who does not
+allow himself to be carried away by it will again and again take up
+the score with its subtle counterpoint and skilful instrumentation,
+and always find in it new beauties.
+
+Never was Holtzmann so impressive—this was to be observed even in his
+lectures—as in his treatment of Paulinism. Here he could grip his
+hearers, because he wished to do so—he who usually showed a certain
+dread of allowing the feeling, the enthusiasm, which glowed in him, to
+become perceptible when he was dealing with matters of scholarship.
+The system as modelled by him lives because he has breathed his own
+life into it. But it is not historic.
+
+He thinks to sift out and preserve what is of permanent value in the
+heritage left by Baur and his pupils, of whom he was proud to count
+himself spiritually one. In reality he leads up to a declaration of
+bankruptcy, and that especially in the powerful closing chapter
+entitled “Retrospect and Prospect.”
+
+Here he endeavours forcibly to combine into one whole the results of
+Pfleiderer, Holsten, and Harnack.
+
+From Pfleiderer he takes over the view of the [pg 115] wide-reaching
+Greek influence in Paulinism, and from Holsten he takes the theory
+that the system had its birth in the unique experience of the vision
+of Christ on the way to Damascus.
+
+Now these two views might at need be combined, though it is not quite
+easy to show—and this difficulty is constantly coming to light in
+Holtzmann—how what is in one aspect a purely subjective experience,
+never exactly to be repeated by any other, appears in another aspect,
+by a kind of miracle, as Greek religious thought, and thus becomes
+universally intelligible.
+
+But into this synthesis Holtzmann tries to introduce in addition
+Harnack’s recognition that Paulinism had no part in the formation of
+early Greek theology.
+
+Now Holsten and Harnack again, on their part, might be combined. The
+Pauline teaching, if it is referred to a unique personal experience,
+might well remain for the Apostle’s contemporaries and successors a
+book with seven seals.
+
+But Pfleiderer and Holsten and Harnack cannot all be brought together.
+If Paulinism was largely Greek, it must have had some influence. How
+is it conceivable that Greeks should not have recognised and
+understood the Greek spirit? The triumvirate planned by Holtzmann
+cannot, therefore, be brought to pass, even if Holtzmann is regarded
+as the connecting-link between Harnack and Pfleiderer. In defiance of
+all the facts of the history of dogma the last-named must assert an
+influence of the Pauline system upon the growth of Greek dogma, since
+he sees in Paul the first step in the Hellenisation of Christianity.
+
+Any one who shares his premisses must also draw his conclusions, and
+Holtzmann is not bold enough to do that. He agrees with him in
+asserting the Hellenic character of Pauline doctrine, in other
+respects he bows to the facts of the history of dogma. But this means
+that, however he may wrap it up in qualifying clauses, he is asserting
+the impossible, namely, that Christianity [pg 116] as Hellenised by
+Paul remained uninteresting and unintelligible to the Greeks.
+
+The edifice which he constructs, therefore, breaks down from within,
+even though he may be able for a time to maintain it in outward
+appearance intact.
+
+Thus there met in this universal critical spirit, which examined all
+things and desired to do justice to all, Baur and the history of dogma
+which took its rise from Ritschl and was opposed to Baur, and held a
+new settlement of accounts. Once more it was made manifest that the
+question of Paul’s relation to primitive Christianity on the one hand,
+to early Greek dogma on the other, had not been solved, and that his
+teaching therefore had not been understood.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 117]
+
+V
+
+
+CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
+
+
+_Edward Evanson._ The Dissonance of the four generally received
+Evangelists. (1792.)
+
+_Bruno Bauer._ Kritik der Apostelgeschichte (1850). Kritik der
+paulinischen Briefe (Galatians, 1850; I Corinthians, 1851; remaining
+Epistles, 1852). Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des
+Christentums aus dem römischen Griechentum (1877). (Christ and the
+Caesars. How Christianity arose out of the Graeco-Roman Civilisation.)
+
+_Albert Kalthoff._ Die Entstehung des Christentums. 1904. (E.T. by J.
+McCabe, The Rise of Christianity, 1907.)
+
+__Allard Pierson.__ De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten. (The
+Sermon on the Mount and other Synoptic Fragments.) 1878.
+
+_A. Pierson and S. A. Naber._ Verisimilia. 1886.
+
+_A. D. Loman._ Quaestiones Paulinae. (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1882; 1883;
+1886—written in Dutch.)
+
+_Rudolf Steck._ Der Galaterbrief. 1888.
+
+_W. C. van Manen._ Paulus, 3 vols. Vol. i. deals with the Acts of the
+Apostles (1890); vol. ii. with the Epistle to the Romans (1891); vol.
+iii. with the Epistles to the Corinthians (1896). The criticism of the
+Epistle to the Romans has been translated into German under the title
+“Die Unechtheit des Römerbriefs,” by G. Schläger. 1906.
+
+_M. Friedländer._ Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen
+Welt. (Judaism in the pre-Christian Greek World.) 1897.
+
+_J. Friedrich (Maehliss)._ Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs. (The
+Spuriousness of the Epistle to the Galatians.) 1891.
+
+_J. H. Scholten._ Historisch-kritische Bijdragen. (Contributions to
+Historical Criticism.) 1882.
+
+_G. Heinrici._ Die Forschungen über die paulinischen Briefe; ihr
+gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben. (The Critical Study of the
+Pauline Letters; its Present Position, and the Tasks which await it.)
+1886.
+
+_J. M. S. Baljon._ Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief
+van Paulus aan de Galatiërs. (Exegetic and Critical Essay on the
+Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.) 1889.
+
+[pg 118]
+
+_Wilhelm Brückner._ Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die
+Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind. (The Chronological Order in
+which the Epistles of the New Testament were written.) 1890.
+
+_Carl Clemen._ Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe. 1893. Die
+Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe. (The Integrity of the Pauline
+Epistles.) 1894. Paulus, 2 vols., 1904.
+
+_Christian Hermann Weisse._ Philosophische Dogmatik (3 vols., 1855;
+1860; 1862). Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe.
+(Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Brought out
+by Sulze in 1867.
+
+_J. M. S. Baljon._ De Text der Breven van Paulus. 1884.
+
+_Daniel Völter._ Die Composition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. (The
+Composition of the chief Pauline Epistles.) 1890. Paulus und seine
+Briefe. 1905.
+
+_Friedrich Spitta._ Untersuchung über den Brief des Paulus an die
+Römer. (Examination of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans—in his work,
+Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. iii., 1st half,
+1901.)
+
+
+THOSE critics who reject the Pauline letters as a whole profess to
+have derived the impulse thereto from Ferdinand Christian Baur, to be
+his true because logically consistent disciples, and to bear the same
+relation to him as Schopenhauer did to Kant. This profession, which
+has always filled the “legitimate” Tübingen school with indignation,
+is in many points well founded.
+
+Baur’s criticism was occupied with the _Corpus Paulinum_ which
+remained after the exclusion of the Pastoral epistles. In the ten
+remaining Epistles, which show a large degree of inner homogeneity, he
+professed to discover differences on the basis of which some were to
+be assigned to the Apostle, others to the school which took its rise
+from him.
+
+Once the rights of such a criticism are admitted, nothing can prevent
+it from working itself out to its limit, and seeking to explain all
+the Epistles as products of a school which went under Paul’s name.
+
+The Tübingen master held that the Epistles to the Corinthians and that
+to the Ephesians could not both be from the same hand. But the
+differences between the former and the Epistle to the Galatians are in
+their own way scarcely less great, if one considers that the violent
+[pg 119] controversy about the law with which the latter is filled is
+never mentioned in the others.
+
+The letters to the Romans and to the Galatians, on the other hand,
+deal partly with the same subjects, since they both treat of sin, law,
+and justification by faith. Nevertheless they are far from coinciding.
+For all their agreement in fundamental views they show remarkable
+differences in detail. Is it, if this line of argument be followed,
+after all so indubitably certain that the four main epistles are from
+the same pen?
+
+Is it certain that they are by Paul? Strictly examined, Baur’s
+assumption that they are so rests only on tradition, which in respect
+of the other letters he impugns. Has he then the right to rely on it
+so confidently as regards the main epistles? In conformity with his
+own principles he ought to have felt himself obliged to exercise
+“positive criticism” here also, and would only have had the right to
+regard them as Pauline after it had been proved that they really
+belong to primitive Christian times and have the historical Apostle of
+the Gentiles as their author.
+
+The assumption of the genuineness of the four main epistles is by no
+means so self-evident as it may seem to us in our simplicity. The Acts
+of the Apostles know nothing of any literary activity of Paul. It is
+only from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the Gnostics that we first
+hear of his Epistles. Justin and the remainder of early Christian
+literature are silent in regard to his writings. Supposing that the
+first Epistle of Clement does not belong to the first century, the
+earliest evidence for the Epistles comes from the second century. If
+the Ignatian letters are not genuine, Marcion, about the middle of the
+second century, is the first witness to an actual _Corpus paulinum_!
+
+For any one who has to defend the ordinary view, the position is very
+far from being favourable. So far as outward evidence goes it is
+hardly more difficult to defend the theory that the letters originated
+in an inner circle [pg 120] of Gnosticism and were gradually given out
+under the name of Paul.
+
+Moreover, Baur made larger concessions than he realised to the opinion
+which jeopardised his position, when he maintained that Paulinism
+represents a Hellenisation of the Gospel.
+
+Is it probable that a single individual belonging to the primitive
+Christian community, immediately after the death of Jesus, by himself
+achieved this result? Historical analogy is uniformly in favour of the
+view that developments of that kind have a gradual beginning, and are
+only accomplished in the course of two or three generations. It would
+therefore be inherently much more probable that Paulinism should be
+the work of a school which sought to reconcile Christianity with
+Hellenism. In any case a writer who regards it as Greek ought to face
+the difficulty of explaining it as at the same time belonging to
+primitive Christianity, and ought not to regard this hypothesis as
+self-evident, but as standing in need of proof.
+
+These theoretic considerations regarding the basis of the views of
+Baur and his successors are so obvious that they were bound to come up
+sooner or later. The fact was that in one particular point the
+Tübingen master had held back from unprejudiced criticism and had
+foisted upon critical science the traditional belief. In doing so he
+had obeyed an instinct of caution. Those who proceeded further along
+the path of questioning and investigation arrived, some with
+satisfaction and some with dismay, at the result of declaring all the
+epistles to be spurious.
+
+It was Bruno Bauer who about the middle of the nineteenth century
+opened the ball with his criticism of the Pauline letters._(_87_)_
+
+[pg 121]
+
+This work is not on the same level as his criticism of the
+Gospels._(_88_)_ The objections which have to be brought against F. C.
+Baur’s views are not clearly developed nor completely stated. In what
+sense Paulinism is to be considered the work of a school with Greek
+sympathies within Christianity is not explained.
+
+In addition to this, Bruno Bauer complicates his task by regarding not
+merely the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles, but Christianity
+in general, as a creation of the Greek mind. It was not, however,
+until twenty-five years after the appearance of his criticism of the
+Pauline letters that he attempted to prove this in the confused work
+on “Christ and the Caesars.”_(_89_)_
+
+It was not Palestine, according to his thesis, but Rome and Alexandria
+which cradled Christianity. Palestine merely supplied the background
+for the picture which the first Evangelist undertook to create of the
+beginnings of a movement which really originated with Seneca and [pg
+122] his adherents. Whether there ever was a Jesus or a Paul may be
+left an open question. It is in any case certain that the one did not
+utter the sayings which the Gospels put into his mouth, and that the
+other is not to be regarded as the author of the letters.
+
+The Christian “community” arose among the oppressed, the slaves and
+Jews, of the great city. They formed associations and fostered in one
+another a yearning for the End of the Age, developed the
+Platonico-Stoic thoughts of Seneca into the sayings of the Sermon on
+the Mount, and invented for themselves their hero, Christ. The spirit
+of the new creation came from the West; its framework was furnished by
+Judaism.
+
+Judaism brought with it a tendency towards legalism. In the Flavian
+period the Greek ethical philosophy struck up an alliance with the
+law. This movement was opposed by the freedom-loving Gnosis. In the
+last years of Hadrian and the first half of the reign of Marcus
+Aurelius matters came to an issue. So far as the struggle took a
+literary form we have the evidences of it in the Pauline letters and
+the Acts of the Apostles. Galatians is the last of the letters, issued
+at the crisis of the struggle, and was directed against Acts, which
+appeared at the same time.
+
+“The figure of this champion of a universal Church and freedom from
+the law of ordinances” must have been already known to the Church.
+What was new was the association with his name of an epistolary
+literature, the production of which occupied a series of earnest and
+able men for some forty years.
+
+In the Acts of the Apostles Paul is co-ordinated with or subordinated
+to Peter, the representative of the Judaeo-Roman hierarchic tendency.
+That reflects the issue of the struggle. The freedom-loving party was
+defeated; in the last quarter of the second century Catholicism became
+supreme in the Church.
+
+No attention was paid to Bauer, and in part he himself was responsible
+for the neglect. The bitterness and the [pg 123] carelessness of his
+writing, the contradictions in which he becomes involved, the
+fantastic imagination which he allows to run riot, made it impossible
+for the few who read him to regard him seriously.
+
+Nevertheless, in detached observations, and in some of the incidental
+ideas, he displays a critical acumen which has something great about
+it.
+
+After dismissing him with a few sharp words, the Tübingen school and
+their successors enjoyed a respite of thirty years, so far as radical
+scepticism was concerned. At the end of that time Bauer reappeared,
+like a _Nero Redivivus,_ in peaceful Holland._(_90_)_
+
+In a critical introduction to his study of the Sermon on the Mount,
+Allard Pierson examined the earliest witnesses for the existence of
+Christianity, and in doing so threw out the question whether the
+historicity of the main Pauline epistles was so completely raised
+above all doubt that they could be treated with perfect confidence as
+archives from the earliest period of the new faith._(_91_)_
+
+In the year 1886 he published, in association with the philological
+scholar, Samuel Adrian Naber, the _Verisimilia._ The book was not
+adapted to make a deep impression. It was too much the ingenious essay
+for that.
+
+The two friends combined their efforts in order to show New Testament
+exegetes how much they had left unexplained in the Epistles to the
+Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and how many
+problems, incoherencies, and contradictions appear when one reads
+these writings with an open mind._(_92_)_
+
+[pg 124]
+
+But instead of making a thorough examination of the problems and
+laboriously arguing the case with the other students of Paulinism, the
+authors at once proceed to suggest what appears to them a possible
+solution. They claim to have discovered that the inconsistencies are
+due in the main to the presence of two strata of thought which have
+been worked together. The one is of a sharply anti-Jewish character;
+the other consists of milder and more conciliatory ideas.
+
+If it be assumed, so runs their argument, that Christianity was in its
+real origin a Jewish sect which had liberal ideas in regard to the law
+and directed its expectation towards the Messiah, the antinomian
+sections of the Epistles represent documents of that period.
+
+The present form of the letters is due to the fact that a later
+“Churchman”—the authors call him _Paulus episcopus,_ and think that he
+may have served as model for the Paul of Acts—worked into them the
+second, milder set of ideas.
+
+At the time when Pierson and Naber launched this hypothesis, A. D.
+Loman had just finished the series of “Quaestiones Paulinae” which he
+threw out in the [pg 125] _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ of
+1882-1886._(_93_)_ The battle began in earnest.
+
+Loman confines himself to dealing with the external arguments, and
+only proposes to examine how far the assumption that these letters
+were written by the Apostle in primitive Christian times can or cannot
+be proved from the early witnesses. His decision is negative.
+
+But his calmly written yet wonderfully living study shook two other
+thinkers out of their security, and compelled them to carry on the
+work of destruction to a further point.
+
+Steck_(_94_)_ and van Manen_(_95_)_ undertook the task of
+supplementing the external arguments, of presenting the internal
+arguments by means of an analysis of the letters, and of offering a
+detailed hypothesis regarding the origin of the Pauline literature.
+
+[pg 126]
+
+In respect of external arguments the three scholars combine to urge
+the following considerations:—
+
+Acts, they argue, knows nothing of any literary activity of Paul; and
+it tells us nothing of the conflicts which these letters, if we are to
+believe their own evidence, called forth.
+
+When the Tübingen school set up the axiom that Acts is less
+trustworthy than the Epistles, they made things easy for themselves.
+There are weighty arguments to support the opposite opinion.
+
+That the moment a mission to the heathen was undertaken the question
+of the observance of the law must come up is clear. The most natural
+thing to happen would be that it should come up for discussion on
+purely practical lines and should take the form: how much must the
+Gentile Christians take over of the Commandments in order that the
+Jewish believers might have table-fellowship and social intercourse
+with them?
+
+This is the form of the problem which Acts presupposes, and it gives
+us in the account of the so-called Apostolic Council a decision in
+accordance therewith.
+
+The Epistle to the Galatians, on the other hand, asserts that the
+question of the validity of the law as such was raised at that time,
+and that Paul and the original apostles agreed to divide the spheres
+of their mission work into Gentile and Jewish. About the most pressing
+need, the establishment of a _modus vivendi_ in mixed churches,
+nothing was done. This representation is much less natural than the
+other.
+
+Nor is the case different in regard to the picture of Paul which these
+two sources give us. In Acts everything is clear and simple. The
+Apostle appears at first rather as an assistant to Barnabas, but
+afterwards makes himself independent, and maintains his position in
+relation to the original apostles by the force of his personality, in
+a free but not a hostile fashion.
+
+In the letters, on the other hand, everything is unintelligible.
+Stress is laid on the fact that the Apostle of [pg 127] the Gentiles
+after his conversion has no intercourse with the original apostles and
+the Church, receives nothing whatever of the doctrinal tradition about
+Jesus, and draws his gospel entirely from revelation.
+
+The statements regarding the external facts of his life are extremely
+confused. After his conversion he is said to have first spent three
+years in “Arabia” and then to have gone to Damascus, and from there,
+three years after his conversion, to have paid his “visit of ceremony”
+to the Church at Jerusalem, during which, however, he says that he saw
+only Peter, and James the Lord’s brother. After that he spent fourteen
+years in Syria and Cilicia.
+
+Who can form a clear picture of the journeys implied in the letters,
+or of the relation of Paul to his churches?
+
+Who can understand the character here presented? Sometimes the Apostle
+is radical, sometimes conservative, sometimes bold, sometimes
+despairing; in small things firm, in great things weakly yielding; now
+violent, then again mild; in all ways full of uncertainties and
+contradictions.
+
+Far from arousing belief, the statements of the letters about the
+Apostle create difficulty upon difficulty and doubt upon doubt, if
+once one ventures to read them with an open mind. On the one side it
+seems as if a certain tendency to bring him into opposition with the
+original apostles made itself felt throughout, while on the other hand
+the traits are thrown together without any reference to an integral
+psychologically intelligible picture.
+
+The most natural view is, therefore, that Acts represents what is
+historically most authentic, while in the letters an imaginary picture
+is drawn, exhibiting throughout the same tendency, but composed by
+various hands.
+
+The external attestation in the early literature of a Pauline
+collection of letters, which is in any case not too brilliant, is
+further reduced by the radicals. The Ignatian letters are held—as they
+also are by the Tübingen [pg 128] school—to be spurious; and they
+endeavour to bring down the first epistle of Clement from the time of
+Domitian to the middle of the second century._(_96_)_ If all this is
+admitted, the first attestation of the letters is that of Marcion.
+What, then, is there to oppose to the view that they had their origin
+in Gnostic circles and were only later forced upon the Church?
+
+With this agrees, too, the fact that the Second Epistle of Peter,
+which alone in the New Testament makes mention of Paul’s literary
+activity,_(_97_)_ and which itself certainly belongs to the period of
+the struggle with Gnosticism, treats it as something in the nature of
+a “gift from the Greeks.”_(_98_)_
+
+In any case, in view of the silence of Justin, the _Shepherd_ of
+Hermas, the _Didache,_ and the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ the attestation
+of the Pauline letters is no better than that of the Johannine
+literature._(_99_)_
+
+Great stress is laid on the fact that among the Gnostics the Epistles
+existed in a shorter form than in the Church, as appears from the
+reckoning which Tertullian holds with Marcion._(_100_)_ If this
+shorter text can be reconstructed [pg 129] and proves to be the
+better, this would show that the Epistles passed from the hands of the
+Gnostics into that of the Church, and underwent in the process an
+expansion of a certain “tendency.”
+
+In the hope of showing this, van Manen in the year 1887 reconstructed
+the Marcionite text of the Epistle to the Galatians._(_101_)_ In
+regard to the other Epistles he does not attempt this, as Tertullian’s
+indications are insufficient.
+
+The examination of the internal arguments takes the following form.
+These “Ultra-Tübingen” critics analyse the letters and point out all
+the difficulties which come to light in the course of exegetical
+study. They triumphantly establish the fact that there are many seams
+and divisions between the various verses and sections, that an
+ethico-mystical doctrine is found alongside of the juridical doctrine
+of justification, that the view of the law is subject to remarkable
+vacillations, and that it is not possible to weld together the
+different parts of the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, to
+determine the proper address of the Epistle to the Galatians, whether
+to the district or the province, to decide whether Romans presupposes
+Jewish-Christian or Gentile-Christian readers, and various questions
+of that kind.
+
+The next point is to discover, if possible, some kind of system in the
+difficulties, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Steck and van Manen
+profess to be able to show that there is such a system.
+
+What the letters tell us regarding the conversion, the life and work
+of Paul is not, according to them, to be considered earlier and more
+authentic than Acts, but is [pg 130] based on information which either
+coincides with the reports there given or points to an earlier common
+source. The material supplied by Acts is worked up in the letters
+under the influence of a tendency.
+
+The existence of a written Gospel is also implied. All the passages in
+the Epistles which recall sayings of the Lord, and what the Epistles
+to the Corinthians in particular have to tell us about the institution
+of the Lord’s Supper and the resurrection of Jesus, make, they think,
+the impression of having been drawn from Luke, or an earlier Gospel
+which is one of his sources. Steck and van Manen are even inclined to
+hold that in Rom. ii. 16 and xvi. 25 the words “my Gospel” refer to a
+written Gospel, as indeed the Church Fathers also thought.
+
+That the four main Epistles cannot all be from the same hand is, they
+think, manifest from the differences between them. Further, the order
+in which they were written can, these writers think, be recognised.
+This order does not agree with that generally accepted, since the
+Epistle to the Galatians is not placed before Corinthians and Romans,
+but concludes the series. Steck endeavours to give a detailed proof
+that it was written after Romans and presupposes the latter. Wherever
+in Galatians there appear gaps and obscurities, a glance at Romans
+always, he affirms, gives the desired explanation. The more strongly
+the opposition to the law comes to expression, the later is the
+writing in question to be placed in the series of the Pauline
+writings, in which a development is traceable.
+
+Another point to which the “Ultra-Tübingen” critics attach importance
+is to discover criteria by which various strata can be distinguished
+in the main Epistles themselves. They propose to regard the Epistles
+to the Corinthians as fragments of Pauline literature which have
+gradually been worked up together into letters. In regard to the
+letter to the Romans, van Manen holds that it originally consisted,
+roughly speaking, of chapters [pg 131] i.-viii., and was only
+gradually extended to its present form._(_102_)_
+
+It is also, these critics consider, certain that a number of hands
+have been at work on the letters, and that the increasingly
+anti-Jewish tendency shows us the direction followed by the efforts of
+the Pauline school.
+
+Steck and van Manen assume that the teaching represented in the
+Epistles is of a Greek character. They think they can show that the
+Pauline school were influenced by Philo and Seneca, and seek to
+explain Paulinism as an “attempt to spiritualise primitive
+Christianity.”
+
+Essentially, they think, it belongs to Gnosticism, since it sets aside
+the “authority of tradition” and derives all knowledge, without
+historical mediation, from the revelation of the Spirit, and conceives
+of this knowledge as a system. The deification of Jesus Christ which
+is represented in the letters is also to be regarded as Greek and
+Gnostic.
+
+By these observations Steck and van Manen are inevitably led to the
+decisive consideration regarding “time and space.”
+
+Could a Christology of this kind come into being a few years only
+after the death of the historical Jesus? Is an intense anti-Judaism in
+primitive Christian times intelligible? Can Greek, Gnostical ideas be
+assumed to have existed in the first generation?
+
+Steck and van Manen deny that this is possible and demand a longer
+period for the transformation of which the evidence lies before us.
+Therefore the historic Paul, [pg 132] if there ever was such a man, as
+is almost certainly the case, was not the creator of the Paulinism
+represented by the Epistles.
+
+How, then, is the origin of the letters and the doctrine to be
+explained?
+
+On the basis of the facts which they observe in the documents, and the
+consideration regarding the necessity of time and space, the
+“Ultra-Tübingen” critics throw out the following hypothesis.
+
+Christianity, they hold, remained at first Jewish. But as time went
+on, and as it spread beyond Palestine, two different tendencies
+manifested themselves within it. One, as the result of contact with
+Gentiles, and no doubt in consequence of the destruction of the Jewish
+State, moved in the direction of attaching less and less importance to
+the law, while the other maintained the older stand-point.
+
+In general the development, due to the influence of Graeco-Roman
+ideas, proceeded without a struggle. Its goal was a “catholicism” such
+as meets us in Justin.
+
+Within this “Gnostic” party, however, there appeared a school which
+put the question of the relation to Judaism and the law in its most
+trenchant form, as a question of principle, and sought to bring it to
+a decisive issue.
+
+Somewhere or other—perhaps in the Roman Church, perhaps in several
+places at the same time—where Gnostics and representatives of the
+older view were at odds, an open conflict broke out. The former party
+fought with literary weapons, dating back the controversy by means of
+an epistolary literature specially created for the purpose into
+primitive Christian times.
+
+In the course of the struggle the antithesis became more and more
+acute. The climax is marked by the Epistle to the Galatians. Here a
+“Gnostic” endeavours, with the aid of the already existing Pauline
+literature, and depending more particularly on Romans, to defend the
+stand-point of liberal Gentile Christianity against a “Jewish
+Christianity” which, as it seems, was “making [pg 133] headway.” “With
+all the force of his intellectual superiority” he scourges the
+tendencies of a period which was endeavouring to make Christianity
+once more Jewish.
+
+The form of a letter to the Galatians was given to the work, according
+to Steck’s hypothesis, “because the literary _genre_ of Apostolic
+letters held an established position; and since the churches at Rome
+and Corinth already had their Epistles, the Galatian province,
+familiar in connexion with the first missionary journey in Acts,
+suggested itself as the appropriate scene of the struggle, since it
+was there that the Apostle had first had to suffer from the
+persecutions of the Jews. As the Epistle to the Galatians followed on
+the three other main epistles, and the Epistle to the Romans had
+already selected as its time and place the last visit of the Apostle
+to Corinth, shortly before his arrest at Jerusalem, the time of the
+Roman imprisonment suggested itself as the situation of the writer to
+be implied in the Epistle. During his imprisonment Paul receives news
+of the threatened, and in part already accomplished, falling away of
+the Galatian churches from his Gospel, and feeling himself about to
+take leave of the world he directs to the wavering churches this
+letter as the purest and most intense expression of his heart and
+mind.”
+
+The main Epistles originated about the years 120-140. The elements
+from which they are worked up may be ten or twenty years earlier. A
+final redaction may have taken place even subsequently to 140.
+
+Why, exactly, the school of thought which created this literature took
+Paul as its patron, it is, according to van Manen, impossible to
+explain. He holds that the historic Apostle had as little to do with
+Paulinism as John the Apostle with the theology of the Fourth Gospel.
+Steck, on the other hand, is inclined to admit the historical
+justification of this connexion. For him, it is to be held as certain
+that Paul was the first to “open the door of the Christian salvation
+freely to the Gentiles.” The doctrine [pg 134] of justification by
+faith must therefore already in some shape or other have formed part
+of his preaching. Only the strictly systematic and sharply anti-Jewish
+development of the doctrine was supplied by the later school.
+
+Steck is therefore here, as on some other points, more conservative
+and less “critical” than van Manen. Nevertheless the differences are
+not very noticeable in comparison with the extent of the views which
+they share.
+
+Theology of the post-Baur period generally had ignored Bruno Bauer; it
+would willingly have treated in the same way those who took up his
+work again. Since this was not possible, and references to “wild
+hypotheses” and “rash, wrong-headed critics” did not completely
+suffice to dispose of them, the authorities great and small had
+necessarily to undertake a refutation, which they prudently confined
+to the most pressing and the easiest points.
+
+The discussions were for the most part carried on in periodicals. A
+work on the other side of an importance at all corresponding to those
+of Loman, Steck, and van Manen was not forthcoming._(_103_)_
+
+[pg 135]
+
+How far is it possible to refute their view?
+
+In the domain of the external arguments, the main strength of the
+revolutionaries, the position is not so favourable to them as Loman
+wished to represent it. The transference of the first Epistle of
+Clement to the middle of the second century is not possible._(_104_)_
+The fact that Justin knew and used Paul’s writings, while he does not
+name him, is not explained by the hypothesis that they did not rank
+for him as Church writings._(_105_)_
+
+The Marcionite text of Galatians reconstructed by van Manen is not
+better but worse than the canonical text._(_106_)_ If the Ignatian
+letters, as is now generally held, are genuine, the attestation of the
+Pauline Epistles is in much better case than was formerly supposed.
