{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_76284/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_76284","id":"gutenberg_76284","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76284","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Criticism, interpretation, etc. -- History","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Paul, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"PAUL\n\nAND\n\nHIS INTERPRETERS\n\nA CRITICAL HISTORY\n\nBY\n\nALBERT SCHWEITZER\n\nPRIVATDOZENT IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASSBURG\n\nAUTHOR OF \u201cTHE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS\u201d\n\nTRANSLATED BY\n\nW. MONTGOMERY, BA., BD.\n\nLONDON\n\nADAM AND CHARLES BLACK\n\n1912\n\n\n\n\n[pg v]\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nTHE present work forms the continuation of my History of the Critical\nStudy of the Life of Jesus, which appeared in 1906 under the title\n\u201cVon Reimarus zu Wrede.\u201d_(_1_)_\n\nAny one who deals with the teaching and the life and work of Jesus,\nand offers any kind of new reading of it, ought not to stop there, but\nmust be held under obligation to trace, from the stand-point at which\nhe has arrived, the pathway leading to the history of dogma. Only in\nthis way can it be clearly shown what his discovery is worth.\n\nThe great and still undischarged task which confronts those engaged in\nthe historical study of primitive Christianity is to explain how the\nteaching of Jesus developed into the early Greek theology, in the form\nin which it appears in the works of Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian and\nIrenaeus. How could the doctrinal system of Paul arise on the basis of\nthe life and work of Jesus and the beliefs of the primitive community;\nand how did the early Greek theology arise out of Paulinism?\n\nStrauss and Renan recognised the obligation, and each endeavoured in a\nseries of works to trace the path leading from Jesus to the history of\ndogma. Since their time no one who has dealt with the life of Jesus\nhas attempted to follow this course.\n\nMeanwhile the history of dogma, on its part, has come to place the\nteaching of Jesus, as well as that of Paul, outside the scope of its\ninvestigations and to regard its own task as [pg vi] beginning at the\npoint where the undisputed and general Hellenisation of Christianity\nsets in. It describes therefore the growth of Greek theology, but not\nof Christian theology as a whole. And because it leaves the transition\nfrom Jesus to Paul, and from Paul to Justin and Ignatius, unexplained,\nand therefore fails to arrive at any intelligible and consistent\nconception of Christian dogma as a whole, the edifice which it erects\nhas no secure basis. Any one who knows and admires Harnack\u2019s \u201cHistory\nof Dogma\u201d is aware that the solid mason-work only begins in the Greek\nperiod; what precedes is not placed on firm foundations but only\nsupported on piles.\n\nPaulinism is an integral part of the history of dogma; for the history\nof dogma begins immediately upon the death of Jesus.\n\nCritical theology, in dividing up the history of the development of\nthought in primitive Christianity into the separate departments, Life\nof Jesus, Apostolic Age, History of Dogma, and clinging to this\ndivision as if it were something more than a mere convention of the\nacademic syllabus, makes a confession of incompetence and resigns all\nhope of putting the history of dogma on a secure basis. Moreover, the\nseparate departments thus left isolated are liable to fall into all\nkinds of confusions and errors, and it becomes a necessity of\nexistence to them not to be compelled to follow their theories beyond\nthe cunningly placed boundaries, or to be prepared to show at any\nmoment how their view accords with the preceding and following stages\nin the development of thought.\n\nThis independence and autonomy of the different departments of study\nbegins with the downfall of the edifice constructed by Baur. He was\nthe last who dared to conceive, and to deal with, the history of dogma\nin the large and general sense as the scientific study of the\ndevelopment of the teaching of Jesus into the early Greek theology.\nAfter him begins, with Ritschl, the narrower and more convenient\nconception of the subject, which resigns its imperial authority over\nthe departments of study dealing with the Life of Jesus, [pg vii]\nPrimitive Christianity and Paulinism, and allows these to become\nindependent. In the works of Ritschl himself this new departure is not\nclearly apparent, because he still formally includes the teaching of\nJesus, of Paul, and of primitive Christianity within the sphere of the\nhistory of dogma. But instead of explaining the differences between\nthe various types of belief and doctrine, he glosses them over in such\na way that he practically denies the development of the thoughts, and\nmakes it impossible for a really scientific study of the teaching of\nJesus and of Paulinism to fit into the ready-made frame which he\nprovides.\n\nRitschl shares with Baur the presupposition that primitive dogma arose\nout of the teaching of Jesus by an organic and logical process. The\nseparate disciplines which began after them have shown that this\nassumption is false. Of a \u201cdevelopment\u201d in the ordinary sense there\ncan be no question, because closer investigation has not confirmed the\nexistence of the natural lines of connexion which might \u00e0 priori have\nbeen supposed to be self-evident, but reveals instead unintelligible\ngaps. This is the real reason why the different departments of study\nmaintain their independence.\n\nThe system of the Apostle of the Gentiles stands over against the\nteaching of Jesus as something of an entirely different character, and\ndoes not create the impression of having arisen out of it. But how is\nsuch a new creation of Christian ideas\u2014and that within a bare two or\nthree decades after the death of Jesus\u2014at all conceivable?\n\nFrom Paulinism, again, there are no visible lines of connexion leading\nto early Greek theology. Ignatius and Justin do not take over his\nideas, but create, in their turn, something new.\n\nAccording to the assumption which in itself appears most natural, one\nwould be prepared to see in the teaching of Jesus a mountain-mass,\ncontinued by the lofty summits of the Pauline range, and from these\ngradually falling away to the lower levels of the early Catholic\ntheology. In reality the teaching of Jesus and that of the great\nApostle are like two separate ranges of hills, lying irregularly\ndisposed in [pg viii] front of the later \u201cGospel.\u201d Even the relation\nwhich each severally bears to primitive Christianity remains\nuncertain.\n\nThis want of connexion must have some explanation. The task of\nhistorical science is to understand why these two systems of teaching\nare necessarily independent, and at the same time to point out the\ngeological fault and dislocation of the strata, and enable us to\nrecognise the essential continuity of these formations and the process\nby which they have taken their present shape.