diff options
Diffstat (limited to '76284-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 76284-h/76284-h.htm | 12317 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76284-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 124735 bytes |
2 files changed, 12317 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/76284-h/76284-h.htm b/76284-h/76284-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d2be2df --- /dev/null +++ b/76284-h/76284-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,12317 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> + <title>Paul and his Interpreters | Project Gutenberg</title> + <meta name="author" content="Albert Schweitzer"> + <meta name="publisher" content="Actonian Press"> + <meta name="generator" content="BBEdit 15.1.2"> + <style> + + h1 {font-size: 185%; text-align: center; font-weight: normal; + margin-bottom: 2em} + h2 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center} + h4 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center} + h3 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center; + font-weight: normal; + font-size: 95%} + h5 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left; + font-weight: normal; + font-style: italic; + font-size: 100%} + .drop { text-indent: 0pt} + .drop:first-letter { font-size:xx-large} + li.toc1 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em} + li.toc1c {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center} + li.toc2 {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 1em} + .moral {font-size: 90%} + .center {text-align: center} + .right {text-align: right} + .italic {font-style: italic} + +.tei { + margin: 0; + padding: 0; + font-size: 100%; + font-weight: normal; + font-style: normal + } +body.tei { + margin: 4ex 10%; + text-align: justify + } +div.tei { + margin: 2em 0 + } +p.tei { + margin: 0 0 1em 0; + text-indent: 0 + } +blockquote.tei { + margin: 2em 4em + } +hr.doublepage { + margin: 4em 0; + height: 5px + } +hr.page { + margin: 4em 0; + height: 2px + } +ul.tei-index { + list-style-type: none + } +dl.tei { + margin: 1em 0 + } +span.tei-pb { + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + width: 8%; + font-style: normal + } +table.tei { + border-collapse: collapse + } +:link { + border: none + } +:visited { + border: none + } +.summary { + font-size: 90% + } + </style> +</head> + +<body class="tei"> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76284 ***</div> +<hr class="page"> +<div class="tei" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">PAUL</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 100%">AND</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">HIS INTERPRETERS</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 120%">A CRITICAL HISTORY</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 100%">BY</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">ALBERT SCHWEITZER</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0em"><span style="font-size: 70%">PRIVATDOZENT IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASSBURG</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span style="font-size: 70%">AUTHOR OF “THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS”</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 90%">TRANSLATED BY</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">W. MONTGOMERY, BA., BD.</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 110%">LONDON</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span style="font-size: 110%">ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span style="font-size: 110%">1912</span></p> +</div> + +<p><hr class="page"> +<div class="tei" style="text-align: center"> +<img alt="Cover Art" src="images/cover.jpg" id="img_images_cover.jpg"> +</div> + +<p><hr class="page"> +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagev">[pg v]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgv"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_p" class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"> +<span style="font-size: 173%; font-style: italic" id="mbp_toc_0">PREFACE</span></h2> + +<div class="italic"> + +<p class="drop">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.”<a id="pn1-ref" href="#pn1"><sup>1</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagevi">[pg vi]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgvi"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Paulinism is an integral part of the history of dogma; +for the history of dogma begins immediately upon the death +of Jesus.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagevii">[pg vii]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgvii"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageviii">[pg viii]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgviii"></a> +front of the later “Gospel.” Even the relation which each +severally bears to primitive Christianity remains uncertain.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageix">[pg ix]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgix"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagex">[pg x]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgx"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagexi">[pg xi]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgxi"></a> +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. </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right">ALBERT SCHWEITZER.</p> +</div> +<p>19<i>th Sept</i>. 1911.</p> + +<p><hr class="page"> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pagexiii">[pg xiii]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pgxiii"></a> + +<h2 id="contents">Contents</h2> +<ul class="tei tei-index"> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER I</li> + <li class="toc2">THE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_1">[1]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER II</li> + <li class="toc2">BAUR AND HIS CRITICS . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_2">[12]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER III</li> + <li class="toc2">FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_3">[22]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER IV</li> + <li class="toc2">H. J. HOLTZMANN . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_4">[100]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER V</li> + <li class="toc2">CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_5">[117]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER VI</li> + <li class="toc2">THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_6">[151]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER VII</li> + <li class="toc2">PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_7">[179]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">CHAPTER VIII</li> + <li class="toc2">SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_8">[237]</a></li> + <li class="toc1c">INDEX . . . <a href="#mbp_toc_9">251</a></li> + <li class="toc1c"><a href="#mbp_toc_15" class="toc1c">ENDNOTES</a></li> +</ul> + +<p><hr class="page"> +<p class="chapter"></p> +<h1>PAUL<br><br> +AND HIS INTERPRETERS</h1> + + + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page1">[pg 001]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg1"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_1">I<br><br> +THE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD</h2> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hugo Grotius.</b></i> Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 1641-1646.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann Jakob Rambach.</b></i> Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. 1723.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten.</b></i> Unterricht der Auslegung der heiligen +Schrift. (Instructions in the art of Expounding Holy Scripture.) +1742.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann Christoph Wolf.</b></i> Curae philologicae et criticae. 1741.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann August Ernesti.</b></i> Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti. 1762. +(Eng. Trans., Biblical Interpretation of the New Testament, +Edinburgh, 1832-1833.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann Salomo Semler.</b></i> Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutic. +(Introduction to Theological Hermeneutic.) 1760-1769.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons. (Essay on the free +Investigation of the Canon.) 1771-1775.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Latin Paraphrases of the Epistles to the Romans (1769) and Corinthians +(1770, 1776).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann David Michaelis.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Translation of the New +Testament.) 1790.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen +Testaments. (Notes for Unlearned Readers on his Translation of the +New Testament.) 1790-1792.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher.</b></i> Über den sogenannten ersten +Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. (On the so-called First Epistle +of Paul to Timothy.) 1807.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><b><i>Johann Gottfried Eichhorn.</i></b> Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das +Neue Testament. (Historical and Critical Introduction to the New +Testament.) 3 vols. 1814.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page2">[pg 002]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg2"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer.</b></i> Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. +(The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1801. </p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Leonhard Usteri.</b></i> Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. (The +Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1824.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>August Ferdinand Dähne.</b></i> Entwicklung des paulinischen +Lehrbegriffs. (The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1835. </p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Karl Schrader.</b></i> Der Apostel Paulus. 1830-1836.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. A. W. Neander.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. M. Leberecht De Wette.</b></i> Erklärung der Briefe an die Römer, +Korinther, Galater und Thessalonicher. (Exposition of the Epistles +to the Romans (2nd ed., 1838), Corinthians, etc. (1841).)</p> + +<p class="subTitleLast"><i><b>H. E. G. Paulus.</b></i> Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und +Römer-Christen. (The Apostle Paul’s Doctrinal Epistles to the +Galatian and Roman Christians.) 1831.</p> + +<p class="drop">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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Annotationes in Novum Testamentum</i><a id="c1n1-ref" href="#c1n1"><sup>2</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page3">[pg 003]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg3"></a> + +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 <i>Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae</i><a id="c1n2-ref" href="#c1n2"><sup>3</sup></a> 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.”<a id="c1n3-ref" href="#c1n3"><sup>4</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 <i>Curae philologicae et criticae.</i><a id="c1n4-ref" href="#c1n4"><sup>5</sup></a> +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 <i>Institutio interpretis Novi +Testamenti</i> appeared in 1762.<a id="c1n5-ref" href="#c1n5"><sup>6</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>But Ernesti’s work suffices to show that the +undogmatic philological method did not in itself lead to any +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page4">[pg 004]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg4"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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),<a id="c1n6-ref" href="#c1n6"><sup>7</sup></a> “Essay on +the free Investigation of the Canon” (1771-1775),<a id="c1n7-ref" href="#c1n7"><sup>8</sup></a> +“A new attempt to promote a generally profitable +Exposition and Application of the New Testament” +(1786)<a id="c1n8-ref" href="#c1n8"><sup>9</sup></a>—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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page5">[pg 005]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg5"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c1n9-ref" href="#c1n9"><sup>10</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page6">[pg 006]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg6"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>a priori</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page7">[pg 007]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg7"></a> +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),<a id="c1n10-ref" href="#c1n10"><sup>11</sup></a> 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<a id="c1n11-ref" href="#c1n11"><sup>12</sup></a> 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.<a id="c1n12-ref" href="#c1n12"><sup>13</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page8">[pg 008]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg8"></a> +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. </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Schleiermacher’s omissions are supplied by Eichhorn +in his well-known Introduction.<a id="c1n13-ref" href="#c1n13"><sup>14</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page9">[pg 009]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg9"></a> +between Paul and his helpers as it is represented by these +Epistles.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,”<a id="c1n14-ref" href="#c1n14"><sup>15</sup></a> 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.<a id="c1n15-ref" href="#c1n15"><sup>16</sup></a> </p> + +<p>Usteri wishes to show the subjective imprint and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page10">[pg 010]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg10"></a> +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.<a id="c1n16-ref" href="#c1n16"><sup>17</sup></a> A peculiar +interlude in the investigation of Paulinism was due to +the Heidelberger H. E. G. Paulus.<a id="c1n17-ref" href="#c1n17"><sup>18</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page11">[pg 011]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg11"></a> +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.” </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page12">[pg 012]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg12"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_2">II<br><br> + +BAUR AND HIS CRITICS</h2> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ferdinand Christian Baur.</b></i> Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen +Gemeinde. (The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church.) +Appeared in the <i>Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie,</i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1st ed., 1845; 2nd ed., 1866-67). +(Eng. Trans. by “A. P.” and A. Menzies, 1873-75.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Beiträge zu den Briefen an die Korinther, Thessalonicher und Römer. +(Contributions to the elucidation of the Epistles to the Corinthians, +Thessalonians and Romans.) <i>Tübinger Jahrbücher für Theologie.</i> +1850-57.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie. 1864. (Lectures on +New-Testament Theology.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte. (Lectures on +the History of Dogma.) Vol. i., 1865.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albert Schwegler.</b></i> Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1846. (The +Post-Apostolic Age.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Carl Wieseler.</b></i> Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 1848. +(The Chronology of the Apostolic Age.) On the Pauline Epp., +225-278.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albrecht Ritschl.</b></i> Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. (The +Origin of the Early Catholic Church.) 1st ed., 1850; 2nd ed., 1857.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Gotthard Viktor Lechler.</b></i> Das apostolische und nachapostolische +Zeitalter. (The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.) 1852. (Eng. +Trans. by A. J. K. Davidson, Edinburgh, 1886.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Richard Adalbert Lipsius.</b></i> Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre. +(The Pauline Doctrine of Justification.) 1853.</p> + +<p class="drop">IN the fourth number of the <i>Tübinger Zeitschrift für +Theologie</i> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page13">[pg 013]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg13"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page14">[pg 014]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg14"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page15">[pg 015]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg15"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page16">[pg 016]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg16"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>A year after the appearance of Baur’s “Paulus”—in +1846—Albert Schwegler published his work on the +post-apostolic age.<a id="c2n1-ref" href="#c2n1"><sup>19</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c2n2-ref" href="#c2n2"><sup>20</sup></a> The +first edition (1850) is primarily directed against Schwegler +only; in the second (1857) he develops his opposition of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page17">[pg 017]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg17"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>The problem regarding the nature of the unity between +Paulinism and primitive Christianity is thus recognised +and formulated.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page18">[pg 018]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg18"></a> +ideas laid down by Christ” the proof of the “essential +agreement” remains a pious aspiration.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Another work which is occupied with the question of +the unity between Paulinism and primitive Christianity +is Lechler’s “Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.”<a id="c2n3-ref" href="#c2n3"><sup>21</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page19">[pg 019]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg19"></a> + +<p>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.”<a id="c2n4-ref" href="#c2n4"><sup>22</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page20">[pg 020]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg20"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>While his critics were at work Baur had not been idle. +From 1850 onwards he published in the <i>Tübinger +Jahrbücher für Theologie,</i> which had superseded the +<i>Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie,</i> a series of separate +investigations of the Pauline Epistles.<a id="c2n5-ref" href="#c2n5"><sup>23</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c2n6-ref" href="#c2n6"><sup>24</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c2n7-ref" href="#c2n7"><sup>25</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page21">[pg 021]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg21"></a> +teaching by the light of the Hegelian Intellectualism. +Now he tries to grasp his ideas historically and +empirically, and to describe them accordingly.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page22">[pg 022]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg22"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_3">III<br><br> + +FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN</h2> + +<p class="center">MONOGRAPHS UPON PAUL</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Hausrath.</b></i> Der Apostel Paulus (1865, 172 pp.; biographical. +2nd ed., 1872, 503 pp.).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernest Renan.</b></i> St. Paul (1869, 570 pp.; biographical and theological).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Auguste Sabatier.</b></i> L’Apôtre Paul (1870, theological). (E.T. by +A. M. Hellier, 1891.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Otto Pfleiderer.</b></i> Der Paulinismus (1873; 2nd ed., 1890; theological). +(E.T. by E. Peters, 1877.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Carl Holsten.</b></i> Das Evangelium des Paulus (1st pt., 1880; 2nd pt., +1898).</p> + +<p class="center">NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eduard Reuse.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Christian Karl von Hofmann.</b></i> Pt, ix. of “Die Heilige Schrift.” 1881.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Heinrich Julius Holtzmann.</b></i> Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1885.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Bernhard Weiss.</b></i> (Same title.) 1886. (E.T. by A. J. K. Davidson, +1887).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Frédéric Godet.</b></i> Introduction au Nouveau Testament. 1893.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Jülicher.</b></i> Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1894. (E.T. by +J. P. Ward, 1904.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Theodor Zahn.</b></i> (Same title.) 1897. (E.T. of 3rd ed. 1909). </p> + +<p class="center">WORKS ON NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eduard Reuss.</b></i> Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique. +3rd ed., 1864. (E.T. by A. Harwood, 1872.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Bernhard Weiss.</b></i> Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen +Testaments. 1st ed., 1868; 6th ed., 1895. (E.T. Edin. 1882.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Christian Karl von Hofmann.</b></i> Pt. xi. of “Die Heilige Schrift.” 1886.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Willibald Beyschlag.</b></i> Neutestamentliche Theologie. 1891. 2nd ed., +1896. (E.T. Edin. 1895.)</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page23">[pg 023]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg23"></a> + +<p class="center">GENERAL WORKS ON PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernest Havet.</b></i> Le Christianisme et ses origines (4 vols., 1884).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Karl von Weizsäcker.</b></i> Das apostolische Zeitalter. 1886. (E.T. The +Apostolic Age, 1894.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Otto Pfleiderer.</b></i> Das Urchristentum. 1887. (E.T. of 2nd. altered ed., +see later.)</p> + +<p class="center">STUDIES ON SPECIAL POINTS</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Carl Holsten.</b></i> Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. 1868.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Fr. Th. L. Ernesti.</b></i> Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus. 1868.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Emmanuel Friedrich Kautzsch.</b></i> De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo +apostolo allegatis. 1869.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Franz Delitzsch.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hermann Lüdemann.</b></i> Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus. 1872. </p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albrecht Ritschl.</b></i> 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).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>H. H. Wendt.</b></i> Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist bei Paulus. 1878. +(The Meaning of the Terms Flesh and Spirit in Paul’s Writings.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Louis Eugène Ménégoz.</b></i> Le Péché et la redemption d’après St Paul. +1882.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eduard Grafe.</b></i> Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. 1884. (The +Pauline Teaching about the Law.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Gustav Volkmar.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Alfred Resch.</b></i> Agrapha. Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente. +1888. On the Question whether Sayings of Jesus have been +preserved in Paul’s Writings.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Otto Everling.</b></i> Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie. 1888.