+That Acts says nothing about the literary activity of the Apostle has
+at most the value of an _argumentum e silentio._ It is not otherwise
+in regard to the fact that Acts has nothing to say of the conflicts
+between him and his churches. In regard to the question of priority as
+between its narrative and that of Galatians there is at least nothing
+certain to be said.
+
+The position of matters is therefore that the Epistles to the Romans
+and Corinthians are witnessed to by the first Epistle of Clement at
+the end of the first century, but that neither the legitimate nor the
+illegitimate [pg 136] representatives of the Tübingen tradition can
+explain why Justin and the remaining writers of the beginning of the
+second century are not under the influence of these Epistles, and,
+with the exception of Clement, do not even mention them.
+
+The hypothesis brought forward by Steck and van Manen in regard to
+different strata within the Epistles and the development which
+culminates in the antinomianism of the Epistle to the Galatians cannot
+be proved from the texts; the evidence is read into them by the
+exercise of great ingenuity.
+
+But the negative observation which formed their starting-point holds
+its ground. Ordinary exegesis has not succeeded in getting rid of the
+illogical transitions and contradictions and making Paul’s arguments
+really intelligible. The impression of a certain disconnectedness is
+not to be denied. But Steck and van Manen have not succeeded in
+discovering the law and order which ought to prevail in it, and
+showing how the chaos arose in connexion with the creation of this
+literature.
+
+Against the hypothesis of the origin of Paulinism in the second
+century there lies the objection that it is built on purely arbitrary
+assumptions. Whence do Steck and van Manen know anything about
+anti-Jewish conflicts taking place at that time? There is no evidence
+of any such thing in the contemporary literature; and the writings of
+the apostolic Fathers make quite in the contrary direction.
+
+On the other hand, the general considerations which led them to adopt
+this hypothesis have not been in any way invalidated. The illegitimate
+Tübingen critics share with the legitimate school the presupposition
+that Paulinism signifies a Hellenisation of the Gospel; they are also
+at one with their adversaries in regarding this unproved and
+unprovable assumption as proved. The difference is that they do not
+follow the others in their second exhibition of naïveté—that of
+regarding this Greek religious faith as being coincident with
+primitive [pg 137] Christianity, but demand space and time for a
+development of this character. But the two wrestlers have the same
+chain about their feet; whichever of them throws the other into the
+water must drown along with him.
+
+That they are both involved in the same fundamental view of Paulinism
+sometimes comes to the consciousness of the post-Baur theology and its
+radical opponents. In a momentary aberration of this kind Heinrici
+ventures to praise Bruno Bauer for having discovered the relationship
+of Paul to the religious life of the ancient world, and is prepared to
+see his weakness only in the inferences which he draws from this
+discovery._(_107_)_
+
+Steck, on his part, praises Heinrici’s commentary on the Epistles to
+the Corinthians, in which the Hellenistic element is so excellently
+traced, and expresses the hope that the exegete and his party will
+consider carefully whether the composition of this work “does not
+stand in an even much closer relationship to Hellenism than had
+previously been supposed.”
+
+The more the theologians who derive from Baur emphasise the Greek
+element in Paulinism the more helpless they are against the
+“Ultra-Tübingen” critics. For it is after all merely a matter of
+clearness and courage of thought whether they venture to raise the
+question about space and time. The moment they take this step they are
+lost. Nevermore can they find the way which leads back through the
+green pastures of sound common-sense theology, but are condemned to
+wander about with the revolutionaries in the wilderness of flat
+unreason. Wearied with problems, they come at last, like Steck and van
+Manen, to a condition of mind in which the wildest hypothesis appeals
+to them more than rational knowledge, if the latter demands the
+suppression of questioning.
+
+How is it conceivable that a man of the primitive Christian period
+could, in consequence of a purely practical controversy regarding the
+observance or non-observance of the law by Gentile believers, go on,
+as Baur and [pg 138] his successors represent—to reject the law on
+principle? How could it be possible that, at that time, doctrine
+should take a frankly Gnostic shape, and in deliberate contempt of the
+tradition of the historic Jesus, should, under the eyes of the men who
+had been His companions, appeal only to revelation?
+
+That is the element of greatness in the “Ultra-Tübingen” critics, that
+they did not forget the duty of asking questions, when it had fallen
+out of fashion among other theologians. To show that their hypothesis
+is untenable is by no means to get rid of it, as accredited theology
+wished to persuade itself. A few squadrons of cavalry which were
+skirmishing in the open have been cut off; the fortress has not been
+taken, indeed the siege has not even been laid.
+
+The chronicle of the discussion between contemporary theology and the
+revolutionaries is quite without interest. As soon as the refutation
+on points of detail was finished, and the fundamental questions
+regarding time and place came on the scene, there remained nothing for
+it to do but to stammer, with an embarrassed smile, something about
+tradition, intuition, an unmistakable impression, the stamp of
+genuineness, and the like, and to break off the conversation as
+quickly as might be.
+
+What it could or could not refute, and what the other party could or
+could not prove, followed necessary from the form which the problem
+had assumed. The construction of the illegitimate Tübingen critics
+answers, in reverse, to that of the legitimate school, like the
+reflection in a mirror to the object reflected. The presuppositions
+and the difficulties are the same in the two cases; the two solutions
+correspond except that they go in opposite directions. Both recognise
+that not only a conflict of practice, but one involving theory and
+principle, for and against the law, is fought out in the letters. The
+legitimate school place it in primitive Christian times, but cannot
+show how it was possible at that period, and how it could break off so
+suddenly that in the post-Pauline [pg 139] literature there is not an
+echo of it, and it seems as though it had never been.
+
+The illegitimate school represent the struggle as having occurred in
+the course of the second century, but can cite no evidence for this
+from the remaining literature, can point to no traces of the gradual
+growth of the opposition, or show how a struggle of that kind could
+break out at that time.
+
+Both explanations labour in vain at the problem of the inexplicable
+neglect of Paulinism in the post-Apostolic literature.
+
+Both parties assume as a datum that the doctrine of the letters is to
+be considered as a Hellenised Christianity. The one party represents
+the process which leads to this result as taking place in primitive
+Christian times, without being able to show how such a thing is
+possible, or how the Greek and the Jewish-eschatological elements
+mutually tolerated and united with one another.
+
+According to the other party, the Hellenisation came about in the
+course of a long development. But they cannot explain why Paulinism
+shows an entirely different character from that of the Greek
+Christianity which appears elsewhere in the literature of the second
+century. They assert that it belongs to Gnosticism; and are right in
+this so far as regards the form of the system. On the other hand they
+cannot allow themselves to consider seriously the difference between
+the doctrine of the letters and the fundamental views of the known
+Gnostic schools, or the hypothesis flies in pieces. The Gnostics were
+real spiritualists, opposed to eschatology, and denying a corporeal
+resurrection; Paul is an eschatologist, looking for the parousia and
+the transformation of the body. Therefore the “Ultra-Tübingen” critics
+must either explain the Jewish eschatological element in the system in
+such a way as to spiritualise it, or else drop it out of sight.
+
+And as a matter of fact the ominous word eschatology is, one might
+almost say, never mentioned in their works.
+
+[pg 140]
+
+The parallel between what the one and the other construction can and
+cannot make intelligible goes through to the last detail. For both it
+is true that the ostensible solution in each case introduces openly or
+otherwise a new problem which arises out of the solution itself. The
+sum of what is explained and unexplained is the same for both.
+
+At first sight the position of the legitimate successors of the
+Tübingen school is more favourable than that of the other party. They
+have tradition and natural impression on their side, and are able to
+regard the situation implied in the Epistles as historic, whereas
+their opponents are bound to show that it is fictitious. When
+subjected to critical examination, however, they are no better off,
+for they cannot give any proof that the main epistles can belong to
+primitive Christianity and to it only. When they declared again and
+again that the attacks of the radicals had served a useful purpose in
+inciting them to examine anew their results, and to make corrections
+where necessary, that was the mere cant of criticism. If they had
+dared to make an effort to understand the objection which Loman,
+Steck, and van Manen constantly repeated, and to consider whether they
+could really prove the Pauline origin of the main epistles, or whether
+they did not really by their conception of the doctrine make it
+improbable, they would have been bound to perceive that nothing could
+be done by revising and correcting; it was a case of mutually
+exclusive alternatives.
+
+As matters stood, they had to choose between being consistent but
+irrational, or rational but inconsistent. They chose the latter form
+of the dilemma and left the other to the radicals.
+
+The Ultra-Tübingen critics on their part cannot escape the blame of
+raising the question in a one-sided purely literary form, and not
+concerning themselves with the thought contained in the Epistles,
+because they felt that herein lay the weak point of their undertaking.
+Instead of analysing the system, they made play with the [pg 141]
+catchwords Greek and Gnostic, and thought to have got rid in that way
+of the question regarding the essential character of Paulinism. If
+contemporary theology did not grasp the problem which was presented to
+it in its full significance, that was partly due to the pettifogging
+way in which it was formulated. The representatives of radical
+criticism were like criminals who cannot rise to the height of their
+crime!
+
+For a time it almost looked as if a _modus vivendi_ had been found
+between the successors of Baur’s school and the radicals. Steck, who
+stood on the right wing of the revolutionaries, refused to give up the
+belief that the historic Paul had in some way or other fought a battle
+for freedom from the law, and might be indirectly claimed as the
+starting-point of the theology which reaches its full development in
+the Epistles. From this it was only a short step to the hypothesis
+that the Epistles were not wholly spurious but combined thoughts of
+the Apostle with later views.
+
+A criticism based on the distinction of original and interpolated
+elements did not need to be now for the first time called into being.
+It already existed, and had indeed made its appearance
+contemporaneously with Bruno Bauer’s. Like the latter it had been
+either talked down or left to die of neglect.
+
+In the first volume of his “Philosophic Dogmatic” (1855), when
+speaking of the documentary sources of our knowledge of Christianity,
+Christian Hermann Weisse defines his attitude towards the Pauline
+Epistles and offers the results of a study extending over many years,
+which he had undertaken in opposition to the conservatives on the one
+side and the Tübingen school on the other._(_108_)_
+
+His method he himself describes as criticism based on style. A man
+like Paul, he argues, has so characteristic a literary style that it
+will serve one who has made himself [pg 142] thoroughly familiar with
+it as an unfailing criterion of what is genuine and what is not. Such
+a method of criticism must of course be prepared to be accused of
+arbitrariness and subjectivity. But that is no great matter. The
+fruits will vouch for the goodness of the tree.
+
+The standard of indubitably genuine Pauline style is furnished,
+according to Weisse, by the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It bears
+in all its parts the stamp of the most complete integrity and
+genuineness. The eye which has acquired due fineness of perception by
+the study of this writing discovers that only the Second Epistle to
+the Corinthians, the First to the Thessalonians, and that to Philemon,
+“can boast of preserving in the same purity the original apostolic
+text.” The Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and
+Colossians “have interwoven in them a regular series of
+interpolations, which so far efface the genuine apostolic character of
+the style in many places as to render it unrecognisable, and have
+given rise to that difficulty of disentangling the meaning which has
+made Romans especially a _crux interpretum,_ and by the forced
+artificiality, intrinsic falsity, and unnaturalness of these
+interpretations has made this Epistle the bane of theological study;
+of which, in virtue of the character of its fundamental ideas, it was
+fitted to be the most precious treasure.”_(_109_)_
+
+The whole of these interpolations are, he thinks, from one and the
+same hand, and go back to a time previous to the ecclesiastical use of
+the writings. The redactor cherished withal the most respectful awe of
+the Apostle’s words, and has hardly deleted a single one of them.
+
+What remains after the elimination of the secondary stratum in the
+Epistles to the Romans and Philippians [pg 143] does not prove to be
+an integral whole. The latter consists of two letters to this church,
+the second beginning with iii. 3. With the former there has been
+worked up a letter to a church in Asia Minor, consisting of ix.-xi.
+and xvi. 1-20._(_110_)_
+
+Weisse did not get the length of publishing the reconstructed text of
+the Epistles. When his pupil Sulze carried it through after his
+death,_(_111_)_ the prophecy which the author had put on record in his
+“Dogmatics” regarding his undertaking was fulfilled. It met with
+“universal disbelief.”
+
+In part the cause of this ill-success lay in the one-sidedness of the
+principle maintained by the author. Weisse confines himself entirely
+to “stylistic criticism.” While he recognises the possibility of a
+distinction between genuine and spurious based on the contents, the
+trains of thought, of the letters, he will have nothing to do with it.
+
+With the controversy about the genuineness of the main Epistles there
+began a new era of “interpolation criticism.” Daniel Völter, rendered
+confident by the professedly “assured results” of the criticism of the
+Apocalypse in regard to the distinction of sources, thinks to find in
+a similar procedure the solution of the Pauline problem, and hopes
+that it will be possible by “careful criticism” to separate the
+genuine from the spurious._(_112_)_
+
+He differs entirely from Weisse in seeking the criterion for the
+distinction of what is genuine from what is spurious in the
+subject-matter. What is simple and “plain”—the [pg 144] latter
+expression recurs again and again—is to be regarded as
+primitive-Christian and Pauline, but anything which has the appearance
+of being complicated or having the character of a speculative system
+is to be regarded as of later origin.
+
+Thus wherever we find a highly developed Christology, speculations
+regarding the Spirit, and eschatology, strongly predestinarian views,
+and an advanced estimate of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, we are,
+according to Völter, in the presence of interpolations. A further mark
+by which these may be recognised is an advanced antinomianism.
+
+The doctrine of the historic Paul includes, according to this author,
+the following points: The central point in it is the death of Christ,
+regarded as an atoning death appointed by God and ratified by the
+resurrection. Man becomes partaker of its fruits by faith, and thus
+obtains justification by the forgiveness of sins, of which he is given
+assurance by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Faith also includes
+within it, however, a “mystico-ethical partaking in the death of
+Christ.” Therefore in the act of faith there takes place at the same
+time an inner conversion to a life well-pleasing to God, which causes
+the believer “to appear blameless on the day of Christ and makes him a
+partaker in the resurrection.”
+
+As regards the relation of the Epistle to the Galatians to Acts Völter
+takes over the conclusions, unfavourable to the former, of the radical
+critics. Consequently this work is spurious throughout. It only
+reproduces the ideas of the interpolators of the letters to the Romans
+and Corinthians, and pushes to an extreme the antinomianism there
+represented. It dates from near the end of the first century.
+
+[pg 145]
+
+In the Epistles to the Corinthians—we are still following Völter—the
+interpolations are not very extensive. The most important is the
+correction applied to the original Pauline doctrine of resurrection,
+in 2 Corinthians 4 and 5, where the redactor has worked in his
+Platonico-Stoic doctrine of immortality.
+
+The Epistle to the Romans has been very extensively
+interpolated._(_113_)_ The original writing was addressed to Gentile
+readers. The interpolator, on the other hand, has in view readers “who
+occupy an Old Testament stand-point.” That is connected with the
+far-reaching development which began at Rome after the Neronian
+persecution. At that time, as is proved, Völter thinks, by the Epistle
+to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas, together with the first
+Epistle of Clement and the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, the Church at Rome
+“fell back upon a religious stand-point determined by Old Testament
+ideas.” It is this “reduction of Christianity to Jewish Old Testament
+religion, modified by Christianity,” that the interpolator is
+concerned to combat. In doing so he is forced to enter upon general
+speculations regarding the flesh, sin, and the law; in order “to
+defend the independence and superiority of Christianity” he develops
+an antinomianism, according to which the law had as its sole purpose,
+“by intensifying the misery of sin, to prepare men for deliverance
+from sin and the law, by the redemption which is in Jesus
+Christ.”_(_114_)_
+
+Völter’s work is one of the adroitest performances in the whole field
+of Pauline study. It is not only that it represents what is in its own
+way a brilliant synthesis between Weisse and the radicals; its main
+significance [pg 146] lies in the fact that it breaks off the barren
+literary-critical logomachy, and directs attention once more to the
+subject-matter.
+
+Steck and van Manen had failed, once they went beyond the simple
+registration of inconcinnities in the text; Völter lets the
+theological problems have something to say for themselves. He observes
+more clearly than any one had stated it before exactly wherein the
+complexity of the question of the law consists, and rightly refers it
+to the fact that some passages take for granted its observance by the
+Jews as unquestionably right and proper, and only seek to maintain the
+freedom of the Gentiles in regard to it, whereas others reject it in
+principle, in such a way that Paul would be obliged to maintain also
+the emancipation of the Jews . . . if the rules of logical inference
+are to be applied. As it is, however, there is a want of congruence
+between the negative theory and the limitation of the practical
+demand.
+
+In an equally thoroughgoing fashion Völter deals with the problems of
+Christology and of the doctrine of the Spirit, and eschatology.
+
+His solution is ingenious and elegant. Of the hypothesis which places
+the controversies about the law in the post-apostolic period only so
+much is taken over as is absolutely necessary. The connexion between
+Paulinism and Gnosticism is made as loose as possible. The eschatology
+has a certain importance given to it. Hellenic elements are not
+assumed to be present in the primitive doctrine; on the other hand, a
+knowledge of the Book of Wisdom, Philo, Seneca and the Graeco-Roman
+philosophy in general is ascribed to the interpolators.
+
+The criterion by which to distinguish what is genuine from what is not
+is ingeniously chosen. It is not particularly difficult to separate in
+the letters the parts which are mainly plain and practical from those
+which relate to an antinomian speculative system. The resulting
+division between original text and interpolations has a [pg 147] more
+natural and simple air than is the case in any of the other attempts
+to draw the line between them.
+
+Nevertheless, it was scarcely possible that this work should
+contribute anything to the solution of the Pauline problem. It is
+built upon sand, for the argument on which everything is based is
+unsound.
+
+Völter asserts that “simplicity” is the mark of what is genuinely
+apostolic and Pauline. Since when? How does he know this? How, if it
+were just the other way round, and the strange, the abstruse, the
+systematic, the antinomian, the predestinarian represented the
+original element, and what is simple came in later!
+
+What he describes as the doctrine of the historic Paul has not a very
+convincing look. It has not the ring of what we find elsewhere in
+early Christian literature, but has a suspicious resemblance to the
+Good Friday and Easter-day meditations of the _Christliche
+Welt.__(_115_)_
+
+What does not strike the modern man and his theology as distinctly
+peculiar is gathered together and receives the stamp of approval as
+historic Paulinism! Völter, like every one else, has failed to
+consider, or to grasp, that fundamental question as to what is
+primitive-Christian in the Apostle’s teaching, which, since the
+encounter between Baur and Ritschl, had tacitly dominated the
+discussion and had been again forced on the theological centre-party
+by the radicals. Otherwise it would have been impossible that he,
+after promising a “cautious criticism,” should have so incautiously
+decided that what is simple is what is primitive-Christian.
+
+Apart from Völter, the criticism which claims to distinguish various
+sources and detect interpolations is of a more innocent and guileless
+description. It does not plunge into the depths of the Pauline
+problems in the attempt to reach the firm ground that has never yet
+been reached, but amuses itself by determining what and how many
+original writings of the Apostle may have been worked up into the
+canonical Epistles to the [pg 148] Corinthians, Romans, and
+Philippians. This work, at which Semler had already made a beginning,
+is in itself necessary and interesting. The results, however, prove to
+be uncertain and contradictory, because the criteria by which the
+deletions, dissections, and combinations are determined, are always
+derived from subjective impression.
+
+The one consolation in regard to them is that any importance which
+attaches to these results concerns almost exclusively the
+pre-canonical literary history of the Epistles and does not affect our
+knowledge of the Pauline system. The supposed interpolations are of a
+subsidiary character. The text as a whole is hardly seriously affected
+by them. The sense is scarcely altered by the dislocations and
+conflations by which one critic or another restores the original
+letters and releases the present-day reader from the tutelage of the
+so inconceivably astute redactor.
+
+It remains to remark that most of the scholars who have occupied
+themselves with this work do not trouble themselves very much about
+the meaning and the connexion of Paul’s statements, but are like
+surgeons who think more of their skill in handling the knife than of
+being quite sure about the diagnosis which is to direct the incision,
+and therefore not seldom fall victims to the temptation of having
+recourse to an operation in cases where it turns out to have been
+unnecessary or even injurious._(_116_)_
+
+As a work which stands much above the average of [pg 149] the usual
+cutting-up hypotheses we may mention Spitta’s work on Romans._(_117_)_
+
+He distinguishes in the canonical Epistle two writings, a longer one
+consisting of, in the main—allowing for incidental
+interpolations—chapters i.-xi. with fragments from xv. and xvi., and a
+shorter writing which is made up of chapters xii., xiii. and xiv.,
+with fragments of xv. and xvi. The longer one, which is the older, is
+supposed to have been preserved entire, the shorter is of later
+origin, and it lacks the introduction.
+
+The problem of the composite character of the main epistle in
+connexion with the address and similar questions, is solved by
+supposing that it is a working up of an earlier general treatise
+intended for Jewish Christians into a letter addressed to the Roman
+Gentile Christians.
+
+The controversy about the much-discussed series of greetings in Rom.
+xvi. is disposed of by attaching this to the shorter epistle, which is
+held to have been written between the first and second imprisonment.
+It is true this solution can only find favour with those who have made
+up their minds to take upon them the burdensome hypothesis of the
+second imprisonment along with the complete or partial acceptance of
+the genuineness of the Pastoral epistles.
+
+In working them up, the redactor is supposed to have followed the
+method of bringing in the arguments of the second letter in those
+places in the first where they seemed most appropriate. That he showed
+no remarkable address in this process is credited to him as a proof of
+his historical existence.
+
+Holtzmann has nothing very complimentary to say about the
+representatives of the dissection and interpolation criticism. In his
+New Testament Theology he reproaches them with “straining out the
+gnat,” and indulging in critical vivisection, instead of studying the
+[pg 150] currents and undercurrents of Jewish and Hellenistic thought
+which run side by side through Paul’s work, and so becoming cured of
+their mania.
+
+In connexion with this, it is, however, curious that he himself, when
+he was asked why he never lectured on the Epistle to the Romans, used
+to say that the composition of Romans was, in his opinion, too
+problematical for him to venture to deal with the Epistle, so long as
+he was not obliged to do so.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 151]
+
+VI
+
+
+THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
+
+
+1899. _Paul Feine._ Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus nach
+seinem Werdegange dargestellt. (Paul’s Gospel of Freedom from the Law:
+a Study of its Growth.)
+
+_Paul Wernle._ Paulus als Heidenmissionar. (Paul as a Missionary to
+the Gentiles.)
+
+_Heinrich Weinel._ Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator. (Paul as a
+Church Organiser.)
+
+_Hermann Jakoby._ Neutestamentliche Ethik. (New Testament Ethics.)
+
+1900. _Arthur Titius._ Der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der
+Seligkeit. (Paulinism with Special Reference to Final Salvation.)
+
+_A. Drescher._ Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus. (The Life of Jesus in Paul’s
+Writings.)
+
+_Karl Dick._ Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus. (The Literary
+Use of the First Person Plural in Paul’s Writings.)
+
+_Adolf Harnack._ Das Wesen des Christentums. (Translated under the
+title “What is Christianity?”)
+
+1901. _Paul Wernle._ Die Anfänge unserer Religion. (Translated under
+the title “The Beginnings of Christianity.”)
+
+1902. _Otto Pfleiderer._ Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und
+Lehren. (Primitive Christianity, its Documents and Doctrines.) Second,
+revised and extended edition. (Translated, 4 vols., London,
+1906-1911.)
+
+_Paul Feine._ Jesus Christus und Paulus.
+
+_G. F. Heinrici._ Das Urchristentum. (Primitive Christianity.)
+
+1903. _Georg Hollmann._ Urchristentum in Corinth. (Primitive
+Christianity in Corinth.)
+
+_Emil Sokolowski._ Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer
+Beziehung zu einander. (The Conceptions of “Spirit” and “Life” in
+Paul, in their Relations to one another.)
+
+_Wilhelm Bousset._ Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen
+Zeitalter. (The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times.) Die
+jüdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und ihre
+Bedeutung für das Neue Testament. (Jewish Apocalyptic: its Origin as
+indicated by Comparative Religion, and its Significance for the New
+Testament.)
+
+[pg 152]
+
+_Paul Volz._ Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba. (Jewish
+Eschatology from Daniel to Akiba.)
+
+_W. Heitmüller._ Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and the
+Lord’s Supper in Paul’s Teaching.)
+
+_Martin Brückner._ Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie. (How
+the Pauline Christology arose.)
+
+1904. _Heinrich Weinel._ Paulus. (E. T. St. Paul: The Man and his
+Work, 1906.)
+
+_Ernst von Dobschütz._ Die Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters. (The
+Problems of the Apostolic Age.)
+
+_Maurice Goguel._ L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ.
+
+_Alfred Juncker._ Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus.
+
+_William Wrede._ Paulus. (E. T. by E. Lummis, 1907.)
+
+1905. _Hugo Gressmann._ Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen
+Eschatologie. (The Origin of the Israelitish-Jewish Eschatology.)
+
+1906. _Paul Feine._ Paulus als Theologe. (Paul as a Theologian.)
+
+_P. Kölbing._ Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus. (The
+Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus upon Paul.)
+
+_Eberhard Vischer._ Die Paulusbriefe. (The Pauline Epistles.)
+
+_Wilhelm Karl._ Beiträge zum Verständnis der soteriologischen
+Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus. (Contributions
+towards the Understanding of the Soteriological Experiences and
+Speculations of the Apostle Paul.)
+
+_W. Bousset._ Der Apostel Paulus.
+
+1907. _Adolf Jülicher._ Paulus und Jesus.
+
+_Arnold Meyer._ Wer hat das Christentum gegründet, Jesus oder Paulus?
+(Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?)
+
+_A. Schettler._ Die paulinische Formel “Durch Christus.” (The Pauline
+Formula “through Christ.”)
+
+_J. Wellhausen._ Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (6th ed.).
+
+1908. _Carl Munzinger._ Paulus in Corinth.
+
+_Hans Windisch._ Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus. (The
+Purification of the Christian from Sin in Paul’s Teaching.)
+
+_Reinhold Seeberg._ Dogmengeschichte. (History of Dogma.) 2nd edition.
+
+_Wilhelm Walther._ Pauli Christentum, Jesu Evangelium.
+
+1909. _Adolf Harnack._ Dogmengeschichte. 4th edition.
+
+_Martin Dibelius._ Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. (The World
+of Spirits according to Paul’s Belief.)
+
+_Johannes Weiss._ Paulus und Jesus. (E. T. by H. T. Chaytor, 1909.)
+Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas. (Christ: The Beginning of Dogma. E.
+T. by V. D. Davis, 1911.)
+
+_Johann Haussleiter._ Paulus.
+
+_R. Knopf._ Paulus.
+
+_W. Olschewski._ Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie. (The Roots
+of Pauline Christologie.)
+
+1910. _A. Schlatter._ Neutestamentliche Theologie.
+
+[pg 153]
+
+_R. Drescher._ Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus.
+
+_Eberhard Vischer._ Der Apostel Paulus und sein Werk.
+
+_Julius Schniewind._ Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus (The
+Meaning of the Terms “Word” and “Gospel” in Paul’s Writings.)
+
+1911. _Adolf Deissmann._ Paulus, eine kultur- und
+religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. (Paul, A Sketch with a Background of
+Ancient Civilisation and Religion.)
+
+_Johannes Müller._ Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums der
+paulinischen Gemeinden. (How the personal Christianity of the Pauline
+Churches arose.)
+
+
+THE dawn of the twentieth century found Pauline scholarship in a
+peculiar frame of mind. The criticism of the Ultra-Tübingen critics
+had not succeeded in disquieting it, nor Holtzmann in reassuring it.
+
+That the problems by which Loman, Steck, and van Manen were tormented
+were mere cobwebs of the imagination was so completely taken for
+granted that in dealing with the Pauline teaching no further attention
+was paid to them. On the other hand, however, the problems previously
+recognised by critical scholarship had not been so completely solved
+by Holtzmann that they could be considered as done with.
+
+The disquisitions in which in his “New Testament Theology” he resumed
+the results of the whole study of the subject since Baur, did not have
+the effect which he had expected. They were much discussed and much
+praised; the massive learning and wide reading, the art of the
+literary treatment and the subtlety of the dialectic compelled
+admiration. But behind all this chorus of appreciation, a certain
+sense of depression made itself felt. People were dismayed to find
+that Paulinism was so complicated, and that the web of Paul’s thought
+must be so delicately and cautiously handled if it was to be
+disentangled. Was the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles really a
+product of such extremely intricate mental processes as it was here
+represented to be?
+
+The process of disillusionment did not go so far as to lead to the
+calling in question of the fundamental view there offered. But results
+were not put forward with [pg 154] the same confidence as before;
+effort was directed rather to strengthen them by revision and
+correction.