\n\nThe edifice constructed by Baur has fallen; but his large and\ncomprehensive conception of the history of dogma ought not to be given\nup. It is wholly wrong to ignore the problem at which he laboured and\nso create the false impression that it has been solved. Present day\ncriticism is far from having explained how Paulinism and Greek\ntheology have arisen out of the teaching of Jesus. All it has really\ndone is to have gained some insight into the difficulties, and to have\nmade it increasingly evident that the question of the Hellenisation of\nChristianity is the fundamental problem of the history of dogma.\n\nIt could not really hope to find a solution, because it is still\nworking away with the presuppositions of Baur, Ritschl, and Renan, and\nhas already tried three or four times over all the experiments which\nare possible on this basis, without ever attaining to a real insight\ninto the course of the development. It has approached this or that\nproblem differently, has given a new version\u2014not to say in some cases\na perversion\u2014of it; but it has not succeeded in giving a satisfactory\nanswer to the question when and how the Gospel was Hellenised.\n\nIt has not even attained to clearness in regard to the condition in\nwhich the Gospel existed prior to its Hellenisation. It has not\nventured to mark off with perfect distinctness the two worlds of\nthought with which the process is concerned, and to formulate the\nproblem as being that of explaining how the Gospel, which was\noriginally purely Jewish and eschatological, became Greek in form and\ncontent. That this could really have come about, it takes to be \u00e0\npriori [pg ix] impossible. It therefore seeks to soften down the\nantitheses as much as possible, to find in the teaching of Jesus\nthoughts which force their way out of the frame of the Jewish\neschatological conceptions and have the character of universal\nreligion, and in the teaching of Paul to discover a \u201cgenuinely\nChristian,\u201d and also a Hellenic element, alongside of the Rabbinic\nmaterial.\n\nTheological science has in fact been dominated by the desire to\nminimise as much as possible the element of Jewish Apocalyptic in\nJesus and Paul, and so far as possible to represent the Hellenisation\nof the Gospel as having been prepared for by them. It thinks it has\ngained something when in formulating the problem it has done its best\nto soften down the antitheses to the utmost with a view to providing\nevery facility for conceiving the transition of the Gospel from one\nworld of thought to the other.\n\nIn following this method Baur and Renan proceed with a simple\nconfidence which is no longer possible to present day theology. But in\nspite of that it must still continue to follow the same lines, because\nit has still to work with the old presuppositions and the weakening\ndown of the problem which they imply. The result is in every respect\nunsatisfactory. The solution remains as impossible as it was before,\nand the simplifications which were supposed to be provided in the\nstatement of the problem have only created new difficulties.\n\nThe thoroughgoing application of Jewish eschatology to the\ninterpretation of the teaching and work of Jesus has created a new\nfact upon which to base the history of dogma. If the view developed at\nthe close of my \u201cQuest of the Historical Jesus\u201d is sound, the teaching\nof Jesus does not in any of its aspects go outside the Jewish world of\nthought and project itself into a non-Jewish world, but represents a\ndeeply ethical and perfected version of the contemporary Apocalyptic.\n\nTherefore the Gospel is at its starting-point exclusively\nJewish-eschatological. The sharply antithetic formulation of the\nproblem of the Hellenisation of Christianity, which it was always\nhoped to avoid, is proved by the facts recorded in the Synoptists to\nbe the only admissible one. Accordingly, [pg x] the history of dogma\nhas to show how what was originally purely Jewish-eschatological has\ndeveloped into something that is Greek. The expedients and evasions\nhitherto current have been dismissed from circulation.\n\nThe primary task is to define the position of Paul. Is he the first\nstage of the Hellenising process, or is his system of thought, like\nthat of primitive Christianity, to be conceived as purely\nJewish-eschatological? Usually the former is taken for granted,\nbecause he detached Christianity from Judaism, and because otherwise\nhis thoughts do not seem to be easily explicable. Besides, it was\nfeared that if the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles, as well as\nprimitive Christianity, were regarded as purely Jewish-eschatological,\nthe problem of the Hellenisation of the Gospel would become so acute\nas to make the possibility of solving it more remote than ever.\n\nMoreover, the theological study of history is apt, even though\nunconsciously, to give ear to practical considerations. At bottom, it\nis guided by the instinct that whatever in the primitive Gospel is\ncapable of being Hellenised may also be considered capable of being\nmodernised. It therefore seeks to discern in Paul\u2019s teaching\u2014as also\nin that of Jesus\u2014as much as possible that \u201ctranscends Judaism,\u201d that\nhas the character of \u201cuniversal religion\u201d and \u201cessential\nChristianity.\u201d It is haunted by the apprehension that the significance\nof Christianity, and its adaptation to our times, is dependent on\njustifying the modernisation of it on the lines hitherto followed and\nin accordance with the historical views hitherto current.\n\nThose who have faced the recognition that the teaching of Jesus is\neschatologically conditioned cannot be brought by considerations of\nthis kind, scientific or unscientific, to entertain any doubt as to\nthe task which awaits them. That is, to apply this new view to the\nexplanation of the transition to the history of dogma, and as the\nfirst step in that direction, to undertake a new formulation of the\nproblem of Paulinism. They will naturally endeavour to find out how\nfar the exclusively eschatological conception of the [pg xi] Gospel\nmanifests its influence in the thoughts of the Apostle of the\nGentiles, and will take into account the possibility that his system,\nstrange as this may at first sight appear, may have developed wholly\nand solely out of that conception.\n\nAs in the case of the study of the life of Jesus, the problem and the\nway to its solution will be developed by means of a survey of what has\nhitherto been done. At the same time this method of presentation will\nserve to promote the knowledge of the past periods of the science.\nSince it is impossible for students, and indeed for the younger\nteachers, to read for themselves all the works of earlier times, the\ndanger arises that on the one hand the names will remain mere empty\nnames, and on the other that, from ignorance, solutions will be tried\nover again which have already been advanced and have proved untenable.\nAn attempt has therefore been made in this book to give a sufficient\ninsight into what has been done so far, and to provide a substitute\nfor the reading of such works as are not either of classical\nimportance or still generally accessible.\n\nFor practical reasons the method adopted in my former book, of\nattaching the statement of the new view to the history of earlier\nviews, has not been followed here. This view will be developed and\ndefended in a separate work bearing the title \u201cThe Pauline Mysticism\u201d\n(\u201cDie Mystik des Apostels Paulus\u201d), which will appear at an early\ndate.