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann Gloël.</b></i> Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus. +1888. (The Holy Spirit in Paul’s Preaching of Salvation.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hermann Gunkel.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eduard Grafe.</b></i> Das Verhältnis der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia +Salamonis. 1892. (The Relation of the Pauline Writings to the +Book of Wisdom.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Deissmann.</b></i> Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu.” +1892. (The New Testament Formula “in Christ Jesus.”)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Richard Kabisch.</b></i> Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren +Zusammenhängen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus. 1893. (Paul’s +Eschatology in Relation to his General System.)</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page24">[pg 024]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg24"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Brandt.</b></i> Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des +Christentums. 1893. (The Gospel History and the Origin of +Christianity.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernst Curtius.</b></i> Paulus in Athen. 1894.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>E. Bruston.</b></i> La Vie future d’après St Paul. 1894.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hans Vollmer.</b></i> Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus. 1895.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernst Teichmann.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Theodor Simon.</b></i> Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus. 1897.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Wernle.</b></i> Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus. (The Christian +and Sin in Paul’s Writings.) 1897. </p> + +<p class="center">CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS </p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Bruno Bauer.</b></i> Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. 1850-1851-1852.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Christian Hermann Weisse.</b></i> Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen +Briefe. 1867. (Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline +Epistles.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>H. J. Holtzmann.</b></i> Kritik der Epheser und Kolosserbriefe. 1872. +Die Pastoralbriefe. 1880.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eduard Reuss.</b></i> Les Épîtres pauliniennes (“La Bible,” pt. iii.). 1878.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Georg Heinrici.</b></i> Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die +Korinther. 1880. Das zweite, etc. 1887.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>P. W. Schmiedel.</b></i> 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.”)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>R. A. Lipsius.</b></i> Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, Römer und +Philipper in Holtzmann’s “Handkommentar.” 1891.</p> + +<p class="center">WORKS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER, OR DEALING WITH COGNATE +SUBJECTS</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Emil Schürer.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Karl Siegfried.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ferdinand Weber.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Gass.</b></i> Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1881.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Theobald Ziegler.</b></i> Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1886.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page25">[pg 025]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg25"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Edwin Hatch.</b></i> The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the +Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures for 1888).</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Theodor Zahn.</b></i> Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum +Christentum. 1894.</p> + +<p class="subTitleLast"><i><b>Adolf Harnack.</b></i> Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., 1894. (E.T. History of +Dogma, 1894-1899). Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur +bis Eusebius. Vol. i., 1897.</p> + +<p class="drop">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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c3n1-ref" href="#c3n1"><sup>26</sup></a> supplied a detailed argument in +favour of this conclusion.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page26">[pg 026]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg26"></a> + +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.<a id="c3n2-ref" href="#c3n2"><sup>27</sup></a> The redactor he identified with the author of the +Epistle to the Ephesians.</p> + +<p>While there was this general consensus in the critical +camp, which was ratified in Holtzmann’s +“Introduction,”<a id="c3n3-ref" href="#c3n3"><sup>28</sup></a> the most diverse opinions on special points +are found. Some attempts were made to save the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page27">[pg 027]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg27"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n4-ref" href="#c3n4"><sup>29</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>There were, of course, as time went on, attempts to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page28">[pg 028]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg28"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c3n5-ref" href="#c3n5"><sup>30</sup></a> 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,”<a id="c3n6-ref" href="#c3n6"><sup>31</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>There are, so runs his thesis, two conceptions of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page29">[pg 029]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg29"></a> +“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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page30">[pg 030]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg30"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. </p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c3n7-ref" href="#c3n7"><sup>32</sup></a> The latter +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page31">[pg 031]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg31"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Pfleiderer<a id="c3n8-ref" href="#c3n8"><sup>33</sup></a> 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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page32">[pg 032]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg32"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n9-ref" href="#c3n9"><sup>34</sup></a> His +work <i>L’Apotre Paul</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page33">[pg 033]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg33"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>loci,</i> 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 <i>a priori</i> 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.</p> + +<p>It is not less prejudicial when others, as for example +Holsten,<a id="c3n10-ref" href="#c3n10"><sup>35</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page34">[pg 034]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg34"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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)<a id="c3n11-ref" href="#c3n11"><sup>36</sup></a> 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 +<i>loci,”</i> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Lüdemann was prevented by the task which he had set +himself from adopting the division according to <i>loci.</i> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page35">[pg 035]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg35"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>loci.</i> There is thus nothing to be +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page36">[pg 036]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg36"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page37">[pg 037]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg37"></a> +have so arranged the course of the investigation that all +important passages can be respectably housed.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page38">[pg 038]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg38"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>The writer who goes furthest in this direction is Holsten. +In his work on the “Gospel of Paul and of Peter”<a id="c3n12-ref" href="#c3n12"><sup>37</sup></a> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page39">[pg 039]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg39"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page40">[pg 040]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg40"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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”<a id="c3n13-ref" href="#c3n13"><sup>38</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page41">[pg 041]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg41"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In addition to Ritschl, Bernhard Weiss<a id="c3n14-ref" href="#c3n14"><sup>39</sup></a> and Willibald +Beyschlag,<a id="c3n15-ref" href="#c3n15"><sup>40</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>The writer who makes things easiest for himself is +Von Hofmann.<a id="c3n16-ref" href="#c3n16"><sup>41</sup></a> For him there is no “Pauline system +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page42">[pg 042]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg42"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n17-ref" href="#c3n17"><sup>42</sup></a> </p> + +<p>It is curious that most of these authors believe that +they reduce the acuteness of the problem by pointing +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page43">[pg 043]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg43"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page44">[pg 044]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg44"></a> +the Gentiles as a phenomenon, an aspect, of primitive +Christianity.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n18-ref" href="#c3n18"><sup>43</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page45">[pg 045]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg45"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,”<a id="c3n19-ref" href="#c3n19"><sup>44</sup></a> and Weber’s “System of +Palestinian Theology in the Early Synagogues.”<a id="c3n20-ref" href="#c3n20"><sup>45</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page46">[pg 046]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg46"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n21-ref" href="#c3n21"><sup>46</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page47">[pg 047]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg47"></a> +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” <i>(pneumatisch)</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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.).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n22-ref" href="#c3n22"><sup>47</sup></a> The +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page48">[pg 048]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg48"></a> +net result is not great. The parallels adduced are so +uncharacteristic that they throw no new light on the +Apostle’s ideas.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n23-ref" href="#c3n23"><sup>48</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page49">[pg 049]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg49"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page50">[pg 050]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg50"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page51">[pg 051]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg51"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page52">[pg 052]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg52"></a> +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.<a id="c3n24-ref" href="#c3n24"><sup>49</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>So far, it occurs to no one that the want of connexion +may perhaps result from the fact that the separate +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page53">[pg 053]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg53"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page54">[pg 054]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg54"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>loci,</i> and consequently accorded eschatology, in principle, +no greater importance for Paulinism than it had had for +Reformation theology.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page55">[pg 055]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg55"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n25-ref" href="#c3n25"><sup>50</sup></a> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page56">[pg 056]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg56"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>How wide-reaching was the significance of his synthetic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page57">[pg 057]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg57"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>loci,</i> by which it had long been kept in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page58">[pg 058]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg58"></a> +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.”<a id="c3n26-ref" href="#c3n26"><sup>51</sup></a> 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.<a id="c3n27-ref" href="#c3n27"><sup>52</sup></a> </p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page59">[pg 059]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg59"></a> +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, <i>sarkic,</i> body has been put off.</p> + +<p>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 <i>unio +mystica</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page60">[pg 060]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg60"></a> +into the corporeity of those who in virtue of the <i>unio +mystica</i> 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.</p> + +<p>The great paradoxes of Paulinism are here for the first +time clearly pointed out and so described that their real +eschatological essence appears.<a id="c3n28-ref" href="#c3n28"><sup>53</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page61">[pg 061]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg61"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page62">[pg 062]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg62"></a> +are the primary questions which the theory of the events +of the End had to answer.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>loci.</i> 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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page63">[pg 063]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg63"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c3n29-ref" href="#c3n29"><sup>54</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>Schmiedel,<a id="c3n30-ref" href="#c3n30"><sup>55</sup></a> in his commentaries, and Harnack<a id="c3n31-ref" href="#c3n31"><sup>56</sup></a> express +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page64">[pg 064]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg64"></a> +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,<a id="c3n32-ref" href="#c3n32"><sup>57</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page65">[pg 065]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg65"></a> +Apostle’s system of doctrine when they have only +discussed his relations with Jewish-Hellenism.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The well-known account of Paulinism in his “Apostolic +Age”<a id="c3n33-ref" href="#c3n33"><sup>58</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page66">[pg 066]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg66"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c3n34-ref" href="#c3n34"><sup>59</sup></a> and Pfleiderer brought it +into general currency.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The psychological process is differently conceived by +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page67">[pg 067]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg67"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n35-ref" href="#c3n35"><sup>60</sup></a> Paul, +he thinks, reached back beyond Late Judaism to join +hands with the ancient prophetism, and similarly rose +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page68">[pg 068]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg68"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>obiter +dicta</i> which are not worked out in any way.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page69">[pg 069]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg69"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page70">[pg 070]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg70"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n36-ref" href="#c3n36"><sup>61</sup></a>—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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page71">[pg 071]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg71"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page72">[pg 072]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg72"></a> +ideas, a Jewish and a Greek element can at need be +thought of as in some way or other combined in a single +consciousness.</p> + +<p>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!</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c3n37-ref" href="#c3n37"><sup>62</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>There is, however, a further complication in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page73">[pg 073]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg73"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>credo quia absurdum.</i></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Pfleiderer, however, makes the mistake of referring +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page74">[pg 074]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg74"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>To oppose this view Teichmann entered the lists.<a id="c3n38-ref" href="#c3n38"><sup>63</sup></a> +In his over-confident zeal he plays the part of Polos in +Plato’s Gorgias.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page75">[pg 075]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg75"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>He arrives at the following conclusions:—In +I Thessalonians Paul still assumes that Christians will enter the +kingdom of heaven with their <i>earthly</i> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>Teichmann professes to have demonstrated the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page76">[pg 076]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg76"></a> +Hellenisation of the Pauline eschatology. What he actually +shows is what it would have become if it had really +undergone Greek influence.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page77">[pg 077]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg77"></a> +Apostle holds on this point too vigorous and too clear a +language.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Most unfortunately for those who seek to spiritualise +Paul, his doctrine of the Spirit in particular shows no +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page78">[pg 078]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg78"></a> +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.<a id="c3n39-ref" href="#c3n39"><sup>64</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>charismata</i> 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 <i>pneuma</i>, which for the common view was only +thought of in connexion with revelations and miracles.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page79">[pg 079]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg79"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page80">[pg 080]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg80"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c3n40-ref" href="#c3n40"><sup>65</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page81">[pg 081]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg81"></a> +been influenced by him in respect to their wording; but +beyond that they show no trace of his conceptions or his +spirit.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Even Baur had to learn how little Greek theology +attached itself to Paul,<a id="c3n41-ref" href="#c3n41"><sup>66</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>What Baur was unwilling to acknowledge to himself, +Harnack has irrefutably proved.<a id="c3n42-ref" href="#c3n42"><sup>67</sup></a> According to his +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page82">[pg 082]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg82"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>The same result is arrived at by Edwin Hatch in his +work on Hellenism and Christianity.<a id="c3n43-ref" href="#c3n43"><sup>68</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page83">[pg 083]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg83"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c3n44-ref" href="#c3n44"><sup>69</sup></a> +and freedom from the law for which Paul fought his +battles, imply a Hellenisation of Christianity and form +the Greek element in his doctrine.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page84">[pg 084]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg84"></a> +destination of the Gospel and of emancipation from the +law.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page85">[pg 085]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg85"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page86">[pg 086]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg86"></a> + +<p>The theory therefore explains nothing, but creates +difficulty upon difficulty.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Apostle was born and grew up in Tarsus, the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page87">[pg 087]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg87"></a> +“Athens of Asia Minor” as Ernest Curtius has called +it.<a id="c3n45-ref" href="#c3n45"><sup>70</sup></a> In his native city, as Heinrici expresses himself, +“rhetoric and Stoic philosophy were to be met with in +the market-place.”<a id="c3n46-ref" href="#c3n46"><sup>71</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Neither argument proves anything. A thousand +possibilities on the one side do not produce a certainty +any more than on the other.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The decision lies solely with his works.</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page88">[pg 088]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg88"></a> +But in opposition to this, Schmiedel,<a id="c3n47-ref" href="#c3n47"><sup>72</sup></a> 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.”</p> + +<p>Here too, therefore, one argument is balanced by +another.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c3n48-ref" href="#c3n48"><sup>73</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>This investigation was carried further by Hans +Vollmer<a id="c3n49-ref" href="#c3n49"><sup>74</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page89">[pg 089]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg89"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n50-ref" href="#c3n50"><sup>75</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page90">[pg 090]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg90"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n51-ref" href="#c3n51"><sup>76</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page91">[pg 091]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg91"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Scarcely more productive is Vollmer’s cast of his net +into the works of Philo.