+
+It was in this frame of mind that Pfleiderer prepared the second
+edition of his “Primitive Christianity.”_(_118_)_ Whereas he had
+formerly taken for granted the influence of the Greek world upon Paul,
+as being something self-evident, he now feels obliged to offer proof
+of it, in a newly inserted chapter upon Hellenism, Stoicism, and
+Seneca, in order to arrive at the result . . . that his Greek
+education was in any case “a problematical possibility.” While he had
+previously held that the combination of the Alexandrian Platonic
+doctrine of immortality with eschatology was the great work
+accomplished by the Apostle of the Gentiles, he now is inclined to see
+a spiritualisation of the future-hope already prepared for in Judaism,
+and quotes the Apocalypse of Ezra and Jewish Hellenistic literature in
+testimony of this._(_119_)_
+
+Fate willed that about the same time theology should be seized by the
+impulse of popularisation, and now found itself in the position of
+being obliged to offer assured, absolutely assured, results in
+reference to Paulinism. The most important works of this character are
+Paul Wernle’s “Beginnings of Christianity” and Heinrich Weinel’s
+“Paul.”_(_120_)_
+
+[pg 155]
+
+The efforts of these writers are directed to bring the author and his
+thoughts into close relations with our time. It is not his theology in
+its subtleties and its contradictions that they seek to grasp and to
+portray, but his religion—what lies behind the system and the formula.
+In this way they hope to escape many difficulties over which Holtzmann
+had laboured, and to be able to bring out the fundamental and
+intelligible elements which in him had been rather to seek.
+
+Wernle makes Paul discourse in the character of the great missionary
+apologist; Weinel draws him as the preacher of the religion of
+inwardness, who as “Pharisee,” “Seeker after God,” “prophet,”
+“apostle,” “founder of the Church,” “theologian,” and “man,” was all
+things in one.
+
+The lively portraiture, quite different from the conventional works on
+the subject, found a ready welcome, and incited others to imitation.
+
+In consistently emphasising the apologetic aspect of Paul’s teaching
+Wernle brought up many ingenious ideas for discussion. Weinel, on his
+part, brought again to the consciousness of both theologians and
+laymen the poetic and emotional element in the Apostle’s world of
+ideas.
+
+But they found no new way of grasping and understanding him.
+
+They walk in a shady path which runs parallel to the main road. But
+its pleasantness is associated with certain dangers, which they
+themselves, and those who followed them, have not always escaped.
+
+When earlier writers on the subject modernised, they did so
+unconsciously. Wernle and Weinel, however, do [pg 156] so on
+principle, and have no scruple about throwing light on what is obscure
+in Paulinism by the use of more or less appropriate catchwords of the
+most modern theology.
+
+Not seldom they imagine they are explaining something when they are in
+reality only talking round the subject. In this way there enters into
+their treatment a kind of forced ingenuity, one might almost say
+flimsiness.
+
+Their love of graphic description also sometimes becomes a temptation
+to them. They do not always remember to keep it within bounds, and
+sometimes allow themselves to fall into a kind of artificial naïveté.
+Wernle in particular delights to wield a pre-Raphaelite brush. He
+pictures the Apostle, for instance, in the evening at his inn,
+receiving visitors, exhorting and consoling them, weaving tent-cloth,
+busy with a letter, all at the same time. “Sometimes stones would come
+flying into the room as he was dictating—the Jews had set on the city
+mob to attack him. Many an abrupt transition in his letters may have
+had its origin in a violent interruption of this kind.”_(_121_)_
+
+Feine and Titius begin with a critical examination of previous views.
+They are not in this wholly disinterested, being in search of a
+Paulinism which has more to offer to modern religion, as they apprehend
+it, than the one-sidedly historical post-Baur liberalism. The result
+is that while they show themselves free from many of the
+presuppositions and prejudices which are common to the others, they
+are at the same time not in a position to put Paulinism on a new
+historical basis. They agree [pg 157] in opposing the separation of
+Paulinism from Primitive Christianity which is practised by Holsten
+and Holtzmann. They refuse to be converted to the unsatisfactory view
+that Paulinism, as being a so unique personal creation, must have
+remained unintelligible even to Paul’s contemporaries. Before making
+up their minds to derive the whole of Paul’s doctrine from the vision
+at his conversion and the influence of Greek ideas, they propose to
+examine it in reference to the conceptions which connect it with
+Jesus, with primitive Christianity, and with Judaism.
+
+Consequently they are loth to admit Greek elements and the resulting
+duality in the Apostle’s thought. Feine maintains that in the
+Apostle’s mind before his conversion, Greek ideas were only present in
+so far as they had already been adopted by Pharisaism. Titius “will
+not deny that there is a touch of Hellenism in the great Apostle,” but
+is far from seeking to explain the doctrine of flesh and spirit and
+the mysticism connected with the “new creation” purely from this point
+of view. On the other hand both of them assign a large part in the
+formation of Paul’s doctrine to his Jewish consciousness, and
+consequently are led to a comprehensive recognition of eschatology.
+
+In his examination of the individual views Titius always takes the
+future-hope as his starting-point—indeed his book begins with chapters
+on God and eschatology. He shows that redemption, in the most general
+conception of it, is a liberation from the present evil world and a
+deliverance looking to the world which is to come, and that
+justification was originally bound up with the thought of the judgment
+at the parousia. Instead, however, of systematically carrying out the
+analysis in this fashion, he breaks off and begins to work up the
+historical material which he has brought to light on the lines of the
+problems, definitions, and distinctions of modern theology, because,
+as the very title of his book shows, he undertakes his investigation
+with a view [pg 158] to showing the significance of New Testament
+teaching for the present day. In order to portray the “religious life”
+he makes it a principle “not to hesitate to turn aside from the
+highway, to which the technical terms serve as sign-posts.” Thus he
+comes finally to discover everywhere that Paul clarified the doctrines
+which he took over and transformed them into ethico-religious teaching
+and subjective experience. From “the edifice of
+eschatologico-enthusiastic thought, most closely connected with it but
+unmistakable in its distinctive character,” he sees, to his
+satisfaction, “the spiritual life of the new religion” showing forth.
+
+Here also, therefore, as with Wernle and Weinel, there is conscious
+and intentional modernisation, in order to discover the religion of
+Paul behind his theology.
+
+One difference there is, however. The others brought to this
+undertaking a certain naïveté and enthusiasm which enabled them to see
+the modern and the historical the one in the other. Titius is an
+observer with a keen eye for the really historical. He holds past and
+present side by side but separate, and must apply a mighty effort of
+will and understanding and do violence to his feelings in order to
+bring them into connexion. Out of these inner pangs a book has come to
+the birth which in matters of detail is full of just and suggestive
+remarks, but as a whole is unsatisfactory.
+
+The problem of the relation of Paul to Jesus stands for Titius and
+Feine as the foreground of the interest. Both hold the view that the
+connexion is a much closer one than criticism had hitherto been
+prepared to admit. The indifference which the Apostle professes
+regarding “Christ after the flesh” is not to be understood in the
+sense that he had no concern with His teaching. In his detailed
+monograph Feine endeavours to prove that Paul shows himself familiar
+with the words and thoughts of the historic Jesus, and in his
+eschatology, doctrine of redemption, ethics, attitude towards the law,
+and conception of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, only carries to a
+further [pg 159] point of development what is already present or
+fore-shadowed in the teaching of Jesus. Titius set himself the same
+task, and believes himself to have proved “to how great an extent the
+Apostle bases his views on the thoughts of Jesus, attaches himself to
+them, and further develops them.”_(_122_)_
+
+This result is opposed by Maurice Goguel,_(_123_)_ who offers a
+thoroughgoing defence of the usual view. He is prepared to admit that
+Paul knew more of the life and teaching of Jesus than his Epistles
+show; but a fundamental difference in doctrine is, he thinks, not to
+be denied, and he finds that it consists in the fact that the one
+preaches “salvation,” the other the way of obtaining it. In his
+utterances about redemption through the death and resurrection of
+Christ, the parousia, Christology, Church and sacraments, Paul
+expresses, according to Goguel, views which go much beyond the horizon
+of the historical Jesus. A point of contact is only to be found in the
+simple ethical teaching. In reference to the law, Jesus prepared the
+way for what the Apostle of the Gentiles accomplished, without fully
+measuring the far-reaching consequences of his attitude.
+
+The problem which theology since the time of Baur had always avoided
+now therefore came at last to discussion. Goguel’s essay did not
+indeed greatly elucidate the matter. That the thesis of Feine and
+Titius goes far beyond what the material warrants was not difficult to
+prove. On the other hand, it had, in justice, to be conceded to them
+that they had shown that there was [pg 160] something in common
+between the fundamental conceptions of Jesus and Paul on which
+sufficient stress had not previously been laid.
+
+Goguel’s sharp antitheses are at first sight more convincing than the
+somewhat involved argument of Feine, because he has the direct
+evidence of the text on his side. The difficulty, however, immediately
+makes itself felt when he endeavours to make it intelligible exactly
+why Paul was forced to create new conceptions. He cannot point to any
+objective factors to account for this development, and is consequently
+reduced to explaining everything psychologically.
+
+From this exceedingly complicated controversy one thing results with
+certainty, namely, that the problem, in the form in which it is
+stated, is an unreal one. The statement of the problem which is here
+presupposed leaves out of account the middle term, primitive
+Christianity.
+
+The credit of having expressed this clearly, and thus put an end to
+the unprofitable wrangling about “Jesus and Paul” and “Jesus or Paul,”
+belongs to Harnack._(_124_)_ If, he writes in the 1909 edition of his
+“History of Dogma,” even in the first generation the religion of Jesus
+underwent a change, it must be said that it was not Paul who was
+responsible for this but the primitive Christian community. He is not,
+however, able to explain why the Apostle of the Gentiles goes still
+further than the primitive community.
+
+The question of the peculiarly inconsistent attitude of the Apostle
+towards the law is not elucidated by Titius and Feine.
+
+The ethics are treated in monographs by Jakoby and Juncker._(_125_)_
+The former gives a detailed description. [pg 161] The latter tries to
+discover the fundamental principle, and naturally finds himself
+obliged to deal with the whole doctrine of redemption. In the method
+which he applies he recalls Titius. With historical insight he
+recognises, in his fine chapter upon the origin of the new life, that
+all the ethical conceptions of Paul are in one way or another of an
+eschatological and “physical” character. Later on he falls a victim to
+the temptation to modernise.
+
+Thus he tries, for instance, to show that Paul did not think of the
+influence of the Spirit in man as analogous to a physical process,
+but, on the contrary, “regarded the feeling of thankful love towards
+God and Christ as the subjective root of the new way of life.” So that
+we find here, too, the dread of recognising anything objective in the
+Apostle’s views and the tendency, not indeed to fall into the
+“one-sidedly intellectual view,” but to bring into the foreground the
+“specifically religious estimate of the Apostle’s person and gospel.”
+
+It is no accident that the scholars of this period are so anxious to
+distinguish between theology and religion. This expedient covers
+dismay and apprehension.
+
+Meanwhile the study of Late Judaism had been going its own way. The
+further it advanced the more evident it became that this was the soil
+on which the theology of Paul had grown up. Holtzmann’s New Testament
+Theology had not availed to render theological science proof against
+the assaults which it was to experience in the next few years from
+this direction. The impression was too strong to be escaped. And when
+the results [pg 162] of the study were presented, with a certain
+provisional completeness, in Bousset’s powerful book on “Jewish
+Religious Life in New Testament Times,” it became certain that the
+apprehension had not been unfounded._(_126_)_
+
+The naïve spiritualisation of the theology as practised by Holsten,
+Pfleiderer, and Holtzmann—by the latter no longer quite naïvely,—was
+over and done with._(_127_)_ The recognition of a “physical”_(_128_)_
+aspect in Paul’s expectations of the future was no longer sufficient.
+It had to be [pg 163] admitted that his doctrine of redemption as a
+whole bore this character, and that the fundamental strain in his
+mysticism was not ethical but physical, as Lüdemann had declared as
+long ago as 1872 without suspecting the far-reaching consequences of
+his observation.
+
+The only question now was how much had to be conceded to this alien
+system of thought which was endeavouring to draw Paul within its
+borders, and how much could be saved from it.
+
+In this quandary theologians had recourse to the expedient of applying
+the distinction between “theoretical” (theological) and “religious” to
+the doctrine of the Apostle, as Holtzmann had already tried to do when
+he could no longer refuse to recognise its Gnostic, intellectualistic
+character.
+
+The position became especially critical in view of the concessions
+which had to be made regarding the Pauline conception of baptism and
+the Lord’s Supper. Up to this time, that chapter had given little
+trouble to theological science. It had been taken for granted that at
+bottom it could only be a question of symbolism. The doctrine of
+redemption on its ethical side found, it was thought, in the sacred
+ceremonies its cultual expression.
+
+Holtzmann, too, in the section on “Mystical Conceptions”_(_129_)_
+_(Mysteriöses)_ had still to all intents and purposes taken the same
+ground. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are, he explains, in the first
+place, acts of confession by which the death of the Lord is
+proclaimed. To this has to be added, in the case of the Lord’s Supper,
+the significance of a communion meal, and in the case of baptism the
+value of a symbolic act. It creates, according to Romans vi., a
+mystical fellowship with the buried and risen Christ. “The outward
+symbol of complete immersion signifies and represents the
+disappearance of the old, fleshly man, the coming forth out of the
+water represents the forthgoing of a new, spiritual man.”
+
+Paul, Holtzmann thinks, puts the content of his [pg 164] “experience”
+into this ceremonial act, and thereby cuts it loose from the earlier
+view which had arisen from its connexion with John the Baptist.
+Strictly speaking, he transforms both the cultus-acts, by bringing his
+new conception of Christianity into connexion with them in order to
+give it cultual expression.
+
+Probably—we are still following Holtzmann—he did this under the
+guidance of analogies which he found in the Mystery-religions of the
+period. The expressions which he uses at any rate remind us sometimes
+of the language which is associated with them. This, then, was the
+point from which the later transformation began. “It was, in fact,
+Paul who from an outlying, one might almost say a remote point of his
+system of thought, opened up for the early Catholic Church a road
+which it would, indeed, most probably have followed even without this
+precedent, which was given, as it were, merely incidentally and
+casually.”
+
+It is interesting to observe precisely what views are intended to be
+excluded by these guarded explanations. Holtzmann is concerned to
+emphasise the view that baptism and the Lord’s Supper have in the
+Apostle’s doctrine a rather subordinate importance, and that they are
+not real sacraments but quasi-sacramental acts. He deliberately avoids
+the plain issue, on which after all everything really depends, whether
+baptism and the Supper effect redemption or only represent it.
+
+But those who came after him were obliged to raise this question, and
+so far as they were willing to respect the documents were obliged to
+answer that the sacraments not only represent but effect redemption.
+Wernle remarks regretfully that the cultus-acts have in Paul a much
+greater importance than one would be inclined to expect, and that in
+certain passages he tolerates or even suggests “pagan” views. Weinel
+is obliged to admit that alongside of the religion of inwardness which
+he has discovered in the Apostle’s teaching, a sacramental religion,
+which is inherently opposed to it, from time to [pg 165] time appears.
+“Sometimes,” he writes, “it is faith that brings the Spirit, sometimes
+baptism, sometimes it is faith that unites with Christ, sometimes the
+Lord’s Supper.” Titius feels himself obliged to give up the symbolical
+interpretation of Romans vi., which for Holtzmann still forms a fixed
+datum, and admits that the atmosphere of this chapter is
+“supranaturalistic,” and that the baptism there referred to is a real
+baptism into the death of Christ and an equally real partaking in His
+resurrection. Feine, in _Jesus Christus and Paulus,_ insists that the
+sacramental character of the cultus-acts described by Paul should be
+universally acknowledged.
+
+Heitmüller, in his work on “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Paul’s
+Writings,”_(_130_)_ gives the old and the new view side by side, and
+shows that it is the latter which alone is justified by the documents.
+The mystical connexion which in baptism and the Lord’s Supper is set
+up between the believer and Christ is a “physico-hyperphysical one,”
+and has as its consequence that the believer shares _realiter_ in the
+death and resurrection of Christ.
+
+For the liberal conception of Paulinism this was a blow at the heart.
+If redemption is effected through the sacraments, these are no longer
+an “outlying point” in the Apostle’s doctrine, but lie at its centre.
+And at the same time the distinction between “theoretical”
+(theological) and “religious” is rendered impossible. A doctrine of
+redemption which is thus bound up with Mysteries which work in a
+physico-hyperphysical way is in its essence purely
+supernaturalistic._(_131_)_
+
+[pg 166]
+
+The courage of theological thinkers was put to a severe test. When
+Baur and his followers made their profession of faith in unbiassed
+free investigation they could have had no inkling that it would become
+so difficult for a later generation to remain true to this principle.
+
+To give up the distinction between “theoretical” and religious and to
+follow a purely historical method meant, as things stood at the
+beginning of the twentieth century, to be left with an entirely
+temporally conditioned Paulinism, of which modern ways of thought
+could make nothing, and to trace out a system which for our religion
+is dead.
+
+At this crisis theology encountered in William Wrede a candid friend
+who sought to keep it in the path of sincerity. His _Paulus,_ short
+and written in such a way as to be universally intelligible, appeared
+in the year 1904._(_132_)_
+
+The “theology,” he writes, is in Paul not to be separated from the
+“religion.” His religion is through and through theological; his
+theology is his religion.
+
+The theory which Holtzmann introduced in his “New Testament Theology,”
+and which Wernle, Weinel, Heitmüller, Titius, and the rest had
+developed, thus came to an untimely end before it had left its nonage.
+It survived only seven years.
+
+And then the second expedient—that Paul had thought out no system, but
+just put down his thoughts in any kind of fortuitous order—is set
+aside. The framework of the doctrine of redemption, Wrede declares, is
+very closely articulated. Further, it is not really complicated, but
+is at bottom quite simple, if once we take account of the
+thought-material out of which it is constructed and take the most
+general conceptions as the starting-point.
+
+Redemption—this is, according to Wrede, Paul’s train [pg 167] of
+thought—is not something which takes place in the individual as such,
+as the later Christian view was, but signifies a universal event in
+which the individual has a part.
+
+It consists in the deliverance of mankind from the dominion of the
+powers which hold sway over this world. These powers have been
+destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus, as will become
+manifest at the parousia. Thus redemption is essentially an insurance
+for this future.
+
+But it is even in the present real, though not visible. Christ is the
+representative of the human race. What happened to Him, happened to
+all.
+
+“All men are therefore from the moment of His death set free, as He is
+Himself, from the hostile powers; and all are by His resurrection
+transferred into a condition of indestructible life.” The proof of
+this change is given by the Spirit. He represents in the redeemed the
+super-earthly life, as a “gift of the last times in which the powers
+of the world to come already exercise an influence upon the present
+existence.”
+
+This wholly “objective” conception of redemption is, Wrede admits, for
+our modern modes of thought rather impersonal and cold. “It takes
+place in a way which is wholly external to the individual man, and the
+events seem, as it were, to be only enacted in Christ.”
+
+Redemption is effected in the sacraments. “The ‘physical’
+transformation is effected by physical processes.” Paul’s thought
+moves, therefore, among crude, unsubtilised conceptions.
+
+His statements about justification by faith and about the law are
+based upon this fundamental view, and represent merely the
+“controversial teaching” to which he was forced in order to maintain
+the cause of freedom from the law.
+
+The material of his world of thought was, therefore, Jewish. What was
+the transformation by which it became Christian?
+
+[pg 168]
+
+Paul’s conception of the Christ_(_133_)_ was fully formed before he
+came to believe in Jesus. At his conversion, by the vision on the road
+to Damascus, the only new element that he took up into his conception
+was that this heavenly being had temporarily assumed a human form of
+existence in order by His death and resurrection to redeem mankind and
+to bring in the new order of things. An influence of the teaching of
+Jesus upon the theology of the Apostle to the Gentiles is not to be
+recognised. Wrede makes the gap between the two as wide as possible,
+and insists that Paul’s gospel must be considered as independent of,
+and essentially different in character from, that of Jesus.
+
+The Apostle’s adoption of the view that the end of the law had come,
+is, according to Wrede, partly due to his experiences at his
+conversion, partly to the exigencies of the mission to the Gentiles.
+
+Of the value and the remarkable literary beauty of the book it is
+impossible to say too much. It belongs, not to theology, but to the
+literature of the world.
+
+But one must not, in one’s admiration, forget justice. What is here
+set forth is not absolutely new. A view of a similar character, and
+more closely reasoned, had been put forward by
+Kabisch—Kabisch,_(_134_)_ whom theologians had passed over in complete
+silence, because they did not know what to make of him. Wrede does
+nothing else than to give to the presentation of the latter’s
+discoveries the advantage of his literary skill, while at the same
+time showing that the separation of “theory” (theology) and “religion”
+which had barred the way to their acceptance is not tenable. There is
+one thing which is to be regretted in Wrede’s book, and that is that
+the terse popular method of presentation forbids any detailed
+discussion of the problems. If the author had worked [pg 169] out his
+arguments thoroughly, and replied to his opponents and predecessors,
+he would have been obliged to face many questions which, as it was,
+did not force themselves upon him.
+
+What are the points that remain obscure?
+
+Wrede proposes to conceive the possibility of redemption in such a way
+that “mankind,” in view of Christ’s solidarity with the race by virtue
+of His earthly life, has a part in His death and resurrection. This
+view is, in this form, untenable. In Paul, salvation has not reference
+to mankind as a whole, but only to the elect. It is also questionable
+whether the idea of racial solidarity suffices to explain how the
+death and resurrection of Jesus can realise themselves in other men.
+
+What is the basis of the mystical union with Christ? To this question
+Wrede has given no answer.
+
+Then, too, the inconsistent attitude of Paul towards the law was not
+explained by him. He does not even succeed in showing how the Apostle
+arrived at the idea that the law was no longer valid. The suggestion
+that it was in part through his experience at his conversion, in part
+through the exigencies of the mission to the Gentiles, is a mere
+expedient. Unless it is possible to explain Paul’s attitude, with all
+its inner contradictions, as a logical and necessary conclusion from
+his system as a whole, it remains for us practically
+unexplained._(_135_)_
+
+Again, Wrede gives no scheme of the events of the End, although such a
+scheme obviously belongs to the “system.”
+
+It is not explained, either, how the death of Jesus can be interpreted
+at the same time as taking place for the forgiveness of sins. In
+general, the relation between the essential theology, as laid down in
+the mystical doctrine of redemption, and the “controversial doctrines”
+is not clear.
+
+[pg 170]
+
+In regard to the question of the relation of Paul to Jesus, Wrede
+holds that they lived in two wholly different worlds of thought. This
+is connected with his view that the Galilaean Master made no claim to
+the Messiahship, but was first raised to Messianic dignity after His
+death, and that this claim was then projected back into the Gospels in
+the form that Jesus had made His rank known to His disciples only, and
+had enjoined upon them to keep silence until after His death._(_136_)_
+His preaching was, above all things, ethical. So far as concerns
+eschatology and the meaning to be attached to His death, the Apostle
+of the Gentiles received no impulse of a theological character from
+Him.
+
+Paul, therefore, created something essentially new, which has, one
+might almost say, nothing to do with the thought of Jesus, and also
+goes far beyond the conceptions of primitive Christianity._(_137_)_
+
+Thus for Wrede, as for Holsten and Holtzmann, the doctrine of Paul is
+an isolated entity without connexion in the past or influence upon the
+future. And he, too, finds himself unable to explain why the system
+thus remained without influence. That the “controversial theology,”
+with its insistence on the atoning death, lost its significance when
+the question of the law ceased to be actual may appear plausible. But
+why did the mystical doctrine of redemption get pushed aside instead
+of being further developed? Its presuppositions—if Wrede’s account of
+[pg 171] matters is correct—could hardly have been much altered in the
+next generation.
+
+A valuable supplement in many respects to Wrede’s views is offered by
+Martin Brückner’s study of the origin of the Pauline
+Christology._(_138_)_
+
+The author offers a detailed proof that the Pauline Christology arose
+by the insertion of the earthly episode of the incarnation, dying and
+rising again into the already present conception of a pre-existent
+heavenly Personality._(_139_)_ Incidentally he gives an admirably
+clear account of the Jewish eschatology and its formation._(_140_)_
+
+He shows that the Jewish eschatology itself, in the Apocalypses of
+Ezra and Baruch, distinguished between the temporally limited
+Messianic Kingdom and the subsequent complete renewal of the world,
+and that, in conformity with this, two resurrections have to be
+recognised. One, in which only a limited number have a part, takes
+place at the appearance of the Messiah; the other, the general
+resurrection, only follows at the end of the intervening Kingdom. The
+scene of the latter was pictured, he thinks, by Paul, as by his Jewish
+predecessors, as the land of Palestine, with the New Jerusalem as its
+centre.
+
+It is interesting to notice how Wrede and Brückner, without themselves
+remarking it, have refuted one of the weightiest objections of the
+Ultra-Tübingen critics. [pg 172] The latter had asserted that it was
+impossible that the process of deification of the Person of Jesus
+could have reached its completion within a few years, and had claimed
+for it at least two generations. Now, however, it is shown that it is
+not this process at all, but another, which could take place in a
+moment, which has to be considered, since it is only a question of the
+taking up of the episode of the incarnation, death, and resurrection
+into the already present and living conception of the Messiah.
+
+The immediate effect of Wrede’s presentation of matters was that
+writers ventured more confidently to accept the “physical” view of the
+Pauline doctrine of redemption, and that the distinction between
+“theory” (theology) and religion, where writers could not make up
+their minds to do without it, was applied with moderation._(_141_)_
+
+[pg 173]
+
+But he did not succeed in forcing on a thorough revision of previous
+views. Harnack, for instance, in the 1909 edition of the “History of
+Dogma” stands by his account of 1893, unshaken._(_142_)_
+
+Reinhold Seeberg_(_143_)_ undertook in 1908 a very interesting attempt
+to walk in new paths, but does not deal with Wrede and his problems.
+He holds to the view that the Apostle did not create “a unified
+system,” but that his thought moved amid a number of different sets of
+ideas, which for him were held together by “religion as an
+experience.”
+
+This neglect of Wrede’s work does not mean anything; it was simply
+that the history of dogma could make nothing of his view. It is
+significant, however, that among those who accepted his view in
+substance, no one made the attempt to carry it to victory by a
+comprehensive presentation of it on an adequate scale.
+
+The cause of this lies in the peculiar difficulties which lie
+concealed in the scheme which he sketched out.
+
+The fact is that the “physical” element which is to be recognised in
+Paul’s doctrine is neither all of one piece nor wholly to be explained
+from Late Judaism. Strictly [pg 174] speaking, it takes three
+different forms, of which one is peculiar to the eschatology, another
+to the mystical doctrine of redemption, and the third to the
+sacraments.
+
+The “materialism” of the conception of redemption which is directed
+towards the future has to do with super-earthly powers, with judgment,
+bodily resurrection and transformation.
+
+Somewhat different is the “realism” of the mystical doctrine of the
+new creation, which asserts that believers here and now experience
+death and resurrection in fellowship with Christ, and so put on,
+beneath the earthly exterior which conceals it, a nature essentially
+immune from corruption.
+
+Different from this conception again is the sacramental, inasmuch as
+it represents in some inexplicable fashion an externalisation of it.
+What, according to the mystical doctrine, seemed to take place by
+itself without being connected with an external act, is here to be
+thought of as the effect of eating and drinking, and cleansing with
+water. The sacramental conception is a magical conception.
+
+Of these three varieties of the “physical,” only the first can be
+immediately explained from Late Judaism. For the two others it offers
+no analogy. Late Judaism remained true to its Judaic character in
+knowing nothing of either mysticism or sacraments.
+
+On the other hand, these three varieties of the “physical” in Paul’s
+doctrine of redemption do not stand side by side unrelated, but seem
+to be somehow connected in such a way that the eschatological element
+dominates and supplies the basis of the other two. The most obvious
+procedure would have been to attempt to derive the mystical and
+sacramental conceptions from the eschatological, as being the
+root-conception.
+
+A beginning in this direction had been made by Kabisch when he
+attempted to exhibit the connexion between eschatology and the
+mystical doctrine of the real dying and rising again with
+Christ._(_144_)_
+
+[pg 175]
+
+But in doing so he did not take into account the sacraments. It was
+just these, however, which seemed to make it _a priori_ impossible to
+explain Paulinism exclusively on the basis of Late Judaism. Therefore
+Wrede and his followers seek other sources. They try to explain the
+system, not solely from the side of eschatology, but from that of
+“Comparative Religion,” and hold that it betrays the influence not
+only of Late-Jewish but also of Oriental ideas generally, such as are
+found in the Mystery-religions.
+
+No doubt the first question which here arises is whether the methods
+of Comparative Religion are essentially applicable to the explanation
+of Paulinism.
+
+To apply the methods of Comparative Religion means to study the
+individual religions, not in isolation, but with the purpose of
+investigating the mutual influences which they have openly or covertly
+exercised on one another.
+
+At bottom, therefore, it is a necessary outcome of the application of
+scientific methods generally, and it only received a special name
+because theological scholarship so long shut its doors against it.