\n\nThe English and American literature of the subject has not been\nincluded in this study, since the works in question were not in all\ncases accessible to me, and an insufficient acquaintance with the\nlanguage raised a barrier.\n\nNor have I aimed at giving, even with this limitation, a complete\nenumeration of all the studies of Paul\u2019s teaching. I have only desired\nto cite works which either played a part of some value in the\ndevelopment of Pauline study, or were in some way typical. The fact\nthat a work has been left unmentioned does not by any means\nnecessarily imply that it has not been examined.\n\nALBERT SCHWEITZER.\n\n19_th Sept_. 1911.\n\n\n\n\n[pg xiii]\n\nContents\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD . . . [1]\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nBAUR AND HIS CRITICS . . . [12]\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nFROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN . . . [22]\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nH. J. HOLTZMANN . . . [100]\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES . . . [117]\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY . . . [151]\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nPAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION . . . [179]\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nSUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM . . . [237]\n\nINDEX . . . 251\n\nENDNOTES\n\n\n\n\nPAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS\n\n\n\n\n[pg 001]\n\nI\n\n\nTHE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD\n\n\n_Hugo Grotius._ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 1641-1646.\n\n_Johann Jakob Rambach._ Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. 1723.\n\n_Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten._ Unterricht der Auslegung der heiligen\nSchrift. (Instructions in the art of Expounding Holy Scripture.) 1742.\n\n_Johann Christoph Wolf._ Curae philologicae et criticae. 1741.\n\n_Johann August Ernesti._ Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti. 1762.\n(Eng. Trans., Biblical Interpretation of the New Testament, Edinburgh,\n1832-1833.)\n\n_Johann Salomo Semler._ Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutic.\n(Introduction to Theological Hermeneutic.) 1760-1769.\n\nAbhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons. (Essay on the free\nInvestigation of the Canon.) 1771-1775.\n\nNeuer Versuch die gemeinn\u00fctzige Auslegung und Anwendung des Neuen\nTestaments zu bef\u00f6rdern. (A New Attempt to Promote a Generally\nProfitable Exposition and Application of the New Testament.) 1786.\n\nLatin Paraphrases of the Epistles to the Romans (1769) and Corinthians\n(1770, 1776).\n\n_Johann David Michaelis._ Einleitung in die g\u00f6ttlichen Schriften des\nNeuen Bundes. (Introduction to the Divine Scriptures of the New\nCovenant.) 1750. (Eng. Trans. by H. Marsh, Cambridge, 1793.)\n\n\u00dcbersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Translation of the New Testament.)\n1790.\n\nAnmerkungen f\u00fcr Ungelehrte zu seiner \u00dcbersetzung des Neuen Testaments.\n(Notes for Unlearned Readers on his Translation of the New Testament.)\n1790-1792.\n\n_Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher._ \u00dcber den sogenannten ersten\nBrief des Paulus an den Timotheus. (On the so-called First Epistle of\nPaul to Timothy.) 1807.\n\n_Johann Gottfried Eichhorn._ Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das\nNeue Testament. (Historical and Critical Introduction to the New\nTestament.) 3 vols. 1814.\n\n[pg 002]\n\n_Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs.\n(The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1801.\n\n_Leonhard Usteri._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. (The\nDevelopment of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1824.\n\n_August Ferdinand D\u00e4hne._ Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs.\n(The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1835.\n\n_Karl Schrader._ Der Apostel Paulus. 1830-1836.\n\n_J. A. W. Neander._ Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der\nchristlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. (History of the Planting and\nGuidance of the Christian Church by the Apostles.) 1832. (Eng. Trans.\nby J. E. Ryland, 1851.)\n\n_W. M. Leberecht De Wette._ Erkl\u00e4rung der Briefe an die R\u00f6mer,\nKorinther, Galater und Thessalonicher. (Exposition of the Epistles to\nthe Romans (2nd ed., 1838), Corinthians, etc. (1841).)\n\n_H. E. G. Paulus._ Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und\nR\u00f6mer-Christen. (The Apostle Paul\u2019s Doctrinal Epistles to the Galatian\nand Roman Christians.) 1831.\n\n\nTHE Reformation fought and conquered in the name of Paul. Consequently\nthe teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles took a prominent place in\nProtestant study. Nevertheless the labour expended upon it did not, to\nbegin with, advance the historical understanding of his system of\nthought. What men looked for in Paul\u2019s writings was proof-texts for\nLutheran or Reformed theology; and that was what they found.\nReformation exegesis reads its own ideas into Paul, in order to\nreceive them back again clothed with Apostolic authority.\n\nBefore this could be altered, the spell which dogma had laid upon\nexegesis needed to be broken. A very promising beginning in this\ndirection was made by Hugo Grotius, who in his _Annotationes in Novum\nTestamentum__(_2_)_ rises superior to the limitations of\necclesiastical dogma. This work appeared in 1641-1646. The Pauline\nEpistles are treated with especial gusto. The great Netherlander makes\nit his business to bring out by patient study the simple literal\nmeaning, and besides referring to patristic exegesis, cites parallels\nfrom Greek and Roman literature. He does not, however, show any\nspecial insight into the peculiar character of the Pauline world of\nthought.\n\n[pg 003]\n\nIn the ensuing period the principle gradually became established that\nexegesis ought to be independent of dogma. Pietism and Rationalism had\nan equal interest in promoting this result. The accepted formula was\nthat Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. This thought is\ncommon ground to the two famous works on exegesis which belong to the\nfirst half of the eighteenth century, the _Institutiones hermeneuticae\nsacrae__(_3_)_ of Johann Jakob Rambach, which is written from the\nstand-point of a moderate pietism, and Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten\u2019s\nrationalistically inclined \u201cInstruction in the art of expounding Holy\nScripture.\u201d_(_4_)_\n\nOn the soil thus prepared by pietism and rationalism it was possible\nfor a philologically sound exegesis to thrive. One of the most\nimportant attempts in this direction is Johann Christoph Wolf\u2019s _Curae\nphilologicae et criticae.__(_5_)_ This was regarded as authoritative\nfor several decades, and even later is frequently drawn on by\nexegetes, either with or without acknowledgment. The merit of having\ngained the widest recognition for the principles of philological\nexegesis belongs to Johann August Ernesti, the reformer of the St.