<a id="c3n52-ref" href="#c3n52"><sup>77</sup></a> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page92">[pg 092]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg92"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The phrase-making by which theologians of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page93">[pg 093]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg93"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The “self-evident” is therefore once more negated +by the facts.</p> + +<p>We may call attention to a curious parallel. <i>A priori</i> +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. <i>A priori</i> 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.</p> + +<p>If Paul stands solitary, without receiving or exercising +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page94">[pg 094]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg94"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>What are the possibilities of direct influences which +have to be taken into account?</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n53-ref" href="#c3n53"><sup>78</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>He can therefore hardly have intentionally taken over +anything from Greek thought. It is possible, however, +that he did so unconsciously.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page95">[pg 095]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg95"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c3n54-ref" href="#c3n54"><sup>79</sup></a> 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.<a id="c3n55-ref" href="#c3n55"><sup>80</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Seneca was his contemporary. That the Apostle +knew the works of this writer is not held by any one to be +proved.<a id="c3n56-ref" href="#c3n56"><sup>81</sup></a> Epictetus worked at the end of the first century, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page96">[pg 096]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg96"></a> +was himself acquainted with Christianity, and was +doubtless influenced by it, even if unconsciously.<a id="c3n57-ref" href="#c3n57"><sup>82</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Seneca’s religion is resignation, Paul’s is enthusiasm. +The two may show verbal similarities, but no affinity of +thought exists between them.</p> + +<p>Further, the anthropology and psychology<a id="c3n58-ref" href="#c3n58"><sup>83</sup></a> of the +Apostle are claimed as Greek. Pfleiderer lays great stress +upon this point. He does not, however, offer any proofs.</p> + +<p>What Paul has to say about man rests in the first place +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page97">[pg 097]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg97"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>How do matters stand in regard to the assertion that +his system contains Platonic elements?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The materialism which is implicate in eschatology thus +opposes a barrier to the Platonising of Paul’s religious +thought.</p> + +<p>For his conception of spirit a parallel might be sought +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page98">[pg 098]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg98"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Book of Wisdom and Philo are Stoic in their mode +of thought, but Paul is not so.</p> + +<p>It is inconceivable how the Stoic <i>heimarmene</i> can have +been brought into connexion with the Pauline doctrine +of predestination.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page99">[pg 099]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg99"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page100">[pg 100]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg100"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_4">IV<br><br> +H. J. HOLTZMANN</h2> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Heinrich Julius Holtzmann.</b></i> Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen +Theologie. 1897. Vol. ii., 532 pp. On Paulinism, 1-225.</p> + +<p class="subTitleLast"><i><b>William Wrede.</b></i> Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten +Neutestamentlichen Theologie. (1897.) (On the Task and the Method +of the so-called New Testament Theology.)</p> + +<p class="drop">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.”</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c4n1-ref" href="#c4n1"><sup>84</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page101">[pg 101]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg101"></a> +may be given forth as the objective result of the period +under survey.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page102">[pg 102]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg102"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Holtzmann does not stand above the post-Baur +study of the subject, but within it.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The division which he has taken over leads Holtzmann +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page103">[pg 103]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg103"></a> +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<a id="c4n2-ref" href="#c4n2"><sup>85</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page104">[pg 104]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg104"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page105">[pg 105]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg105"></a> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>“The complex of new ethical powers, motives, duties, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page106">[pg 106]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg106"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Of Paul’s objective statements Holtzmann always, +in order to be able to interpret them, makes something +subjective.</p> + +<p>This error in method—which he shares with scholars +of the post-Baur period generally—runs through the +whole of his undertaking.</p> + +<p>He frequently takes occasion to point to the element of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page107">[pg 107]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg107"></a> +“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.”</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c4n3-ref" href="#c4n3"><sup>86</sup></a> and is quite unaware that his doctrine is +nothing more than the form given by the constructive +imagination to a personal experience.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page108">[pg 108]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg108"></a> +also the head of the Church gathered out from both Jews +and Gentiles.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page109">[pg 109]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg109"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>This halting estimate of the ethical significance of +eschatology shows that Holtzmann regards the Pauline +ethical teaching from the modern point of view.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page110">[pg 110]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg110"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page111">[pg 111]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg111"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. . . .”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page112">[pg 112]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg112"></a> +(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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In these discussions there is much penetrating +observation. The picture, however, does not become clearer, +but rather more confused.</p> + +<p>His predecessors had done their best in their treatment +of the subject to conceal its fragmentary character, and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page113">[pg 113]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg113"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page114">[pg 114]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg114"></a> +understood at all if it is not understood in relation to primitive +Christianity?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>Here he endeavours forcibly to combine into one whole +the results of Pfleiderer, Holsten, and Harnack.</p> + +<p>From Pfleiderer he takes over the view of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page115">[pg 115]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg115"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page116">[pg 116]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg116"></a> +as Hellenised by Paul remained uninteresting and +unintelligible to the Greeks.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page117">[pg 117]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg117"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_5">V<br><br> +CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES</h2> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Edward Evanson.</b></i> The Dissonance of the four generally received +Evangelists. (1792.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Bruno Bauer.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albert Kalthoff.</b></i> Die Entstehung des Christentums. 1904. (E.T. by +J. McCabe, The Rise of Christianity, 1907.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><i><b>Allard Pierson.</b></i></i> De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten. +(The Sermon on the Mount and other Synoptic Fragments.) 1878.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>A. Pierson and S. A. Naber.</b></i> Verisimilia. 1886.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>A. D. Loman.</b></i> Quaestiones Paulinae. (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1882; +1883; 1886—written in Dutch.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Rudolf Steck.</b></i> Der Galaterbrief. 1888.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. C. van Manen.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>M. Friedländer.</b></i> Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen +Welt. (Judaism in the pre-Christian Greek World.) 1897.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. Friedrich (Maehliss).</b></i> Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs. (The +Spuriousness of the Epistle to the Galatians.) 1891.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. H. Scholten.</b></i> Historisch-kritische Bijdragen. (Contributions to +Historical Criticism.) 1882.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>G. Heinrici.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. M. S. Baljon.</b></i> Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief +van Paulus aan de Galatiërs. (Exegetic and Critical Essay on the +Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.) 1889.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page118">[pg 118]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg118"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Wilhelm Brückner.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Carl Clemen.</b></i> Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe. 1893. Die +Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe. (The Integrity of the +Pauline Epistles.) 1894. Paulus, 2 vols., 1904.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Christian Hermann Weisse.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. M. S. Baljon.</b></i> De Text der Breven van Paulus. 1884.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Daniel Völter.</b></i> Die Composition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. (The +Composition of the chief Pauline Epistles.) 1890. Paulus und +seine Briefe. 1905.</p> + +<p class="subTitleLast"><i><b>Friedrich Spitta.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="drop">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.</p> + +<p>Baur’s criticism was occupied with the <i>Corpus +Paulinum</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page119">[pg 119]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg119"></a> +controversy about the law with which the latter is filled is +never mentioned in the others.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Corpus paulinum</i>!</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page120">[pg 120]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg120"></a> +of Gnosticism and were gradually given out under the +name of Paul.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>It was Bruno Bauer who about the middle of the +nineteenth century opened the ball with his criticism of the +Pauline letters.<a id="c5n1-ref" href="#c5n1"><sup>87</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page121">[pg 121]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg121"></a> + +<p>This work is not on the same level as his criticism of +the Gospels.<a id="c5n2-ref" href="#c5n2"><sup>88</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c5n3-ref" href="#c5n3"><sup>89</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page122">[pg 122]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg122"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>No attention was paid to Bauer, and in part he himself +was responsible for the neglect. The bitterness and the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page123">[pg 123]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg123"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, in detached observations, and in some +of the incidental ideas, he displays a critical acumen +which has something great about it.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Nero +Redivivus,</i> in peaceful Holland.<a id="c5n4-ref" href="#c5n4"><sup>90</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n5-ref" href="#c5n5"><sup>91</sup></a> </p> + +<p>In the year 1886 he published, in association with the +philological scholar, Samuel Adrian Naber, the <i>Verisimilia.</i> +The book was not adapted to make a deep impression. +It was too much the ingenious essay for that.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n6-ref" href="#c5n6"><sup>92</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page124">[pg 124]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg124"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The present form of the letters is due to the fact that +a later “Churchman”—the authors call him <i>Paulus +episcopus,</i> and think that he may have served as model +for the Paul of Acts—worked into them the second, +milder set of ideas.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page125">[pg 125]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg125"></a> +<i>Theologisch Tijdschrift</i> of 1882-1886.<a id="c5n7-ref" href="#c5n7"><sup>93</sup></a> The battle began in +earnest.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Steck<a id="c5n8-ref" href="#c5n8"><sup>94</sup></a> and van Manen<a id="c5n9-ref" href="#c5n9"><sup>95</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page126">[pg 126]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg126"></a> + +<p>In respect of external arguments the three scholars +combine to urge the following considerations:—</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>modus vivendi</i> in mixed churches, +nothing was done. This representation is much less +natural than the other.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In the letters, on the other hand, everything is +unintelligible. Stress is laid on the fact that the Apostle of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page127">[pg 127]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg127"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Who can form a clear picture of the journeys implied +in the letters, or of the relation of Paul to his churches?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page128">[pg 128]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg128"></a> +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.<a id="c5n10-ref" href="#c5n10"><sup>96</sup></a> 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?</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c5n11-ref" href="#c5n11"><sup>97</sup></a> 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.”<a id="c5n12-ref" href="#c5n12"><sup>98</sup></a> </p> + +<p>In any case, in view of the silence of Justin, the +<i>Shepherd</i> of Hermas, the <i>Didache,</i> and the <i>Epistle of +Barnabas,</i> the attestation of the Pauline letters is no +better than that of the Johannine literature.<a id="c5n13-ref" href="#c5n13"><sup>99</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n14-ref" href="#c5n14"><sup>100</sup></a> If this shorter text can be reconstructed +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page129">[pg 129]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg129"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>In the hope of showing this, van Manen in the year +1887 reconstructed the Marcionite text of the Epistle to +the Galatians.<a id="c5n15-ref" href="#c5n15"><sup>101</sup></a> In regard to the other Epistles he does +not attempt this, as Tertullian’s indications are +insufficient.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page130">[pg 130]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg130"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page131">[pg 131]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg131"></a> +i.-viii., and was only gradually extended to its present +form.<a id="c5n16-ref" href="#c5n16"><sup>102</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>By these observations Steck and van Manen are +inevitably led to the decisive consideration regarding +“time and space.”</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page132">[pg 132]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg132"></a> +if there ever was such a man, as is almost certainly the +case, was not the creator of the Paulinism represented +by the Epistles.</p> + +<p>How, then, is the origin of the letters and the doctrine +to be explained?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page133">[pg 133]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg133"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>The form of a letter to the Galatians was given to the +work, according to Steck’s hypothesis, “because the +literary <i>genre</i> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page134">[pg 134]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg134"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n17-ref" href="#c5n17"><sup>103</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page135">[pg 135]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg135"></a> + +<p>How far is it possible to refute their view?</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n18-ref" href="#c5n18"><sup>104</sup></a> 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.<a id="c5n19-ref" href="#c5n19"><sup>105</sup></a> </p> + +<p>The Marcionite text of Galatians reconstructed by +van Manen is not better but worse than the canonical text.<a id="c5n20-ref" href="#c5n20"><sup>106</sup></a> +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 <i>argumentum e silentio.</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page136">[pg 136]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg136"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page137">[pg 137]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg137"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n21-ref" href="#c5n21"><sup>107</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page138">[pg 138]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg138"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page139">[pg 139]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg139"></a> +literature there is not an echo of it, and it seems as though +it had never been.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Both explanations labour in vain at the problem of the +inexplicable neglect of Paulinism in the post-Apostolic +literature.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>And as a matter of fact the ominous word eschatology +is, one might almost say, never mentioned in their works.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page140">[pg 140]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg140"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page141">[pg 141]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg141"></a> +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!</p> + +<p>For a time it almost looked as if a <i>modus vivendi</i> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n22-ref" href="#c5n22"><sup>108</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page142">[pg 142]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg142"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>crux interpretum,</i> 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.”<a id="c5n23-ref" href="#c5n23"><sup>109</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>What remains after the elimination of the secondary +stratum in the Epistles to the Romans and Philippians +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page143">[pg 143]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg143"></a> +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.<a id="c5n24-ref" href="#c5n24"><sup>110</sup></a> </p> + +<p>Weisse did not get the length of publishing the +reconstructed text of the Epistles. When his pupil Sulze +carried it through after his death,<a id="c5n25-ref" href="#c5n25"><sup>111</sup></a> the prophecy which +the author had put on record in his “Dogmatics” +regarding his undertaking was fulfilled. It met with +“universal disbelief.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n26-ref" href="#c5n26"><sup>112</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page144">[pg 144]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg144"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page145">[pg 145]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg145"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Epistle to the Romans has been very extensively +interpolated.<a id="c5n27-ref" href="#c5n27"><sup>113</sup></a> 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 <i>Shepherd</i> 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.”<a id="c5n28-ref" href="#c5n28"><sup>114</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page146">[pg 146]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg146"></a> +lies in the fact that it breaks off the barren +literary-critical logomachy, and directs attention once more to +the subject-matter.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In an equally thoroughgoing fashion Völter deals with +the problems of Christology and of the doctrine of the +Spirit, and eschatology.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page147">[pg 147]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg147"></a> +more natural and simple air than is the case in any of the +other attempts to draw the line between them.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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!</p> + +<p>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 <i>Christliche Welt.</i><a id="c5n29-ref" href="#c5n29"><sup>115</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page148">[pg 148]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg148"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c5n30-ref" href="#c5n30"><sup>116</sup></a> </p> + +<p>As a work which stands much above the average of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page149">[pg 149]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg149"></a> +the usual cutting-up hypotheses we may mention +Spitta’s work on Romans.<a id="c5n31-ref" href="#c5n31"><sup>117</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page150">[pg 150]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg150"></a> +currents and undercurrents of Jewish and Hellenistic +thought which run side by side through Paul’s work, and +so becoming cured of their mania.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page151">[pg 151]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg151"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_6">VI<br><br> +THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE +TWENTIETH CENTURY</h2> + +<p class="subTitle">1899. <i><b>Paul Feine.</b></i> Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus nach +seinem Werdegange dargestellt. (Paul’s Gospel of Freedom from +the Law: a Study of its Growth.