+
+Under this distinctive name the method attained to influence and
+honour in connexion with the critical study of the Old Testament and
+the Graeco-Oriental cults. In the former department of study it made
+an end of the prepossession that Judaism had developed entirely by its
+own inner impulses, and showed how much material of a generally
+Oriental character it had adopted. In particular it showed that
+Late-Jewish Apocalyptic is full of conceptions from the Babylonian and
+the Irano-Zarathustrian religions, and represents a combination of
+universal cosmological speculations with the future-hope of the
+ancient Jewish prophetism._(_145_)_
+
+In the comparative study of the heathen religions it became apparent
+that the Mystery-religions, which [pg 176] entered on their conquering
+progress westwards about the same time as Christian Gnosticism,
+combined Greek religious feeling and a Greek cosmogony with Oriental
+cultus-ideas.
+
+In both these cases it is a question of contacts and influences which
+were due to political and cultural relations, and produced their
+effect in the course of extended periods of time and under favourable
+historical circumstances. The method cannot simply be applied without
+more ado to the explanation of the ideas of an individual man, since
+most of its presuppositions would not here be valid. In the case of
+religions, syncretism can work its way in and develop; in the case of
+individuals it can only be recognised in a very limited degree. The
+taking over and remoulding of foreign conceptions is a process
+requiring numbers and time. The individual comes into question only so
+far as he is organically united with a community which is active in
+this way, and allows its instincts to influence him.
+
+Paul belongs to Late Judaism. Whatever he received in the way of
+influences such as Comparative Religion takes account of came to him
+mainly through this channel. The suggestion that apart from this he
+might be personally and directly affected by “Oriental” influences
+calls for very cautious consideration. In particular we ought to be
+very careful to guard against raising this possibility to a certainty
+by general considerations regarding all that the child of the Diaspora
+might have seen, heard, and read. The question can only be decided by
+what we actually find in the Epistles.
+
+It is further to be remarked that Late Judaism was no longer in his
+time so open to external influences that any and every kind of
+religious conception which was floating about anywhere in the Orient
+could necessarily impose itself on Paul’s mind through this medium.
+The period of assimilation was, speaking generally, at an end. The new
+material had been—before Paul’s day—worked up along with the old into
+a set of Apocalyptic conceptions, [pg 177] which, in spite of the
+elbow-room which the heterogeneous ideas necessarily claimed for
+themselves, did form a system, and appeared from without as relatively
+complete and self-sufficing. The Oriental material has been poured
+into Jewish moulds and received a Jewish impress.
+
+A still further point is that any one whose thought moves in the
+Apocalyptic system created by the books of Daniel and Enoch is not so
+much exposed to, as withdrawn from, the action of free Oriental
+influence. He is already saturated with those elements in regard to
+receptivity which the Jewish mind possesses and the tendency to
+assimilation, and possesses it not as something foreign to himself but
+as Jewish. Apocalyptic tends to produce in him immunisation as against
+further syncretistic infection.
+
+This assertion is susceptible of historical proof. Late Judaism
+stands, even before the beginning of our era, apart from the Oriental
+religious movements. And it continues unaffected by them. Not one of
+its representatives was concerned in the syncretistic movement. Philo
+seeks to rationalise Judaism by the aid of Platonico-Stoic philosophy,
+but he gives no place to the religious and cultural ideas by which he
+was surrounded in Egypt. It is as though they had no existence for
+him.
+
+To apply the comparative method to Paul would, therefore, generally
+speaking, mean nothing more or less than to explain him on the basis
+of Late Judaism. Those who give due weight to the eschatological
+character of his doctrine and to the problems and ideas which connect
+it with works like the Apocalypse of Ezra are the true exponents of
+“Comparative Religion,” even though they may make no claim to this
+title. Any one who goes beyond this and tries to bring Paul into
+direct connexion with the Orient as such commits himself to the
+perilous path of scientific adventure.
+
+Considerations of that kind were not taken into account by Wrede and
+his followers. But even if they had become conscious of the
+difficulties in the way of the application of the method to Paul, they
+could not have acted otherwise. [pg 178] In spite of all theoretical
+warnings this path had to be followed.
+
+If once the mystical doctrine of the dying and rising again with
+Christ is recognised to be “physical,” and the view of baptism and the
+Supper to be sacramental, and if it is a further datum of the question
+that Late Judaism knows nothing of mysticism or sacraments; and if one
+is not content to assume that the Apostle has created or invented this
+non-Jewish element out of his inner consciousness; there is at first
+sight no alternative but to make the attempt to explain it from
+conceptions and suggestions which are supposed to have come into it
+from without, from some form or other of Oriental syncretism.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 179]
+
+VII
+
+
+PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION
+
+
+_Gustav Anrich._ Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das
+Christentum. (The Ancient Mysteries in their Influence on
+Christianity.) 1894.
+
+_Martin Brückner._ Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den
+orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum. (The
+Saviour-God who dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and
+their Relation to Christianity.) 1908.
+
+_Karl Clemen._ Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments.
+(An Explanation of the New Testament on the basis of Comparative
+Religion.) 1909.
+
+_Franz Cumont._ Les Mystères de Mithra. 1899. (E. T. by T. J.
+McCormack, 1903.) Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain.
+1906.
+
+_Adolf Deissmann._ Licht vom Osten. 1908. (E. T. by L. R. M. Strachan,
+“Light from the Ancient East,” 1910.) Die Urgeschichte des
+Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung. (The Early History of
+Christianity in the Light of Linguistic Research.) 1910.
+
+_Albrecht Dieterich._ Abraxas. 1891. Nekyia. 1893. Eine
+Mithrasliturgie. 1903.
+
+_Arthur Drews._ Die Christusmythe. 1909. (E. T. by C. D. Burns.)
+
+_Albert Eichhorn._ Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament. (The Lord’s
+Supper in the New Testament.) 1898.
+
+_Johannes Geffken._ Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums. (From the
+Formative Period of Christianity), 2nd ed., 1909.
+
+_P. Gennrich._ Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in der
+dogmengeschichtlichen und religionsgeschichtlichen Betrachtung. (The
+Doctrine of Regeneration . . . from the point of view of the History
+of Dogma and of Comparative Religion.) 1907.
+
+_Otto Gruppe._ Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu
+den orientalischen Religionen. (The Greek Cults and Myths in their
+Relation to the Oriental Religions), vol. i., 1887. Griechische
+Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte. (Greek Mythology and Comparative
+Religion), 2 vols., 1906.
+
+_Hermann Gunkel._ Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen
+Testaments. (Contributions to the Understanding of the New Testament
+from the point of view of Comparative Religion.) 1903.
+
+[pg 180]
+
+_Adolf Harnack._ Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
+ersten drei Jahrhunderten, vol. i., 1906. (E. T. by J. Moffatt, “The
+Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,”
+2nd ed., 1908.)
+
+_Hugo Hepding._ Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult. (Attis, his Myths
+and Cultus.) 1903.
+
+_W. Heitmüller._ Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and the
+Lord’s Supper in Paul’s Teaching.) 1903.
+
+Im Namen Jesu. Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
+zum neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe. 1903. (In the
+Name of Jesus. A Study of the New Testament from the point of view of
+the History of Language and of Comparative Religion, with Special
+Reference to Early Christian Baptism.)
+
+_Adolf Jacoby._ Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum.
+(The Ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity.) 1910.
+
+_Georg Mau._ Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden
+auf König Helios und die Göttermutter. (The Emperor Julian’s
+Philosophy of Religion as shown in his Orations on King Helios and the
+Dea Mater.) 1908.
+
+_Max Maurenbrecher._ Von Jerusalem nach Rom. (From Jerusalem to Rome.)
+1910.
+
+_Salomon Reinach._ Cultes, mythes et religions. (1905-1906-1908.)
+
+Richard Reitzenstein. Poimandres. 1904.
+
+Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre Grundgedanken und
+Wirkungen. (The Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Their fundamental Ideas
+and their Influence.) 1910.
+
+_E. Rohde._ Psyche. 1894. 3rd ed. 1903, 2 vols.
+
+_H. R. Roscher._ Lexikon der griechisch-römischen Mythologie. (Lexicon
+of Graeco-Roman Mythology.) 3 vols. 1884-1909.
+
+_Ernst Eduard Schwartz._ Paulus. Charakterköpfe aus der antiken
+Literatur. (Character Sketches from Ancient Literature.) 1910.
+
+W. B. Smith. Der vorchristliche Jesus nebst weiteren Vorstudien zur
+Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums. (The pre-Christian Jesus,
+with other Preliminary Studies for a History of the Origin and Growth
+of Christianity.)
+
+_Wilhelm Soltau._ Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen
+Kirche. (The Survival of Paganism in the Early Christian Church.)
+1906.
+
+_Hermann Usener._ Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. (Studies in
+Comparative Religion.) 1889; 1899.
+
+_Paul Wendland._ Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren
+Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum. (Hellenistic-Roman
+Civilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity.) 1907.
+
+_Paul Wernle._ Die Anfänge unserer Religion. 1901. (E. T. by G. A.
+Bienemann, “The Beginnings of Christianity,” 1903.)
+
+_Georg Wobbermin._ Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der
+Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen.
+(Studies in Comparative Religion with reference to the Question of the
+Influence of the Ancient Mysteries on Primitive Christianity.) 1896.
+
+[pg 181]
+
+
+TO the Bonn philologist Hermann Usener belongs the credit of having
+been the first to bring the Comparative Study of the pagan religions
+as they existed at the beginning of the Christian era into contact
+with theological science._(_146_)_ In E. Rohde’s _Psyche_ the Greek
+and late-Greek conceptions regarding ghost-worship and immortality
+were introduced to a wider circle of readers.
+
+A generally intelligible survey of the cults which come into question
+is offered by Franz Cumont in his work on the Oriental religions in
+Roman paganism._(_147_)_
+
+It was Phrygia in Asia Minor which gave to the world the worship of
+Attis and the Dea Mater; from Egypt came that of Isis and Serapis;
+Syria supplied the great sun-god whom Heliogabalus and Aurelian, for
+reasons of [pg 182] state, proclaimed as the supreme divinity. The
+religion of Mithra is of Persian origin.
+
+Of these cults, ancient literature, both pagan and Christian, has
+preserved some records, but it is only since discoveries of
+inscriptions and papyri have supplemented this information_(_148_)_
+that any real understanding of the character and history of these
+religions has become possible.
+
+The myth on which the worship of Cybele and Attis is based has been
+handed down in various and conflicting versions.
+
+So much, however, is certain, that Attis, the beloved of the Dea
+Mater, was represented as having been killed by a boar sent by Zeus,
+or by the jealous goddess herself. Every year in the spring-time there
+took place at Pessinus the great orgiastic lamentation for him, which,
+however, ended with a joyful festival. It seems, therefore, as if a
+resurrection of the slain Attis was assumed to have taken place,
+although the myth had nothing to say about that, but only in some of
+the versions related that he was changed into an evergreen fir tree.
+
+At bottom it is a form of nature-worship, which shows a close
+relationship with that of the Thracian Dionysus-Sabazios and with that
+of Adonis as worshipped at Byblos in Syria, and it has in some
+respects undergone modification due to contact with these. The primary
+idea underlying both myth and cultus is the decay and revival of
+vegetable life.
+
+The worship of Cybele and Attis penetrated to Rome as early as the
+year 204 B.C. In the previous year the Sibylline books had given the
+oracle that Hannibal would not be driven out of Italy until the sacred
+stone from Pessinus was brought to Rome. This was done; [pg 183] and
+the Carthaginians vacated the country. The foreign divinities had a
+temple assigned to them on the Palatine. But when the Senate came to
+know of the orgiastic feast which was associated with their worship,
+it forbade the citizens to take part in it and placed the cult under
+strict control. Thus, in spite of its official recognition, it led a
+somewhat obscure existence until Claudius, by the public festival
+which he established for it—which lasted from the 15th to the 27th
+March—gave it a high position in public esteem.
+
+In the deepening of its religious character which it underwent in
+becoming associated with Greek religious feeling of the decadence
+period, the worship of Attis was brought into connexion with the
+thought of immortality. In the “Agape,” in which the partakers were
+handed food in the “tympanon” and drink in the “cymbalon,” they were
+initiated as “mystae” of Attis and thereby became partakers of a
+higher life.
+
+Mysteries were also celebrated in which a dying and rising again was
+symbolised; and there were others based upon the thought of a union
+with the divinity in the bridal chamber.
+
+From the middle of the second century onward the “taurobolium” appears
+in connexion with the service of Cybele and Attis. This is a kind of
+blood-baptism. The “mystes” lies down in a pit, which is covered with
+boards. Through the interstices there trickles down on him the blood
+of a bull offered in sacrifice. The lamentation for the dead Attis
+sounds forth; the “mystes” applies it to himself. Then when the hymn
+of jubilation follows, he rises out of the grave as one who is now
+initiate and deified._(_149_)_
+
+The process by which the worship of Attis was transformed into a
+mystery-religion which gave guarantees of immortality remains for the
+most part shrouded in obscurity. In view of the scantiness of our
+information [pg 184] we are thrown back upon hypothetical
+reconstruction for the details of the development and the significance
+of the mysteries._(_150_)_
+
+The worship of Serapis was a creation of Ptolemy Soter, who desired to
+unite the Greek and Egyptian populations of his empire by the bond of
+a common worship. The derivation of the word Serapis is uncertain.
+Whether it arose from Osiris-Apis or from the Chaldaean Sar-Apsî is a
+debated point. The cultus language was Greek. Serapis was doubled with
+Osiris. The new cult went forth into the world as the religion of
+Serapis and Isis. In Rome it was vehemently opposed as being immoral;
+the temples of Isis, who was identified with Venus, justified this
+reputation. It was not officially recognised until the time of
+Caligula. By this time it was, however, widely diffused wherever the
+Greek language was spoken. Its adherents were found chiefly among the
+slaves and freedmen. From the third century onwards it is
+over-shadowed by the worship of Mithra.
+
+The myth, which was represented annually, makes the mourning Isis seek
+out the scattered fragments of the corpse of Osiris and raise a lament
+over it. Then the limbs are laid together and wound round with
+bandages, whereupon Thoth and Horus raise the slain Osiris to life
+again, and this is announced amid jubilant outcries.
+
+In the service of Osiris-Serapis the worshipper gains assurance of
+eternal life. Therein consisted the attraction of this religion.
+
+The early Egyptian doctrine was simple enough. After his resurrection
+Osiris became lord of the world [pg 185] and at the same time judge of
+the dead. Those who at their trial before him are not approved fall a
+prey to destruction; others have eternal life with him in a realm
+below the earth.
+
+Life—and this was the tremendously serious feature of this
+religion—was therefore regarded as a preparation for death. This is
+the thought reflected in the mysteries, no doubt modelled on those of
+Eleusis,_(_151_)_ which were attached to the Egyptian cultus after the
+worship of Serapis-Osiris had been ordained by authority. They
+represent the esoteric element. By means of the tests which he
+undergoes in the Serapeum, of the ecstasy which he experiences and the
+ceremonies of initiation in which he takes part the believer wins his
+way, along with Osiris, from death to life, and acquires the assurance
+of eternal being.
+
+Distinct from these mysteries is the exoteric religion with its daily
+acts of worship. These consist in the unveiling, awaking, clothing,
+and feeding of the statues of the gods. The “liturgy,” which was
+everywhere punctiliously followed, is derived from the primitive
+Egyptian religion. Speaking generally, the exoteric form of the
+worship of Osiris could come to terms with any, even the lowest, forms
+of paganism.
+
+The Syrian Baal-cults had no doubt from the second century onwards
+become widely diffused, and in the third century enjoyed the favour of
+the Emperors. For the development of popular religion, however, they
+were of less significance than the religions of Attis and Osiris,
+because they were not capable of becoming ennobled and deepened by the
+religious yearnings of the Greek spirit.
+
+Mithra was the father of the sun-god._(_152_)_ The origin of [pg 186]
+the cult is obscure. It first became known through the pirates who
+were taken prisoners by Pompey. It spread through the Roman armies
+which in the first century advanced towards the Euphrates; they took
+it over from their opponents. Thus Mithra was primarily a soldiers’
+god. With the legions he penetrated to the utmost bounds of the Roman
+Empire. He therefore passed direct from the barbarians into the Roman
+world without previously becoming at home in the Greek world. From the
+middle of the third century onwards the new cult spread so vigorously
+that it was regarded as the strongest rival of Christianity.
+
+In the intervening period, from the first century onward, it adopted
+in growing measure elements from all the other cults, and in this way
+became the universal “worship.”
+
+Regarding the myth, little is known; and in the cultus it played no
+special part. As the “slayer of the bull” Mithra doubtless belongs to
+the class of star-gods, and represents the supreme sun-god.
+
+The characteristic feature of this religion is its dualism. Mithra, as
+the supreme, good god, is opposed by the powers of the evil
+under-world. Hence the earnest character of its ethic, which is not
+contemplative as in the Osiris cult, but active.
+
+The secret of the power of this new faith lies indeed mainly in the
+impulse to action which essentially belongs to it, and in the large
+and simple ethical life to which this conception of the divinity gives
+rise. The Mithra-religion, differing in this from the Egyptian cults,
+places the scene of eternal life in an upper realm of light and not in
+the under-world. The supreme divinity himself guides the souls of
+departed believers through the seven planetary spheres to the land of
+the blessed, and thus becomes their “Redeemer.”
+
+As Mysteries there are observed here, as in other cults, sacred meals
+and baptismal rites. Above these again there was, according to
+Dieterich, a supreme initiation, [pg 187] which represented a progress
+to the throne of Mithra. The actions and the formulae used in this
+ceremony are, he thinks, preserved almost complete in the great
+Parisian “magic” papyrus. Dieterich, who is opposed on this point by
+Cumont and Reitzenstein, denominates this document a “Mithra-liturgy,”
+and supposes the prayers to be used in the course of the ascent which
+conducts the “mystes” from the world of the four elements through the
+stars to the realm of the gods, where, under the guidance of the
+sun-god, he passes through the heaven of the fixed stars and attains
+to the presence of the highest god._(_153_)_
+
+This process he conceives as having been represented, as part of the
+cultus, in the Mithra-grottos, which is rendered not improbable by the
+discoveries of objects which might have to do with a _mise en scène_
+corresponding to this conception. In any case there was some
+sacramental representation of the heavenward journey of the soul
+towards the attainment of immortality. It remains questionable
+whether, as the supreme mystery which the religion possessed, it was
+“experienced” by the believers only once, or had its regular place in
+the cultus.
+
+The prayers extol in lofty language re-birth from the mortal to the
+immortal life. The invocation with which the “mystes” approaches
+Mithra is highly impressive. “Hail to thee, lord, ruler of the water;
+hail to thee, stablisher of the earth; hail to thee, disposer of the
+spirit. Lord, I that am born again take my departure, being exalted on
+high, and since I am exalted, I die; born by the birth which engenders
+life, I am redeemed unto death, [pg 188] and go the way which thou
+hast appointed, as thou hast made for a law and created the sacrament
+. . .”_(_154_)_ Here the text breaks off. Perhaps later on the return
+of the initiate to earth was described. Dieterich, however, thinks
+this improbable.
+
+According to Dieterich the liturgy arose in the second century, and
+belongs to the Graeco-Egyptian Mithra-cult; about 200 A.D. it was
+annexed by the “magians” and from that time forward was preserved
+among them; about 300 it was embodied in the Paris manuscript which
+has come down to us.
+
+A valuable insight into the feelings and impressions associated with
+the Mysteries is given by the Hermetic writings, preserved mainly in
+“Poimandres.”_(_155_)_ They profess to be derived from Hermes, who in
+the thought of later times became the god of revelation, and in the
+prominence which they give to the philosophico-religious element they
+mark a stage in the development of Greek religious thought from the
+Mystery-religions to Neo-Platonism. In their present form the
+documents of this later Hermetic religion, which is marked by a
+certain profundity, doubtless belong to about the third century; but
+the original form dates, perhaps, from before the beginning of the
+second century.
+
+These are the cults and religions which have to be taken into account.
+They are parallel to Christianity in so far that they, like it—though
+in general doubtless somewhat later—make their appearance in the
+ancient world as religions of redemption. Certain analogies are not to
+be denied. The only question is how far these go, and how far the
+Mystery-religions really exercised an influence upon the views and the
+[pg 189] cultus-forms of the early, and especially of the primitive,
+church._(_156_)_
+
+The first to examine the facts with any closeness was Anrich in his
+work, “The Ancient Mysteries and their Influence on
+Christianity.”_(_157_)_
+
+He comes to the conclusion that both the Pauline and the Johannine
+views of Christianity “are to be understood as in the main original
+creations of the Christian spirit on the basis of genuine Judaism,”
+and if they show the influence of Greek thought, it is at most in a
+secondary fashion. There is, he asserts, “no apparent reason to refer
+the views on baptism and the communion-meal which meet us in the two
+cases to influences of the latter character.” It is only at a later
+time that a real influence comes into question.
+
+[pg 190]
+
+This negative conclusion has since been much disputed. That the
+author, in accordance with the position of Pauline scholarship at that
+period, did not sufficiently take into account the “physical” element
+in the mystical doctrine of redemption and in the conception of
+baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and consequently does not give
+sufficient weight to the analogy between the religion of the Apostle
+of the Gentiles and that of the Mysteries, is certain. But it ought to
+be recognised as equally certain that to many points he has given the
+prominence which they deserved, and that the students of Comparative
+Religion would have in many respects done better if they had allowed
+their bold advance to be somewhat checked by his prudent warnings, and
+had learned something from him in regard to the formulation of the
+problems.
+
+A point which ought to be more clearly grasped than it has hitherto
+been, in the investigation of Paul’s relation to the
+Mystery-religions, is that for purposes of comparison Paulinism must
+be regarded as a distinct entity; very often Paul’s doctrine has been
+included in the “Religion of the New Testament” or taken together with
+the Johannine and the Early Greek theology. On this method only false
+results can be looked for. Paulinism, and therein lies the special
+problem which it offers to scholarship, is an original phenomenon
+which is wholly distinct from Greek theology.
+
+This implies, too, that only the literal sense of the language of the
+Epistles must be considered, and that it is not permissible to
+interpret it through the Johannine theology, as is almost always done.
+It is nothing less than incredible that, to take the most flagrant
+example, philologists like Dieterich and others in discussing
+Paulinism, always calmly talk about “Re-birth,” although in the
+Epistles which rank as certainly genuine, this word and the
+corresponding verb never occur._(_158_)_ That [pg 191] many
+theologians fall into the same confusion is no excuse._(_159_)_
+
+The surprising thing is precisely that Paul, when he is speaking of
+the transformation of the man into a new creature, always makes use of
+the two words death and resurrection, and describes the new thing that
+comes about as an already experienced resurrection, without ever
+introducing the conception of re-birth which seems to lie so near at
+hand. In this limitation lies his as yet unexplained peculiarity, and
+therewith the problem of his relation to Greek theology and, in
+general, to everything that can be called Greek religious life.
+
+The Johannine doctrine, that of the earlier Greek Fathers, and the
+Mystery-religions, have this in common, that they make use of the
+conception of re-birth. In that, they show themselves to be growths of
+the same soil, and stand together over against Paulinism. Any one who
+interprets the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles in accordance
+with the conception of re-birth, has, by the aid of the Johannine
+theology, first conformed it to the Mystery-religions, and has himself
+introduced the conception which forms the common basis.
+
+The same procedure has been followed in regard to other points also.
+The Paulinism which the students of Comparative Religion have in view
+is mainly an artificial product which has been previously treated with
+the acids and reagents of Greek theology.
+
+Another point which calls for close attention is the chronological
+question in connexion with the history of the Mystery-religions. It is
+from the beginning of the [pg 192] second century onwards that these
+cults become widely extended in the Roman empire. It is only at this
+period—the worship of Serapis as an artificial Graeco-Egyptian
+creation is perhaps an exception—that they come under the influence of
+late Greek religious thought and feeling, which developed with the
+decline of the Stoa, and become transformed from imported cults into
+universal Mystery-religions. The dates and the inner course of this
+development are for us obscure. So much, however, is certain, that
+Paul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they
+are known to us, because in this fully-developed form they did not yet
+exist. Assuming the most favourable case, that from his youth up he
+had had open eyes and ears for the heathen religions by which he was
+surrounded, he can only have known the cults as they were in their
+uncompounded state, not as what they passed into when they became
+filled with the Greek yearning for redemption, and mutually influenced
+one another.
+
+Considerations of this kind lead an authority like Cumont to insist
+again and again upon the difficulties which stand in the way of
+assuming an influence of the Mystery-cults on the earliest
+Christianity._(_160_)_ Especially does he hold it to be quite
+impossible that the Mithra-religion should have had any point of
+contact with Paul.
+
+Another point which should be mentioned is that those who are engaged
+in making these comparisons are rather apt to give the
+Mystery-religions a greater definiteness and articulation of thought
+than they really possess, and do not always give sufficient prominence
+to the distinction between their own hypothetical reconstruction and
+the medley of statements on which it is based. Almost all the popular
+writings fall into this kind of inaccuracy. They manufacture out of
+the various fragments of information a kind of universal [pg 193]
+Mystery-religion which never actually existed, least of all in Paul’s
+day._(_161_)_
+
+In particular, these works aim at getting hold of the idea of a “Greek
+Redeemer-god” who might serve as an analogue to Jesus Christ. No
+figure deserving of this designation occurs in any myth or in any
+Mystery-religion; it is created by a process of generalisation,
+abstraction, and reconstruction. Before using the phrase Redeemer-God,
+one should remember that it means a God who for the sake of men came
+into the world, died and rose again. Having realised that, one may
+then try how far the Mystery-religions supply anything corresponding
+to this—the only adequate—definition._(_162_)_
+
+[pg 194]
+
+It is also to be remarked that, on the other hand, there is no
+“Redeemer-god” in Primitive Christianity. Jesus is, it cannot be
+sufficiently emphasised, not thought of as a god, but only as a
+heavenly being, who is entrusted with the mission of bringing in the
+new world. It was only later in the Greek and Gnostic theology that He
+was deified. For Paul he is “Son of God” in the simple, Old-Testament
+and Apocalyptic sense.
+
+We may further recall Cumont’s warning that analogies do not
+necessarily imply dependence. “Resemblances,” he writes in the preface
+to his _Religions orientales,_ “do not always imply imitation, and the
+resemblance of views or usages must often be explained by community of
+origin, not by any kind of borrowing.” In the same essay he points out
+that analogies are sometimes exaggerated, if not actually created, by
+the use of language chosen by the critic.
+
+And Dieterich expresses himself in the following terms against this
+mania for finding analogies. “It is,” he writes, in his edition of the
+“Mithra-liturgy,” “one of the worst faults of the science of
+Comparative Religion, which is at present becoming constantly less
+cautious, to overlook the most natural explanations, not to say ignore
+and avoid them, in order to have recourse to the most far-fetched,
+and, by the most eccentric methods, to drag out analogies which, to
+the unsophisticated eye, are absolutely invisible.”
+
+These are the principles by which it has to be decided, whether
+Comparative Religion has hunted down its game according to fair
+forest-law, or whether its “bag” is poached.
+
+The chief point to which research was at first directed was the
+discovery of relationships between the two sets of sacramental views.
+
+It seemed so easy to discover common conceptions [pg 195] here, in
+view of the fact that in both cases cultus-meals and lustrations
+played a part and had a sacramental value. But, on closer examination,
+it appears that it is very difficult to get beyond the simple fact of
+resemblance of a very general character.
+
+Dieterich, in his commentary on the “Mithra-liturgy,” is obliged to
+admit that we have very little exact knowledge regarding the sacred
+meals of the Mystery-religions._(_163_)_ That they were supposed to
+convey supernatural powers is about the only thing that can be said
+with safety. Regarding the special conceptions and actions which made
+this eating and drinking sacramental no information has been
+preserved. A comparison—not to speak of the establishment of a
+relation of dependence—is therefore impossible.
+
+As soon as the students of Comparative Religion attempt to bring
+forward concrete facts, they are obliged to leave the domain of the
+mystery-religions and draw their material from the primitive
+Nature-religions. Here they find the primary conception—a man believes
+that he unites himself with the divinity by eating portions of him,
+or—this is a secondary stage of the conception—by consuming some
+substance which has been marked out for this purpose as representative
+of the divinity and has had his name attached to it.
+
+The following series of examples recurs in all the books:—
+
+The dead Pharaoh, when he enters heaven, causes his servants to seize,
+bind, and slay the gods, and then devours them in order thus to absorb
+into himself their strength and wisdom, and to become the strongest of
+all.
+
+In Egypt anyone who wishes to become truthful swallows a small image
+of the goddess of truth.
+
+In the Thracian orgiastic worship of Dionysos Sabazios [pg 196] the
+sacrificial ox is torn to pieces by the participants while yet alive,
+and swallowed raw.
+
+A Bedouin tribe in the Sinai peninsula slaughters, amid chanting, a
+camel bound upon the altar, and then eagerly drinks its blood and
+immediately devours the still bloody flesh half raw.
+
+The Aztecs, before sacrificing and eating their prisoners of war, give
+them the name of the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered.
+
+Now, by the round-about way of this primitive conception the connexion
+between Paul’s cultus-feast and that of the Mystery-religions—which
+cannot be directly shown—is supposed to be established.
+
+It is suggested that this primitive conception of union with the god
+in the cultus, by an act of eating performed with this special
+purpose, after it had in the normal development of the various
+religions been transformed or completely laid aside, came to life
+again in the mysticism of the Mystery-religions and of Paulinism.