\nThomas\u2019s School at Leipzig and the determined opponent of its famous\n\u201cPreceptor,\u201d Johann Sebastian Bach. His _Institutio interpretis Novi\nTestamenti_ appeared in 1762._(_6_)_ It is on the plan of the\n\u201cHermeneutics\u201d of Rambach and Baumgarten, and deals with grammar,\nmanuscripts, editions, translations, patristic exegesis, history and\ngeography as sciences ancillary to exegesis.\n\nBut Ernesti\u2019s work suffices to show that the undogmatic philological\nmethod did not in itself lead to any [pg 004] result. Its author is in\nreality by no means free from dogmatic prepossessions, but he\nskilfully avoids those questions which would bring him into conflict\nwith Church doctrine. In fact the use he makes of philology is more or\nless formal. He does not venture to treat the books of the New\nTestament without prepossession as witnesses from the literature of a\ndistant period, and to show the peculiar mould in which Christian\nideas are there cast in comparison with subsequent periods and with\nthe period for which he writes. He did not realise that the\nundogmatic, philological method of exegesis must logically lead to a\nmethod in which philology is the handmaid of historical criticism.\n\nHis great contemporary, Johann Salomo Semler, ventures to give\nexpression to this truth, and so becomes the creator of historical\ntheology. In his theoretical works on the Scriptures and on\nexegesis\u2014\u201cIntroduction to theological Hermeneutics\u201d\n(1760-1769),_(_7_)_ \u201cEssay on the free Investigation of the Canon\u201d\n(1771-1775),_(_8_)_ \u201cA new attempt to promote a generally profitable\nExposition and Application of the New Testament\u201d (1786)_(_9_)_\u2014the\nHalle professor explains again and again what is to be understood by a\n\u201chistorical\u201d method of exegesis. He demands that the New Testament\nshall be regarded as a temporally conditioned expression of Christian\nthought, and examined with an unprejudiced eye. In making this claim\nhe does not speak as a [pg 005] disinterested representative of\nhistorical science, but makes it in the name of religion. If religion\nis to develop progressively and purify itself into an ethical belief,\nthe special embodiments which it has received in the past must not lay\nthe embargo of a false authority upon its progress. We must\nacknowledge to ourselves that many conceptions and arguments, not only\nof the Old Testament but also of the New, have not the same\nsignificance for us as they had for the early days of Christianity. In\nhis work of 1786, Semler even demands that \u201cfor present day Christians\nthere should be made a generally useful selection from the discourses\nof Jesus and the writings of the Apostles, in which the local\nreference to contemporary readers shall be distinguished or\neliminated.\u201d\n\nThis theory of historical exegesis is carried out in dealing with the\ngreat Pauline Epistles. Semler points the way to the critical\ninvestigation of the Apostle\u2019s thought. He gives paraphrases of the\nEpistle to the Romans and the Epistles to the Corinthians, and\nattempts to make clear the content and the connection of thought by a\nparaphrastic and expanded rendering of each individual verse._(_10_)_\nExegesis is no longer to be encumbered with a panoply of erudition; it\nis no longer to be interpenetrated with homiletic and dogmatic\nconsiderations, and to defer to the authority of the old Greek\nexpositors, who, \u201cwhen it is a question of historical arguments, had\nno better or clearer knowledge than we have ourselves.\u201d It must let\nthe Scriptural [pg 006] phrases say openly and freely what they mean\nin their literal sense, and devote itself simply to that\ndispassionate, objective study of facts which has hitherto been too\nmuch neglected.\n\nThe importance of the paraphrases does not however consist, as might\nbe supposed, in their exhibiting the distinctive character of the\nPauline trains of thought in comparison with the views of the other\nNew Testament writers. By his use of a paraphrastic rendering of the\ntext Semler puts an obstacle in the way of his gaining an insight into\nthe specifically Pauline reasoning, and unconsciously imports his own\nlogic into the Apostle\u2019s arguments.\n\nOn the other hand, his brilliant powers of observation enable him to\ncall attention to some fundamental problems of literary criticism. He\nis the first to point out that we do not possess the Pauline Epistles\nin their original form, but only in the form in which they were read\nin the churches. The canonical Epistle is therefore not, as a matter\nof _a priori_ certainty, identical with the historical letter. It is\nquite possible, he argues, that the letters as read in the churches\nwere produced by joining together, or working up together, different\nletters, and also that written directions and messages, which\noriginally existed in a separate form, were attached in later copies\nto the Epistles in order that no part of the heritage left by the\nApostle might be lost.\n\nOn the basis of considerations of this kind Semler arrives at the\nresult that the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Romans did not\nbelong to the original Epistle. The sixteenth is, in his view, a\nseries of greetings which Paul\u2014who, it is assumed, was writing from\nEphesus\u2014gave to the bearers of the Epistle to be conveyed to the\nchurches which they would visit on their way through Macedonia and\nAchaia. In the ninth chapter of 2 Corinthians there is preserved, he\nthinks, a writing intended for another city in Achaia, which was only\nlater welded into the Epistle to the Corinthians. From the [pg 007]\nfourteenth verse of the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians to the close\nof the thirteenth chapter we have to assume the presence of a separate\nwriting, of later date than the original Second Epistle to the\nCorinthians. Thus Semler takes the first steps upon the road of\nliterary hypothesis. Theology at first took little notice of these\ninvestigations. In the third edition of his \u201cNew Testament\nIntroduction\u201d (1777),_(_11_)_ the great G\u00f6ttingen philologist and\ntheologian J. D. Michaelis treats the letters of the Apostle in a\nquite uncritical spirit, and does not enter at all into the literary\nproblems; in his \u201cTranslation\u201d and \u201cExposition\u201d of the New\nTestament_(_12_)_ he follows the old tracks and makes no attempt to\ncarry out the task which Semler had assigned to historical exegesis.\nIn general the eighteenth century, after Semler, contributed very\nlittle to the investigation of Paulinism. Schleiermacher was the first\nto take a step forward, when, in a letter to Gass, he expressed his\ndoubts as to the genuineness of I Timothy._(_13_)_\n\nShortly before the battle of Jena\u2014so he recounts in the preface\u2014he had\ncommunicated his doubts to his friend, but had not got the length of\nsetting them forth in a reasoned argument. \u201cThe battle\u2014though indeed\nit ended all too quickly\u2014the consequent unrest in the town, and even\nin the house, the confused hurrying to and fro, the sight of the\nFrench soldiers, which was interesting in so many ways . . . the still\nincomprehensible blow which struck our University even before you\nleft, and the sad sight of the students saying their farewells and\ntaking their departure,\u2014these were certainly not the surroundings [pg\n008] in which to set up a critical judgment-seat. Although, on the\nother hand, you would perhaps have been more ready then, when all\nseemed lost, to give up a New Testament book, than you are now.