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Wernle.</b></i> Paulus als Heidenmissionar. (Paul as a Missionary to +the Gentiles.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Heinrich Weinel.</b></i> Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator. (Paul as a +Church Organiser.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hermann Jakoby.</b></i> Neutestamentliche Ethik. (New Testament Ethics.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1900. <i><b>Arthur Titius.</b></i> Der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt +der Seligkeit. (Paulinism with Special Reference to Final Salvation.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>A. Drescher.</b></i> Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus. (The Life of Jesus in +Paul’s Writings.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Karl Dick.</b></i> Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus. (The Literary +Use of the First Person Plural in Paul’s Writings.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Harnack.</b></i> Das Wesen des Christentums. (Translated under +the title “What is Christianity?”)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1901. <i><b>Paul Wernle.</b></i> Die Anfänge unserer Religion. (Translated +under the title “The Beginnings of Christianity.”)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1902. <i><b>Otto Pfleiderer.</b></i> Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und +Lehren. (Primitive Christianity, its Documents and Doctrines.) +Second, revised and extended edition. (Translated, 4 vols., London, +1906-1911.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Feine.</b></i> Jesus Christus und Paulus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>G. F. Heinrici.</b></i> Das Urchristentum. (Primitive Christianity.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1903. <i><b>Georg Hollmann.</b></i> Urchristentum in Corinth. (Primitive +Christianity in Corinth.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Emil Sokolowski.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Wilhelm Bousset.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page152">[pg 152]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg152"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Volz.</b></i> Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba. (Jewish +Eschatology from Daniel to Akiba.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Heitmüller.</b></i> Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and +the Lord’s Supper in Paul’s Teaching.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Martin Brückner.</b></i> Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie. +(How the Pauline Christology arose.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1904. <i><b>Heinrich Weinel.</b></i> Paulus. (E. T. St. Paul: The Man and his +Work, 1906.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernst von Dobschütz.</b></i> Die Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters. +(The Problems of the Apostolic Age.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Maurice Goguel.</b></i> L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Alfred Juncker.</b></i> Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>William Wrede.</b></i> Paulus. (E. T. by E. Lummis, 1907.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1905. <i><b>Hugo Gressmann.</b></i> Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen +Eschatologie. (The Origin of the Israelitish-Jewish Eschatology.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1906. <i><b>Paul Feine.</b></i> Paulus als Theologe. (Paul as a Theologian.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>P. Kölbing.</b></i> Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus. +(The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus upon Paul.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eberhard Vischer.</b></i> Die Paulusbriefe. (The Pauline Epistles.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Wilhelm Karl.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Bousset.</b></i> Der Apostel Paulus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1907. <i><b>Adolf Jülicher.</b></i> Paulus und Jesus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Arnold Meyer.</b></i> Wer hat das Christentum gegründet, Jesus oder +Paulus? (Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>A. Schettler.</b></i> Die paulinische Formel “Durch Christus.” (The +Pauline Formula “through Christ.”)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>J. Wellhausen.</b></i> Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (6th ed.).</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1908. <i><b>Carl Munzinger.</b></i> Paulus in Corinth.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hans Windisch.</b></i> Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus. (The +Purification of the Christian from Sin in Paul’s Teaching.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Reinhold Seeberg.</b></i> Dogmengeschichte. (History of Dogma.) 2nd +edition.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Wilhelm Walther.</b></i> Pauli Christentum, Jesu Evangelium.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1909. <i><b>Adolf Harnack.</b></i> Dogmengeschichte. 4th edition.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Martin Dibelius.</b></i> Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. (The +World of Spirits according to Paul’s Belief.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johannes Weiss.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johann Haussleiter.</b></i> Paulus. </p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>R. Knopf.</b></i> Paulus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Olschewski.</b></i> Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie. (The +Roots of Pauline Christologie.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1910. <i><b>A. Schlatter.</b></i> Neutestamentliche Theologie.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page153">[pg 153]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg153"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>R. Drescher.</b></i> Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Eberhard Vischer.</b></i> Der Apostel Paulus und sein Werk.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Julius Schniewind.</b></i> Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus +(The Meaning of the Terms “Word” and “Gospel” in Paul’s +Writings.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle">1911. <i><b>Adolf Deissmann.</b></i> Paulus, eine kultur- und +religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. (Paul, A Sketch with a Background of Ancient +Civilisation and Religion.)</p> + +<p class="subTitleLast"><i><b>Johannes Müller.</b></i> Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums der +paulinischen Gemeinden. (How the personal Christianity of the +Pauline Churches arose.)</p> + +<p class="drop">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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page154">[pg 154]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg154"></a> +the same confidence as before; effort was directed rather +to strengthen them by revision and correction.</p> + +<p>It was in this frame of mind that Pfleiderer prepared +the second edition of his “Primitive Christianity.”<a id="c6n1-ref" href="#c6n1"><sup>118</sup></a> +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.<a id="c6n2-ref" href="#c6n2"><sup>119</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c6n3-ref" href="#c6n3"><sup>120</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page155">[pg 155]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg155"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The lively portraiture, quite different from the +conventional works on the subject, found a ready welcome, +and incited others to imitation.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>But they found no new way of grasping and +understanding him.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>When earlier writers on the subject modernised, they +did so unconsciously. Wernle and Weinel, however, do +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page156">[pg 156]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg156"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c6n4-ref" href="#c6n4"><sup>121</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page157">[pg 157]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg157"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page158">[pg 158]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg158"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page159">[pg 159]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg159"></a> +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.”<a id="c6n5-ref" href="#c6n5"><sup>122</sup></a> </p> + +<p>This result is opposed by Maurice Goguel,<a id="c6n6-ref" href="#c6n6"><sup>123</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page160">[pg 160]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg160"></a> +something in common between the fundamental +conceptions of Jesus and Paul on which sufficient stress had +not previously been laid.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n7-ref" href="#c6n7"><sup>124</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p>The question of the peculiarly inconsistent attitude of +the Apostle towards the law is not elucidated by Titius +and Feine.</p> + +<p>The ethics are treated in monographs by Jakoby and +Juncker.<a id="c6n8-ref" href="#c6n8"><sup>125</sup></a> The former gives a detailed description. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page161">[pg 161]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg161"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page162">[pg 162]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg162"></a> +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.<a id="c6n9-ref" href="#c6n9"><sup>126</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n10-ref" href="#c6n10"><sup>127</sup></a> The +recognition of a “physical”<a id="c6n11-ref" href="#c6n11"><sup>128</sup></a> aspect in Paul’s +expectations of the future was no longer sufficient. It had to be +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page163">[pg 163]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg163"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Holtzmann, too, in the section on “Mystical +Conceptions”<a id="c6n12-ref" href="#c6n12"><sup>129</sup></a> <i>(Mysteriöses)</i> 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.”</p> + +<p>Paul, Holtzmann thinks, puts the content of his +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page164">[pg 164]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg164"></a> +“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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page165">[pg 165]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg165"></a> +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 <i>Jesus Christus and +Paulus,</i> insists that the sacramental character of the +cultus-acts described by Paul should be universally +acknowledged.</p> + +<p>Heitmüller, in his work on “Baptism and the Lord’s +Supper in Paul’s Writings,”<a id="c6n13-ref" href="#c6n13"><sup>130</sup></a> 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 <i>realiter</i> in the death and resurrection of Christ.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n14-ref" href="#c6n14"><sup>131</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page166">[pg 166]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg166"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>At this crisis theology encountered in William Wrede +a candid friend who sought to keep it in the path of +sincerity. His <i>Paulus,</i> short and written in such a way +as to be universally intelligible, appeared in the year +1904.<a id="c6n15-ref" href="#c6n15"><sup>132</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Redemption—this is, according to Wrede, Paul’s train +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page167">[pg 167]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg167"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>“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.”</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>Redemption is effected in the sacraments. “The +‘physical’ transformation is effected by physical +processes.” Paul’s thought moves, therefore, among crude, +unsubtilised conceptions.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The material of his world of thought was, therefore, +Jewish. What was the transformation by which it +became Christian?</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page168">[pg 168]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg168"></a> + +<p>Paul’s conception of the Christ<a id="c6n16-ref" href="#c6n16"><sup>133</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c6n17-ref" href="#c6n17"><sup>134</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page169">[pg 169]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg169"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>What are the points that remain obscure?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>What is the basis of the mystical union with Christ? +To this question Wrede has given no answer.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n18-ref" href="#c6n18"><sup>135</sup></a> </p> + +<p>Again, Wrede gives no scheme of the events of the End, +although such a scheme obviously belongs to the +“system.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page170">[pg 170]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg170"></a> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n19-ref" href="#c6n19"><sup>136</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n20-ref" href="#c6n20"><sup>137</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page171">[pg 171]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg171"></a> +matters is correct—could hardly have been much altered +in the next generation.</p> + +<p>A valuable supplement in many respects to Wrede’s +views is offered by Martin Brückner’s study of the origin +of the Pauline Christology.<a id="c6n21-ref" href="#c6n21"><sup>138</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n22-ref" href="#c6n22"><sup>139</sup></a> +Incidentally he gives an admirably clear account of the +Jewish eschatology and its formation.<a id="c6n23-ref" href="#c6n23"><sup>140</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page172">[pg 172]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg172"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n24-ref" href="#c6n24"><sup>141</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page173">[pg 173]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg173"></a> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n25-ref" href="#c6n25"><sup>142</sup></a> </p> + +<p>Reinhold Seeberg<a id="c6n26-ref" href="#c6n26"><sup>143</sup></a> 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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The cause of this lies in the peculiar difficulties +which lie concealed in the scheme which he sketched out.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page174">[pg 174]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg174"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n27-ref" href="#c6n27"><sup>144</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page175">[pg 175]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg175"></a> + +<p>But in doing so he did not take into account the +sacraments. It was just these, however, which seemed to +make it <i>a priori</i> 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.</p> + +<p>No doubt the first question which here arises is whether +the methods of Comparative Religion are essentially +applicable to the explanation of Paulinism.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c6n28-ref" href="#c6n28"><sup>145</sup></a> </p> + +<p>In the comparative study of the heathen religions it +became apparent that the Mystery-religions, which +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page176">[pg 176]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg176"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page177">[pg 177]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg177"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page178">[pg 178]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg178"></a> +In spite of all theoretical warnings this path had to be +followed.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page179">[pg 179]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg179"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_7">VII<br><br> +PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION</h2> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Gustav Anrich.</b></i> Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf +das Christentum. (The Ancient Mysteries in their Influence on +Christianity.) 1894.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Martin Brückner.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Karl Clemen.</b></i> Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen +Testaments. (An Explanation of the New Testament on the basis of +Comparative Religion.) 1909.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Franz Cumont.</b></i> Les Mystères de Mithra. 1899. (E. T. by T. J. +McCormack, 1903.) Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme +romain. 1906.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Deissmann.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albrecht Dieterich.</b></i> Abraxas. 1891. Nekyia. 1893. Eine +Mithrasliturgie. 1903.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Arthur Drews.</b></i> Die Christusmythe. 1909. (E. T. by C. D. Burns.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Albert Eichhorn.</b></i> Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament. (The +Lord’s Supper in the New Testament.) 1898.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Johannes Geffken.</b></i> Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums. (From the +Formative Period of Christianity), 2nd ed., 1909.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>P. Gennrich.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Otto Gruppe.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hermann Gunkel.</b></i> Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen +Testaments. (Contributions to the Understanding of the New +Testament from the point of view of Comparative Religion.) 1903.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page180">[pg 180]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg180"></a> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Harnack.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hugo Hepding.</b></i> Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult. (Attis, his +Myths and Cultus.) 1903.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. Heitmüller.</b></i> Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and +the Lord’s Supper in Paul’s Teaching.) 1903.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Adolf Jacoby.</b></i> Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum. +(The Ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity.) 1910.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Georg Mau.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Max Maurenbrecher.</b></i> Von Jerusalem nach Rom. (From Jerusalem +to Rome.) 1910.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Salomon Reinach.</b></i> Cultes, mythes et religions. (1905-1906-1908.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Richard Reitzenstein.</b></i> Poimandres. 1904.</p> + +<p class="subTitle">Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre Grundgedanken und +Wirkungen. (The Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Their +fundamental Ideas and their Influence.) 1910.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>E. Rohde.</b></i> Psyche. 1894. 3rd ed. 1903, 2 vols.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>H. R. Roscher.</b></i> Lexikon der griechisch-römischen Mythologie. +(Lexicon of Graeco-Roman Mythology.) 3 vols. 1884-1909.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Ernst Eduard Schwartz.</b></i> Paulus. Charakterköpfe aus der antiken +Literatur. (Character Sketches from Ancient Literature.) 1910.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>W. B. Smith.</b></i> 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.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Wilhelm Soltau.</b></i> Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen +Kirche. (The Survival of Paganism in the Early Christian Church.) +1906.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Hermann Usener.</b></i> Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. (Studies +in Comparative Religion.) 1889; 1899.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Wendland.</b></i> Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren +Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum. (Hellenistic-Roman +Civilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity.) 1907.</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Paul Wernle.</b></i> Die Anfänge unserer Religion. 1901. (E. T. by +G. A. Bienemann, “The Beginnings of Christianity,” 1903.)</p> + +<p class="subTitle"><i><b>Georg Wobbermin.</b></i> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page181">[pg 181]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg181"></a> + +<p class="drop">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.<a id="c7n1-ref" href="#c7n1"><sup>146</sup></a> In E. Rohde’s <i>Psyche</i> the Greek and late-Greek +conceptions regarding ghost-worship and immortality +were introduced to a wider circle of readers.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n2-ref" href="#c7n2"><sup>147</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page182">[pg 182]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg182"></a> +state, proclaimed as the supreme divinity. The religion +of Mithra is of Persian origin.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c7n3-ref" href="#c7n3"><sup>148</sup></a> that any real understanding of the +character and history of these religions has become +possible.</p> + +<p>The myth on which the worship of Cybele and Attis is +based has been handed down in various and conflicting +versions.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page183">[pg 183]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg183"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n4-ref" href="#c7n4"><sup>149</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page184">[pg 184]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg184"></a> +we are thrown back upon hypothetical reconstruction +for the details of the development and the significance +of the mysteries.<a id="c7n5-ref" href="#c7n5"><sup>150</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In the service of Osiris-Serapis the worshipper gains +assurance of eternal life. Therein consisted the attraction +of this religion.</p> + +<p>The early Egyptian doctrine was simple enough. +After his resurrection Osiris became lord of the world +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page185">[pg 185]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg185"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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,<a id="c7n6-ref" href="#c7n6"><sup>151</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Mithra was the father of the sun-god.<a id="c7n7-ref" href="#c7n7"><sup>152</sup></a> The origin of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page186">[pg 186]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg186"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page187">[pg 187]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg187"></a> +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.<a id="c7n8-ref" href="#c7n8"><sup>153</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 <i>mise en scène</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page188">[pg 188]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg188"></a> +and go the way which thou hast appointed, as thou hast +made for a law and created the sacrament . . .”<a id="c7n9-ref" href="#c7n9"><sup>154</sup></a> Here +the text breaks off. Perhaps later on the return of the +initiate to earth was described. Dieterich, however, +thinks this improbable.