+Mysticism, according to Dieterich’s view, draws its nourishment from
+the lowest strata of religious ideas. The belief in the union of God
+and man which, among the cultured classes, was no longer anything but
+a metaphor, rises up again from below with irrepressible power.
+“Rising from below, the old ideas acquire new power in the history of
+religion. The revolution from beneath creates new religious life
+within the primeval, indestructible forms.”_(_164_)_
+
+That we have here a combination of two still unproved hypotheses is
+not sufficiently emphasised. In the Mystery-religions ancient cults
+certainly enter into direct union with higher religious conceptions,
+so that the general presupposition on which this hypothesis of
+Comparative Religion is based is to a certain extent admissible. But
+whether precisely this primitive conception of the mystic fellowship
+created by eating and drinking the god awakened to new life in them,
+must remain an open question, since our information does not suffice
+to prove [pg 197] it. Of an eating of the god there is nowhere any
+mention. And the primitive Mysteries were not founded on this idea.
+Rather, they consist essentially in the representation of the actions
+performed by the divinity, and rest on the thought that the
+reproduction of these events will create in the participant some kind
+of corresponding reality. It is a symbolism which is charged with a
+certain energy, a drama which becomes real.
+
+This being so, the significance of the cultus-meal comes much less
+into view than that of the pattern actions which had to be further
+developed and interpreted. If we possess so few typical statements
+about the Mystery-feasts, is it not partly because they had no very
+remarkable features and did not take a very exalted position in the
+hierarchy of cultus-acts? If in the Paris Magic-papyrus we really
+possess a Mithra-liturgy, and if the inferences and explanations which
+Dieterich has attached to it are sound, then we have proof that in
+this developed cultus of the second century the highest sacrament was
+a pictorial mystery in which the “mystes” believed that he in some way
+experienced the heavenly journey of the soul which he, along with
+others, enacted.
+
+In any case, the assertion that in the Mystery-religions the ancient
+cultus-conception of a union with the divinity effected by a meal,
+came to life again, goes far beyond what can be proved. That union is,
+even in its secondary forms, always closely connected with a
+sacrificial feast, and cannot properly be detached from it. The
+sacrificial feast, however, is not a feature in the Mystery-religions,
+and so far as we can get a glimpse of their beginnings never had any
+supreme importance in them. The interpretation of these cults on the
+analogy of the primitive religions of various races, ancient or
+modern, who devoured oxen, camels, or prisoners of war as substitutes
+for the divinity, cannot therefore be established.
+
+The vestiges of this ancient conception are to be found, not in the
+Mystery-religions, but in the ordinary heathen sacrificial worship, in
+cases where the sacrificial [pg 198] feast has been retained in
+connexion with it. Here there certainly exists in some form or other
+the conception of a fellowship with the god set up by eating. It is to
+be noted that Paul in I Cor. x. draws a parallel between the Lord’s
+Supper, which unites us to Christ, and these feasts. How expositors
+have arrived at the idea of making him refer here to the cultus-meal
+of the Mystery-religions is quite inexplicable.
+
+The hypothesis that the earliest Christian conception of the Lord’s
+Supper in some way represented the surviving influence of an ancient
+cultus idea, is at first sight much more plausible than the
+corresponding hypothesis in the case of the Mystery-religions. At any
+rate the existence of the desiderated fact is here proved. The
+conception of the sacramental eating stands in the centre of the
+belief; by this act, fellowship with a divine Being who has died and
+risen again is maintained; and what is eaten and drunk is brought into
+relation to the person of Christ, inasmuch as it is called, in some
+sense or other, His body and blood.
+
+Nevertheless in the decisive point the alleged facts break down.
+
+Paul knows nothing of an eating and drinking of the body and blood of
+the Lord. When Dieterich gives it as the Apostle’s view that “Christ
+is eaten and drunk by the believers and is thereby in them,” and adds
+that nothing further need be said about the matter, what he has done
+is, instead of taking Paul’s words as they stand, to interpret Paul
+through John—and through a misunderstanding of John at that.
+
+It is not of an eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ that
+Paul speaks in the First Epistle to the Corinthians; he always speaks
+only of eating and drinking the bread and the cup. He assumes, no
+doubt, that this somehow or other maintains a communion with the body
+and blood of Christ (I Cor. x. 16-17), and that anyone who partakes
+unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord (I Cor. xi.
+27). He quotes, too, the words [pg 199] in which the Lord, on the
+historic night, after the Supper, speaks of bread and wine as His body
+and His blood. But the conception which seems inevitably to arise out
+of this, that the participant partakes of the body and blood of the
+Lord, is not found in him.
+
+The recognition of this fact does not make his sacramental doctrine
+any clearer. It is a question of fulfilling the demand of sound
+scholarship that we should respect the text, and not interpret it on
+the basis of inferences which the Apostle neither drew nor could draw.
+His fundamental view that the feast effects or maintains fellowship
+with the exalted Christ is perfectly clear. What is not clear is how
+he brought this view into relation with the historic words of Jesus
+about the bread and wine as being His body and blood, and interpreted
+it in accordance therewith. Did it arise out of these words, or did he
+receive it from some other quarter and afterwards make use of it for
+the interpretation of the historic words?
+
+The difficulty lies in the fact that for Paul the body and blood of
+the historic Christ no longer exist, and that, on the other hand,
+while the glorified Christ has, indeed, a body, it is not a body
+through which blood flows and which is capable of being consumed on
+earth. To speak of the body and blood of Christ is, from the
+stand-point of the Apostle’s doctrine, an absurdity. He cannot in his
+doctrine of the Supper bring the historic words into harmony with his
+Christology, and yet is obliged to do so. The compromise remains for
+us obscure.
+
+It is certain, however, that neither he nor the primitive Christian
+community held that the body and blood of Christ was partaken of in
+the Supper. That is evident from the fact that the historic words of
+Jesus did not form part of the service, and this is the case down to a
+later date. No kind of consecration of the elements as the body and
+blood of the Lord occurred in the liturgy.
+
+If there is anything which may be considered as a definite result of
+recent research, it is that the view of primitive and early
+Christianity regarding the Lord’s [pg 200] Supper was not arrived at
+by way of inference from the words of Jesus about bread and wine and
+flesh and blood, but, strange as it may appear, arose from a different
+quarter. The Church’s celebration was not shaped by the “words of
+institution” at the historic Supper; it was the latter, on the
+contrary, which were explained in accordance with the significance of
+the celebration.
+
+It is a no less serious error when Dieterich asserts that the Gospel
+of John in chapter vi. proclaims the Pauline doctrine “only in a still
+more corporeal fashion.”
+
+In the Evangelist, bread and wine are—as is evident to anyone who will
+take the trouble to acquaint himself with his presuppositions in the
+spiritually related works of Ignatius, Justin, and Tertullian—not the
+body and blood of Christ, but the flesh and blood of the Son of Man.
+In this change in the expression lies the logic of the thought. The
+elements of the Lord’s Supper perpetuate the appearance of the Son of
+Man in the world inasmuch as they, as being the flesh and blood of
+that historic Personality, possess the capacity of being vehicles of
+the Spirit. As a combination of matter and Spirit which can be
+communicated to the corporeity of men, they execute judgment. The
+elect can in the sacrament become partakers of that spiritual
+substance, and can thus be prepared for the resurrection; others who
+are not from above, and are not capable of receiving the Spirit,
+receive simply earthly food and drink, and fall a prey to corruption.
+Therefore the Evangelist makes the Lord close His discourse about the
+eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man with the
+words, “It is the spirit that giveth life.”
+
+This is the language of the early Greek theology, which explains the
+working of the sacraments by the combination of the Spirit with matter
+which takes place therein. The Fourth Evangelist projects this later
+view back into the discourses of the historic Jesus, and makes Him
+prophetically announce that after His exaltation a time will come when
+the Spirit which is now in Him will unite itself [pg 201] with the
+bread which, by the miracle of the loaves, has just been raised in a
+significant way out of the category of simple earthly elements, and
+will subsequently manifest its power in preparing men for the
+resurrection.
+
+In this sense, as vehicles of the Spirit, the elements carry on the
+manifestation of the Son of Man; in this sense it is possible to speak
+of eating and drinking His flesh and blood, and to regard this as
+necessary to life. But all this is not thought of “corporeally” in the
+naïve sense of an eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus,
+but can only be understood on the basis of the doctrine of the working
+of the Spirit in the sacraments. Apart from the Spirit, there is in
+the Supper no body and no blood of Christ.
+
+That is for the Fourth Evangelist so much a fixed datum that he is
+obliged to omit the account of the historic Last Supper of Jesus with
+His disciples. That the Lord could have so designated the bread which
+was eaten and the wine which was drunk on that occasion, is for him
+unthinkable. As long as He Himself is alive there is certainly no
+Spirit; it is only on His exaltation that the Spirit is liberated from
+the historic personality of the Son of Man and becomes separated from
+the Logos as the Holy Spirit, in order in the sacraments to lead a new
+existence—and this time an existence capable of being communicated to
+others. From this moment onwards bread and wine become, in the
+Church’s celebration of the sacrament, the flesh and blood of the Son
+of Man in the sense explained above. Previously this had by no means
+been the case, any more than there had been a Christian baptism which
+effected regeneration. The Spirit who associates Himself with the
+water and produces this effect, did not as yet exist in this form of
+being. Jesus cannot, therefore, on this view, have baptized, any more
+than He can celebrate the Supper with His disciples. Therefore, the
+Fourth Evangelist, in order to guard against possible
+misunderstandings, definitely asserts that even if the disciples did
+baptize—a mere baptism with water [pg 202] which is incapable of
+working regeneration—the Master Himself made no use of water in this
+fashion._(_165_)_ His task consisted only in marking out water for
+this use by the miracle at Cana of Galilee, and, by His discourses
+about the water of life and regeneration by water and the Spirit,
+pointing men’s minds to the thought that in the future, water, in
+association with the Spirit, would be necessary to life and
+blessedness. In that day “out of his body shall flow rivers of living
+water” because the Spirit will be present (John vii. 37-39).
+
+The students of Comparative Religion are so far in the right as
+against ordinary theology that they make an end of the unintelligent
+spiritualising of the Johannine doctrine, and try to give due weight
+to the “physical” element in its conception of redemption. They are
+mistaken, however, in regarding this “physical” element as something
+primitive, and in thinking to explain it by analogies drawn from the
+primitive nature-religions.
+
+The Fourth Gospel represents the views of a speculative religious
+materialism which concerns itself with the problem of matter and
+spirit, and the permeation of matter by Spirit, and endeavours to
+interpret the manifestation and the personality of Jesus, the action
+of the sacraments and the possibility of the resurrection of the
+elect, all on the basis of one and the same fundamental conception.
+
+According to this theory, Christ came into the world in order to
+accomplish in His own Person the as yet non-existent union of the
+Spirit with the fleshly substance of humanity. In consequence of this
+act the elect among mankind can in the future become partakers of the
+Spirit. Jesus Himself, however, cannot as yet impart this to them
+either as the Spirit of knowledge—that is why the disciples are
+portrayed as so “unintelligent”—or as the Spirit of life. The Spirit
+always needs, in the world of sense, to [pg 203] be connected with
+material vehicles. He cannot work directly, in the sense of
+communicating Himself from Jesus to believers. He must, therefore, in
+order to enter into the elect, be received by them in combination with
+some material element. The material media chosen for this purpose are
+made known by Jesus by means of miracles and by references to the
+future.
+
+The naïve—and unhistorical—conception that Jesus instituted the
+sacraments is not recognised by the Johannine gnosis. According to it
+He did not establish them, but created and predicted them.
+
+By His incarnation the possibility of the union of humanity and Spirit
+upon which the working of the sacraments depends, is provided. By His
+action in regard to the food and wine and the words He spoke in
+connexion therewith, He pointed to a mystery which was to be revealed
+in connexion with these substances; by His death, resurrection, and
+exaltation He abolished His earthly mode of existence and set the
+Spirit free for the new method of working, in virtue of which He was
+able to prepare men for the resurrection. Jesus, according to this
+view, came into the world to introduce the era of effectual
+sacraments. It was thus that He became the Redeemer.
+
+The teaching of the Johannine theology, therefore, rests upon the two
+principles, that the Spirit can only work upon men in combination with
+matter, and that it only becomes present in this state as a
+consequence of the exaltation of the Lord. Anyone who has once
+recognised these presuppositions will give up once for all the search
+for a primitive element which is to be explained from the
+nature-religions. On the other hand, it is certain that Christianity
+here presents itself as the most highly developed Greek
+Mystery-religion which it is possible to conceive.
+
+Now for Paul again. Anyone who ascribes to him the conception of a
+sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ does
+violence to his words. [pg 204] But admitting that he really thought
+in this way, that would prove nothing. It would first need to be shown
+that it really was a cultus-conception drawn from the primitive
+nature-religions which came to life again in him. Now, for the
+Mystery-religions the necessary presuppositions might appear to be
+present, since they arise out of ancient cults which sprouted and grew
+up again in later times. Paul, however, is a Jew, and even as a
+believer in Christ he stands, in spite of his polemic against the law,
+wholly and solely on the basis of the absolute, transcendent Jewish
+conception of God. Any relation on his part to the nature-cults cannot
+be proved and ought not to be assumed. By what wind were the seeds of
+this primitive conception wafted to his mind? And how could they
+suddenly sprout and grow in the stony soil of a Jewish heart? The
+Apostle would certainly be the first and the only Jewish theologian to
+fall under the spell of the primitive conception of eating the god!
+And where was such a conception at that time to be found?
+
+But what matter such prosaic considerations when it is a question of
+great ideas, of ideas, moreover, fathered by Comparative Religion?
+
+When Heitmüller in the spring of 1903 appeared before the members of
+the Clergy Theological Society_(_166_)_ in Hanover to give them the
+latest information about baptism and the Lord’s Supper, he led them
+abroad, after an introduction on the “physico-hyperphysical” in Paul,
+first to the Aztecs, then in the clouds of night, by the torch’s
+gleam, to the Thracian mountain sides, and thence to Sinai._(_167_)_
+And when they had assisted at the slaughtering and devouring of the
+prisoners of war, the ox, and the camel, he expressed himself to the
+following effect: “Little as the _δεῖπνον κυριακόν_ of Paul might seem
+to have in common with these . . . proceedings, and [pg 205] loth as
+we at first are even to name the Lord’s Supper in the same breath with
+them, as little is it to me a matter of doubt that, when looked at
+from the point of view of Comparative Religion, the Lord’s Supper of
+primitive Christianity has the closest connexion with them. Those
+pictures supply the background from which the Lord’s Supper stands
+out; they show us the world of ideas to which the Lord’s Supper
+belongs in its most primitive, and therefore perspicuous, form.”
+
+Entering more into detail, this “Hylic”_(_168_)_ of the Comparative
+method explains that the primeval concrete and sensuous conception of
+the _communio_ established by partaking of the flesh and blood of the
+animal in which the divinity itself dwelt, comes to light again in the
+primitive Christian Lord’s Supper, at the highest stage of the
+development of religion, and under this new form acquires a new
+life._(_169_)_ It would be precarious, he further observes, in view of
+the fragmentary condition of the sources to attempt to prove a direct
+dependence on definite phenomena—on the cultus feast of the
+Mithra-mysteries, for example: “It will be safer to point to the
+general characteristics of the time, which abounded with ideas of that
+kind. The infant Christianity lived in an atmosphere which, if I may
+be allowed the expression, was impregnated with Mystery-bacilli, and
+grew up on a soil which had been fertilised and made friable by the
+decay and intermixture of the most various religions, and [pg 206] was
+specially adapted to favour the upgrowth of seeds and spores which had
+been long in the ground.”
+
+Now, there is no such thing as an atmosphere impregnated with
+bacteria. Medical science has long since shown that this conception
+rests on an error, the air being practically free from germs. In
+theology it is more difficult to get rid of fantastic imaginations,
+since historical proofs are only available for those who are capable
+of thinking historically.
+
+It must not be overlooked that the eating and drinking which
+establishes communion with Christ is only one side of the Pauline
+conception of the Supper. Alongside of it there exists the other,
+which sees in the feast a confession of faith in the death and the
+parousia of the Lord, and is quite as significant as the former. It
+is—in I Cor. xi.—developed in connexion with the repetition of the
+historic words of Jesus; on it is based the argument that a careless
+partaking is a transgression against the body of the Lord. And on the
+basis of this conception, cases of illness and death in the church are
+to be understood as a warning chastisement pointing to the Last
+Judgment. This conception must be somehow or other eschatologically
+conditioned.
+
+The communion which is established in the Lord’s Supper is a communion
+of the eagerly-waiting man with the coming Lord of Glory. The only
+thing which remains obscure is how this is brought about. The
+confession of faith in the death and parousia which is combined with
+the act of eating and drinking does not suffice to explain this
+further effect. Further, it remains inherently obscure how by eating
+and drinking the dying and return of the Lord can be shown forth,
+especially as the Early Christian celebration consisted only in a
+common meal, and in no way reproduced, as present-day celebrations do,
+the actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper.
+
+What are the results to which the students of Comparative Religion
+have to point in regard to the Lord’s Supper? They are obliged at the
+outset to give up the [pg 207] attempt to explain it from the
+Mystery-religions, or even to point out in the latter any very close
+analogies. In place of this they attempt to make intelligible both the
+meal which formed part of the mystery-cults, and that of Pauline
+Christianity, as growths which, from scattered seeds of ancient
+conceptions of the cultus-eating of the divinity, spring up from the
+soil of syncretism in two different places at the same time. Neither
+in the one case nor the other, however, can they render this even
+approximately probable. Up to the present, therefore, neither a direct
+nor an indirect connexion between the cultus-meal of Paul and those of
+the Mystery-religions has been shown. The only thing which is certain
+is that in both cases a cultus-meal existed. About that of the
+Mysteries we know almost nothing; about that which Paul presupposes we
+have more information, but not such as to enable us at once to
+understand it.
+
+The question regarding baptism took from the first a simpler form,
+since the hypothesis of a renascence of primitive cultus-conceptions
+has not to be considered.
+
+Both Paul and the Mystery-religions attach a religious significance to
+washings. That, however, does not suffice to establish a peculiarity
+which would connect them together, since the attachment of this
+significance to lustration is bound up with the elemental symbolism of
+cleansing and is found more or less in all religions.
+
+The real question is whether Paulinism and the Mystery-religions, when
+they go beyond the most general notions, and advance from the symbolic
+to the effectively sacramental, follow the same lines and present the
+same views.
+
+Once again, Paul’s view is the more fully, that of the
+Mystery-religions the less fully known. Developed baptismal doctrines
+and rites seem only to have been present in the Egyptian cults. These
+distinguish between the bath of purification and baptism, the latter
+consisting [pg 208] in a sprinkling with a few drops of a consecrated
+and consecrating fluid._(_170_)_
+
+The advance beyond the idea of purification, where it is to be
+observed, moves in the direction of the idea of Re-birth,
+Regeneration. A clear formulation of this developed view—comparable in
+definiteness with the Early Christian reference to the “bath of
+regeneration” _(_171_)_ —does not occur. The thought remains hovering
+between purification and renewal.
+
+That is as much as to say that, so far as our information goes, no
+typical points of contact with Paulinism present themselves.
+
+The Apostle implies a baptism in the name of a divine person. Of a
+baptism performed in the name of Osiris, Attis, or Mithra we know
+nothing, though no doubt the assumption naturally suggests itself that
+the lustrations and baptisms practised in these cults were considered
+to be at the same time acts of confession of faith in the divinity
+with whose worship they were associated. But this character was by no
+means so distinctly stamped on them as was the case in Christian
+baptism—as is, indeed, readily intelligible. In the Mystery-religions
+the confession of the god is naturally implied; in Christianity there
+is the special confession of faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. To
+this there was nothing analogous.
+
+As regards the utterance of the name of the divinity and the magical
+efficacy attaching thereto according to ancient conceptions, many
+illustrations can be adduced from Comparative Religion. But the really
+important point, the association of the utterance of the name with a
+baptismal rite, cannot be directly shown to have existed in the
+Mystery-religions._(_172_)_
+
+[pg 209]
+
+In order to arrive at his sacramental view Paul does not follow the
+natural method of advancing by way of the thought of purification to
+that of renewal by regeneration, but follows a different route, which
+leads him to an estimate of it that has nothing to do with the
+fundamental conception of purification, and therefore remains without
+analogy in the Mystery-religions. This is a fact of great
+significance.
+
+The Mystery-religions speak, as Paul also does, of the _pneuma_ and
+its workings, but the possession of the _pneuma_ is never represented
+as an immediate and inevitable consequence of baptism.
+
+With the Mystery-religions are associated speculations about the
+renewal of man’s being, represented as taking place in regeneration,
+which they bring into some kind of relation, closer or more remote,
+with baptism. But when Paul speaks of the new creature which comes
+into being in the sacrament, the thought of regeneration does not for
+him come into view, for he makes no use of it at all. Instead of that
+he asserts in Rom. vi. that in baptism there is an experience of death
+and resurrection in fellowship with Christ, from which results newness
+of life and the new ethic associated therewith. How the act and the
+result are logically connected he does not explain. He is content to
+place them side by side.
+
+[pg 210]
+
+So far as we know, there exists in the Mystery-religions no analogue
+to this dying and rising again effected solely by the use of water. To
+interpret Rom. vi., as Dieterich does, as referring to a spiritual
+death and “new birth” is not permissible, since the text says not a
+word about that. The post-Pauline theology, that is the Johannine and
+Early Greek theology, explain baptism as regeneration, and seek to
+find a logical basis for this effect in the doctrine that the Spirit
+unites with the water as the generating power. Paul has nothing of all
+this.
+
+Nor does he show any knowledge of the idea that Christian baptism
+arose out of the baptism of Jesus as an imitative reproduction of it.
+He never, in fact, mentions the baptism of Jesus. Nowhere does he
+suggest that in baptism the new man, the “Child of God,” is born in
+the believer, as Jesus was in this act raised to His Messianic office.
+
+There is in fact no evidence from the earlier literature which
+suggests the existence of views of that kind regarding the origin and
+significance of Christian baptism. In early Christianity it is as far
+from being an imitative reproduction of the baptism of Jesus as the
+Church’s Lord’s Supper was from being an imitative reproduction of the
+historic Last Supper. The conception of an “imitative reproduction”
+was first introduced by modern theology.
+
+To cite the _taurobolium_ as an analogue of Paul’s baptism, with the
+death and resurrection which it effects, is not admissible. In the
+first place, the _taurobolium_ is a baptism of blood; in the next
+place it is closely connected with a sacrifice; in the third place,
+the burial and rising again are actually represented. The sacramental
+significance is thus derived from the many-sided symbolism. In Paul
+there is no trace of all this. “Plain water” effects everything.
+
+One point in regard to which great hopes had been placed on the
+Mystery-religions was the solution of the enigma of I Cor. xv. 29.
+Wernle regarded it as self-evident that the Apostle in permitting and
+approving [pg 211] baptism for the dead had allowed himself to become
+infected by the heathen superstition of his Corinthian converts, and
+took him to task for this lapse in his book on the “Beginnings of
+Christianity.” In his zeal he forgot to enquire whether the heathen
+had any superstition of the kind._(_173_)_
+
+Those who tried to supply this omission did not meet with much
+success. The heathen showed themselves better than their reputation
+and less “superstitious” than the Christians! Of a baptism for the
+dead, or anything at all of this nature, they show no trace.
+
+Failing more relevant evidence, some have quoted Plato, who in the
+_Republic_ (ii. 364-5) makes Adeimantos say, appealing in confirmation
+to the Orphic writings, that by means of offerings and festivals,
+atonement and purification for past misdeeds is effected for whole
+towns as well as for single individuals, for the living and also for
+the dead.
+
+This passage, however, does not refer at all to personal dedications
+with a view to “renewal,” such as the baptism practised in the
+Mystery-religions and in Christianity, but to expiatory sacrifices in
+the ancient Greek sense._(_174_)_
+
+In the _Taurobolia_, representation of one living person by another is
+supposed to have been possible, but there is no mention of a
+representation of the dead._(_175_)_
+
+[pg 212]
+
+The baptism _of_ the dead which is attested by a papyrus is not a
+baptism _for_ the dead._(_176_)_
+
+That living persons went through the ceremonies of initiation for the
+dead is not known.
+
+Thus baptism for the dead has not, so far at least, proved susceptible
+of explanation from heathen sources, but must be regarded as a
+peculiarity of Christianity!
+
+The outcome of the study of the sacraments from the point of view of
+Comparative Religion is a very curious one. The Apostle thinks
+sacramentally; in fact his doctrine is much more “mysterious” than
+that of the Mystery-religions. But the nature of the sacramental
+conception is quite different in him from what it is in them; it is as
+if they had grown up on different soils.
+
+The difference relates both to the conception of the supernatural
+working of the sacraments, and also to the position which the
+sacramental element takes in the doctrine as a whole.
+
+In the Mystery-religions the sacramental idea arises by way of an
+intensification and materialisation of the symbolic. The act effects
+what it represents. The result can in a sense be logically understood
+when once the thought is grasped that the world of appearance and the
+world of reality stand in mysterious connexion with one another.
+
+In Paul we have an unmediated and naked notion of sacrament such as is
+nowhere else to be met with. Symbolism is no doubt involved in the
+most general significance of the act. In this sense baptism is a
+“cleansing” and a “consecration,”_(_177_)_ and the sacred feast
+establishes [pg 213] fellowship among the partakers. But the
+assertions which go beyond this show not the faintest connexion with
+the outward significance of the rite. Contact with the water is
+supposed to effect a dying and rising again with Christ, a partaking
+in His mystical body, and the possession of the Spirit. The eating and
+drinking at the Lord’s Supper is a confession of faith in the death
+and the parousia of Christ, and is also fellowship with Him.
+
+The sacramental is therefore non-rational. The act and its effect are
+not bound together by religious logic, but laid one upon the other and
+nailed together.
+
+With that is connected the fact that in Paul we find the most prosaic
+conception imaginable of the _opus operatum._ In the Mystery-religions
+there is a mysterious procedure surrounded by imposing accessories.
+The impressive appeal of symbolism is brought to bear in every part.
+Every detail is significant, and lays hold upon the attention.
+
+In Paul everything is flat and colourless. While some of his
+references might suggest the impression that his conception of
+Christianity bore some kind of analogy to the Mystery-religions, yet
+as a whole it entirely lacks the corresponding atmosphere. There is
+nothing of the effective _mise en scène_ characteristic of the Greek
+sacramental beliefs. How lacking in solemnity must have been the
+method of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, when it could degenerate into
+an ugly and disorderly exhibition of gluttony! How little does the
+Apostle think of the external act of baptism, when he founds a church
+in Corinth and himself performs the rite only in the case of one or
+two individuals!_(_178_)_ He preaches sacraments, but does not feel
+himself to be a mystagogue; rather, he retains the simplicity in
+regard to forms of worship which belongs to the Jewish spirit.
+
+There were no long preparations for the cultus ceremonies, and nothing
+is known of a distinction between higher and lower grades of
+initiation, such as form an [pg 214] essential part of the
+Mystery-religions. The first ceremony of initiation confers at once
+final perfection. Among those who are admitted there prevails the most
+complete equality. The conception of the “mystes” does not exist.
+
+In the Mystery-religions everything centres in the sacred ceremonies.
+They dominate thought, feeling, and will. If they are removed the
+whole religion collapses.
+
+In Paulinism it is otherwise. The doctrine of redemption is no doubt
+closely connected with the sacraments, but the latter are not its
+be-all and end-all. If baptism and the Lord’s Supper are taken away
+the doctrine is not destroyed, but stands unmoved. It looks as though
+the weight of the building rested upon these two pillars, but in
+reality it does not totter even if these supports are withdrawn.
+
+The Johannine and the early Greek doctrine are conceived as real
+Mystery-religions. The Fourth Evangelist and Ignatius know no other
+redemption than that which is bound up with the sacraments. In Paul
+the redemption can be thought of apart from them, since the whole
+mystical doctrine of fellowship with Christ rests upon the single
+conception of faith. Nevertheless he allows it to be closely bound up
+with the external ceremonies, and seems to have no consciousness of
+the fact that this connexion is unnecessary and illogical.
+
+The remarkable duality in Paulinism lies, therefore, in the fact that
+the sacramental idea is intensified to an extreme and unintelligible
+degree, while at the same time the necessity of the sacred ceremonies
+does not logically result from the system as a whole, as this would
+lead us to expect.
+
+The sacramental views of the Apostle have thus nothing primitive about
+them, but are rather of a “theological” character. Paul connects his
+mystical doctrine of redemption with ceremonies which are not
+specially designed with reference to it. It is from that fact, and not
+from a specially deep love for Mysteries, [pg 215] that the
+exaggeratedly sacramental character of his view of baptism and the
+Lord’s Supper results. It is in the last resort a question of
+externalisation, not of intensification.