\u201d The\nverbal promise then given but not fulfilled is now discharged in\nwriting.\n\nSchleiermacher bases his argument against I Timothy upon 2 Timothy and\nTitus. While the same general conceptions are present in the longer\nletter as in the two shorter ones, they are not there found in the\nnatural connections in which they occur in the others. It makes the\nimpression of being a composite structure, and in its vocabulary, too,\nshows remarkable differences from the remaining letters taken as a\nwhole.\n\nStrictly speaking it was not Schleiermacher the critic, but\nSchleiermacher the aesthete who had come to have doubts about 2\nTimothy. The letter does not suit his taste. He fails to perceive\nthat, so far as the language goes, the two other letters diverge from\nthe rest of the Pauline Epistles in the same way as I Timothy, and\nthat they also show the same looseness and disconnectedness; only\nthat, in consequence of their smaller extent, it is not so striking.\nAnd, most important of all, it escapes him that as regards their ideas\nall three letters agree in diverging from the remainder of the Pauline\nEpistles.\n\nSchleiermacher\u2019s omissions are supplied by Eichhorn in his well-known\nIntroduction._(_14_)_ He lays it down that the three Epistles are all\nby the same author, and are all spurious. His criticism deals first\nwith the language and thought of the letters, which he shows to be\nun-Pauline; then he argues that the implied historical situations\ncannot be fitted into the life of the Apostle, as known to us from the\nremaining letters and the Acts of the Apostles; finally, he points to\nthe unnaturalness of the relation [pg 009] between Paul and his\nhelpers as it is represented by these Epistles.\n\nThe Apostle, he points out, gives them in writing exhortations and\ndirections which on the assumption of a real personal acquaintance and\na long period of joint work with them are in any case unnecessary, and\nbecome much more so from the fact that the letters look forward to an\nearly meeting. From this Eichhorn concludes that \u201csome one else has\nput himself in Paul\u2019s place,\u201d and he sees no possibility of the\nsuccess of any attempt to defend the genuineness of the Epistles\nagainst the arguments which he has brought forward. In particular he\ngives a warning against the seductive attempt to save the genuineness\nof 2 Timothy by the assumption of a second imprisonment. No\nhypothesis, he declares, can in any way help the Pastorals, since they\nmust be pronounced from internal evidence\u2014because of their divergence\nfrom the remaining Epistles\u2014not to be by the Apostle. This was a long\nstep forward. The circle of writings which have come down under the\nname of Paul had undergone a restriction which made it possible to\ngive an account of his system of thought without being obliged to find\na place in it for ideas which already have a quite early-Catholic\nring.\n\nTen years after Eichhorn\u2019s literary achievement, in the year 1824, the\nSwiss theologian Leonhard Usteri, a pupil of Schleiermacher\u2019s,\npublished his \u201cDevelopment of the Pauline System of Doctrine,\u201d_(_15_)_\nwhich is generally regarded as the starting-point of the purely\nhistorical study of Paulinism, the first attempt to give effect to the\ndemands of Semler._(_16_)_\n\nUsteri wishes to show the subjective imprint and [pg 010] enrichment\nwhich ordinary Christianity received at the hands of the Apostle, and\nhe sees in the Epistle to the Galatians the outline of his whole\ndoctrine. He does not, however, venture to give full recognition to\nthe idea of a real antithesis between the Pauline conceptions and\nthose of the primitive Apostles, and consequently is led to soften\ndown the peculiarities of the former so far as possible. The spirit of\nSchleiermacher, which tended to level down everything of a historical\ncharacter, influences the book more than the author is aware._(_17_)_\nA peculiar interlude in the investigation of Paulinism was due to the\nHeidelberger H. E. G. Paulus._(_18_)_ He published, in the year 1831,\na study of the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, which was in\nreality an essay on the Apostle\u2019s system of doctrine. The work is\nundertaken entirely in the interests of a rationalism bent on opposing\nthe reaction to orthodoxy.\n\nAccording to the arguments of Paulus it is not the case that the\nletters speak of expiatory suffering and imputed righteousness. Paul\ncannot have upheld \u201clegality\u201d as against \u201cmorality\u201d and have\nmaintained an \u201cunpurified conception of religion.\u201d The \u201cchief\nsayings,\u201d the characteristic terms, are to be given a purely moral\ninterpretation. The Apostle means that \u201cfaith in Jesus\u201d must become in\nus \u201cthe faith of Jesus,\u201d and the narrower conception of righteousness\nmust be enlarged into the [pg 011] conception of \u201cthe righteousness of\nGod.\u201d The \u201crighteousness of God\u201d betokens righteousness such as it\nexists in God, and is demanded by Him in man\u2019s spirit as its \u201ctrue\ngood,\u201d \u201cthe only real atonement which brings us into harmony with the\nDeity.\u201d Thus a proper interpretation enables us to discover in these\nwritings \u201cthe agreement between the Gospel and a rational faith.\u201d\n\nThe book appeared two or three decades too late. The rationalism which\nit represents had had its day. But there is something imposing in this\ndetermined wresting of the Apostle\u2019s views. It is parallel to that\nwhich was practised by the Reformation. The latter interpreted the\nwhole of Paulinism by the passages on the atoning death, and ignored\nthe other thoughts in the Epistles. The Heidelberg rationalist starts\nfrom the conceptions connected with the \u201cnew creature,\u201d which were\nlater to be described as the ethical system of the Apostle, and\ninterprets everything else by them.\n\nThe fact that the two views\u2014the only ones which endeavoured to grasp\nPaulinism as a complete, articulated system\u2014thus stand over against\neach other antithetically is significant for the future. Critical\nstudy in the course of its investigations was to come to a point where\nit would have to recognise both views as justified, and to point out\nthe existence in Paul of a twofold system of doctrine\u2014a juridical\nsystem based on the idea of justification, and an ethical system\ndominated by the conception of sanctification\u2014without at first being\nable to show how the two are interrelated and together form a unity.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 012]\n\nII\n\n\nBAUR AND HIS CRITICS\n\n\n_Ferdinand Christian Baur._ Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen\nGemeinde. (The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church.) Appeared in the\n_T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie,_ 1831 and 1836. \u00dcber Zweck u.\nVeranlassung des R\u00f6merbriefs (Purpose and occasion of Rom.), ib. 1836.\nDie sogenannten Pastoralbriefe. (The so-called Pastoral Epistles.)\n1835.\n\nPaulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1st ed., 1845; 2nd ed., 1866-67).\n(Eng. Trans. by \u201cA. P.\u201d and A. Menzies, 1873-75.)\n\nBeitr\u00e4ge zu den Briefen an die Korinther, Thessalonicher und R\u00f6mer.