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>A valuable insight into the feelings and impressions +associated with the Mysteries is given by the Hermetic +writings, preserved mainly in “Poimandres.”<a id="c7n10-ref" href="#c7n10"><sup>155</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page189">[pg 189]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg189"></a> +cultus-forms of the early, and especially of the primitive, +church.<a id="c7n11-ref" href="#c7n11"><sup>156</sup></a> </p> + +<p>The first to examine the facts with any closeness was +Anrich in his work, “The Ancient Mysteries and their +Influence on Christianity.”<a id="c7n12-ref" href="#c7n12"><sup>157</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page190">[pg 190]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg190"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n13-ref" href="#c7n13"><sup>158</sup></a> That +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page191">[pg 191]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg191"></a> +many theologians fall into the same confusion is no +excuse.<a id="c7n14-ref" href="#c7n14"><sup>159</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page192">[pg 192]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg192"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n15-ref" href="#c7n15"><sup>160</sup></a> Especially +does he hold it to be quite impossible that the +Mithra-religion should have had any point of contact with +Paul.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page193">[pg 193]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg193"></a> +Mystery-religion which never actually existed, least of all in +Paul’s day.<a id="c7n16-ref" href="#c7n16"><sup>161</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n17-ref" href="#c7n17"><sup>162</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page194">[pg 194]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg194"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>We may further recall Cumont’s warning that analogies +do not necessarily imply dependence. “Resemblances,” +he writes in the preface to his <i>Religions orientales,</i> “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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The chief point to which research was at first directed +was the discovery of relationships between the two sets +of sacramental views.</p> + +<p>It seemed so easy to discover common conceptions +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page195">[pg 195]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg195"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n18-ref" href="#c7n18"><sup>163</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The following series of examples recurs in all the +books:—</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In Egypt anyone who wishes to become truthful +swallows a small image of the goddess of truth.</p> + +<p>In the Thracian orgiastic worship of Dionysos Sabazios +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page196">[pg 196]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg196"></a> +the sacrificial ox is torn to pieces by the participants +while yet alive, and swallowed raw.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Aztecs, before sacrificing and eating their prisoners +of war, give them the name of the deity to whom the +sacrifice is offered.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c7n19-ref" href="#c7n19"><sup>164</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page197">[pg 197]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg197"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page198">[pg 198]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg198"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless in the decisive point the alleged facts +break down.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page199">[pg 199]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg199"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page200">[pg 200]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg200"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page201">[pg 201]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg201"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page202">[pg 202]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg202"></a> +which is incapable of working regeneration—the Master +Himself made no use of water in this fashion.<a id="c7n20-ref" href="#c7n20"><sup>165</sup></a> 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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page203">[pg 203]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg203"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page204">[pg 204]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg204"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>But what matter such prosaic considerations when +it is a question of great ideas, of ideas, moreover, fathered +by Comparative Religion?</p> + +<p>When Heitmüller in the spring of 1903 appeared before +the members of the Clergy Theological Society<a id="c7n21-ref" href="#c7n21"><sup>166</sup></a> 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.<a id="c7n22-ref" href="#c7n22"><sup>167</sup></a> 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 <i>δεῖπνον κυριακόν</i> of Paul might +seem to have in common with these . . . proceedings, and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page205">[pg 205]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg205"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>Entering more into detail, this “Hylic”<a id="c7n23-ref" href="#c7n23"><sup>168</sup></a> of the +Comparative method explains that the primeval concrete +and sensuous conception of the <i>communio</i> 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.<a id="c7n24-ref" href="#c7n24"><sup>169</sup></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page206">[pg 206]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg206"></a> +was specially adapted to favour the upgrowth of seeds +and spores which had been long in the ground.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page207">[pg 207]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg207"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page208">[pg 208]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg208"></a> +in a sprinkling with a few drops of a consecrated and +consecrating fluid.<a id="c7n25-ref" href="#c7n25"><sup>170</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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” +<a id="c7n26-ref" href="#c7n26"><sup>171</sup></a> —does not occur. The thought remains hovering between +purification and renewal.</p> + +<p>That is as much as to say that, so far as our information +goes, no typical points of contact with Paulinism present +themselves.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n27-ref" href="#c7n27"><sup>172</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page209">[pg 209]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg209"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Mystery-religions speak, as Paul also does, of +the <i>pneuma</i> and its workings, but the possession of the +<i>pneuma</i> is never represented as an immediate and +inevitable consequence of baptism.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page210">[pg 210]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg210"></a> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>To cite the <i>taurobolium</i> as an analogue of Paul’s baptism, +with the death and resurrection which it effects, is not +admissible. In the first place, the <i>taurobolium</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page211">[pg 211]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg211"></a> +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.<a id="c7n28-ref" href="#c7n28"><sup>173</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Failing more relevant evidence, some have quoted +Plato, who in the <i>Republic</i> (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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n29-ref" href="#c7n29"><sup>174</sup></a> </p> + +<p>In the <i>Taurobolia</i>, representation of one living person +by another is supposed to have been possible, but there +is no mention of a representation of the dead.<a id="c7n30-ref" href="#c7n30"><sup>175</sup></a> </p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page212">[pg 212]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg212"></a> + +<p>The baptism <i>of</i> the dead which is attested by a papyrus +is not a baptism <i>for</i> the dead.<a id="c7n31-ref" href="#c7n31"><sup>176</sup></a> </p> + +<p>That living persons went through the ceremonies of +initiation for the dead is not known.</p> + +<p>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!</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,”<a id="c7n32-ref" href="#c7n32"><sup>177</sup></a> and the sacred feast establishes +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page213">[pg 213]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg213"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>With that is connected the fact that in Paul we find +the most prosaic conception imaginable of the <i>opus +operatum.</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>mise en scène</i> 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!<a id="c7n33-ref" href="#c7n33"><sup>178</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page214">[pg 214]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg214"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>In the Mystery-religions everything centres in the +sacred ceremonies. They dominate thought, feeling, and +will. If they are removed the whole religion collapses.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page215">[pg 215]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg215"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>a priori</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Paulinism is thus a theological system with +sacraments, but not a Mystery-religion.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page216">[pg 216]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg216"></a> +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.<a id="c7n34-ref" href="#c7n34"><sup>179</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 <i>ipso facto</i> 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?</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page217">[pg 217]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg217"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The sacramental conception of the Apostle is therefore +derived from an entirely different world of thought from +that of the Mystery-religions.</p> + +<p>It is a different question, however, in what relation his +“physical”<a id="c7n35-ref" href="#c7n35"><sup>180</sup></a> mysticism in itself, apart from the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page218">[pg 218]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg218"></a> +sacraments, bears to the world of ideas associated with the +Greek Mystery-religions.</p> + +<p>To this question Reitzenstein, the “pneumatic”<a id="c7n36-ref" href="#c7n36"><sup>181</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Whether all the explanations are sound, and whether +many expressions, such as <i>e.g.</i> “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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page219">[pg 219]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg219"></a> +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.<a id="c7n37-ref" href="#c7n37"><sup>182</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page220">[pg 220]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg220"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Ἕλληνες</i>.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page221">[pg 221]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg221"></a> +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,<a id="c7n38-ref" href="#c7n38"><sup>183</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>This hypothesis naturally suggests itself to +Reitzenstein, because in <i>Poimandres</i> he believes himself to have +discovered a myth about Anthropos.<a id="c7n39-ref" href="#c7n39"><sup>184</sup></a> 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?</p> + +<p>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 <i>pneuma</i> 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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page222">[pg 222]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg222"></a> + +<p>This is typical of a series of similar cases.<a id="c7n40-ref" href="#c7n40"><sup>185</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Contrary to his intention and conviction, however, the +outcome is not positive but negative.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c7n41-ref" href="#c7n41"><sup>186</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page223">[pg 223]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg223"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page224">[pg 224]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg224"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page225">[pg 225]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg225"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>voluntary</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page226">[pg 226]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg226"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Of course, it is not possible to decide how much of this +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page227">[pg 227]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg227"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.”<a id="c7n42-ref" href="#c7n42"><sup>187</sup></a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page228">[pg 228]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg228"></a> +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—<i>exempla docent</i>—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.<a id="c7n43-ref" href="#c7n43"><sup>188</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page229">[pg 229]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg229"></a> +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 <i>a priori</i> difficulties, or those raised by +the history of dogma in connexion with it.</p> + +<p>How does Paulinism as understood by Dieterich and +Reitzenstein fit into the history of the development of +Christianity?</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page230">[pg 230]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg230"></a> +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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page231">[pg 231]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg231"></a> +forced to reflect on the inconvenient consequences of their +possible victory.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page232">[pg 232]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg232"></a> +stand-point is taken up by Hermann Gunkel<a id="c7n44-ref" href="#c7n44"><sup>189</sup></a> and Max +Maurenbrecher.<a id="c7n45-ref" href="#c7n45"><sup>190</sup></a> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page233">[pg 233]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg233"></a> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page234">[pg 234]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg234"></a> + +<p>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,<a id="c7n46-ref" href="#c7n46"><sup>191</sup></a> and Arthur Drews.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page235">[pg 235]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg235"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Drews<a id="c7n47-ref" href="#c7n47"><sup>192</sup></a> 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 <i>differentia</i> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page236">[pg 236]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg236"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page237">[pg 237]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg237"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_8">VIII<br><br> +SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF +THE PROBLEM</h2> + +<p class="drop">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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page238">[pg 238]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg238"></a> +shows what must be provided for in any solution which +professes to offer a really historical explanation.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page239">[pg 239]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg239"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The half-and-half theories which represent Paulinism +as consisting partly of Greek, partly of Jewish ideas, are +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page240">[pg 240]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg240"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page241">[pg 241]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg241"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>Is there, then, any possibility of explaining the mystical +doctrine of redemption and the sacramental teaching on +the basis of the Jewish eschatological element?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c8n1-ref" href="#c8n1"><sup>193</sup></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page242">[pg 242]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg242"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a id="c8n2-ref" href="#c8n2"><sup>194</sup></a> A +transaction, however, which itself gives and effects such +a result is to be regarded as a sacrament.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page243">[pg 243]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg243"></a> +baptism was derived, was already thought of as a +sacrament.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>a priori</i>. 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page244">[pg 244]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg244"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page245">[pg 245]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg245"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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<a id="c8n3-ref" href="#c8n3"><sup>195</sup></a> +and towards the law, and the nature of his compromise +between predestinarian and sacramental doctrine.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page246">[pg 246]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg246"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>The case lies similarly in regard to the Apostle’s views +about universalism and the law.</p> + +<p>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 <i>permitted.</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>need</i> to do so; they +<i>must not</i> do so, on pain of losing their salvation.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page247">[pg 247]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg247"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>All explanations which represent the system of doctrine +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page248">[pg 248]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg248"></a> +as something arising subjectively in the Apostle’s mind +may be assumed <i>a priori</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>The Ultra-Tübingen critics demanded of theology +proof that the canonical Paul and his Epistles belonged +to early Christianity; and the demand was justified.</p> + +<p>The question is not to be decided in the domain of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page249">[pg 249]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg249"></a> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Their opinion, however, is of small importance.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page251">[pg 251]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg251"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_9">INDEX</h2> + +<p class="index">Ammon, C. F. von, <a href="#page3">3</a> n.<br> +Anrich, Gustav, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page231">231</a><br> +Aratus, <a href="#page94">94</a><br> +Aubertin, Charles, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Augustine, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Aurelian, <a href="#page181">181</a></p> + +<p class="index">Baljon, J. M. S., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page125">125</a>, +<a href="#page148">148</a> n.<br> +Bauer, Bruno, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page28">28</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page120">120</a> ff.<br> +Baumgarten, Michael, <a href="#page96">96</a> n.<br> +Baumgarten, S. J., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page3">3</a><br> +Baur, F. C., <a href="#page12">12</a> ff., <a href="#page20">20</a> f., <a href="#page25">25</a>, <a href="#page33">33</a>, <a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page118">118</a> f.<br> +Baur, F. F., <a href="#page20">20</a> n.<br> +Beyschlag, Willibald, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page26">26</a>, <a href="#page41">41</a><br> +Bousset, W., <a href="#page48">48</a> n., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a><br> +Brandt, W., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page60">60</a> n.<br> +Brückner, Martin, <a href="#page152">152</a>,<a href="#page171">171</a>,<a href="#page179">179</a>,<a href="#page193">193</a> n.<br> +Brückner, Wilhelm, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a> n.<br> +Bruston, E., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page74">74</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Caligula, <a href="#page184">184</a><br> +Calvin, <a href="#page33">33</a><br> +Claudius, <a href="#page183">183</a><br> +Clemen, Karl, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n.<br> +Clement of Rome, <a href="#page119">119</a>, <a href="#page128">128</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> +Cumont, Franz, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a> n., +<a href="#page185">185</a> n., <a href="#page192">192</a><br> +Curtius, Ernst, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page87">87</a>, <a href="#page94">94</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Dähne, A. F., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page10">10</a> n.<br> +Deissmann, Adolf, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page60">60</a> n., <a href="#page153">153</a>, +<a href="#page172">172</a> n., <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n.<br> +De Jong, H. E., <a href="#page181">181</a><br> +Delitzsch, Franz, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page47">47</a><br> +De Wette, W. M. L., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page10">10</a> n.<br> +Dibelius, Martin, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a> n.<br> +Dick, Karl, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a> n.<br> +Dieterich, Albrecht, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a> ff., <a href="#page190">190</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a> n., <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page228">228</a> n., <a href="#page230">230</a><br> +Dobschütz, Ernst von, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a><br> +Domitian, <a href="#page128">128</a><br> +Drescher, A., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a> n.<br> +Drews, Arthur, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page234">234</a> f.</p> + +<p class="index">Eichhorn, Albert, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a><br> +Eichhorn, J. G., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page8">8</a> f., <a href="#page15">15</a><br> +Epictetus, <a href="#page95">95</a><br> +Ernesti, Fr. Th. L., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Ernesti, J. A., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page3">3</a> f.<br> +Evanson, E., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a> n.<br> +Everling, Otto, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page55">55</a> f.