+
+It is therefore useless to ransack the history of religions for
+analogies to his conceptions. It has none to offer, for the case is
+unique. The problem lies wholly within the sphere of early Christian
+history, and represents only a particular aspect of the question of
+Paul’s relation to primitive Christianity. The fact is, he did not
+introduce the sacramental view into the sacred ceremonies, but found
+already existing a baptism and a Lord’s Supper which guaranteed
+salvation on grounds which were intelligible from early Christian
+doctrine. He, however, transformed the primitive view of salvation
+into the mystical doctrine of the dying and rising again in fellowship
+with Christ. Since the connexion between redemption and the sacraments
+was given _a priori_, he draws the inference that the sacraments
+effect precisely that wherein, according to his gnosis, the inner
+essence of redemption consists. How far they are appropriate to the
+effect which, on the ground of his mystical doctrine, he holds to take
+place, does not for him come into question.
+
+In the sacraments the believer becomes partaker in salvation.
+Therefore, he concludes, in them that happens which constitutes
+redemption, namely, the dying and rising again with Christ.
+
+Paul therefore takes the sacraments by storm. He does not theorise
+about the ceremony, but ascribes to it without more ado the postulated
+effect. That is not a procedure which could have been followed either
+by a Greek or by a modern mind.
+
+Paulinism is thus a theological system with sacraments, but not a
+Mystery-religion.
+
+This may be confirmed by a further observation. The Apostle occupies a
+strongly predestinarian stand-point. Those who are “called” inevitably
+receive salvation; those who are not, can never in any way obtain it.
+There [pg 216] is no analogue to this in the Mystery-religions. They
+can only conceive of election in the sense and to the extent of
+holding that there is a calling and predestination to the receiving of
+the initiation which confers immortality. And there are actually some
+beginnings of such a conception._(_179_)_
+
+But Pauline predestination is quite different. It is absolute, and
+seems inevitably to abolish the necessity and meaning of the
+sacraments. Anyone who belongs to the number of the elect becomes
+_ipso facto_ partaker of the resurrection. At the end of all things a
+great company from the generations of long-past times will arise to
+life without ever having received baptism or partaken of the Lord’s
+Supper. That being so, what becomes of the sacraments? In what respect
+are they necessary?
+
+A good deal of energy has been expended in seeking analogies from
+other religions for the Corinthian baptism for the dead; it would
+really have been much more to the point to enquire why baptism for the
+dead was considered desirable. If the dead are among the elect, they
+have no need of it; if not, they could not have inherited life, even
+if they had received the sacrament during their sojourn on earth. To
+what end, then, is this baptism for the dead?
+
+The most important point to notice is that everywhere in the Pauline
+sacraments the eschatological interest breaks through. They effect,
+not re-birth, but resurrection. That which in the near future is to
+become visible reality, they make in the present invisibly real by
+anticipation. The Greek Mysteries are timeless. They reach back to
+primitive antiquity, and they profess to be able to manifest their
+power in all generations. In Paul the sacraments have temporal
+boundaries. Their power is derived from the events of the last times.
+They put believers in the same position as the Lord, in that they [pg
+217] cause them to experience a resurrection a few world-moments
+before the time, even though this does not in any way become manifest.
+It is a precursory phenomenon of the approaching end of the world.
+
+Separated from the eschatology, the Pauline sacraments would become
+meaningless and ineffectual. They are confined to the time between the
+resurrection of Jesus and His parousia, when the dead shall arise.
+Their power depends on the present, and also on the future, fact. In
+this sense they are “historically” conditioned.
+
+While therefore in the Mystery-religions and in the Johannine theology
+the sacraments work of themselves, in Paul they draw their energy from
+a universal world-event, from which it is, as it were, transmitted.
+
+It now becomes clear why the Apostle cannot describe as a “Re-birth”
+the condition brought about by baptism. The renewal consists in the
+fact that the coming resurrection-life is, for the short period which
+remains of the present course of the world, received by anticipation.
+Re-birth, on the other hand, implies an uneschatological system of
+thought in which the individual reckons more or less on a normal span
+of life, for which he seeks an inner divine being which shall subsist
+alongside of or above the earthly. It is only at a period when
+eschatology is falling into the background that the Greek conception
+of re-birth, such as is associated with the Mysteries, can supersede
+the old mystico-eschatological conception of the proleptic
+resurrection. Accordingly it presently appears in Justin and the
+Fourth Evangelist. From that point onwards baptism brings re-birth. In
+Paul it produced only an antedated dying and rising again.
+
+The sacramental conception of the Apostle is therefore derived from an
+entirely different world of thought from that of the
+Mystery-religions.
+
+It is a different question, however, in what relation his
+“physical”_(_180_)_ mysticism in itself, apart from the [pg 218]
+sacraments, bears to the world of ideas associated with the Greek
+Mystery-religions.
+
+To this question Reitzenstein, the “pneumatic”_(_181_)_ among the
+students of Comparative Religion, devotes a careful study. He avoids
+conventional catchwords and rash conclusions, and endeavours to
+discover the conceptions and ideas which are common to both, and to
+follow them out in detail.
+
+With this purpose he brings together everything which he can find in
+the language of the Mysteries and the Hermetic literature relating to
+such ideas as “service” and “military service” of God,
+“justification,” “pre-existence,” “gnosis,” “spirit,” “revelation,”
+“pneumatic,” “heavenly garment,” and “transformation.”
+
+For the first time the material for a study of Paul from the point of
+view of Comparative Religion is brought together with a certain
+completeness, and the impression which it makes is very powerful. The
+theologian who reads these passages with an open mind will be lifted
+out of the ruts of conventional interpretation. It is as if a flood of
+new thought had streamed into the channels of ordinary exegesis,
+whether critical or otherwise, and swept away the accumulations of
+rubble.
+
+Whether all the explanations are sound, and whether many expressions,
+such as _e.g._ “servant” and “prisoner” of Christ, and imagery—for
+example, that taken from the military life—could not be just as well
+explained directly as by the roundabout way of their use in the
+Mystery-religions, may be left an open question. What is certain is,
+that Reitzenstein has made an end of the cut-and-dried conception that
+Paul simply translated his theology from Jewish thought into Greek
+language, and proves that [pg 219] he knows the scope and exact
+application of the words of the religious vocabulary, and along with
+the terms and expressions has taken over suggestions for the
+presentation of his ideas. Without the possibilities and
+presuppositions supplied by the religious language of the Greek Orient
+it would have been more difficult for him to create his mysticism. He
+found in existence a tone-system in which the modulations necessary
+for the development of his theme offered themselves for his
+disposal._(_182_)_
+
+Reitzenstein remarks with much justice that particular words and
+phrases do not of themselves prove very much, but that what is really
+of importance is the connexion of the passages. Are there sets of
+ideas in Paul which are allied with those of the Mystery-religions?
+What realities stand in the two cases behind the references to the
+mystical doctrine of the miraculous new creation of the man while in
+his living body?
+
+The description and paraphrasing which commentaries and New Testament
+theologies bestow upon the Apostle’s assertions do not suffice for
+Reitzenstein. He wants to understand and come to grips with the
+thought, and to arouse in others the same discontent.
+
+The possibility that the Pauline mysticism might be capable of being
+explained from within appears to him excluded. With all the reserve
+which he imposes upon himself he nevertheless believes himself to have
+proved that the central conception of “the deification and [pg 220]
+transfiguration of the living man is derived from the Mysteries.” The
+conviction of a miracle of transformation taking place in his own
+person, is, he pronounces, not Jewish. Therefore he thinks that Paul
+represents a kind of ancient Jewish prophetism modified by the
+influence of the Hellenistic Mystery beliefs.
+
+The “history of the development” of Paul’s thought he conceives as
+follows: The influence of Greek mysticism, with which he had already a
+literary acquaintance, helped to prepare the way for that momentous
+inner experience which eventually caused a rupture between the Apostle
+and his ancestral religion. “This influence,” he thinks, “increased in
+the two years of solitary struggle for the working out of a new
+religion.” A renewed study of Greek religious literature became
+necessary “from the moment when the Apostle dedicated himself to, and
+began to prepare for, his mission to the _Ἕλληνες_.”
+
+By the method which he applies, Reitzenstein is necessarily driven to
+adopt this far-reaching view. He makes no effort to take into the
+field of his argument the Late-Jewish eschatology, as preserved in the
+post-Danielic literature, in the discourses of Jesus, and the
+Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra. Whatever is not self-explanatory, and
+cannot be explained from the Old Testament, is, according to him,
+derived from the world of thought associated with the
+Mystery-religions.
+
+The proper procedure would really have been to examine the conceptions
+drawn from apocalyptic thought and those from the Mystery-religions
+independently, and then to decide which of them rendered possible the
+better explanation. The best way would have been for Reitzenstein to
+discuss the matter step by step with Kabisch, who had sought to derive
+the fundamental conceptions of the Pauline mysticism from eschatology.
+
+The total neglect of eschatology forces him to some curious
+conclusions. After showing, in opposition to a canonised confusion of
+thought, that there is not the slightest connexion between Paul’s
+doctrine of the first [pg 221] and second Adam in I Cor. xv. 45-49 and
+Philo’s theory about the two accounts of the creation in Genesis,
+since in that case the pneumatic heavenly man would be the first, and
+the psychic earthly man the second,_(_183_)_ he comes to the
+conclusion that the view set forth in I Corinthians must have
+underlying it “the belief in a god ‘Anthropos,’” who came to be
+identified with Christ.
+
+This hypothesis naturally suggests itself to Reitzenstein, because in
+_Poimandres_ he believes himself to have discovered a myth about
+Anthropos._(_184_)_ But is this, even if it were held to be proved, of
+such a character that the Pauline conception of the first and second
+Adam could without more ado be derived from it? Is the complicated
+hypothesis necessary?
+
+Paul’s conception can be explained without the least difficulty on
+eschatological grounds. The first Adam brought mankind under the
+dominion of death. Christ is the Second Adam because He by His
+resurrection becomes the founder of a new race, which in virtue of
+that which has taken place in Him becomes partaker of an imperishable
+life, and acquires a claim to the future possession of the pneumatic
+heavenly body which He already bears. The Second Man comes from heaven
+because the pre-existent Christ, in order to become the founder of the
+“humanity of the resurrection,” must appear upon earth and assume
+fleshly corporeity. He is “life-giving spirit” because the _pneuma_
+which goes forth from Him as the glorified Christ, works in believers
+as the power of the resurrection. This being so, what purpose is
+served by bringing in the very doubtful myths about the god Anthropos,
+especially as Paul, though he certainly thinks of his Second Adam as a
+heavenly being, never anywhere speaks of Him as God.
+
+[pg 222]
+
+This is typical of a series of similar cases._(_185_)_
+
+On the other hand, it is just this one-sidedness which makes the charm
+and the significance of the book. Reitzenstein shows, both positively
+and negatively, how far the analogies from the Mystery-religions will
+take us. Ordinary theologians—since Kabisch had remained without
+influence—had simply designated as Greek everything which they could
+not understand from Late Judaism, and described as Late-Jewish
+whatever they could not understand as Greek. Reitzenstein,
+the—unconscious?—antipodes of Kabisch, would like to make an end of
+this simple game and compel people to choose one horn or other of the
+dilemma. Instead of entering on theoretic discussions, full of “not
+only, but also,” and “either . . . or,” he goes straight forward as
+far as he thinks he can feel firm ground under his feet, and has thus
+contributed, to an extraordinary degree, to the clearing up of the
+situation.
+
+Contrary to his intention and conviction, however, the outcome is not
+positive but negative.
+
+Like Dieterich and others, Reitzenstein takes it for granted that
+Paulinism makes use of the conception of Re-birth, and he feels that
+that is in itself a sufficient reason for not regarding it as a
+product of Judaism._(_186_)_
+
+The assumption being unsound, all the discussions and arguments based
+on it fall to the ground. In particular, the fine parallels from the
+Hermetic literature must be given up. Further, it is not legitimate to
+treat the [pg 223] mysticism of the Mystery-religions and that of Paul
+as directly corresponding to one another. The former is a
+God-mysticism, the latter a Christ-mysticism. The resulting
+differences are greater than at first sight appears. In the
+Graeco-Oriental conception, what is in view is the “deification” of
+the individual man. As the divinity of the particular Mystery which is
+being celebrated is always thought of as the highest divinity, the
+mortal enters into union with the being of God as such.
+
+The Pauline Christ, however, even though He is called the Son of God,
+is not God, but only a heavenly Being. The renewal which is effected
+by fellowship with Him is not a deification—the word never occurs in
+the Apostle’s writings—but only a transference into a state of
+super-sensuous corporeity, which has to do with a coming new condition
+of the world.
+
+Greek thought is concerned with the simple antithesis of the divine
+world and the earthly world. Paulinism makes out of this duality a
+triplicity. It divides the super-earthly factor into two,
+distinguishing between God and the divine super-earthly, which is
+personified in Christ and made present in Him. God, and therein speaks
+the voice of Judaism, is purely transcendent. A God-mysticism does not
+exist for the Apostle—or, at least, does not yet exist. A time will
+come no doubt in the future, after the termination of the Messianic
+Kingdom, when God will be “all in all” (I Cor. xv. 28). Until then
+there is only a Christ-mysticism, which has to do with the
+anticipation of the super-earthly life of the Messianic Kingdom.
+
+To treat Graeco-Oriental and Pauline mysticism as corresponding
+factors, is to perform a piece in two-four time and a piece in
+three-four time together, and to imagine that one hears an identical
+rhythm in both.
+
+Another point of difference is that Graeco-Oriental mysticism works
+with permanent factors; the Pauline with temporal and changing ones.
+The Messianic-Divine drives out the super-earthly angelic powers which
+[pg 224] previously occupied a place between God and the world. It is
+in the very act of coming. But in proportion as it advances, there
+passes away not only the super-sensuous angelic element, but also the
+earthly and sensuous. Christ-mysticism depends upon the movement of
+these two worlds, one of them moving towards being, the other towards
+not-being, and it continues only so long as they are in touch with one
+another as they move past in opposite directions. The beginning of
+this contact is marked by the resurrection of the Lord, the end by His
+parousia. Before the former it is not yet possible to pass from one to
+the other, after the latter it is no longer possible. A mysticism
+which is thus bound up with temporal conditions can hardly be derived
+from the Greek timeless conceptions.
+
+The act, moreover, by which the individual becomes partaker in the new
+being is in the two cases quite different. The Mystery-religions
+represent the “transfiguration” of the living being as effected by his
+receiving into himself a divine essence, by means of the gnosis and
+the vision of God. It is thus a subjective act. According to Paul’s
+teaching the “transfiguration” is not brought about by the gnosis and
+vision of God. These are rather the consequence of the renewal, the
+efficient cause of which is found, not in the act of the individual,
+and not in the inherent efficacy of the sacrament, but in a
+world-process. So soon as the individual enters by faith and baptism
+into this new cosmic process he is immediately renewed in harmony
+therewith, and now receives spirit, ecstasy, gnosis, and everything
+that these imply. What according to the Greek view is the cause, is
+for Paul the consequence. Thus, even though the conceptions show a
+certain similarity, they do not correspond, because they are connected
+with the central event of the mysticism in each case by chains which
+run in opposite directions.
+
+A figure which exactly illustrates one’s meaning may claim pardon even
+for somewhat doubtful taste. In the Mystery-religions, individuals
+climb up a staircase step [pg 225] by step towards deification; in
+Paulinism they spring in a body into a lift which is already in motion
+and which carries them into a new world. The staircase is open to all;
+the lift can only be used by those for whom it is especially provided.
+
+So far as Comparative Religion is concerned, therefore, the case is
+exactly the same in regard to the “physical” element in the mystical
+doctrine of redemption as it was in regard to that of the sacramental
+doctrine. On close examination the historico-eschatological character
+of the Pauline conception is in both cases so all-pervading that it
+invalidates any parallel with the Mystery-religions, and leaves them
+with nothing in common but the linguistic expression. The mystical and
+sacramental aspects of the “physical” element in redemption do not for
+him stand on the same footing with the eschatological, which is
+immediately given with the conceptions of transformation and
+resurrection, but must be in some way capable of being derived from
+it. Only when that is done will the Pauline doctrine of redemption be
+explained.
+
+It is to be noted that Reitzenstein tries in vain to render
+intelligible either the connexion of the soteriological mysticism with
+the facts of the death and resurrection, or the fellowship which is
+therein presupposed between the believer and the Lord. In his
+exposition of Rom. vi. the parallels with the Mystery-religions force
+him into a wrong line, and compel him to think of the objective
+process as a subjective one. He assumes that everything becomes clear
+and simple if once the Apostle is understood to speak of a _voluntary_
+dying, which is neither purely physical nor merely metaphysical, but
+is based upon the thought that we must not sin any more because we
+have taken upon us Christ’s person and lot, and have crucified our
+natural man.
+
+But in Paul it is not a question of an act which the believer
+accomplishes in himself; what happens is that in the moment when he
+receives baptism, the dying and [pg 226] rising again of Christ takes
+place in him without any cooperation, or exercise of will or thought,
+on his part. It is like a mechanical process which is set in motion by
+pressing a spring. The minute force employed in pressing the spring
+bears no relation to that which thereon comes into play; only serves
+to release a set of forces already in existence.
+
+In the Mystery-religions the thought is: We desire not to sin any
+more, therefore we will undergo initiation. Paul’s logic is the
+converse of this, and takes the objective form: Christ’s death and
+resurrection is effectually present in us; therefore, we are no longer
+natural men and cannot sin any more.
+
+The whole distinction lies in the fact that the mysticism of the
+Apostle of the Gentiles is based on historico-eschatological events,
+whereas the Mystery-religions are in their nature non-historical.
+Where they make use of myths they use them in the last resort merely
+as pictures of that which the “mystes” performs or undergoes, not as
+events charged with a real energy, as the death and resurrection of
+Jesus are for Paul.
+
+But the fact of the far-reaching outward and inward resemblances of
+language between the Graeco-Oriental and the Pauline mysticism are not
+affected by that. As though by a pre-established harmony in the
+history of religion, it came about that the mysticism which developed
+out of eschatology was able to find complete representation in the
+language of the Mystery-religions, and found there ready to its hand
+conceptions and expressions which facilitated, suggested, and in some
+cases were even indispensable to its fuller development.
+
+Reitzenstein’s merit is that of having determined exactly and
+unmistakably the meaning of Paul’s language, and having at the same
+time shown that Jewish Hellenism and Greek philosophy had practically
+no part in him.
+
+Of course, it is not possible to decide how much of this [pg 227]
+religious language Paul found already in existence, and how much he
+created for his purpose. It must not be forgotten that the Oriental
+Mystery-religions did not receive their complete development under
+Greek influence until a considerable time after the appearance of the
+Apostle of the Gentiles. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that
+he and they found in existence the same Greek religious vocabulary,
+laid hold of it, and perfected it.
+
+One error of the students of Comparative Religion deserves particular
+mention, for it is typical. In consequence of the parallelism which
+they maintain between the Mystery-religions and Paulinism, they come
+to ascribe to the Apostle the creation of a “religion.”_(_187_)_
+Nothing of the kind ever entered into his purpose. For him there was
+only one religion: that of Judaism. It was concerned with God, faith,
+promise, hope and law. In consequence of the coming, the death, and
+the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it became its duty to adjust its
+teachings and demands to the new era thus introduced, and in the
+process many things were moved from the shadow into the light and
+others from the light into the shadow. “Christianity” is for Paul no
+new religion, but simply Judaism with the centre of gravity shifted in
+consequence of the new era. His own system of thought is certainly for
+him no new religion. It is his belief, as fully known and worked out
+in its implications, and it professes to be nothing else than the true
+Jewish religion, in accord both with the time and with the Scriptures.
+
+Another remark that has to be made is that the students of Comparative
+Religion are inclined to make an illegitimate use of the word
+eschatology when it suits their purpose. They think themselves
+justified in applying it wherever in the Mystery-religions there is
+mention of death, judgment, and life after death, but they forget that
+in doing so they are using it in a much more general sense than that
+which we have to reckon with in the Pauline [pg 228] doctrine. The
+term eschatology ought only to be applied when reference is made to
+the end of the world as expected in the immediate future, and the
+events, hopes, and fears connected therewith. The use of the word to
+designate the subjective future end of individuals, in connexion with
+which no imminent catastrophe affecting all mankind is in question,
+can only be misleading, since it creates the false impression—_exempla
+docent_—that the Pauline eschatology can be paralleled and compared
+with an eschatology belonging to the Mystery-religions. Of eschatology
+in the late Jewish or early Christian sense there is not a single
+trace to be found in any Graeco-Oriental doctrine._(_188_)_
+
+Therefore, the Mystery-religions and Paulinism cannot in the last
+resort be compared at all, as is indeed confirmed by the fact that the
+real analogies both in the mysticism and the sacramental doctrine are
+so surprisingly few. Reitzenstein’s attempt has not succeeded in
+altering this result, but only in confirming it. What remains of his
+material when the circle of ideas connected with the thought of
+“re-birth” is eliminated, and the all-pervading eschatological
+character of the fundamental ideas and underlying logic of Paulinism
+are duly considered in making the comparison?
+
+Finally, the question may be permitted, What would have been the
+bearing of the result if Dieterich and Reitzenstein had really proved
+the dependence of the Apostle’s doctrine upon the Mystery-religions?
+The simple declaration of the result would have been only [pg 229] the
+beginning of things, for immediately the problem whether, understood
+in this way, the Apostle’s doctrine could still have belonged to
+primitive Christianity would have arisen and called aloud for
+solution. The theory that Paul personally transformed the Gospel on
+the analogy of the Graeco-Oriental Mystery-religions is menaced by the
+same difficulties which previously brought about the downfall of the
+theory held by the Baur and post-Baur theology, that he Hellenised the
+Gospel. The hypothesis advanced by the students of Comparative
+Religion is only a special form of that general theory, and can do
+nothing to minimise the _a priori_ difficulties, or those raised by
+the history of dogma in connexion with it.
+
+How does Paulinism as understood by Dieterich and Reitzenstein fit
+into the history of the development of Christianity?
+
+If the Apostle during the first generation had introduced such a
+tremendous innovation as the Greek “physical” mysticism of redemption
+and the sacraments into primitive Jewish Christianity, could the
+latter have permitted this and continued to keep him in its midst? How
+was it possible for it to admit without a struggle, indeed unnoticed,
+something so entirely alien, and to raise no objections either to the
+Christology or to the mysticism or to the sacramental doctrine of the
+Apostle, but simply and solely to his attitude towards the law?
+
+And how, on the other hand, could the later Hellenising theology pass
+over in silence the man who had been its precursor in uniting the
+conceptions of Graeco-Oriental religion with the Gospel? The
+inexplicable fact that Paulinism played no part in the subsequent
+development, but is left to lie unused and uncomprehended, becomes
+still more inexplicable if Dieterich and Reitzenstein are right. They
+assert that the Hellenising force did not issue from philosophy but
+from the Graeco-Oriental religious movement, and found expression in
+Paul not less than in the Johannine and early Greek theology. [pg 230]
+Why, then, are the results so different in the two cases that they
+have no kind of outer or inner relation to one another? If the same
+force is applied at different times to the same object and in the same
+line, can the resultant movement vary so much in direction? How is it
+possible that Paul represents a Hellenisation of Christianity which is
+so unique in character and so unnoticed by others? How could two
+different types of Greek transformation of the Gospel come into
+existence, and in such a way, moreover, that the second discovered
+nothing Hellenic in the first?
+
+According to the theory of Dieterich and Reitzenstein, Paulinism ought
+to be detached from early Christianity and closely connected with
+Greek theology. The contrary is the case. It stands in undisturbed
+connexion with the former, whereas it shows no connexion whatever with
+the latter.
+
+Any one who thinks of the Apostle’s doctrine as in any sense a
+Hellenisation of the Gospel, whether he owes allegiance to ordinary
+theology or to Comparative Religion, has gone over to the radicalism
+of the Ultra-Tübingen party, and must, like it, go forth with his Paul
+out of primitive Christianity into a later period, unless, indeed, as
+the Comparative method admits, he is prepared to consider the faith of
+the early Church as Graeco-Oriental, or Paul as the founder of
+Christianity.
+
+In any case the hypothesis of a Hellenising of the Gospel in early
+Christianity carried out by Paul as an individual is a historic
+impossibility. From the dilemma, either early Christian or Greek,
+there is no escape, however one may twist and turn.
+
+If the students of Comparative Religion had been better acquainted
+with the attempt of the Ultra-Tübingen critics, and had had a more
+accurate understanding of the difference between Paulinism and the
+Johannine and early Greek theology, they could hardly have retained
+the open-mindedness necessary to the commencement of their
+undertaking; for in that case they would have been [pg 231] forced to
+reflect on the inconvenient consequences of their possible victory.
+
+Since they did not enter on such considerations it was difficult for
+them to do justice to Harnack. Here and there they took occasion to
+accuse him of being behind the times and reproach him with having
+given too much importance to the influence of philosophy in relation
+to the Hellenising of Christianity, and too little to that of the
+Mystery-religions. They are not wholly wrong in this. He does not give
+sufficient recognition to the “physical” and sacramental elements in
+Paulinism, and does not work out sufficiently fully the parallel
+between the Mystery-religions and the Johannine and early Greek
+theology. In laying the foundations of his history of dogma he is too
+exclusively interested in the development of the Christology, instead
+of starting from the curious complex of Christology, soteriology, and
+sacramental doctrine which is characteristic of the Pauline as well as
+of the Johannine and early Greek theology, and determines the course
+of the history of dogma.
+
+But this somewhat one-sided view of primitive and early Christianity
+is far from affording the complete explanation of his attitude of
+reserve in regard to the results arrived at by the students of
+Comparative Religion. If he forms a low estimate of the influence of
+the Mystery-religions upon Paul and the earliest period of
+Christianity, he is led to that result by pressing considerations from
+the history of dogma, by which the consequences of the theory put
+forward by the students of Comparative Religion are made clear to him.
+Like Anrich, he recognised from the beginning the weaknesses of the
+theory, which remained hidden from the champions of the method.
+
+It is not possible for any one who holds that Paulinism shows the
+influence of the Mystery-religions to stop half-way; he has to carry
+his conclusion back into primitive Christianity in general and to
+explain even the genesis of the new faith as due to syncretism. The
+latter [pg 232] stand-point is taken up by Hermann Gunkel_(_189_)_ and
+Max Maurenbrecher._(_190_)_
+
+They hold that the belief in a redeemer-god, such as was present in
+Jewish Messianism, was also widely current in the Graeco-Oriental
+religions, and that subsequently, in consequence of the historic
+coming of Jesus, these two worlds of thought came into a contact which
+generated a creative energy. From the process thus set in motion
+primitive Christianity arose. This account of its genesis also
+explains, they think, why it goes much beyond the “teaching of Jesus”
+and the religious ideas which formed the content of Late Judaism, and
+includes mystical and sacramental beliefs.
+
+The historic Jesus did not, according to Gunkel and Maurenbrecher,
+hold Himself to be the “Redeemer.” Therefore, the real origin of
+Christianity does not lie with Him but with the disciples. They,
+having been laid hold of by the power of His personality, and finding
+themselves compelled to seek a solution of the problem of His death,
+referred to Him the already existing myth of the Saviour-God, and
+thereby gave to the set of ideas which had hitherto only existed as
+such a point of historical attachment, both for Orientals and Jews.
+From this time forward the religious ideas which attached themselves
+in the one case and the other to the conception of a redeemer-god
+flowed into a common bed and formed the stream which, as Christianity,
+overflowed the world.
+
+Maurenbrecher, who seeks to work out the hypothesis in rather fuller
+detail, holds that in Galilee, which in view of its history had
+certainly not always been a purely Jewish country, the Messianic idea
+and the non-Jewish belief in redemption were already present and had
+to some extent intermingled, and that it was, therefore, no accident
+that the new religion which after the death of Jesus took [pg 233] its
+rise in the revelation made to Peter should have gone forth from
+Galilee. The advantage, he goes on to explain, which the young
+Christianity possessed among a purely heathen population in comparison
+with the other competing Oriental religions, arises from the Jewish
+element, “which in consequence of the peculiar intermixture of which
+Christianity was the outcome had entered into the universal Oriental
+religion of redemption.” “Conversely, however, it was precisely the
+non-Jewish element in the Christian faith which for the Jews made this
+new religion a really new and higher stage of their religious life.”
+
+This hypothesis is unable to recognise any unique character in Paul.
+What Dieterich and Reitzenstein claim for him, it finds already
+completely realised in the primitive community. The result is that
+Maurenbrecher hardly knows what to make of him, and emphasises his
+Jewish side much more strongly than his Graeco-Oriental aspect.
+
+The solution of the problem worked out by Gunkel and Maurenbrecher is
+not based purely on Comparative Religion, but, as the latter writer
+justly points out, is a kind of synthesis between the views of liberal
+theology and that of its opponents. The fundamental idea comes from
+the latter; but in agreement with the former the existence of a
+historical Jesus is retained.
+
+The retention of this remnant of critical history is, however,
+unnecessary and illogical. If the origin of Christianity essentially
+depends on the intermixture of an Oriental belief in a redeemer with
+the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, and, given a contact and
+interpenetration between the two, must necessarily have arisen, it is
+not obvious why the rôle of a historical Jesus should be—or whether it
+can be—retained in connexion with it.