\n(Contributions to the elucidation of the Epistles to the Corinthians,\nThessalonians and Romans.) _T\u00fcbinger Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr Theologie._\n1850-57.\n\nVorlesungen \u00fcber neutestamentliche Theologie. 1864. (Lectures on\nNew-Testament Theology.)\n\nVorlesungen \u00fcber die christliche Dogmengeschichte. (Lectures on the\nHistory of Dogma.) Vol. i., 1865.\n\n_Albert Schwegler._ Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1846. (The\nPost-Apostolic Age.)\n\n_Carl Wieseler._ Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 1848. (The\nChronology of the Apostolic Age.) On the Pauline Epp., 225-278.\n\n_Albrecht Ritschl._ Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. (The\nOrigin of the Early Catholic Church.) 1st ed., 1850; 2nd ed., 1857.\n\n_Gotthard Viktor Lechler._ Das apostolische und nachapostolische\nZeitalter. (The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.) 1852. (Eng. Trans.\nby A. J. K. Davidson, Edinburgh, 1886.)\n\n_Richard Adalbert Lipsius._ Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre. (The\nPauline Doctrine of Justification.) 1853.\n\n\nIN the fourth number of the _T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie_ for\nthe year 1831, F. C. Baur gave to the study of Paulinism a new\ndirection, by advancing the opinion that the Apostle had developed his\ndoctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive Christian\ncommunity, and that only when this is recognised can we expect to\ngrasp the peculiar character of the Pauline ideas.\n\n[pg 013]\n\nThe great merit of the T\u00fcbingen critic was that he allowed the texts\nto speak for themselves, to mean what they said. On the ground of the\nstriking difference between Acts and Galatians regarding Paul\u2019s\nrelation to the original Apostles, and in view of the divisions and\ncontentions which reveal themselves in the Epistles to the\nCorinthians, Baur concludes that in the early days of Christianity two\nparties\u2014a Petrine party or party of the original Apostles, and a\nPauline party\u2014stood opposed to one another, holding divergent views on\nthe subject of the redemption wrought by Christ.\n\nIn the gradual adjustment of these differences he sees the development\nwhich led up to the formation of the early Catholic Church, and he\ntraces the evidence for this process in the literature. He thinks he\ncan show that the two parties gradually approached each other, making\nconcessions on the one side and the other, and finally, under the\npressure of a movement which was equally inimical to both of them\u2014the\nGnosticism of the early part of the second century\u2014they coalesced into\na single united Church.\n\nThe recognition of the character and significance of Gnosticism makes\nit possible for Baur to introduce a new kind of criticism. Before him\nit was only possible to arrive at the negative result that a writing\nwas not by the author to whom it was traditionally ascribed. Now,\naccording to him, it is possible to determine to what period it\nbelongs. It is only necessary to show what position it occupies in the\nprocess of reconciliation of the two parties, and, especially, whether\nit deals with speculative error. This Baur calls \u201cpositive\u201d criticism.\n\nHe applies it in the first place to the Pastoral Epistles, and argues\nthat the heretics combated in them do not belong to primitive\nChristianity but are representatives of the Gnostic movement of the\nsecond century. By the \u201cmyths and genealogies\u201d here mentioned are\nmeant the great speculative systems which are known from Church\nhistory. The description given of the heretics is [pg 014]\nintentionally couched in terms which are neither too general nor too\nspecial, in order to sustain the fiction that the false doctrine\narising at this later period only revives a movement which had already\nbeen attacked and defeated by Paul.\n\nThat neither the assumption of a second imprisonment, nor any other\npossible or impossible hypothesis, can restore to the Pastorals their\nlost genuineness is as firm a conviction with Baur as it was with\nEichhorn.\n\nIn the course of his study of the Pastoral Epistles the T\u00fcbingen\nmaster had expressed the opinion that the criticism of the Pauline\nwritings would probably not \u201ccome to a halt\u201d with these Epistles. The\nresults of his further study were offered ten years later (1845) in\nthe brilliantly written work, \u201cPaul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.\u201d He\nhere treats first the life and work, then the letters, and lastly the\nsystem of doctrine. The result arrived at in his investigation of the\ndocuments is that only the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and\nRomans can be confidently used as sources. Compared with these four,\nall the others must be classed as \u201canti-legomena,\u201d \u201cwhich does not at\nall imply the assertion that they are not genuine, but only indicates\nthe opposition to which their claim to genuineness is in some cases\nalready exposed, in others, may be exposed in the future, since there\nis not a single one of the smaller Pauline epistles against which, if\nthe four main epistles are taken as the standard, there cannot be\nraised some objection or other.\u201d There are strong grounds for\nquestioning the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians; those to the\nThessalonians and Philippians are to be suspected because of the small\namount of dogma they contain. Baur\u2019s reason for taking up such a\ncritical attitude towards the \u201csmaller epistles\u201d is that he is bound\nto see in the heritage which has come down to us from the Apostle,\nwritings \u201cwhich belong to the history of the party which based itself\non his name, and refer to the relations of the various parties,\u201d and\nshow us how Gentile Christianity [pg 015] softens down its principles\nand its peculiarities in order to meet the Jewish Christianity, which\non its part was going through a similar process, in the unity of the\nearly Catholic Church.\n\nThis radical view was attacked on all sides. It gave rise to a kind of\nreaction even within the sphere of scientific theology, and led to the\ncalling in question of results which the labours of Eichhorn had\nbrought into general acceptance. Thus Carl Wieseler prefaces his\ndetailed study on the date of composition of the Pauline letters with\nthe remark that he held all the thirteen letters which are attributed\nto the Apostle in the Canon to be authentic.\n\nThe Apostle\u2019s system of doctrine culminates, according to Baur\u2019s\nrepresentation, in the doctrine of the Spirit. In the brilliant\ndisquisitions of this section it is not so much the historian who\nspeaks as the pupil of Hegel. Paulinism is in its own way an\nannouncement of the unity of the subjective spirit with the objective\nspirit. It is only from this point of view that a consciousness of\nfreedom such as is found in the Apostle of the Gentiles can exist. His\ndoctrine is concerned with union with Christ and with God by faith,\nfrom which comes Spirit. \u201cRighteousness\u201d is \u201cthe proper relation\ntowards God, to place men in which is the highest duty of all\nreligion.\u201d\n\nBaur does not enter into the details of the Pauline doctrine of\njustification. Detail is in fact somewhat neglected in his treatment.