</p> + +<p class="index">Feine, Paul, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a> ff., <a href="#page165">165</a><br> +Fleury, Amédée, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Friedländer, M., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page124">124</a> n.<br> +Friedrich (Maehliss), <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a> n.</p><br> + +<p class="index">Gass, J. C., <a href="#page7">7</a><br> +Gass, W., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Geffken, J., <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n.<br> +Gennrich, P., <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a> n.<br> +Gloël, J., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page78">78</a> n.<br> +Godet, F., <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page26">26</a> n.<br> +Goguel, M., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a> f.<br> +Grafe, E., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page44">44</a>, <a href="#page90">90</a> f., <a href="#page111">111</a><br> +Gressmann, H., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a> n.<br> +Grotius, Hugo, <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page2">2</a><br> +Gruppe, Otto, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a> n., <a href="#page193">193</a> n.<br> +Gunkel, H., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page78">78</a> f., <a href="#page111">111</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n., +<a href="#page232">232</a> f., <a href="#page236">236</a></p> + +<p class="index">Hadrian, <a href="#page122">122</a><br> +Harnack, Adolf, vi, <a href="#page25">25</a>, <a href="#page63">63</a>, <a href="#page69">69</a>, <a href="#page81">81</a> f., +<a href="#page83">83</a>, <a href="#page84">84</a>, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a> f., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n., <a href="#page231">231</a><br> +Hatch, Edwin, <a href="#page25">25</a>, <a href="#page82">82</a><br> +Hausrath, Adolf, <a href="#page22">22</a><br> +Haussleiter, J., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a><br> +Havet, E., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page54">54</a>, <a href="#page63">63</a><br> +Hegel, <a href="#page15">15</a>, <a href="#page16">16</a>, <a href="#page21">21</a><br> +Heinrici, G. F., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page45">45</a>, <a href="#page63">63</a> n., <a href="#page67">67</a>, +<a href="#page80">80</a> n., <a href="#page87">87</a>, <a href="#page93">93</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a> n.<br> +Heitmüller, W., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a> ff., +<a href="#page208">208</a> n.<br> +Heliogabalus, <a href="#page181">181</a><br> +Hepding, H., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a><br> +Hilgenfeld, A., <a href="#page129">129</a><br> +Hofmann, C. K. von, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page41">41</a><br> +Hollmann, G., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page211">211</a> n.<br> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page252">[pg 252]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg252"></a> + +<p class="index">Holsten, K., <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a>, <a href="#page38">38</a> f., <a href="#page63">63</a>, <a href="#page66">66</a> ff., +<a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a> f.<br> +Holtzmann, H. J., <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a> f., <a href="#page100">100</a>, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a> f., <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a> f., <a href="#page221">221</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Ignatius, v, vi, vii, <a href="#page80">80</a>, <a href="#page82">82</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a>, <a href="#page127">127</a>, +<a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a>, <a href="#page248">248</a></p> + +<p class="index">Jacoby, Adolf, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a> n.<br> +Jakoby, Hermann, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a> f.<br> +Jerome, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Josephus, <a href="#page51">51</a><br> +Julian, <a href="#page181">181</a> n.<br> +Jülicher, Adolf, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a> n.<br> +Juncker, Alfred, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a> f.<br> +Justin Martyr, v, vi, vii, <a href="#page80">80</a>, <a href="#page82">82</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a>, +<a href="#page128">128</a>, <a href="#page132">132</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a>, <a href="#page217">217</a>, <a href="#page248">248</a></p> + +<p class="index">Kabisch, R., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page58">58</a> ff., <a href="#page74">74</a>, <a href="#page76">76</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, +<a href="#page111">111</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>,<a href="#page222">222</a><br> +Kalthoff, A., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a> n.<br> +Kant, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page118">118</a><br> +Karl, W., <a href="#page81">81</a> n., <a href="#page152">152</a><br> +Kautzsch, E. F., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page88">88</a><br> +Knopf, R., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a> ff.<br> +Kölbing, P., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a> ff.<br> +Kreyer, J., <a href="#page95">95</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Lechler, G. V., <a href="#page12">12</a>, <a href="#page18">18</a><br> +Lightfoot, John, <a href="#page48">48</a> n.<br> +Lipsius, R. A., <a href="#page12">12</a>, <a href="#page19">19</a> f., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page64">64</a> n.<br> +Loman, A. D., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page124">124</a> f., <a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br> +Loofs, F., <a href="#page63">63</a> n., <a href="#page173">173</a> n.<br> +Lüdemann, H., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page28">28</a> ff., <a href="#page34">34</a> f., <a href="#page62">62</a> f., +<a href="#page66">66</a>, <a href="#page71">71</a>, <a href="#page86">86</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br> +Luther, <a href="#page33">33</a>, <a href="#page50">50</a></p> + +<p class="index">Manen, W. C. van, <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page125">125</a>, <a href="#page129">129</a> ff., +<a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br> +Marcion, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page128">128</a> f.<br> +Marcus Aurelius, <a href="#page96">96</a> n., <a href="#page98">98</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a><br> +Mau, Georg, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a> n.<br> +Maurenbrecher, Max, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page232">232</a> f.<br> +Mehlhorn, Karl, <a href="#page38">38</a> n.<br> +Ménégoz, L. E., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page31">31</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a><br> +Meuschen, J. G., <a href="#page48">48</a> n.<br> +Meyer, Arnold, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a> n.<br> +Meyer, G. W., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page9">9</a> n.<br> +Michaelis, J. D., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page5">5</a> n., <a href="#page7">7</a><br> +Müller, Iwan, <a href="#page181">181</a> n.<br> +Müller, J., <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a> n.<br> +Munzinger, Karl, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Naber, S. A., <a href="#page123">123</a><br> +Neander, J. A. W., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page10">10</a> n.<br> +Nork, J., <a href="#page48">48</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Olschewski, W., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page171">171</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Paulus, H. E. G., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page10">10</a> f.<br> +Pfleiderer, Otto, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page31">31</a>, <a href="#page34">34</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>, <a href="#page66">66</a> ff., <a href="#page76">76</a>, <a href="#page80">80</a>, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page111">111</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a> f., +<a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a><br> +Philo, <a href="#page51">51</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a>, <a href="#page98">98</a>, <a href="#page110">110</a><br> +Pierson, Allard, <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a><br> +Plato, <a href="#page211">211</a><br> +Preuschen, E., <a href="#page82">82</a> n.<br> +Ptolemy Soter, <a href="#page184">184</a></p> + +<p class="index">Rambach, J. J., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page3">3</a><br> +Reinach, S., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a> n.<br> +Reitzenstein, R., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a> n., <a href="#page208">208</a> n., +<a href="#page212">212</a> n., <a href="#page216">216</a> n., <a href="#page218">218</a> ff., <a href="#page225">225</a>, <a href="#page230">230</a><br> +Renan, Ernest, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a><br> +Resch, A., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page42">42</a> n.<br> +Reuss, E., <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page31">31</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a><br> +Ritschl, Albrecht, <a href="#page12">12</a>, <a href="#page16">16</a> f., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page40">40</a> f., +<a href="#page43">43</a>, <a href="#page83">83</a>, <a href="#page84">84</a><br> +Rohde, E., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a> n.<br> +Roscher, H. R., <a href="#page180">180</a><br> +Rothe, R., <a href="#page56">56</a></p> + +<p class="index">Sabatier, A., <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page32">32</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a><br> +Schettler, A., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a> n.<br> +Schläger, G., <a href="#page117">117</a><br> +Schlatter, A., <a href="#page152">152</a><br> +Schleiermacher, F. E. D., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page7">7</a> f.<br> +Schmidt, Ernst, <a href="#page182">182</a> n.<br> +Schmiedel, P. W., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page63">63</a>, <a href="#page88">88</a>, <a href="#page103">103</a><br> +Schnedermann, G., <a href="#page45">45</a> n.<br> +Schniewind, J., <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a> n.<br> +Scholten, J. H., <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a> n.<br> +Schopenhauer, <a href="#page118">118</a><br> +Schöttgen, C., <a href="#page48">48</a> n.<br> +Schrader, Karl, <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page10">10</a> n.<br> +Schürer, Emil, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page45">45</a><br> +Schwartz, E. E., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page219">219</a><br> +Schwegler, A., <a href="#page12">12</a>, <a href="#page16">16</a><br> +Schweitzer, A., <a href="#page170">170</a><br> +Seeberg, R., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br> +Semler, J. S., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page4">4</a> f., <a href="#page148">148</a><br> +Seneca, <a href="#page95">95</a> f., <a href="#page122">122</a><br> +Siegfried, K., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a> n.<br> +Simon, Theodor, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page96">96</a> n.<br> +Smith, W. B., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page234">234</a> f.<br> +Sokolowski, E., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a> n.<br> +Soltau, W., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n.<br> +Spiegelberg, W., <a href="#page212">212</a> n.<br> +Spitta, F., <a href="#page52">52</a> n., <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a><br> +Steck, Rudolf, <a href="#page117">117</a>, <a href="#page125">125</a>, <a href="#page128">128</a> n., <a href="#page129">129</a> ff., +<a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br> +Sulze, E., <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a><br> +Surenhus (Surenhuys), W., <a href="#page48">48</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Teichmann, Ernst, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page74">74</a> ff.<br> +Tertullian, v, <a href="#page95">95</a>, <a href="#page128">128</a>, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a><br> +Titius, Arthur, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a> ff., <a href="#page165">165</a></p> + + <span class="tei tei-pb" id="page253">[pg 253]</span><a class="tei tei-anchor" id="Pg253"></a> + +<p class="index">Usener, H., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a> +Usteri, L., <a href="#page2">2</a>, <a href="#page9">9</a> f.</p> + +<p class="index">Vischer, E., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a> n.<br> +Volck, W., <a href="#page26">26</a> n., <a href="#page41">41</a> n.<br> +Volkmar, G., <a href="#page23">23</a><br> +Vollmer, H., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page48">48</a> n., <a href="#page88">88</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a><br> +Völter, Daniel, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a> ff.<br> +Volz, Paul, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Walther, W., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a> n.<br> +Weber, F., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page45">45</a><br> +Weinel, Heinrich, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a> f., <a href="#page165">165</a> n.<br> +Weiss, Bernhard, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page27">27</a> n., <a href="#page35">35</a>, <a href="#page41">41</a>, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, <a href="#page64">64</a>, <a href="#page66">66</a>, <a href="#page69">69</a><br> +Weiss, Johannes, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a> n.<br> +Weisse, C. H., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page28">28</a>, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a> f.<br> +Weizsäcker, Karl von, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page35">35</a>, <a href="#page64">64</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a> f., <a href="#page69">69</a>, <a href="#page128">128</a> n.<br> +Wellhausen, J., <a href="#page46">46</a> n., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a> n.<br> +Wendland, P., <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a> n.<br> +Wendt, H. H., <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page30">30</a> n.<br> +Wernle, P., <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page60">60</a> n., <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a> f., <a href="#page180">180</a>, +<a href="#page210">210</a> f.<br> +Wieseler, K., <a href="#page12">12</a>, <a href="#page15">15</a><br> +Windisch, H., <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a> n.<br> +Wobbermin, G., <a href="#page180">180</a><br> +Wolf, J. C., <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page3">3</a><br> +Wrede, William, <a href="#page100">100</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a> ff., <a href="#page177">177</a><br> +Wünsch, R., <a href="#page187">187</a> n.</p> + +<p class="index">Zahn, Theodor, <a href="#page22">22</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a>, <a href="#page96">96</a> n.<br> +Zeller, E., <a href="#page20">20</a> n.<br> +Ziegler, Theobald, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page95">95</a> n.<br> +Zwingli, <a href="#page33">33</a></p> + +<p class="center">THE END</p> + +<p class="center"><i>Printed by</i> R. & R. Clark, Limited, <i>Edinburgh</i>.</p> + + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_15">FOOTNOTES</h2> + +<ul> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_0">PREFACE Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_1">CHAPTER I Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_2">CHAPTER II Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_3">CHAPTER III Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_3">CHAPTER IV Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_5">CHAPTER V Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_6">CHAPTER VI Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_7">CHAPTER VII Notes</a></li> + <li><a href="#mbp_note_8">CHAPTER VIII Notes</a></li> +</ul> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_0">NOTES FOR PREFACE</h3> + +<p><a href="#pn1-ref" id="pn1">1</a> Sub-title: <i>“Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung.”</i> English +translation “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” London, A. & C. Black, +1910, 2nd ed. 1911.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_1">NOTES FOR CHAPTER I</h3> + +<p><a href="#c1n1-ref" id="c1n1">2</a> In the Amsterdam edition of the whole in 1679, the <i>Annotationes</i> +on the Pauline Epistles (1009 pp.), with those on the other Epistles +and the Apocalypse, form vol. iii. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n2-ref" id="c1n2">3</a> 1723, 822 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n3-ref" id="c1n3">4</a> 1st ed. 1742; 2nd, 1745, 232 pp. (For title see head of chapter.) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n4-ref" id="c1n4">5</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n5-ref" id="c1n5">6</a> 135 pp. Later editions 1765, 1774, 1792, 1809. The last two +were brought out under the care of Ammon. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n6-ref" id="c1n6">7</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n7-ref" id="c1n7">8</a> 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.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n8-ref" id="c1n8">9</a> 298 pp. A striking and brilliantly written work. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n9-ref" id="c1n9">10</a> <i>Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Romanos . . . cum Dissertatione de +Appendice, capp.</i> xv. et xvi., 1769, 311 pp. (Dedicated to Johann +August Ernesti.)<br><br> + +<i>Paraphrasis in Primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam,</i> 1770, 540 pp. +(Dedicated to Johann David Michaelis.)<br><br> + +<i>Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthios,</i> 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? +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n10-ref" id="c1n10">11</a> Johann David Michaelis, <i>Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen +Bundes,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n11-ref" id="c1n11">12</a> <i>Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,</i> 1790, 566 pp. <i>Anmerkungen +für Ungelehrte zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,</i> 4 vols., +1790-92. The Pauline Epistles are treated in vols. iii. and iv. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n12-ref" id="c1n12">13</a> Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher, <i>Über den sogenannten +ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben +an Joachim Christian Gass,</i> 1807. In his complete works this is to be +found in the second volume of the first division, 1836, pp. 223-320. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n13-ref" id="c1n13">14</a> Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, <i>Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das +Neue Testament,</i> 1st ed., vol. iii., second half (1814), pp. 315-410.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n14-ref" id="c1n14">15</a> Leonhard Usteri, <i>Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,</i> +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n15-ref" id="c1n15">16</a> The first work which undertook to give an account of the Apostle’s +system of thought as such is Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer’s <i>Entwicklung des +paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,</i> 1801, 380 pp. The author has collected the +material well, but does not know in what direction Paul’s peculiarity +lies. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n16-ref" id="c1n16">17</a> Of the works which criticise Usteri and mark an advance in +Pauline study the following may be named:—<br><br> + +Karl Schrader, <i>Der Apostel Paulus;</i> 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.<br><br> + +August Ferdinand Dähne, <i>Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,</i> +1835, 211 pp.<br><br> + +Mention may also be made of the chapter on Paulinism in J. A. W. +Neander’s <i>Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche +durch die Apostel,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c1n17-ref" id="c1n17">18</a> H. E. G. Paulus, <i>Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die +Galater- und Römer-Christen,</i> 1831, 368 pp. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_2">NOTES FOR CHAPTER II BAUR AND HIS CRITICS</h3> + +<p><a href="#c2n1-ref" id="c2n1">19</a> Albert Schwegler, <i>Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den +Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n2-ref" id="c2n2">20</a> Albrecht Ritschl, <i>Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, eine +kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Monographie,</i> 1850, 622 pp.; 2nd ed., +1857, 605 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n3-ref" id="c2n3">21</a> Gotthard Viktor Lechler, <i>Das apostolische und das +nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rücksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und +Leben</i> ( . . . 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.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n4-ref" id="c2n4">22</a> <i>Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre,</i> 1853, 219 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n5-ref" id="c2n5">23</a> In 1850, <i>Beiträge zur Erklärung der Korinthesbriefe,</i> pp. 139-185. +Continued in 1852, pp. 1-40 and 535-574. In 1855, <i>Die beiden Briefe +an die Thessalonicher; ihre Achtheit und Bedeutung für die Lehre der +Parusie Christi, pp.</i> 141-168 ( . . . their genuineness and their +significance for the doctrine of the parousia of Christ). In 1857, <i>Über +Zweck und Gedankengang des Römerbriefs nebst der Erörterung einiger +paulinischen Begriffe,</i> pp. 60-108 and 184-209 (“On the Purpose and +the Argument of Romans, with a Discussion of certain Pauline +Conceptions.”) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n6-ref" id="c2n6">24</a> <i>Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c2n7-ref" id="c2n7">25</a> <i>Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie.</i> Published by +Ferdinand Friedrich Baur, 1864, 407 pp. Pages 128-207 deal with the +doctrinal system of Paul. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_3">NOTES FOR CHAPTER III FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN</h3> + +<p><a href="#c3n1-ref" id="c3n1">26</a> <i>Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt,</i> 1880, 504 pp. +Adolf Harnack (in <i>Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis +Eusebius,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n2-ref" id="c3n2">27</a> <i>Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe,</i> 1872, 338 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n3-ref" id="c3n3">28</a> <i>Einleitung in das Neue Testament,</i> 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, <i>Einleitung in das Neue Testament,</i> 1894, +404 pp. The Pauline Epistles are treated in pp. 19-128.<br><br> + +A mediating position is taken up by E. Reuss, <i>Geschichte der heiligen +Schriften Neuen Testaments</i> (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 <i>Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique</i> (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 <i>Neutestamentliche Theologie,</i> +1891; 2nd ed., 1896. Only the Pastorals spurious.<br><br> + +A conservative stand-point is occupied by Bernhard Weiss, <i>Einleitung +in das Neue Testament,</i> 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, <i>Einleitung in das Neue Testament,</i> 1st ed., 1897, vol. i., 489 pp. +Pauline Epistles, pp. 109-489. Ch. K. v. Hofmann in his <i>Einleitung</i> +(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 <i>(Introduction au Nouveau Testament,</i> 1893, 737 pp.) +regards all thirteen Epistles as genuine. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n4-ref" id="c3n4">29</a> Typical in this respect is the procedure of Bernhard Weiss in his +<i>Neutestamentliche Theologie</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n5-ref" id="c3n5">30</a> <i>Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,</i> 3 pts., 1850, 74 pp.; 1851, 76 pp.; +1852, 129 pp.; <i>Christus und die Cäsaren,</i> 1877, 387 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n6-ref" id="c3n6">31</a> <i>Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe an die Galater, Römer +Philipper und Kolosser.</i> Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n7-ref" id="c3n7">32</a> Lüdemann was opposed by H. H. Wendt in his work <i>Die +Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch,</i> 1878, 219 pp.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n8-ref" id="c3n8">33</a> Otto Pfleiderer, <i>Das Urchristentum,</i> 1887. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n9-ref" id="c3n9">34</a> Auguste Sabatier, <i>L’Apôtre Paul, esquisse d’une histoire de sa +pensée,</i> 1870, 296 pp. (2nd ed., 1881; 3rd ed., 1897). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n10-ref" id="c3n10">35</a> <i>Das Evangelium des Paulus,</i> pt. 2 (edited by Mehlhorn), 1898, 172 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n11-ref" id="c3n11">36</a> P. 31. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n12-ref" id="c3n12">37</a> <i>Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus,</i> 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 +<i>σάρξ</i> (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 <i>Das Evangelium des Paulus,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n13-ref" id="c3n13">38</a> Albrecht Ritschl, <i>Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und +Versöhnung,</i> 1874, vol. ii. 377 pp. On Paul, pp. 215-259 and 300-369. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n14-ref" id="c3n14">39</a> <i>Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments,</i> 1st ed. +1868, 756 pp. On Paulinism, pp. 216-507; 6th ed. 1895, 677 pp. On +Paulinism, 201-463. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n15-ref" id="c3n15">40</a> <i>Neutestamentliche Theologie,</i> 1st ed. 1891; 2nd ed. 1896, vol. ii. +552 pp. On Paul, pp. 1-285. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n16-ref" id="c3n16">41</a> Ch. K. v. Hofmann, <i>Biblische Theologie</i> (vol. xi. of “Die heilige +Schrift Neuen Testaments”; edited by Volck), 1886, 328 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n17-ref" id="c3n17">42</a> <i>Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Kirche,</i> +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n18-ref" id="c3n18">43</a> <i>Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n19-ref" id="c3n19">44</a> <i>Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.</i> In the second edition the work +bears the title <i>Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi</i> +(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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n20-ref" id="c3n20">45</a> <i>System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie aus Targum, +Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt,</i> 399 pp. (Edited after the author’s +death by Delitzsch and Schnedermann.)<br><br> + +The second edition (1897, 427 pp.) bears the title <i>Jüdische Theologie +auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften</i> (“Jewish Theology +described on the Basis of the Talmud and cognate Writings”).<br><br> + +The earlier literature is referred to in Hans Vollmer’s <i>Die +alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus</i> (1895), 81 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n21-ref" id="c3n21">46</a> A typical utterance is that of J. Wellhausen <i>(Israelitische und +jüdische Geschichte,</i> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n22-ref" id="c3n22">47</a> <i>Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer in das Hebräische übersetzt, +und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert,</i> 1870, 122 pp.<br><br> + +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.<br><br> + +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.<br><br> + +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 <i>(Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,</i> 1895, pp. 80, 81). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n23-ref" id="c3n23">48</a> A good general idea of the Rabbinic literature as a whole is given by +Bousset in his work <i>Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen +Zeitalter,</i> 1903, 2nd ed., 1906, pp. 45-53. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n24-ref" id="c3n24">49</a> 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 <i>Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief +des Judas</i> (1885, 544 pp.) and the studies <i>Zur Geschichte und Literatur +des Urchristentums</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n25-ref" id="c3n25">50</a> <i>Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie,</i> 1888, 126 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n26-ref" id="c3n26">51</a> <i>Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem +Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus</i> ( ... 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n27-ref" id="c3n27">52</a> He did not, unfortunately, follow it up with the work on the Ethics. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n28-ref" id="c3n28">53</a> The eschatological character of the Pauline mysticism is also +pointed out by Paul Wernle in his suggestive study <i>Der Christ und +die Sünde bei Paulus</i> (1897, 138 pp.), but he does not follow out the +idea in all its consequences.<br><br> + +A certain recognition of the “physical” character of the doctrine +of redemption is also arrived at by Adolf Deissmann. In his study, +<i>Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu”</i> (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.<br><br> + +The old psychologising and spiritualising methods are in no way +departed from by W. Brandt. In his work, <i>Die evangelische Geschichte +und der Ursprung des Christentums</i> (“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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n29-ref" id="c3n29">54</a> Georg Heinrici, <i>Auslegung der Korintherbriefe</i> (I Cor., 1880, 574 pp.; +2 Cor., 1887, 606 pp.). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n30-ref" id="c3n30">55</a> P. W. Schmiedel, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und +Korinther,” in Holtzmann’s <i>Handkommentar,</i> vol. ii. section i.; 1st ed., +1891; 2nd ed., 1892. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n31-ref" id="c3n31">56</a> <i>Dogmengeschichte,</i> 3rd ed., 1894, vol. i. On Paul, pp. 83-95. +Friedrich Loofs in his <i>Dogmengeschichte</i> (1890, 443 pp.) takes up no +definite attitude towards the Pauline problem. Reinhold Seeberg, too +<i>(Dogmengeschichte,</i> first half, 1895, 332 pp.), does not go into the +doctrine of the Apostle. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n32-ref" id="c3n32">57</a> R. A. Lipsius, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, Römer +und Philipper,” in Holtzmann’s <i>Handkommentar,</i> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n33-ref" id="c3n33">58</a> <i>Das apostolische Zeitalter,</i> 1886, pp. 105-151. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n34-ref" id="c3n34">59</a> It is most clearly developed by Holsten on pp. 37 and 38 of the +second part of his <i>Evangelium des Paulus,</i> 1896. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n35-ref" id="c3n35">60</a> Vol. i., 1880; vol. ii., 1887. See especially the Introduction and +the Epilogue to vol. ii. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n36-ref" id="c3n36">61</a> 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.<br><br> + +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.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n37-ref" id="c3n37">62</a> An allusion to the passage in <i>Faust,</i> “Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, +in meiner Brust.”—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n38-ref" id="c3n38">63</a> Ernst Teichmann, <i>Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung +und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik</i> (“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 <i>Revue de Théologie et de +Philosophie</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n39-ref" id="c3n39">64</a> Hermann Gunkel, <i>Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der +populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des +Apostels Paulus</i> (“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, <i>Der +Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n40-ref" id="c3n40">65</a> <i>Urchristentum,</i> 1887. Similarly Heinrici in his commentary on +2 Corinthians. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n41-ref" id="c3n41">66</a> F. C. Baur, <i>Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte</i> +(“Lectures on the History of Dogma”), vol. i. From the apostolic period +to the synod of Nicaea, 1865 (edited by Ferdinand Friedrich Baur). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n42-ref" id="c3n42">67</a> <i>Dogmengeschichte,</i> 1885, vol. i.; 3rd ed., 1894; 4th ed., 1909. +Wilhelm Karl, too, in his <i>Beiträge zum Verständnis der soteriologischen +Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n43-ref" id="c3n43">68</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n44-ref" id="c3n44">69</a> <i>i.e.</i> as used in this connexion, here and later, the belief in the +universal destination of the Gospel, not in universal salvation. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n45-ref" id="c3n45">70</a> <i>Paulus in Athen.</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n46-ref" id="c3n46">71</a> Preface to his Exposition of 2 Corinthians, 1887. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n47-ref" id="c3n47">72</a> Holtzmann’s <i>Handkommentar,</i> 2nd ed. The Epistles to the +Corinthians, p. 92. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n48-ref" id="c3n48">73</a> Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, <i>De veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo +Apostolo allegatis,</i> 1869, 110 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n49-ref" id="c3n49">74</a> Hans Vollmer, <i>Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus . . . nebst +einem Anhang über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,</i> 1895, 103 pp. +(“The Old Testament quotations in Paul . . . with an Appendix on +the Apostle’s relation to Philo”). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n50-ref" id="c3n50">75</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n51-ref" id="c3n51">76</a> Eduard Grafe, <i>Das Verhältnis der paulinischen Schriften zur +Sapientia Salamonis</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n52-ref" id="c3n52">77</a> <i>Über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,</i> an appendix to his +work on <i>Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,</i> 1895, pp. 80-98. +See also Carl Siegfried, <i>Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten +Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss +betrachtet</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n53-ref" id="c3n53">78</a> Ernst Curtius in the essay cited above defends the historicity of +Acts xvii. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n54-ref" id="c3n54">79</a> W. Gass, <i>Geschichte der christlichen Ethik,</i> 1881, vol. i. 457 pp. +On Paul, pp. 34-38. Theobald Ziegler, <i>Geschichte der christlichen +Ethik,</i> 1886, 593 pp. On Paul, pp. 72-90. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n55-ref" id="c3n55">80</a> Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, <i>Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,</i> 1868, 155 pp.; +3rd ed., 1880. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n56-ref" id="c3n56">81</a> The Christian character of Seneca’s thought was remarked as +early as Tertullian, who in <i>de Anima,</i> 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, +<i>Saint Paul et Sénèque. Recherches sur les rapports du philosophe avec +l’apôtre et sur l’infiltration du Christianisme naissant à travers le +paganisme,</i> 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. <i>Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zur +Urchristentum</i> ( . . . 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, <i>Étude +critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et St Paul,</i> 1857, 442 pp. +All connexion between Seneca and Christianity is denied. In the +work of Michael Baumgarten, <i>Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das +Christentum</i> (1895, 368 pp.) no connexion between Seneca and Paul is admitted. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n57-ref" id="c3n57">82</a> See Theodor Zahn, <i>Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum +Christentum.</i> 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.<br><br> + +Inconceivable as it may appear, even the <i>Meditations</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c3n58-ref" id="c3n58">83</a> Theodor Simon, <i>Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus,</i> 1897, 118 pp. +A leisurely analysis of the material. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_4">NOTES FOR CHAPTER IV H. J. HOLTZMANN</h3> + +<p><a href="#c4n1-ref" id="c4n1">84</a> In connexion with the following remarks on questions of principle, +see also W. Wrede, <i>Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten +Neutestamentlichen Theologie,</i> 1897, 80 pp.<br><br> + +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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c4n2-ref" id="c4n2">85</a> Holtzmann, p. 111. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c4n3-ref" id="c4n3">86</a> Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 6, where Paul speaks of himself as “inexpert in speech, +but not in knowledge” (<i>τῇ γνώσει</i>). 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. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_5">NOTES FOR CHAPTER V CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES</h3> + +<p><a href="#c5n1-ref" id="c5n1">87</a> <i>Die Apostelgeschichte,</i> 1850, 143 pp. Acts, it is argued, is a work +of “free reflexion” in which various hands have had a part.<br><br> + +<i>Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,</i> 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.<br><br> + +The first to venture an attack on one of the main Epistles was +Edward Evanson, <i>The Dissonance of the four generally received +Evangelists, and the evidence of their respective authenticity examined</i> +(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 <i>Dissonance</i> made +some stir, and was answered by Joseph Priestley in <i>Letters to a +Young Man,</i> 1792-93, and by T. Falconer, Bampton Lecture, 1810.—TRANSLATOR.] +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n2-ref" id="c5n2">88</a> See A. Schweitzer, <i>Von Reimarus zu Wrede,</i> pp. 137-159 (Eng. +trans., <i>The Quest of the Historical Jesus,</i> pp. 137-160). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n3-ref" id="c5n3">89</a> <i>Christus und die Cäsaren,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n4-ref" id="c5n4">90</a> A spiritual descendant of Bauer’s who writes on popular lines is +Albert Kalthoff <i>(Die Entstehung des Christentums,</i> 1904, 155 pp.). +But neither as regards the problem nor its solution has he contributed +anything to Pauline scholarship. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n5-ref" id="c5n5">91</a> Allard Pierson, <i>De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten,</i> +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n6-ref" id="c5n6">92</a> A. Pierson and S. A. Naber, <i>Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem +Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt,</i> 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?<br><br> + +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.<br><br> + +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.<br><br> + +The theory that Christianity developed out of an already existing +Jewish movement is maintained also by M. Friedländer in his popular +and unimportant work, <i>Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen +Welt,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n7-ref" id="c5n7">93</a> A. D. Loman, “Quaestiones Paulinae,” <i>Theol. Tijdschrift,</i> 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 <i>Apage +Satana!</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n8-ref" id="c5n8">94</a> Rudolf Steck, <i>Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht +nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen</i> (“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.<br><br> + +The views of Pierson, Loman, and Steck are critically examined by +J. M. S. Baljon in his <i>Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief +van Paulus an de Galatiërs,</i> 1899, 424 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n9-ref" id="c5n9">95</a> W. C. van Manen, <i>Paulus,</i> 3 vols. (see head of chapter for +particulars). The author describes on pp. 9-11 how he came to reject +the Pauline Epistles. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n10-ref" id="c5n10">96</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n11-ref" id="c5n11">97</a> 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.) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n12-ref" id="c5n12">98</a> 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,” <i>Aen.</i> ii. 49.—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n13-ref" id="c5n13">99</a> 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 <i>Apology</i> and the +<i>Dialogue,</i> mere literary works and not as yet Church books. The <i>Didache,</i> +the <i>Shepherd</i> of Hermas, and the <i>Epistle of Barnabas</i> show no certain +evidence of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n14-ref" id="c5n14">100</a> <i>Tertullian adversus Marcionem,</i> bk. v., goes through the Epistles +of Paul as used by Marcion in those “Antitheses” which are now +lost to us. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n15-ref" id="c5n15">101</a> <i>Theologisch Tijdschrift,</i> 1887, pp. 382-533. “Marcions Brief van +Paulus aan de Galatiërs.” The text thus arrived at is given on pp. +528-533.<br><br> + +Van Manen is also inclined to hold that early Church witnesses +may be found for a shorter recension of Romans. See <i>Die Unechtheit +des Römerbriefs,</i> 94-100.<br><br> + +A reconstruction of the Marcionite text of Galatians had already +been undertaken by Adolf Hilgenfeld, <i>Der Galaterbrief,</i> 1852, 239 pp., +pp. 218-234. He holds that it was not the original but a mutilated +form. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n16-ref" id="c5n16">102</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n17-ref" id="c5n17">103</a> 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, +<i>Historisch-critische Bijdragen naar Aanleiding van de nieuweste Hypothese +aangaande Jesus en den Paulus der vier Hoofdbrieven</i> (“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.<br><br> + +From the German literature we may cite G. Heinrici, <i>Die +Forschungen über die paulinischen Briefe: ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre +Aufgaben</i> (“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, <i>Die chronologische Reihenfolge, +in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind</i> (“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, <i>Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe,</i> 1893, 292 pp. +By the same writer, <i>Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe</i> (“The +Integrity of the Pauline Epistles”), 1894, 183 pp.<br><br> + +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 <i>Paulus</i> (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.<br><br> + +In the preface the author begs that he may not be held accountable +for his views prior to his Damascus.<br><br> + +The second volume of the work, <i>Paulus. Sein Leben und Werken,</i> +1904, 339 pp., is in biographical form, and does not enter further into +the problems of the doctrine.<br><br> + +A writer who takes the “Ultra-Tübingen” side is J. Friedrich +(Maehliss). In his work entitled <i>Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs</i> (“The +Spuriousness of Galatians”), 1891, 67 pp., he defends both the rights +of radical criticism and of a “simplified orthography.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n18-ref" id="c5n18">104</a> See p. 128, <i>sup</i>. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n19-ref" id="c5n19">105</a> See p. 128, <i>sup</i>. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n20-ref" id="c5n20">106</a> See p. 129, <i>sup</i>. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n21-ref" id="c5n21">107</a> See pp. 114 and 115 of the work cited above, p. 134. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n22-ref" id="c5n22">108</a> Christian Hermann Weisse, <i>Philosophische Dogmatik oder +Philosophie des Christentums,</i> 3 vols., 1855, 60, 62; vol. i., 712 pp. On the +Pauline Epistles, pp. 144-147. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n23-ref" id="c5n23">109</a> On Romans see also vol. iii. of the <i>Philosophische Dogmatik</i> (1862, +736 pp.), pp. 263, 264.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n24-ref" id="c5n24">110</a> In 2 Corinthians, which shows no evidence of interpolation, +three different letters to this church are worked up together. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n25-ref" id="c5n25">111</a> Christian Hermann Weisse, <i>Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen +Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper und Kolosser</i> (“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.”<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n26-ref" id="c5n26">112</a> Daniel Völter, <i>Die Entstehung der Apokalypse,</i> 1882, 72 pp. <i>Die +Komposition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe,</i> 1890, 174 pp. The Epistles +examined are those to the Romans and Galatians. <i>Paulus und seine +Briefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der +paulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n27-ref" id="c5n27">113</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n28-ref" id="c5n28">114</a> Völter is also able to indicate additions which have taken place +subsequently to this redaction.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n29-ref" id="c5n29">115</a> The well-known German religious journal. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n30-ref" id="c5n30">116</a> 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, <i>Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand +der bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und +Kompilationshypothesen</i> (“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.<br><br> + +A survey of previous work in conjectural criticism is given by +J. M. S. Baljon in <i>De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, +de Corinthiërs en de Galatiërs,</i> 1884, 189 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c5n31-ref" id="c5n31">117</a> Friedrich Spitta, <i>Untersuchungen über den Brief des Paulus an +die Römer</i> (“A Study of the Epistle to the Romans”), 1901, 193 pp. +In the work <i>Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums,</i> vol. iii. +part i. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_6">NOTES FOR CHAPTER VI THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE +TWENTIETH CENTURY</h3> + +<p><a href="#c6n1-ref" id="c6n1">118</a> Otto Pfleiderer, <i>Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren,</i> +2nd ed., 1902, vol. i. 696 pp. On Paul, pp. 24-335. (Eng. trans. +“Primitive Christianity,” vol. i. pp. 33-471.) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n2-ref" id="c6n2">119</a> On this point Pfleiderer follows suggestions given by Teichmann +in his work, <i>Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und +Gericht</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n3-ref" id="c6n3">120</a> Paul Wernle, <i>Die Anfänge unserer Religion,</i> 1st ed., 1901, 410 pp. +On Paul, pp. 95-220. By the same author, <i>Paulus als Heidenmissionar</i> +(“Paul as a Missionary to the Gentiles”), Lecture, 1899, 36 pp. Heinrich +Weinel, <i>Paulus,</i> 1904, 316 pp. The book grew out of essays which +the author published in the <i>Christliche Welt.