+
+In Gunkel and Maurenbrecher it is only a stop-gap, which is brought
+into a wholly external connexion with the growth of the new religion.
+They retain His coming as the phenomenon by which the contact of the
+two religious worlds is set up, but not as a fructifying element.
+
+[pg 234]
+
+There is no obvious reason for continuing to take into account this by
+no means indispensable auxiliary force. If the Oriental belief in a
+redeemer and the Jewish Messianic hope were inherently adapted to one
+another, and destined to produce by their fruitful union a new
+religion, then, after all, any kind of impulse, even a mere train of
+thought, might have set the process in motion. The assumption of the
+existence and the death of the Galilaean Rabbi becomes superfluous if
+once it ceases to supply the efficient cause for the arising of
+Christianity. Since Comparative Religion finds the latter in the
+mutual interpenetration of Jewish and Graeco-Oriental elements, it can
+get along just as well with myth as with the questionable history of
+the Synoptists. Such is the teaching of William Benjamin
+Smith,_(_191_)_ and Arthur Drews.
+
+Both these writers make a rather extravagant use of the privilege of
+standing outside the ranks of scientific theology. Their imagination
+leaps with playful elegance over obstacles of fact and enables them to
+discover everywhere the pre-Christian Jesus whom their soul desires,
+even in places where an ordinary intelligence can find no trace of
+him.
+
+Smith takes it for granted that the “Naasenes, whose origin goes back
+to the most remote antiquity, worshipped a Jesus as a divinity.” How
+Christianity grew out of this cult he does not tell us, but consoles
+us with the promise of later revelations. In the preface he betrays
+the fact that he is now only publishing “the first quarter of the
+evidence which he has collected,” and intends to go on quietly
+collecting and arranging his material “until [pg 235] the whole
+irresistible host can take the field together,” and further, that it
+is not the—inevitable—victory which is his main concern, but the
+stimulus imparted to others.
+
+Drews_(_192_)_ does not play the amateur quite so completely, but
+endeavours on the basis of his belief in the pre-Christian Jesus to
+present a coherent picture of the way in which Christianity arose; and
+he makes Paul its creator. “The Jesus-faith,” so runs his thesis, “had
+long existed in numerous Mandaean sects in Western Asia, in many
+respects distinct from one another, before the belief in the
+Jesus-religion acquired a fixed form and its adherents became
+conscious of their religious _differentia_ and their independence of
+the official Jewish religion.” This ancient faith first meets us as a
+new religion in the letters ascribed to Paul. The citizen of Tarsus,
+trained as a Pharisee, heard of a sect-god named Jesus, and brought
+this conception into connexion with the belief in the death and
+resurrection of Adonis and the thought of the suffering “servant of
+the Lord” in Isaiah liii., and thus arrived at the idea that a god had
+appeared in human form, and had by his death and resurrection become
+the Redeemer, and had enabled men “to become God.” This was the
+birth-hour of Christianity. For a historic personality, “to serve, so
+to speak, as the living model for the God-man,” there was no need in
+order to produce this Jesus-religion, which then entered on its
+world-wide career of victory.
+
+Drews’ thesis is not merely a curiosity; it indicates the natural
+limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates of Comparative
+Religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest.
+
+Paulinism, in the judgment of the adherents of this much-vaunted
+method, is to be regarded as a synthesis between primitive
+Christianity and the conceptions current in the Mystery-religions. If
+this be taken as the starting-point, it is necessary to proceed to the
+conclusion—since the synthesis cannot be conceived as [pg 236]
+accomplished by an individual—that Christianity itself is a product of
+syncretism. And if the constitutive factor in the new faith is seen in
+the combination of the Jewish Messianic expectation with a
+Graeco-Oriental belief in a redeemer-god who dies and rises again, the
+assumption of the existence of a historic Jesus who was not Himself
+touched by Hellenic ideas becomes a worthless subsidiary hypothesis.
+It becomes quite a natural step to leave it on one side and to regard
+the synthesis as either developing gradually, by an impersonal
+process, or as coming to birth in the brain of the author of the
+Pauline Epistles, who thus becomes the creator of early Christianity.
+Drews is justified in appealing to Gunkel, and asserting that he is
+only offering his ideas with a logically necessary correction.
+
+Of course, every further logical step in this direction involves
+further sacrifice of historical understanding and an increasing
+necessity to indulge in imaginary constructions. But all these
+consequences are already present in germ in the mere assertion that
+Paul is to be understood from the Mystery-religions, even though those
+who maintain this view do not want to proceed any further than the
+facts which have to be explained seem to them to warrant. As between
+the students of Comparative Religion and Drews the relation is similar
+to that between the legitimate and illegitimate Tübingen schools.
+Here, too, the alternative lies between “scientific and inconsistent,
+and consistent and unscientific.” That means that an absolute antinomy
+appears between the logic of the attempted solution and that of the
+data of fact; which is as much as to say that the problem has been
+wrongly grasped, and that this way, whether it be followed for a
+certain distance only, or right to the end, can never lead to the goal
+of a satisfactory solution.
+
+
+
+
+[pg 237]
+
+VIII
+
+
+SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
+
+
+THE study of Paulinism has nothing very brilliant to show for itself
+in the way of scientific achievement. Learning has been lavishly
+expended upon it, but thought and reflection have been to seek.
+
+Writers went to work with an almost inconceivable absence of plan, and
+wanted to offer solutions before they had made clear to themselves the
+scope of the problem. Instead of seeking a definite diagnosis, they
+treated the symptoms separately, with whatever means happened to come
+to hand.
+
+It was inevitable, therefore, that the study of the subject should
+move along intricate and continually recrossing paths, and engage in
+long and devious wanderings, only, in some cases, to arrive back again
+at the point from which it started. That Paul’s doctrine of redemption
+was thought out on the lines of a physical nature-process had been
+asserted by Lüdemann as long ago as the year 1872. Nevertheless,
+theology hit on the plan of “spiritualising” it, and took very nearly
+thirty years to get back to this discovery.
+
+The account which we have given of the history of the subject has
+revealed the structure of the problem and given it room to develop
+itself. The inner connexion of the questions determines in advance
+what the individual solutions can and cannot effect, and at the same
+time [pg 238] shows what must be provided for in any solution which
+professes to offer a really historical explanation.
+
+To neglect this structure, this schematism of the problem is not
+permissible. It has not been independently invented and imposed from
+without upon the past history of research, but represents its actual
+results, and points the way for all subsequent attempts at a solution.
+
+The problem consists in the two great questions: what Paul’s doctrine
+has in common with primitive Christianity, and what it has in common
+with Greek ideas.
+
+It is complicated by the fact that our only information about the
+beliefs of the primitive Church comes from Paul. His writings are the
+first—and indeed the only—witnesses which we possess upon the point,
+since the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of James give us
+information at best about a non-Pauline, certainly not about a
+pre-Pauline Christianity.
+
+The standard by which the primitiveness of Paul’s Christianity has to
+be measured and tested has, therefore, in the first place to be
+arrived at by the method of arguing backward from itself.
+Nevertheless, the difficulty is not so great as it appears when thus
+theoretically stated. The most general features of the earliest dogma
+can be found without difficulty in the Epistles. These consisted in
+the belief in the Messiahship of the Jesus who had died and risen
+again, and in the expectation of His parousia in the immediate future.
+
+Moreover, the problem as a whole is simplified by the fact that the
+second of the fundamental questions has been clearly answered by the
+history of Pauline study. The answer is this: Paulinism and Hellenism
+have in common their religious terminology, but, in respect of ideas,
+nothing. The Apostle did not Hellenise Christianity. His conceptions
+are equally distinct from those of Greek philosophy and from those of
+the Mystery-religions.
+
+The affinities and analogies which have been alleged cannot stand an
+examination which takes account of their real essence and of the
+different way in which the ideas [pg 239] are conditioned in the two
+cases. Neither Baur nor the theology which owes allegiance to him, nor
+the students of Comparative Religion, have succeeded in proving their
+assertions. It is also interesting to observe that those who undertake
+to explain Paul by the aid of the Graeco-Oriental Mystery-religions,
+entirely deny the philosophic Hellenism which a more conventional
+theological opinion has found in him; so that it is a case of Satan’s
+being driven out by Beelzebub. On the other hand, the Comparative
+study of Paulinism has the merit of having made an end of the
+“spiritualising” and “psychologising” which were practised for a whole
+generation.
+
+The impossibility of anything in the nature of a Hellenic gospel being
+present in Paul appears from the fact, that every view of this kind
+when thought out in its logical implications must arrive at a point
+where it has to do violence to historical tradition. It became
+apparent that it is impossible for a Hellenised Paulinism to subsist
+alongside of a primitive Christianity which shared the Jewish
+eschatological expectations. One must either, as the Ultra-Tübingen
+critics did, transplant the Epistles and the doctrine from the
+primitive period to the second century, or, as some of the votaries of
+Comparative Religion have endeavoured to do, explain primitive
+Christianity as a product of Graeco-Oriental syncretism.
+
+That only a very few investigators have drawn these inferences is not
+due to the fact that they are not justified. It was want of courage,
+of logical consistency, and of the necessary contempt for the rest of
+the facts which prevented them from making the venture. So they
+offered compromises, imposingly dressed out in words but inwardly
+untenable, and talked themselves and others into believing the
+impossible, namely, that a Hellenisation of the primitive Christian
+belief effected by Paul as an individual is really conceivable.
+
+The half-and-half theories which represent Paulinism as consisting
+partly of Greek, partly of Jewish ideas, are [pg 240] in a still worse
+case than those which more or less neglect the former element.
+Encumbered with all the difficulties of the Hellenising theory they
+become involved in the jungle of antinomies which they discover or
+imagine, and there perish miserably.
+
+The solution must, therefore, consist in leaving out of the question
+Greek influence in every form and in every combination, and venturing
+on the “one-sidedness” of endeavouring to understand the doctrine of
+the Apostle of the Gentiles entirely on the basis of Jewish primitive
+Christianity. That implies, in the first place, that the Pauline
+eschatology must be maintained in its full compass, as required by the
+utterances of the letters. But merely to emphasise it is not
+everything. The next point is to explain it. What was the scheme of
+the events of the End, and what answer was given by eschatological
+expectation to the fundamental questions which could not be avoided?
+Are there two resurrections or one; one judgment or two? Who are to
+rise again at the parousia? Does a judgment take place then? On whom
+is it held? What are its standards and its subject? Wherein do reward
+and punishment consist? What happens to the men of the surviving
+generation who are not destined to the Messianic kingdom? What is the
+relation between judgment and election? What is the fate of believers
+who are elect and baptised but who have fallen from grace by unworthy
+conduct? Can they lose their final blessedness, or are they only
+excluded from the Messianic kingdom? Does Paul recognise a general
+resurrection? If so, when does it take place? Is it accompanied by a
+judgment, or do only the elect rise again? When does the judgment take
+place at which the elect judge the angels?
+
+Not until Pauline eschatology gives an answer to all the “idle”
+questions of this kind which can be asked will it be really understood
+and explained. And it must be somehow possible, by the discovery of
+its inner logic, to reconstruct it from the scattered statements in
+the documents. [pg 241] We have no right to assume that for Paul there
+existed in his expectation manifest obscurities, much less that he had
+overlooked contradictions in it.
+
+Is there, then, any possibility of explaining the mystical doctrine of
+redemption and the sacramental teaching on the basis of the Jewish
+eschatological element?
+
+The attempt is by no means so hopeless as it might seem in view of the
+general consideration that Judaism knew neither mysticism nor
+sacraments. It is not really a question of Judaism as such, but of
+apocalyptic thought, which is a separate and independent phenomenon
+arising within Judaism, and has special presuppositions which are
+entirely peculiar to it.
+
+We saw in analysing the “physical” element in the doctrine of
+redemption and the sacraments that the conceptions connected therewith
+are conditioned by the underlying eschatology which everywhere shows
+through._(_193_)_ It needs no special learning to make this discovery.
+Any one who ventures to read the documents with an open mind and pays
+attention to the primary links of connexion will soon arrive at this
+conclusion. That Paul’s mystical doctrine of redemption and his
+doctrine of the sacraments belong to eschatology is plain to be seen.
+The only question is in what way, exactly, they have arisen out of it.
+The future-hope, raised to the highest degree of intensity, must
+somehow or other have possessed the power of producing them. If the
+impulse, the pressing need to which they were the response, is once
+recognised, then Paulinism is understood, since in its essence it can
+be nothing else than an eschatological mysticism, expressing itself by
+the aid of the Greek religious terminology.
+
+Theoretically, too, it is possible to form an approximate idea how the
+intensified expectation of the future might take a mystical form. In
+apocalyptic thought sensuous and super-sensuous converge, in such a
+manner that the former is thought of as passing away into the latter.
+Thus [pg 242] there is present in it the most general presupposition
+of all mysticism, since it is the object of the latter to abolish the
+earthly in the super-earthly. The peculiarity of the mysticism which
+arises out of Apocalyptic is that it does not bring the two worlds
+into contact in the mind of the individual man, as Greek and medieval
+mysticism did, but dovetails one into the other, and thus creates for
+the moment at which the one passes over into the other an objective,
+temporally conditioned mysticism. This, however, is only available for
+those who by their destiny belong to both worlds. Eschatological
+mysticism is predestinarian.
+
+That a mysticism of this kind existed before Paul is not known. It may
+be conjectured that the conditions under which it could develop were
+not present until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
+
+But sacramental tendencies already make their appearance in the
+future-hope which was to lead up to Christianity. The usual view is to
+the effect that Paul was the first to introduce the mystical element
+into baptism and the Lord’s Supper. There is nothing to prove that.
+How can we possibly tell that these ceremonies were previously purely
+symbolic acts? Any one who reads with an open mind the Synoptic
+accounts of John’s baptism must recognise that it was not only a
+symbol of purification on repentance, but is thought of as in some way
+or other guaranteeing salvation._(_194_)_ A transaction, however,
+which itself gives and effects such a result is to be regarded as a
+sacrament.
+
+The manner in which Paul speaks of early Christian baptism and of the
+Lord’s Supper does not make the impression that he is asserting for
+the first time the effectual working of the ceremony; it is rather as
+if he took it for granted as something given and self-evident. This
+would agree with the observation noted above that the baptism of John,
+from which primitive Christian [pg 243] baptism was derived, was
+already thought of as a sacrament.
+
+Whether the Lord’s Supper in the intention of Jesus Himself directly
+conveyed something to the partakers, or whether it only became a
+sacrament in primitive Christian times, must be left undecided.
+
+That the intensified eschatological expectation should go so far as to
+produce sacramental conceptions is in itself intelligible. Those who
+stood on the threshold of the coming glory must have been eagerly
+anxious to gain an assurance that they themselves would be partakers
+therein and to obtain tangible guarantees of “deliverance” from the
+coming judgment. The conception of “marking out” and “sealing” plays
+in apocalyptic thought a very important part. Similar provisions are a
+characteristic product of any intense expectation of the future.
+
+It is, therefore, highly probable that the Baptist, and primitive
+Christianity, created eschatological sacraments which, as already
+established and accredited, Paul had only to take over.
+
+The bearing of these statements and considerations must be shown from
+the Epistles. How far it is possible to trace the genesis of the
+mysticism and the sacramental doctrine from the eschatological beliefs
+of the Apostle cannot be determined _a priori_. The one thing certain
+is that no other way of explanation is possible than that which leads
+from the circumference of his future-hope to the central idea of his
+“theology.” All other interpretations hang in the air.
+
+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.
+
+94 Rudolf Steck, _Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht
+nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen_ (“The
+Epistle to the Galatians examined with Reference to its Genuineness,
+with critical Remarks on the main Pauline Epistles”), 1888, 386 pp.
+The examination of Galatians goes only as far as p. 151; the remaining
+chapters deal with the order of the main Epistles, the relation of
+Paul to the Gospels, the quotations from the Old Testament found in
+the Epistles, the affinities with Philo and Seneca, the marks of later
+authorship, the external evidences from the New Testament and from
+early Christian literature. In conclusion, a hypothesis of the origin
+and development of Paulinism is sketched. The author tells in the
+preface the story of his conversion to the Dutch heresy. At first he
+dissented from Loman, but in the course of repeatedly treating the
+Epistle to the Galatians in his lectures he found to his dismay that
+he was gradually arriving at the theory of its spuriousness.
+
+The views of Pierson, Loman, and Steck are critically examined by J.
+M. S. Baljon in his _Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief
+van Paulus an de Galatiërs,_ 1899, 424 pp.
+
+95 W. C. van Manen, _Paulus,_ 3 vols. (see head of chapter for
+particulars). The author describes on pp. 9-11 how he came to reject
+the Pauline Epistles.
+
+96 The first epistle of Clement mentions (xlvii. I) “the letter of the
+blessed Paul” to the Corinthians, has a direct borrowing from Romans
+(xxxv. 5 = the catalogue of vices in Rom. i. 29-32), and in other
+respects also frequently shows dependence on the main epistles. For
+the detailed attempt to place it at a later date see Steck, 294-310.
+
+97 2 Peter iii. 15-17, “And count the long-suffering of the Lord as
+salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
+given to him, wrote to you, as in all his Epistles when he mentions
+these things, in which no doubt occur some things which are difficult
+to understand, which the unlearned and unstedfast wrest, as they do
+also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (The German
+follows Weizsäcker’s rendering.)
+
+98 As in the present context this phrase might possibly be misleading,
+it may be worth pointing out that it is simply an allusion to the
+famous “timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,” _Aen._ ii. 49.—TRANSLATOR.
+
+99 The puzzle in the case of Justin is that he uses Pauline phrases,
+and therefore seems to know the Epistles, but never mentions their
+author. According to Steck the explanation of this silence lies in the
+fact that the Epistles are, for the author of the _Apology_ and the
+_Dialogue,_ mere literary works and not as yet Church books. The
+_Didache,_ the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the _Epistle of Barnabas_
+show no certain evidence of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles.
+
+100 _Tertullian adversus Marcionem,_ bk. v., goes through the Epistles
+of Paul as used by Marcion in those “Antitheses” which are now lost to
+us.
+
+101 _Theologisch Tijdschrift,_ 1887, pp. 382-533. “Marcions Brief van
+Paulus aan de Galatiërs.” The text thus arrived at is given on pp.
+528-533.
+
+Van Manen is also inclined to hold that early Church witnesses may be
+found for a shorter recension of Romans. See _Die Unechtheit des
+Römerbriefs,_ 94-100.
+
+A reconstruction of the Marcionite text of Galatians had already been
+undertaken by Adolf Hilgenfeld, _Der Galaterbrief,_ 1852, 239 pp., pp.
+218-234. He holds that it was not the original but a mutilated form.
+
+102 Even the letter consisting of chapters i.-viii. is not, according
+to van Manen, all of a piece, as is evident, he thinks, from the
+complicated opening salutation, the vacillating use of “Jesus Christ”
+and “Christ Jesus,” and other peculiarities of detail. One or more
+treatises—on justification by faith, on the equal importance of the
+Gospel for Jews and Gentiles, on the significance of the law, on the
+sense in which believers are entitled to call Abraham their father
+even if they are not by birth of his posterity—may have formed the
+basis of the longer writing. Its close was probably formed by Rom. xv.
+14-33. Later on, the essays which we have in chapters ix.-xi.,
+xii.-xiv. and xv.-xvi. were worked in. The Epistle is supposed to have
+undergone several successive redactions.
+
+103 Steck in the introduction to his work gives references to the
+articles which had appeared up to 1888. The chronicles of the
+following years appear in van Manen. At the head of the
+counter-movement among critics in Holland stood J. H. Scholten. His
+work, _Historisch-critische Bijdragen naar Aanleiding van de nieuweste
+Hypothese aangaande Jesus en den Paulus der vier Hoofdbrieven_
+(“Contributions to Historical Criticism with Reference to the latest
+Hypotheses regarding Jesus and the Paul of the four main Epistles”),
+1882, 118 pp., is directed against Loman’s arguments.
+
+From the German literature we may cite G. Heinrici, _Die Forschungen
+über die paulinischen Briefe: ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre
+Aufgaben_ (“The Study of the Pauline Letters; its present Position,
+and Task”). Lectures given before the theological conference at
+Giessen, 1886, pp. 69-120. Wilhelm Brückner, _Die chronologische
+Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind_
+(“The Chronological Order in which the Epistles of the New Testament
+were written”), 1890, 306 pp. (An essay which received the prize
+offered for the treatment of this question by the Teylerian Society of
+Haarlem.) “On the Chronological Order of the Four main Epistles, pp.
+174-203. Carl Clemen, _Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe,_ 1893,
+292 pp. By the same writer, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen
+Briefe_ (“The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles”), 1894, 183 pp.
+
+In these writings Clemen makes some concessions to the Ultra-Tübingen
+critics. Thus, for example, he is prepared to put Galatians after
+Romans and Corinthians. The mediating views here offered, though
+sometimes interesting, need nevertheless no longer occupy us, as
+Clemen has in the meantime completely recovered his confidence and has
+contradicted himself. In the first volume of his _Paulus_ (1904, 416
+pp., examination of the sources) he pronounces that the four main
+epistles are to be regarded as entirely genuine, if only we may divide
+the second Epistle to the Corinthians into four. In addition to I
+Thessalonians and Philippians, even Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are
+to be regarded as from the Apostle’s pen.
+
+In the preface the author begs that he may not be held accountable for
+his views prior to his Damascus.
+
+The second volume of the work, _Paulus. Sein Leben und Werken,_ 1904,
+339 pp., is in biographical form, and does not enter further into the
+problems of the doctrine.
+
+A writer who takes the “Ultra-Tübingen” side is J. Friedrich
+(Maehliss). In his work entitled _Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs_
+(“The Spuriousness of Galatians”), 1891, 67 pp., he defends both the
+rights of radical criticism and of a “simplified orthography.”
+
+104 See p. 128, _sup_.
+
+105 See p. 128, _sup_.
+
+106 See p. 129, _sup_.
+
+107 See pp. 114 and 115 of the work cited above, p. 134.
+
+108 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Philosophische Dogmatik oder
+Philosophie des Christentums,_ 3 vols., 1855, 60, 62; vol. i., 712 pp.
+On the Pauline Epistles, pp. 144-147.
+
+109 On Romans see also vol. iii. of the _Philosophische Dogmatik_
+(1862, 736 pp.), pp. 263, 264.
+
+The Epistle to the Ephesians, the Second to the Corinthians, and the
+First to Timothy, Weisse holds to be “entirely unapostolic”; in the
+Epistle to Titus and the Second to Timothy he is prepared to recognise
+as a possibility the genuineness of the personal notices.
+
+110 In 2 Corinthians, which shows no evidence of interpolation, three
+different letters to this church are worked up together.
+
+111 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen
+Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper und Kolosser_ (“Contributions
+to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles to the Galatians, Romans,
+Philippians, and Colossians”). Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp. By way
+of introduction the pupil prefixes an essay on the principles of his
+master’s “stylistic criticism.”
+
+In the reconstructed texts it is apparent that the author had spent on
+them, as he says in his Dogmatic, the “diligent work of many years.”
+It is a piece of really skilled workmanship.
+
+112 Daniel Völter, _Die Entstehung der Apokalypse,_ 1882, 72 pp. _Die
+Komposition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe,_ 1890, 174 pp. The Epistles
+examined are those to the Romans and Galatians. _Paulus und seine
+Briefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der
+paulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie,_ 1905, 331 pp. Here
+he deals with Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. The
+results arrived at in the previous book are, as a rule, taken over.
+Völter rejects the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians, and sees in the
+letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, and in the Pastorals, new
+“phases in the development” of Paulinism.
+
+113 In its original form it consisted, Völter thinks, of the following
+sections: i. I, 5b-7, 8-17; v. I-12, 15-19, 21; vi. I-13, 6:16-23;
+chapters xii. and xiii.; xiv. I-xv. 6; xv. 14-16, 23b-33, xvi 21-24.
+
+114 Völter is also able to indicate additions which have taken place
+subsequently to this redaction.
+
+The interpolations in Philippians relate, according to him, chiefly to
+Christology and eschatology. The author of these additions had before
+him Romans and Corinthians in their interpolated form, and was also
+doubtless acquainted with Galatians.
+
+115 The well-known German religious journal.
+
+116 The labour of making an inventory of what has been done in this
+kind of criticism up to the year 1894 was undertaken by C. Clemen in
+his work, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der
+bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und
+Kompilationshypothesen_ (“The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles, with
+Reference to the Hypotheses of Interpolation or Compilation which have
+been applied to them”), 1894, 183 pp. He takes account also of all
+contributions to the journals. This gives a special value to this
+laborious and unselfish work.
+
+A survey of previous work in conjectural criticism is given by J. M.
+S. Baljon in _De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de
+Corinthiërs en de Galatiërs,_ 1884, 189 pp.
+
+117 Friedrich Spitta, _Untersuchungen über den Brief des Paulus an die
+Römer_ (“A Study of the Epistle to the Romans”), 1901, 193 pp. In the
+work _Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums,_ vol. iii. part
+i.
+
+NOTES FOR CHAPTER VI THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH
+CENTURY
+
+118 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren,_
+2nd ed., 1902, vol. i. 696 pp. On Paul, pp. 24-335. (Eng. trans.
+“Primitive Christianity,” vol. i. pp. 33-471.)
+
+119 On this point Pfleiderer follows suggestions given by Teichmann in
+his work, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und
+Gericht_ (“The Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment”),
+1896, 125 pp. As a matter of fact he cannot any more than his
+predecessors give any proof of this evolution.
+
+120 Paul Wernle, _Die Anfänge unserer Religion,_ 1st ed., 1901, 410
+pp. On Paul, pp. 95-220. By the same author, _Paulus als
+Heidenmissionar_ (“Paul as a Missionary to the Gentiles”), Lecture,
+1899, 36 pp. Heinrich Weinel, _Paulus,_ 1904, 316 pp. The book grew
+out of essays which the author published in the _Christliche Welt._ By
+the same author, _Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator._ (Inaugural
+Lecture.) 1899, 30 pp.
+
+Other works from this popular literature are: Adolf Harnack, _Das
+Wesen des Christentums,_ 1900, 189 pp. On Paul, pp. 110-118. Georg
+Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Corinth,_ 1903, 32 pp. Paul Feine, _Paulus
+als Theologe,_ 1906, 80 pp. Carl Munzinger, _Paulus in Corinth. Neue
+Wege zum Verständnis des Urchristentums_ (“Paul in Corinth. New Ways
+of arriving at an Understanding of Early Christianity.”) 1908, 208 pp.
+The author pictures the work of the Apostle in the Greek city in the
+light of analogies offered by modern missionary practice. Whether the
+new way really leads to a better understanding of primitive
+Christianity remains open to question.
+
+As a special investigation of a point of detail at this date we may
+mention Karl Dick’s work, _Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus_
+(“The Author’s ‘We’ in Paul’s Writings.”) 1900, 169 pp. There are not
+many of these studies at this period since the tendency among
+theologians has been more to popularisation than to scientific
+research.
+
+121 _Paulus als Heidenmissionar,_ p. 36. Ernst von Dobschütz calls
+attention to the dangers of this method, which easily becomes
+unscientific in _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters._ (Five
+Lectures, 1904, 138 pp. See p. 61.) Paul Feine, _Das gesetzesfreie
+Evangelium des Paulus nach seinem Werdegange dargestellt,_ 1899, 232
+pp. _Jesus Christus und Paulus,_ 1902, 309 pp. Arthur Titius, _Der
+Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit_ (2nd Part of the
+work _Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung
+für die Gegenwart_—“The New Testament Doctrine of Final Blessedness
+and its Significance for the present Time”), 1900, 290 pp. A.
+Schlatter, in his _NTle. Theologie_ (Pt. ii. The doctrine of the
+Apostles, 1910, 592 pp. On Paul, 199-407), follows a conservative
+biblico-theological method like that of B. Weiss.
+
+122 R. Drescher, too “Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus” in _Festgruss an
+Stade,_ 1900, pp. 101-161, is of opinion that the letters, rightly
+understood, offer us “an imposing amount of material” on the life of
+Jesus. The author thinks that wherever possible Paul referred to the
+teaching of Jesus; and he fought his battle for freedom from the law
+with such confidence “because he knew that he had Jesus on his side.”
+
+It should be mentioned that J. Wellhausen takes up a similar
+stand-point. He gives it as his opinion, _Israelitische und jüdische
+Geschichte_ (6th ed., 1907, 386 pp.), that Paul “was really the man
+who best understood the Master and carried on His work.”
+
+123 _L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ,_ 1904, 393 pp.
+
+124 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., 1909,
+vol. i., 826 pp. See p. 107. To the same effect, Adolf Jülicher,
+_Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. See p. 34.
+
+125 Hermann Jakoby. _Neutestamentliche Ethik,_ 1899, 480 pp. On Paul,
+pp. 243-406. Alfred Juncker, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ part i.,
+1904, 288 pp.
+
+Among other monographs we have to notice Emil Sokolowski’s _Die
+Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehung zu einander,_
+1903, 284 pp. The author ascribes little importance to Greek influence
+in comparison with Jewish, and tries to explain what is peculiar and
+vital in the Apostle’s views as due to his individual experience,
+especially the vision on the Damascus road.