\nStrictly speaking, he only includes that which can be in some way or\nother expressed in Hegelian thought-forms, and that in which Paulinism\nmay be exhibited as representing absolute religion. Everything else is\nthrown into the background, and receives only a partial\nappreciation\u2014or depreciation\u2014in a separate chapter entitled \u201cA special\ndiscussion of some subsidiary dogmatic questions.\u201d The characteristic\nstamp of the Pauline doctrine is largely obliterated. In particular,\nPaul\u2019s views about the \u201clast things\u201d and the angels are not allowed to\nbecome disturbingly prominent. Baur does not, indeed, hesitate\npractically to eliminate [pg 016] them. The angelology he dismisses\nwith the following remark: \u201cOf the angels the Apostle says little in\nthe letters which we have here to take into consideration, and that\nlittle not dogmatically, but only metaphorically and in current\npopular phraseology.\u201d\n\nThe T\u00fcbingen scholar, in fact, uses the language of Paul in order to\nset forth an imposing philosophy of religion instinct with Hegelian\ninfluence. He gives no authentic account of the Apostle\u2019s thought.\nNevertheless this book breathes the spirit of Paul the prophet of\nfreedom more fully than almost any other which has been devoted to\nhim. That is what gives it its remarkable attractiveness.\n\nA year after the appearance of Baur\u2019s \u201cPaulus\u201d\u2014in 1846\u2014Albert\nSchwegler published his work on the post-apostolic age._(_19_)_ The\nfounder of the T\u00fcbingen School had hitherto only, so to speak, hinted\nat the phases of development by which the early Church grew up out of\nthe controversy between the two parties. Schwegler undertakes a more\ndetailed description, and in doing so draws the lines so sharply that,\nalong with the greatness of the construction, its faults become\nobvious. He has no deeper knowledge of Paulinism to impart.\n\nSchwegler\u2019s work had made it apparent from what side the T\u00fcbingen\nposition was open to attack, and on this side Albrecht Ritschl\nproceeded to attack it in his well-known work on the origin of the\nearly Catholic Church._(_20_)_ The first edition (1850) is primarily\ndirected against Schwegler only; in the second (1857) he develops his\nopposition of [pg 017] principle to Baur. He offers proof that the\nearliest literature is not dominated by the negotiations for a\ncompromise between the two parties which was postulated by the\nT\u00fcbingen School, and at the same time he attacks the basis of the\nwhole hypothetical construction. Baur, he urges, must have formed a\nfalse conception of Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity,\nsince, on his view, it cannot be explained what was the common element\nthat held the two together. Had they only, as the T\u00fcbingen School was\nobliged to assume, had the external bond of profession of faith in\nChrist, it would never be possible to explain why both parties felt\nthe need of approaching one another by mutual concessions until\nfinally they coalesced in a single united Church.\n\nThe extent of the doctrinal material common to both must, Ritschl\nargues, have been much greater than Baur represents. He has not\ndischarged the first duty of a historian of the Apostolic age, for\nthis requires \u201cthat the points should be clearly shown in which Jewish\nChristianity and Paulinism coincide.\u201d Baur had only given a negative\ndescription of the Apostle\u2019s doctrine, because he never gives any hint\n\u201cthat Paul in very essential points held views which were common also\nto Jewish Christianity.\u201d\n\nThe problem regarding the nature of the unity between Paulinism and\nprimitive Christianity is thus recognised and formulated.\n\nBut it was not so easy for Ritschl to say exactly what constituted the\ncommon element of doctrine, the existence of which he postulated. That\nis especially evident in the second edition of \u201cThe Origin of the\nEarly Catholic Church.\u201d He is then only willing to admit an\n\u201copposition of practice\u201d between Paul and the original apostles; the\narea of this opposition is so restricted that \u201cthe essential agreement\nin the leading ideas laid down by Christ will be only the more clearly\nevident.\u201d But since in Paulinism little enough is to be found of the\n\u201cleading [pg 018] ideas laid down by Christ\u201d the proof of the\n\u201cessential agreement\u201d remains a pious aspiration.\n\nThe only solid fact which Ritschl is able to adduce is the expectation\nof the parousia. He assumes that it formed a very important part of\nthe common doctrinal material, and inclines to believe that Paulinism\nand Jewish Christianity agreed in an ideal-real expectation of the\nSecond Coming in order to make common cause against Chiliasm, though\nthe latter in its coarser form only appeared later.\n\nBut in thus recognising eschatology Ritschl did not take the matter\nvery seriously. He uses the eschatology, in fact, only in order to\nscore a dialectical point against Baur, who had taken too little\naccount of it. In Ritschl\u2019s \u201cJustification and Reconciliation,\u201d where\nhe later on had occasion to give a positive description of Paulinism,\nhe avoided the faintest hint of any eschatological colouring of the\nApostle\u2019s ideas.\n\nAnother work which is occupied with the question of the unity between\nPaulinism and primitive Christianity is Lechler\u2019s \u201cApostolic and\nPost-Apostolic Age.\u201d_(_21_)_ The work is a prize essay in answer to\nthe problem proposed by the Teylerian Society in Holland, as to what\nconstituted \u201cthe absolute difference between the doctrine and attitude\nof the Apostle Paul and that of the other Apostles,\u201d by which the\n\u201cso-called T\u00fcbingen School endeavours to justify its hostile treatment\nof Christianity.\u201d Lechler opposes his teacher, but is not able to make\nany advance upon Ritschl in producing evidence of the common elements\nin the two doctrinal systems.\n\n[pg 019]\n\nAmong the works which controverted the T\u00fcbingen view of Paulinism a\nprominent place belongs to an early work of Richard Adalbert Lipsius\non \u201cthe Pauline doctrine of justification.\u201d_(_22_)_ Along with his\nscientific purpose the author also pursues a practical aim. He puts\nhimself at the service of the anti-rationalistic reaction which aimed\nat restoring the old evangelical ideas to a position of honour, but in\ndoing so did not grasp hands with the orthodoxy of the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries, but took as its starting-point the ideas which\nit finds present in the New Testament. In giving an objective\npresentation of the central Pauline doctrine of justification he\nbelieves that he is offering to the Protestantism of his time a view\nwhich it can adopt as its own.\n\nFor the Apostle of the Gentiles, he argues, justification is not a\npurely legal, forensic act, but also an ethical experience. Faith is\nan ethical attitude which produces an inward righteousness. What is\nreally effectual in redemption is the fellowship with Christ in life\nand death. It is brought about by the Spirit of God and of Christ, who\nunites himself with the believer and transforms his personality.