</i> By the same author, +<i>Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator.</i> (Inaugural Lecture.) 1899, 30 pp.<br><br> + +Other works from this popular literature are: Adolf Harnack, <i>Das +Wesen des Christentums,</i> 1900, 189 pp. On Paul, pp. 110-118. Georg +Hollmann, <i>Urchristentum in Corinth,</i> 1903, 32 pp. Paul Feine, <i>Paulus +als Theologe,</i> 1906, 80 pp. Carl Munzinger, <i>Paulus in Corinth. Neue +Wege zum Verständnis des Urchristentums</i> (“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.<br><br> + +As a special investigation of a point of detail at this date we may +mention Karl Dick’s work, <i>Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus</i> +(“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n4-ref" id="c6n4">121</a> <i>Paulus als Heidenmissionar,</i> p. 36. Ernst von Dobschütz calls +attention to the dangers of this method, which easily becomes +unscientific in <i>Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters.</i> (Five Lectures, 1904, +138 pp. See p. 61.) Paul Feine, <i>Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des +Paulus nach seinem Werdegange dargestellt,</i> 1899, 232 pp. <i>Jesus Christus +und Paulus,</i> 1902, 309 pp. Arthur Titius, <i>Der Paulinismus unter dem +Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit</i> (2nd Part of the work <i>Die neutestamentliche +Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart</i>—“The +New Testament Doctrine of Final Blessedness and its Significance +for the present Time”), 1900, 290 pp. A. Schlatter, in his <i>NTle. +Theologie</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n5-ref" id="c6n5">122</a> R. Drescher, too “Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus” in <i>Festgruss +an Stade,</i> 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.”<br><br> + +It should be mentioned that J. Wellhausen takes up a similar +stand-point. He gives it as his opinion, <i>Israelitische und jüdische +Geschichte</i> (6th ed., 1907, 386 pp.), that Paul “was really the man +who best understood the Master and carried on His work.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n6-ref" id="c6n6">123</a> <i>L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ,</i> 1904, 393 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n7-ref" id="c6n7">124</a> Adolf Harnack, <i>Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,</i> 4th ed., 1909, +vol. i., 826 pp. See p. 107. To the same effect, Adolf Jülicher, <i>Paulus +und Jesus,</i> 1907, 72 pp. See p. 34. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n8-ref" id="c6n8">125</a> Hermann Jakoby. <i>Neutestamentliche Ethik,</i> 1899, 480 pp. On +Paul, pp. 243-406. Alfred Juncker, <i>Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,</i> +part i., 1904, 288 pp.<br><br> + +Among other monographs we have to notice Emil Sokolowski’s <i>Die +Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehung zu einander,</i> +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.<br><br> + +Hans Windisch, <i>Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus,</i> 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 <i>Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus</i> (1897, +138 pp.), was the first to undertake. See p. 60 of the present work. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n9-ref" id="c6n9">126</a> Wilhelm Bousset, <i>Die Religion des Judentums im +neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,</i> 1903, 512 pp. Simultaneously appeared the same +writer’s work, <i>Die jüdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche +Herkunft und ihre Bedeutung für das neue Testament</i> (“Jewish +Apocalyptic, its Origin in the Light of Comparative Religion and its +Significance for the New Testament.” A Lecture, 1903.)<br><br> + +Eschatology receives special attention in the fine work of Hugo +Gressmann, <i>Der Ursprung der israelitisch jüdischen Eschatologie</i> (“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.<br><br> + +Paul Volz, <i>Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba,</i> 1903, 412 pp., +endeavours, somewhat unconvincingly, to give a sketch of Jewish +conceptions of the future age.<br><br> + +Everling’s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study +of Martin Dibelius, <i>Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n10-ref" id="c6n10">127</a> G. F. Heinrici’s work, <i>Das Urchristentum,</i> 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.<br><br> + +W. Bousset, <i>Der Apostel Paulus,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n11-ref" id="c6n11">128</a> Rendering <i>naturhaft.</i> 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 <i>naturhaft</i> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n12-ref" id="c6n12">129</a> <i>Neutestamentliche Theologie,</i> vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n13-ref" id="c6n13">130</a> W. Heitmüller, <i>Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus,</i> 1903, 56 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n14-ref" id="c6n14">131</a> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n15-ref" id="c6n15">132</a> William Wrede, <i>Paulus,</i> 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled +“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.”) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n16-ref" id="c6n16">133</a> In the sense of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n17-ref" id="c6n17">134</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n18-ref" id="c6n18">135</a> C. von Dobschütz, <i>Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n19-ref" id="c6n19">136</a> See the present writer’s <i>Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte +der Leben-Jesu-Forschung</i> (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.) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n20-ref" id="c6n20">137</a> 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.<br><br> + +P. Kölbing, <i>Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,</i> +1906 (“The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul”). +Adolf Jülicher, <i>Paulus und Jesus,</i> 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer, +<i>Wer hat das Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus?</i> 1907, 104 pp. +(“Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?”) Wilhelm Walther, <i>Pauli +Christentum, Jesu Evangelium,</i> 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, <i>Paulus +und Jesus,</i> 1909, 72 pp. <i>Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas,</i> 1909, 88 pp. +(“Christ: The Beginnings of Dogma”). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n21-ref" id="c6n21">138</a> Martin Brückner, <i>Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,</i> +1903, 237 pp.<br><br> + +The work appeared some months before Wrede’s <i>Paulus,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n22-ref" id="c6n22">139</a> Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n23-ref" id="c6n23">140</a> William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Brückner in his +thoughtful but obscure and heavily written dissertation, <i>Die Wurzeln der +paulinischen Christologie</i> (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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n24-ref" id="c6n24">141</a> From the literature we may mention A. Schettler, <i>Die paulinische +Formel “Durch Christus”</i> (“The Pauline Formula Through Christ”), +1907, 82 pp. J. Haussleiter, <i>Paulus,</i> 1909, 96 pp. (Lectures, popular.) +R. Knopf, Paulus, 1909, 123 pp. Eberhard Vischer, <i>Der Apostel +Paulus und sein Werk,</i> 1910, 143 pp. By the same author, <i>Die +Paulusbriefe,</i> 1906, 80 pp. A remarkably good, clearly and simply +written guide to questions of “Introduction.” Julius Schniewind, +<i>Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus</i> (“The Meaning of the +Terms ‘Word’ and ‘Gospel’ in Paul’s Writings”), 1910, 120 pp.<br><br> + +Johannes Müller, <i>Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums +der paulinischen Gemeinden,</i> 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 <i>Das +persönliche Christentum der paulinischen Gemeinden nach seiner +Entstehung untersucht</i> (“An Investigation of the Origin of the Personal +Christianity of the Pauline Churches”).<br><br> + +Adolf Deissmann, <i>Paulus,</i> 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.<br><br> + +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 <i>Licht +vom Osten</i> (“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 <i>Paulus,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n25-ref" id="c6n25">142</a> Adolf Harnack, <i>Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,</i> 4th ed., vol. i., +1909, 826 pp. On Paul, pp. 96-107 (3rd ed., 1893). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n26-ref" id="c6n26">143</a> Reinhold Seeberg, <i>Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,</i> 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.<br><br> + +The 4th ed. of Loofs’ <i>Dogmengeschichte</i> (1906, vol. i., 576 pp.) does +not deal with the Apostle of the Gentiles, any more than the preceding +editions. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n27-ref" id="c6n27">144</a> On Kabisch see above, pp. 58-63. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c6n28-ref" id="c6n28">145</a> A sifting and a survey of results is offered in the closing chapter, +“Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem” (448-493) in Bousset’s book, +<i>Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,</i> 1903 (“The +Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times”). +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_7">NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION</h3> + +<p><a href="#c7n1-ref" id="c7n1">146</a> Hermann Usener, <i>Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: “Das +Weihnachtsfest”</i> (1889, 337 pp.); <i>“Die Sintflutsagen”</i> (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, <i>Abraxas</i> (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth of +the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and <i>Nekyia,</i> +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n2-ref" id="c7n2">147</a> <i>Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,</i> 1st ed., 1906; +2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year 1905 +in the Collège de France.<br><br> + +We may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach’s <i>Cultes, +mythes et religions,</i> 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).<br><br> + +Otto Gruppe, <i>Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung +zu den orientalischen Religionen</i> (“Greek cults and Myths in their +relation to the Oriental Religions”), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and +<i>Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte</i> (“Greek Mythology +and the History of Greek Religions”). In Iwan Müller’s <i>Handbuch der +klassischen Altertumswissenschaft</i> (“Handbook of Classical +Antiquities”), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.<br><br> + +Georg Mau. <i>Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen +Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter</i> (“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.<br><br> + +Of a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong’s <i>Das +antike Mysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und +psychologischer Beleuchtung</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n3-ref" id="c7n3">148</a> On what follows see Hugo Hepding, <i>Attis, seine Mythen und sein +Kult,</i> 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of +“Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,” edited by Dieterich and +Wünsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, <i>Kultübertragungen</i> +(Cultus-Transferences: “Magna Mater,” “Asklepios,” “Sarapis”). In the same +series vol. viii., 1909. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n4-ref" id="c7n4">149</a> On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, <i>Les +Religions orientales,</i> pp. 101-103. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n5-ref" id="c7n5">150</a> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n6-ref" id="c7n6">151</a> On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, <i>Psyche</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n7-ref" id="c7n7">152</a> Franz Cumont, <i>Les Mystères de Mithra</i> (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., +1902). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n8-ref" id="c7n8">153</a> Albrecht Dieterich, <i>Eine Mithrasliturgie,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n9-ref" id="c7n9">154</a> From Dieterich, p. 15. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n10-ref" id="c7n10">155</a> Richard Reitzenstein, <i>Poimandres.</i> Studies in Graeco-Egyptian +and Early Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres +“community” [<i>Gemeinde,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n11-ref" id="c7n11">156</a> From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, <i>Zum +religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments</i> (“Contributions +to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative +Religion”), 1903, 96 pp.<br><br> + +Paul Wendland, <i>Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren +Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum</i> (“The Hellenistic-Roman +Civilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity”), 1907, 190 pp.<br><br> + +Adolf Deissmann, <i>Licht vom Osten</i> (“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, <i>Die Urgeschichte des Christentums +im Lichte der Sprachforschung</i> (“The History of Primitive Christianity +in the Light of Linguistic Research”), 1910, 48 pp.<br><br> + +Karl Clemen, <i>Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments</i> +(“Interpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative +Religion”), 1909, 301 pp.<br><br> + +Works which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject +are: Wilhelm Soltau, <i>Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen +Kirche</i> (“The Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian +Church”), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, <i>Mission und Ausbreitung des +Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten</i> (“Mission and Expansion +of Christianity in the first three Centuries”), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n12-ref" id="c7n12">157</a> Gustav Anrich, <i>Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf +das Christentum,</i> 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in +some respects supplementing Anrich’s work, is Georg Wobbermin’s +<i>Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des +Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen</i> (“Studies from the Point of +View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence of the +ancient Mysteries upon Christianity”), 1896, 190 pp.<br><br> + +Johannes Geffken in his popular work, <i>Aus der Werdezeit des +Christentums,</i> 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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n13-ref" id="c7n13">158</a> See <i>e.g.</i> Dieterich, <i>Mithrasliturgie,</i> 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.<br><br> + +[<i>Wiedergeburt</i> 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.] +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n14-ref" id="c7n14">159</a> P. Gennrich in his book, <i>Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in +dogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung</i> (“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.” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n15-ref" id="c7n15">160</a> See the introduction to <i>Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme +romain,</i> 2nd ed., 1909. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n16-ref" id="c7n16">161</a> Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Brückner, <i>Der +sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen +und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum</i> (“The divine Saviour who dies +and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation to +Christianity”). In the series of <i>Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher,</i> 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!<br><br> + +A popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf +Jacoby’s work, <i>Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum</i> +(“The ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity”), 1910, 44 pp., in +the series of <i>Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.</i> The author deserves +special credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they +can form their own impression.<br><br> + +Dieterich remarks with great justice in the <i>Mithrasliturgie</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n17-ref" id="c7n17">162</a> O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious +thought never really had the conception of a “world-redeemer” +<i>(Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte),</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n18-ref" id="c7n18">163</a> 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.<br><br> + +On the sacraments see also K. Clemen, <i>Religionsgeschichtliche +Erklärung des Neuen Testaments,</i> 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the +Supper, 165-207. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n19-ref" id="c7n19">164</a> <i>Mithrasliturgie,</i> 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n20-ref" id="c7n20">165</a> 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). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n21-ref" id="c7n21">166</a> <i>Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein.</i> +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n22-ref" id="c7n22">167</a> W. Heitmüller, <i>Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n23-ref" id="c7n23">168</a> <i>i.e.</i> Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears later, +with Reitzenstein, who is described as the “Pneumatic” of the +science. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n24-ref" id="c7n24">169</a> Albert Eichhorn, <i>Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament</i> (“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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n25-ref" id="c7n25">170</a> See on this R. Reitzenstein, <i>Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen</i> +(“The Hellenistic Mystery Religions”), p. 38. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n26-ref" id="c7n26">171</a> Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. <i>marg.</i>: laver of regeneration). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n27-ref" id="c7n27">172</a> Wilhelm Heitmüller, <i>Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und +religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur +altchristlichen Taufe</i> (“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, <i>mutatis mutandis,</i> 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.”<br><br> + +Unfortunately, Heitmüller has not emphasised the fact that the +Mystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.<br><br> + +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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n28-ref" id="c7n28">173</a> Paul Wernle, <i>Die Anfänge unserer Religion,</i> 1901, p. 129. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n29-ref" id="c7n29">174</a> In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted +here in full:—<br><br> + +<i>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</i>.<br><br> + +. . . “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, <i>Psyche,</i> i. +(1903), 259 ff. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n30-ref" id="c7n30">175</a> Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the +question, see Hollmann, <i>Urchristentum in Korinth</i> (“Primitive +Christianity in Corinth”), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n31-ref" id="c7n31">176</a> R. Reitzenstein, <i>Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,</i> p. 84. +The dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing +between two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n32-ref" id="c7n32">177</a> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n33-ref" id="c7n33">178</a> I Cor. i. 14-16. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n34-ref" id="c7n34">179</a> See Reitzenstein, <i>Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen</i> (1910), +pp. 99, 100. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n35-ref" id="c7n35">180</a> See above, p. 162, note 3. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n36-ref" id="c7n36">181</a> In contrast with Heitmüller, who was described above as the +“hylic,” materialist (see p. 205).<br><br> + +R. Reitzenstein, <i>Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre +Grundgedanken und Wirkungen</i> (“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). +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n37-ref" id="c7n37">182</a> Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the <i>pneuma.</i> +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 <i>ruach</i> +or <i>nephesh,</i> or the LXX. use of <i>πνεῦμα</i>.”<br><br> + +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).<br><br> + +It may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay +“Paulus” <i>(Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur,</i> 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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n38-ref" id="c7n38">183</a> 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. . . .” +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n39-ref" id="c7n39">184</a> <i>Poimandres,</i> p. 81 ff. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n40-ref" id="c7n40">185</a> 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, <i>Psyche,</i> vol. ii. (1909), pp. 413, 414. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n41-ref" id="c7n41">186</a> See pp. 57, 58. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n42-ref" id="c7n42">187</a> See <i>e.g.</i> Reitzenstein, p. 209. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n43-ref" id="c7n43">188</a> That Greek “eschatology” and early Christian are mutually +exclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich’s <i>Nekyia</i> (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. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n44-ref" id="c7n44">189</a> Hermann Gunkel, <i>Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des +Neuen Testaments,</i> 1903, 96 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n45-ref" id="c7n45">190</a> Max Maurenbrecher, <i>Von Jerusalem nach Rom,</i> 1910, 288 pp. +This work is the continuation of <i>Von Nazareth nach Golgatha,</i> 1909, +274 pp. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n46-ref" id="c7n46">191</a> W. B. Smith, <i>Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien +zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums,</i> 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.) +</p> + +<p><a href="#c7n47-ref" id="c7n47">192</a> Arthur Drews, <i>Die Christusmythe,</i> 1909, 190 pp. +</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_note_8">NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF +THE PROBLEM</h3> + +<p><a href="#c8n1-ref" id="c8n1">193</a> See above, p. 173 f. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c8n2-ref" id="c8n2">194</a> Hence John’s indignation at seeing the “viper’s brood” +approaching to take advantage of it?—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<p><a href="#c8n3-ref" id="c8n3">195</a> For the sense of the term here, see above, p. 83, note. +—TRANSLATOR. +</p> + +<h2>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES</h2> + +<p>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:<br> +up-paired " p. 34 line 1528 (wrong but left in)<br> +un-paired " n. 103 p. 134 line 9638 (wrong but left in)</p> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76284 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/76284-h/images/cover.jpg b/76284-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f91e6d --- /dev/null +++ b/76284-h/images/cover.jpg |