+
+Hans Windisch, _Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus,_ 1908, 132
+pp. The difficulties raised for Paul by his mysticism are pointed out.
+It is shown that this, strictly speaking, makes it impossible for him
+to admit sin in the case of baptized persons. The eschatological
+character of the sacramental-mystical theory of deliverance from sin
+is strongly brought out. The author continues the investigation which
+Paul Wernle, in his work _Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus_ (1897,
+138 pp.), was the first to undertake. See p. 60 of the present work.
+
+126 Wilhelm Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen
+Zeitalter,_ 1903, 512 pp. Simultaneously appeared the same writer’s
+work, _Die jüdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft
+und ihre Bedeutung für das neue Testament_ (“Jewish Apocalyptic, its
+Origin in the Light of Comparative Religion and its Significance for
+the New Testament.” A Lecture, 1903.)
+
+Eschatology receives special attention in the fine work of Hugo
+Gressmann, _Der Ursprung der israelitisch jüdischen Eschatologie_
+(“The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology”), 1905, 378
+pp. The author takes up an attitude of some reserve in regard to the
+“religious-historical method,” and seeks to determine in the case of
+every statement whether it can have arisen in Israel or must be
+regarded as having been introduced from without.
+
+Paul Volz, _Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba,_ 1903, 412
+pp., endeavours, somewhat unconvincingly, to give a sketch of Jewish
+conceptions of the future age.
+
+Everling’s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study
+of Martin Dibelius, _Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,_ 1909, 249
+pp. (“The World of Spirits as conceived in Paul’s Belief”). In
+addition to the Late Jewish passages the author cites also the
+Rabbinical and those suggested by the Comparative Study of Religion.
+The excursuses on the linguistic history of the subject are very
+instructive (pp. 209-232). On Everling, see pp. 55-57 of the present
+work.
+
+127 G. F. Heinrici’s work, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1902, 142 pp., still
+occupies the old stand-point. On Paul, pp. 71-101. For what he has to
+say against the “physical” in the doctrine of redemption, see pp. 95,
+96.
+
+W. Bousset, _Der Apostel Paulus,_ 1906, holds that we shall never
+completely understand the Apostle’s doctrine. We must make up our
+minds to the fact . . that in his letters we have before us only
+fragments of his spiritual life, the full wealth of which we can only
+vaguely imagine. The individual arguments of Paul look to us like
+erratic boulders; only toilsomely and partially can we reconstruct the
+connexion of thought.
+
+128 Rendering _naturhaft._ Dr. Schweitzer has favoured me with the
+following note on this difficult concept, which from this point
+becomes prominent in the discussions. After consultation with him, the
+word has been rendered “physical,” but placed in quotation marks to
+indicate the special use.—TRANSLATOR. “In the special sense in which
+it is here used _naturhaft_ is intended to convey that it is not a
+question of a purely spiritual redemption, but that the whole physical
+and hyperphysical being of the man is thereby translated into a new
+condition. Body and soul are redeemed together; and in such a way that
+not only the elect portion of mankind, but the whole world is
+completely transformed in a great catastrophic event.”
+
+129 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187.
+
+130 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus,_ 1903, 56 pp.
+
+131 How unwilling theology was to draw this inevitable inference is to
+be seen from the works of Weinel and Heitmüller. They refuse to go
+beyond the statement that the sacraments stand in sharp opposition to
+the real “religion” of Paul, and think that they have solved the
+problem by asserting that the Apostle of the Gentiles did not notice
+the contradiction. Weinel remarks, “Paul himself is quite unconscious
+of the problem raised by the collision of the ‘physical’ doctrine of
+redemption of the Mysteries with the ethical doctrine of
+Christianity.” Heitmüller says, “These views of baptism and the Lord’s
+Supper stand in unreconciled and unreconcilable opposition with the
+central significance of faith for Pauline Christianity, that is to
+say, with the purely spiritual, personal view of the religious
+relation which stands in the foreground of Pauline religious life and
+religious thought.”
+
+132 William Wrede, _Paulus,_ 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled
+“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.”)
+
+133 In the sense of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
+
+134 How far Wrede was consciously influenced by Kabisch, and how far
+he has the sense of creating something new, is not quite evident. He
+reckons the book among the “very important studies on special points,”
+to which he refers in the bibliography, but he does not quote it.
+
+135 C. von Dobschütz, _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_
+(“Problems of the Apostolic Age,” 1904, 138 pp.), does not enter in
+detail into the question regarding the genesis of the Pauline view of
+the law, although he treats Jewish Christianity and Gentile
+Christianity with some fulness.
+
+136 See the present writer’s _Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte
+der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (1906, 418 pp.). On Wrede, pp. 327-347.
+(English translation, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” A. and C.
+Black, London, 2nd ed., 1911. On Wrede, pp. 328-348.)
+
+137 This thesis of Wrede’s called into being a new literature upon
+Paul and Jesus which attacked Wrede chiefly on the score of his
+one-sidedness.
+
+P. Kölbing, _Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,_ 1906
+(“The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul”). Adolf
+Jülicher, _Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer, _Wer hat das
+Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus?_ 1907, 104 pp. (“Who founded
+Christianity, Jesus or Paul?”) Wilhelm Walther, _Pauli Christentum,
+Jesu Evangelium,_ 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, _Paulus und Jesus,_
+1909, 72 pp. _Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas,_ 1909, 88 pp.
+(“Christ: The Beginnings of Dogma”).
+
+138 Martin Brückner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,_
+1903, 237 pp.
+
+The work appeared some months before Wrede’s _Paulus,_ but the author,
+who had the opportunity of personal intercourse and the interchange of
+ideas with him, was acquainted with his method and fundamental views.
+As he is also an independent thinker, his work represents not only a
+supplement but a real advance.
+
+139 Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
+
+140 William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Brückner in his thoughtful
+but obscure and heavily written dissertation, _Die Wurzeln der
+paulinischen Christologie_ (1909, 170 pp.) (“The Roots of the Pauline
+Eschatology”). He thinks that the origin of Christianity which they
+suggest does not explain the “characteristic and peculiar connexion of
+Christology with Pneumatology,” and insists that in the Damascus
+vision is to be found the sufficient reason for “the intimately
+organic fusion” of the conception of Christ with that of the Spirit
+which operates through Him. In any case he holds it to be “false in
+principle and method to try to derive the roots of the Pauline
+Christology from the Jewish Apocalyptic Christology.”
+
+141 From the literature we may mention A. Schettler, _Die paulinische
+Formel “Durch Christus”_ (“The Pauline Formula Through Christ”), 1907,
+82 pp. J. Haussleiter, _Paulus,_ 1909, 96 pp. (Lectures, popular.) R.
+Knopf, Paulus, 1909, 123 pp. Eberhard Vischer, _Der Apostel Paulus und
+sein Werk,_ 1910, 143 pp. By the same author, _Die Paulusbriefe,_
+1906, 80 pp. A remarkably good, clearly and simply written guide to
+questions of “Introduction.” Julius Schniewind, _Die Begriffe Wort und
+Evangelium bei Paulus_ (“The Meaning of the Terms ‘Word’ and ‘Gospel’
+in Paul’s Writings”), 1910, 120 pp.
+
+Johannes Müller, _Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums der
+paulinischen Gemeinden,_ 1911, 306 pp. A good analysis of the general
+contents of Paul’s gospel. The theological system and the mysticism of
+the Apostle are not explained. The book is the second edition of a
+study which appeared in 1898 under the title _Das persönliche
+Christentum der paulinischen Gemeinden nach seiner Entstehung
+untersucht_ (“An Investigation of the Origin of the Personal
+Christianity of the Pauline Churches”).
+
+Adolf Deissmann, _Paulus,_ 1911, 202 pp. The book grew out of
+lectures. The author is opposed to the method of investigation which
+aims at understanding the “System of Pauline Theology,” and thinks
+that in following these “doctrinaire interests” it would go further
+and further astray. For him Paul is primarily “a hero of the religious
+life” for whom “theology is a secondary matter.” He holds that the
+Apostle was more a man of prayer and testimony, a confessor and a
+prophet, than a learned exegete and laborious dogmatist.
+
+His aim is, with the aid of reminiscences of two journeys to the East,
+to “place the man of Tarsus in the sunlight of his Anatolian home, and
+in the clear air of the ancient Mediterranean lands,” and he believes
+that when this is done “what previously tired our eyes, like a set of
+faded and rubbed pencil sketches, becomes at once plastic and living
+in its light and shadow.” This hope is by no means realised in his
+work. It appears here, as was also noticeable in the writer’s earlier
+_Licht vom Osten_ (“Light from the East”), that he has a high
+appreciation of local colour and the memorials of ancient
+civilisation, but when it comes really to explaining the ideas he is
+not able to draw nearly so much profit from them as he expected. And
+his contempt for “doctrinaire interests” revenges itself upon his
+treatment. It is obscure and confused, and does not get at the essence
+of the thoughts. In regard to Paul’s mysticism Deissmann has applied
+new catchwords to old psychological considerations, but in nowise
+contributes to the explanation of it. After Wrede’s _Paulus,_ his book
+seems a kind of anachronism. It is, besides, not fitting that what
+professes to be a new view should be presented in the inadequate form
+of a collection of lectures.
+
+142 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., vol. i.,
+1909, 826 pp. On Paul, pp. 96-107 (3rd ed., 1893).
+
+143 Reinhold Seeberg, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 2nd ed., vol
+i., 1908, 570 pp. On Paul, 68-78. The first circle of ideas embraces
+the thoughts regarding flesh and spirit, the power of grace and the
+strength of sin, Christ and the new creation; the second consists of
+the formulas which were created in opposition to Jewish Christianity;
+the third has to do with the mystical body of Christ, in which the
+natural distinctions between men are abolished. On points of detail
+there are many discriminating observations. The first edition, of
+1895, did not even contain any section on Paul.
+
+The 4th ed. of Loofs’ _Dogmengeschichte_ (1906, vol. i., 576 pp.) does
+not deal with the Apostle of the Gentiles, any more than the preceding
+editions.
+
+144 On Kabisch see above, pp. 58-63.
+
+145 A sifting and a survey of results is offered in the closing
+chapter, “Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem” (448-493) in Bousset’s
+book, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_
+1903 (“The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times”).
+
+NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION
+
+146 Hermann Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: “Das
+Weihnachtsfest”_ (1889, 337 pp.); _“Die Sintflutsagen”_ (1899, 276
+pp.) (“Studies in Comparative Religion, ‘Christmas,’ 1889. ‘The
+Flood-legends,’ 1899”). Other works which played an important part in
+creating the new horizon were Albrecht Dieterich’s works on
+Comparative Religion, _Abraxas_ (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth
+of the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and _Nekyia,_
+contributions to the explanation of the “Apocalypse of Peter” (1893,
+238 pp.). The description of the torments of hell in the Akhmim
+fragment is based, he thinks, not on Jewish eschatology, but on
+conceptions which are found in the Orphic literature.
+
+147 _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,_ 1st ed.,
+1906; 2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year
+1905 in the Collège de France.
+
+We may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach’s _Cultes,
+mythes et religions,_ 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).
+
+Otto Gruppe, _Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu
+den orientalischen Religionen_ (“Greek cults and Myths in their
+relation to the Oriental Religions”), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and
+_Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (“Greek Mythology and
+the History of Greek Religions”). In Iwan Müller’s _Handbuch der
+klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (“Handbook of Classical
+Antiquities”), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.
+
+Georg Mau. _Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden
+auf König Helios und die Göttermutter_ (“The Emperor Julian’s
+Philosophy of Religion in his Orations on King Helios and the Dea
+Mater”), 1908, 169 pp. In the appendix there is a German translation
+of both discourses.
+
+Of a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong’s _Das antike
+Mysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und
+psychologischer Beleuchtung_ (“The Ancient Mystery-religions in the
+Light of Comparative Religion, Ethnology, and Psychology”), 1909. 362
+pp. The author is disposed to cite the modern occult “manifestations”
+in relation to the astral body in order to explain certain
+“appearances” in the ceremonies of initiation to the mysteries.
+
+148 On what follows see Hugo Hepding, _Attis, seine Mythen und sein
+Kult,_ 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of
+“Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,” edited by Dieterich
+and Wünsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, _Kultübertragungen_
+(Cultus-Transferences: “Magna Mater,” “Asklepios,” “Sarapis”). In the
+same series vol. viii., 1909.
+
+149 On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, _Les
+Religions orientales,_ pp. 101-103.
+
+150 Note the admission of Hugo Hepding at the close of his chapter on
+the Mysteries (p. 199):—“I am well aware that this account of the
+Phrygian Mysteries is in its details mainly hypothetical. In view of
+the paucity of the information which has come down to us, nothing else
+is possible. In particular the association of the blood baptism with
+the March festival cannot be shown from our documentary material.....”
+He wants to distinguish between an earlier and a later form of the
+taurobolium. The earlier form is not a ceremony of initiation but a
+sacrifice. It was only the later which had in view the initiation of
+the individual. “The first person whom we know by literary evidence to
+have undergone the ceremony of the taurobolium is Heliogabalus.”
+
+151 On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1909)
+pp. 278-300. From his account it clearly appears how little we know
+about these ceremonies of initiation. In any case they were quite
+different from those of the later Mystery-religions. They belong to
+early Greek religion.
+
+152 Franz Cumont, _Les Mystères de Mithra_ (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed.,
+1902).
+
+153 Albrecht Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie,_ 1st ed., 1903; 2nd
+ed., 1910 (edited after the author’s death by Richard Wünsch), 248 pp.
+The excursuses, pp. 92-212, really give a sketch of the fundamental
+ideas of the Mystery-religions in general. Cumont refuses to regard
+the document as a fragment belonging to a Mithras-liturgy because he
+cannot find in it the specific characteristics of the Persian
+eschatology and conception of heaven. On this controversy see the 2nd
+edition of the Mithras-liturgy, pp. 225-228. It would certainly have
+been better if Dieterich had not given the book the unnecessary and
+contentious title.
+
+154 From Dieterich, p. 15.
+
+155 Richard Reitzenstein, _Poimandres._ Studies in Graeco-Egyptian and
+Early Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres “community”
+[_Gemeinde,_ the word is in quotation marks in the German, perhaps to
+recall its frequent use in speaking of the Early Christian Church] is
+supposed to have been founded in Egypt about the time of the birth of
+Christ. Its main characteristic is the mystical basis of the doctrine.
+Later on, in the course of the third century (?) the Poimandres
+community was gradually merged in the general Hermetic communities.
+
+156 From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, _Zum
+religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments_
+(“Contributions to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis
+of Comparative Religion”), 1903, 96 pp.
+
+Paul Wendland, _Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen
+zu Judentum und Christentum_ (“The Hellenistic-Roman Civilisation in
+Relation to Judaism and Christianity”), 1907, 190 pp.
+
+Adolf Deissmann, _Licht vom Osten_ (“Light from the Ancient East”),
+1908, 364 pp. This book, which is rather rhetorically written, treats
+mainly the general literary side of the matter without entering
+specially into the religious problems and the ideas of the
+Mystery-religions. The same author has published a lecture, _Die
+Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung_ (“The
+History of Primitive Christianity in the Light of Linguistic
+Research”), 1910, 48 pp.
+
+Karl Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments_
+(“Interpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative
+Religion”), 1909, 301 pp.
+
+Works which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject are:
+Wilhelm Soltau, _Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen
+Kirche_ (“The Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian
+Church”), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des
+Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_ (“Mission and Expansion
+of Christianity in the first three Centuries”), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp.
+
+157 Gustav Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf
+das Christentum,_ 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in some
+respects supplementing Anrich’s work, is Georg Wobbermin’s
+_Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des
+Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen_ (“Studies from the
+Point of View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence
+of the ancient Mysteries upon Christianity”), 1896, 190 pp.
+
+Johannes Geffken in his popular work, _Aus der Werdezeit des
+Christentums,_ 2nd ed., 1909, 126 pp. (“From the Formative Period of
+Christianity”), does not hold that any very deep influence was
+exercised by the Graeco-Roman Syncretism on early Christianity. He is,
+however, of opinion that Paul “adopted all kinds of oriental views.”
+
+158 See _e.g._ Dieterich, _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed., p. 110. Typical
+also are pp. 176, 177, where he continually speaks of the “death and
+re-birth” of believers as taught by Paul.
+
+[_Wiedergeburt_ has been translated “re-birth” when the general sense
+implied in the comparison with other religions is in view;
+“regeneration” when the reference is primarily to the specific
+Christian doctrine as such.]
+
+159 P. Gennrich in his book, _Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in
+dogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung_ (“The
+Doctrine of Regeneration ... in the Light of the History of Dogma, and
+of Comparative Religion”), 1907, 363 pp., notes that Paul speaks only
+of the “new creature” and not of regeneration; but he does not
+investigate the cause of this peculiarity, but hastens to give a
+psychological explanation of his utterances as a “precipitate from his
+personal experience.”
+
+160 See the introduction to _Les Religions orientales dans le
+paganisme romain,_ 2nd ed., 1909.
+
+161 Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Brückner, _Der
+sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen
+Religionen und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum_ (“The divine Saviour
+who dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation
+to Christianity”). In the series of _Religionsgeschichtliche
+Volksbücher,_ 1908, 48 pp. “As in Christianity, so in many Oriental
+religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God,
+who was subordinated to the Supreme God (sometimes as His Son)
+occupied a central place in the worship and cultus.” What manipulation
+the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone
+before this general statement could become possible! Where is there
+anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra? It is instructive to
+see how the author on p. 30 argues away the effect of this admission!
+
+A popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf Jacoby’s
+work, _Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum_ (“The
+ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity”), 1910, 44 pp., in the
+series of _Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher._ The author deserves
+special credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they
+can form their own impression.
+
+Dieterich remarks with great justice in the _Mithrasliturgie_ (2nd
+ed., 207) how necessary it is to get beyond the catchword
+“Syncretistic,” and point out in every case the source of particular
+mythological statements and ideas.
+
+162 O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious
+thought never really had the conception of a “world-redeemer”
+_(Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte),_ vol. ii., pp.
+1488-1489. It cannot, in fact, be otherwise. The “world-redeemer” of
+Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought corresponds to the “new
+world” which he is in some supernatural fashion to bring in, in order
+to reign in it along with the elect. Graeco-oriental religions did not
+look for a kingdom of that kind, and therefore the idea of the ruler
+of such a kingdom was also undiscoverable and unattainable for them.
+The Messiah is the World-redeemer or Lord of the coming age. He does
+not make atonement for the guilt of mankind nor for that of
+individuals, but suffers and dies vicariously for the elect, and in
+order to set the events of the End in motion. His earthly fate is
+nothing in itself, but falls wholly under the conception of the
+“Messianic woes” which are thought of as the tribulation of the Times
+of the End. How can it be proposed to find an analogue to a figure of
+this kind in myths, the scene of which is laid in the dawn of the
+world, and which have no sort of relation to its ultimate fate.
+
+163 P. 102 ff. He has at this point a detailed discussion of the
+relations between the cultus-meal in Paul and that of the
+Mystery-religions.
+
+On the sacraments see also K. Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche
+Erklärung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the Supper,
+165-207.
+
+164 _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108.
+
+165 Therefore the statement that Jesus baptized in the Judaean country
+(Jn iii. 22) is corrected to the effect that He Himself did not
+baptize, but only the disciples (Jn iv. 2).
+
+166 _Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein._
+
+167 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus_ (“Baptism and the
+Lord’s Supper in Paul’s teaching”). A description and an investigation
+in the light of Comparative Religion, 1903, 56 pp. These journeyings
+on pp. 40-42.
+
+168 _i.e._ Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears
+later, with Reitzenstein, who is described as the “Pneumatic” of the
+science.
+
+169 Albert Eichhorn, _Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament_ (“The Lord’s
+Supper in the New Testament,” 1898, 31 pp.), similarly holds that in
+Paul we have before us a sacramental eating and drinking of the body
+and blood of Christ which can only be explained as based on Oriental
+Gnostic presuppositions. He is, however, constrained to admit that we
+have no knowledge of a “sacramental meal which could have served as
+the model for the Lord’s Supper.” But this does not shake his faith in
+his theory. He thinks that proof is only wanting because there is here
+a gap in our historical knowledge. He has calculated out the position
+of the planet; the mere fact that it cannot be discovered with the
+telescope is wholly due to the inadequacy of the instrument.
+
+170 See on this R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen
+Mysterienreligionen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery Religions”), p. 38.
+
+171 Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. _marg._: laver of regeneration).
+
+172 Wilhelm Heitmüller, _Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und
+religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur
+altchristlichen Taufe_ (“In the Name of Jesus. A New Testament Study
+based on Linguistics and Comparative Religion, with special Reference
+to Early Christian baptism”), 1903, 347 pp. In this thorough and
+extremely interesting study the author arrives at the result that in
+the employment of the name of Jesus it is taken for granted that the
+name in some way or other represents a power. The Christian “belief in
+the name,” he holds, stands on the same footing as Jewish and heathen
+beliefs. “The solemn pronouncement of the name of Jesus at baptism is
+not a merely symbolic form, having to do, for example, with the
+confession of the Messiahship of Jesus, but is thought of as
+associated with real mystical, mysterious effects; the effects must,
+however, be similar, _mutatis mutandis,_ to those which are ascribed
+to the use of the name in other cases: a being actually taken
+possession of by the power which is designated by the ‘name’ of Jesus,
+the expulsion of all hostile powers, consecration and inspiration.”
+“Baptism in the name of Jesus represents, therefore, the combination
+of two sacramental factors—water and the name.”
+
+Unfortunately, Heitmüller has not emphasised the fact that the
+Mystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.
+
+It is also open to question whether the power of the name and of water
+suffice, as he thinks, to explain the Pauline view of baptism.
+
+173 Paul Wernle, _Die Anfänge unserer Religion,_ 1901, p. 129.
+
+174 In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted
+here in full:—
+
+_πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ίδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ
+καθαρμοὶ άδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσὶ μέν ἔτι ζῶσιν,
+εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τετελευτήκασιν, ἃς δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶ ἐκεῖ κακῶν
+ἀπολύουσιν ὴμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει_.
+
+. . . “And they persuade, not only individuals, but whole cities that
+sacrifices and pleasureable amusements afford absolution and
+purification from crimes committed, both for the living and also for
+the dead; these they call Mysteries (initiations), and they free us
+from the torments of the other world, whereas terrible things await
+those who neglect to offer sacrifice.” On expiation see Rohde,
+_Psyche,_ i. (1903), 259 ff.
+
+175 Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the
+question, see Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Korinth_ (“Primitive
+Christianity in Corinth”), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24.
+
+176 R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,_ p. 84.
+The dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing
+between two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head.
+
+177 In I Cor. vi. 11, after saying that thieves, adulterers,
+slanderers, and robbers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the Apostle
+proceeds, “And such were some of you. But ye were cleansed, ye were
+consecrated, ye were justified.” The passage is no doubt intended
+sarcastically, ironically, with reference to the fact that, in spite
+of their baptism, according to present appearances they have not
+changed much. In regard to self-delusion on the ground of baptism see
+also I Cor. x.
+
+178 I Cor. i. 14-16.
+
+179 See Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_
+(1910), pp. 99, 100.
+
+180 See above, p. 162, note 3.
+
+181 In contrast with Heitmüller, who was described above as the
+“hylic,” materialist (see p. 205).
+
+R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre
+Grundgedanken und Wirkungen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery-religions.
+Their fundamental Ideas and Influence”), 1910, 217 pp. The work is
+composed out of a lecture delivered in the Clerical Theological
+Society of Alsace-Lorraine (pp. 1-60), along with extensive notes and
+excursuses (pp. 63-214).
+
+182 Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the
+_pneuma._ Reitzenstein believes himself to be able to show that all
+the passages in Paul’s writings which refer to this subject “are
+explicable from Hellenistic usage,” and leaves open the question
+whether they “are all equally easy to understand on the basis of the
+Hebraic use of _ruach_ or _nephesh,_ or the LXX. use of _πνεῦμα_.”
+
+A detailed discussion is given of the following passages, Rom. vi.
+1-14, xii. I ff.; I Cor. ii., xiii., xv. 34 ff.; 2 Cor. iii. 18, v.1
+ff., v. 6 ff., x.-xiii., and some interesting light is thrown on the
+Epistle to Philemon (pp. 81, 82).
+
+It may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay “Paulus”
+_(Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur,_ 1910, 136 pp. pp.
+107-136) estimates very highly the indirect influence of the
+Hellenistic surroundings and language. In the second edition (1911,
+142 pp.) he goes a little more fully into the individual problems of
+the doctrine.
+
+183 Even Holtzmann shares this confusion. “The Pauline doctrine,” he
+pronounces in his New Testament Theology (ii. p. 56), “is not exactly
+Philonian, but doubtless, like the closely allied Philonian doctrines
+and the more widely divergent later views, grew out of the same stock
+of Jewish reflection on the Creation-narratives. . . .”
+
+184 _Poimandres,_ p. 81 ff.
+
+185 Reitzenstein takes much pains to render intelligible, by a series
+of examples from ancient and modern times, the “dual personality”
+which often seems to manifest itself in Paul (pp. 53-57. 207, 208). He
+overlooks the fact that in the form in which it occurs in Paul it is
+taken for granted by eschatology, and appears in Jesus and the
+disciples. It is much more primitive than anything found in
+Hellenistic mysticism or in any form of romanticism, since the
+distinction of outer appearance and inner being which occurs in Paul,
+depends upon the contrast of the two worlds which are struggling
+together for existence. The dual self-consciousness of Paul is, in
+contradistinction to all other cases, not subjectively but objectively
+conditioned. Besides, it depends on the temporal opposition of “then”
+and “now,” as naturally results from the ardent eschatological
+expectation. On the “doubling” of one’s own personality, such as is
+possible for Greek sensibility, see Rohde, _Psyche,_ vol. ii. (1909),
+pp. 413, 414.
+
+186 See pp. 57, 58.
+
+187 See _e.g._ Reitzenstein, p. 209.
+
+188 That Greek “eschatology” and early Christian are mutually
+exclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich’s _Nekyia_ (1893, 238
+pp.). The fantastic torments of hell as portrayed in the Apocalypse of
+Peter have nothing to do with the Jewish and primitive Christian
+eschatology, since the latter are concerned with the in-coming of the
+new world, and not with the special punishment of individuals.
+Dieterich is quite right when he explains this detailed description of
+torment as due to influences from the Orphic literature. Greek
+religious feeling was concerned with the fate of individuals after
+death. The thought of a coming world which dominates Jewish and
+primitive Christian eschatology is alien to it, because its
+“eschatology” was not created, like the former, by the
+historico-ethical conceptions and aspirations of successive
+generations of prophets.
+
+189 Hermann Gunkel, _Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des
+Neuen Testaments,_ 1903, 96 pp.
+
+190 Max Maurenbrecher, _Von Jerusalem nach Rom,_ 1910, 288 pp. This
+work is the continuation of _Von Nazareth nach Golgatha,_ 1909, 274
+pp.
+
+191 W. B. Smith, _Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien
+zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums,_ 243 pp. It was issued
+in German in 1906 with a preface by P. W. Schmiedel. The author is
+Professor of Mathematics in Tulane University, New Orleans. The book
+consists of five somewhat disconnected essays: i. “The Pre-Christian
+Jesus”; ii. “The Significance of the Nick-name, The Nazarene”; iii.
+“Anastasis”; iv. “The Sower sows the Logos”; v. “Saeculi silentium.”
+(Behind this title masquerades a study of the external arguments for
+the historicity of the Pauline Epistles, in which Smith stammers out
+confusedly what Steck and van Manen had clearly expressed before him.)
+
+192 Arthur Drews, _Die Christusmythe,_ 1909, 190 pp.
+
+NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
+
+193 See above, p. 173 f.
+
+194 Hence John’s indignation at seeing the “viper’s brood” approaching
+to take advantage of it?—TRANSLATOR.
+
+195 For the sense of the term here, see above, p. 83, note.
+—TRANSLATOR.
+
+TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
+
+This book is the first edition of the translation. No second edition
+was published until 1948 which contained only a few minor changes
+anyway. Consequently there are a lot of errors/inconsistencies in the
+spelling and hyphenation. I have left almost all of these as is,
+except for a few cases where line-end hyphens needed to be corrected
+(line 2496 on p. 65: thoroughgoing/thorough-going; line 7492 on p.
+217: Rebirth/Re-Birth). The special case of ‘primitive-Christian’ ❬-❭
+‘primitive Christian’ was examined in detail. In only six cases does
+it seem that ‘primitive-Christian’ is used as a compound word. All the
+others seem to be legitimate as separate words. The inconsistent uses
+of naive (1), naïve (3), naively (1), naïvely (1), naïveté (3) were
+left as is. So was a priori (7), à priori (2) and L’Apôtre (4),
+L’Apotre (1). Two un-paired quotation marks were also left as is:
+up-paired " p. 34 line 1528 (wrong but left in)
+un-paired " n. 103 p. 134 line 9638 (wrong but left in)
+
+Because of the use of English, German, Dutch, and Latin there were
+many different spellings of words flagged as errors which were due to
+the same word being spelled differently in different languages.
+
+
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76284 ***