\n\nLipsius is the first to recognise the two trains of thought in\nPaulinism, and to remark that the one is based upon the juridical idea\nof justification, while the other has its starting-point in the\nconception of sanctification\u2014of the real ethical new creation by the\nSpirit. He does not, as had always previously been done, make\neverything of the one and nothing of the other, but aims at showing\nhow they are brought together in the Apostle\u2019s thought.\n\nThe importance of the eschatological passages does not escape him. He\nassumes that the thought of the parousia gives an inner unity to the\nApostle\u2019s ideas.\n\nIt is true that Lipsius did not succeed in fully discharging the task\nwhich he laid upon himself. He weakens down one set of ideas in the\ninterests of the other, [pg 020] and solders the two together\nexternally by the use of skilfully chosen expressions; but it remains\nhis great merit that he was the first to recognise this duality in\nPaul\u2019s thought. Had he not been pursuing a dogmatic interest alongside\nof his scientific investigations he would doubtless have come to still\ncloser quarters with the problem.\n\nWhile his critics were at work Baur had not been idle. From 1850\nonwards he published in the _T\u00fcbinger Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr Theologie,_ which\nhad superseded the _T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie,_ a series of\nseparate investigations of the Pauline Epistles._(_23_)_ He had\nresolved that the final results of his study of the Apostle of the\nGentiles, with which he had begun his work, and which throughout his\nwhole lifetime had been his favourite study, should be set forth in a\nnew edition of his Paulus. This was to be the crown of his work.\n\nBut it was not to be. Death snatched him away from his task when he\nhad only just cast the first part into its new shape. The second and\nmost important, which was to treat the \u201csystem of doctrine,\u201d he did\nnot reach._(_24_)_\n\nTo a certain extent a substitute for what was thus lost was furnished\nby the \u201cLectures on New Testament Theology,\u201d published by the master\u2019s\nson in 1864._(_25_)_ The chapter on Paulinism is very striking in its\nbrevity and clearness, and shows a great advance on the work of 1845.\nAt that time Baur had examined and interpreted Paul\u2019s [pg 021]\nteaching by the light of the Hegelian Intellectualism. Now he tries to\ngrasp his ideas historically and empirically, and to describe them\naccordingly.\n\nHe discusses successively the Pauline views on sin and flesh; law and\nsin; faith in the death of Christ; law and promise; law and freedom;\nthe righteousness of faith; faith and works; faith and predestination;\nChristology; baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper; the parousia of Christ.\n\nEschatology, which in the first edition was quite overlooked, receives\nhere abundant recognition. Baur admits that the Apostle fully shared\nthe faith of the primitive community in the nearness of the parousia,\nand was at one with it in all the conceptions referring to the End.\n\nThe Pauline theology as thus empirically apprehended has no longer the\nbold effectiveness of the speculatively constructed system of the year\n1845. It becomes apparent in Baur, and increasingly evident in the\nwork of subsequent investigators, that the self-consistency and\nlogical concatenation of the system become obscured and disturbed in\nproportion as progress is made in the exact apprehension of the\nindividual concepts and ideas.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 022]\n\nIII\n\n\nFROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN\n\n\nMONOGRAPHS UPON PAUL\n\n_Adolf Hausrath._ Der Apostel Paulus (1865, 172 pp.; biographical. 2nd\ned., 1872, 503 pp.).\n\n_Ernest Renan._ St. Paul (1869, 570 pp.; biographical and\ntheological).\n\n_Auguste Sabatier._ L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul (1870, theological). (E.T. by A. M.\nHellier, 1891.)\n\n_Otto Pfleiderer._ Der Paulinismus (1873; 2nd ed., 1890; theological).\n(E.T. by E. Peters, 1877.)\n\n_Carl Holsten._ Das Evangelium des Paulus (1st pt., 1880; 2nd pt.,\n1898).\n\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS\n\n_Eduard Reuse._ Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testamentes\n(5th ed., 1874). (E.T. History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New\nTestament, by E. L. Houghton. Edin. 1884.)\n\n_Christian Karl von Hofmann._ Pt, ix. of \u201cDie Heilige Schrift.\u201d 1881.\n\n_Heinrich Julius Holtzmann._ Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1885.\n\n_Bernhard Weiss._ (Same title.) 1886. (E.T. by A. J. K. Davidson,\n1887).\n\n_Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Godet._ Introduction au Nouveau Testament. 1893.\n\n_Adolf J\u00fclicher._ Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1894. (E.T. by J.\nP. Ward, 1904.)\n\n_Theodor Zahn._ (Same title.) 1897. (E.T. of 3rd ed. 1909).\n\nWORKS ON NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY\n\n_Eduard Reuss._ Histoire de la th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne au si\u00e8cle\napostolique. 3rd ed., 1864. (E.T. by A. Harwood, 1872.)\n\n_Bernhard Weiss._ Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen\nTestaments. 1st ed., 1868; 6th ed., 1895. (E.T. Edin. 1882.)\n\n_Christian Karl von Hofmann._ Pt. xi. of \u201cDie Heilige Schrift.\u201d 1886.\n\n_Willibald Beyschlag._ Neutestamentliche Theologie. 1891. 2nd ed.,\n1896. (E.T. Edin. 1895.)\n\n[pg 023]\n\nGENERAL WORKS ON PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY\n\n_Ernest Havet._ Le Christianisme et ses origines (4 vols., 1884).\n\n_Karl von Weizs\u00e4cker._ Das apostolische Zeitalter. 1886. (E.T. The\nApostolic Age, 1894.)\n\n_Otto Pfleiderer._ Das Urchristentum. 1887. (E.T. of 2nd. altered ed.,\nsee later.)\n\nSTUDIES ON SPECIAL POINTS\n\n_Carl Holsten._ Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. 1868.\n\n_Fr. Th. L. Ernesti._ Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus. 1868.\n\n_Emmanuel Friedrich Kautzsch._ De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo\napostolo allegatis. 1869.\n\n_Franz Delitzsch._ Paulus des Apostels Brief an die R\u00f6mer in das\nHebr\u00e4ische \u00fcbersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erl\u00e4utert. 1870. (The\nEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans translated into Hebrew and\nillustrated from Talmud and Midrash.)\n\n_Hermann L\u00fcdemann._ Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus. 1872.\n\n_Albrecht Ritschl._ Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und\nVers\u00f6hnung, vol. ii., 1874. (The Christian Doctrine of Justification\nand Reconciliation.) (E.T. of vols. i. and iii. only).\n\n_H. H. Wendt._ Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist bei Paulus. 1878. (The\nMeaning of the Terms Flesh and Spirit in Paul\u2019s Writings.)\n\n_Louis Eug\u00e8ne M\u00e9n\u00e9goz._ Le P\u00e9ch\u00e9 et la redemption d\u2019apr\u00e8s St Paul.\n1882.\n\n_Eduard Grafe._ Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. 1884. (The Pauline\nTeaching about the Law.)\n\n_Gustav Volkmar._ Paulus von Damaskus zum Galaterbrief. 1887. (Paul,\nfrom Damascus to Galatians). A biographical study, with a critical\ncomparison between the data of Galatians and Acts.\n\n_Alfred Resch._ Agrapha. Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente. 1888.\nOn the Question whether Sayings of Jesus have been preserved in Paul\u2019s\nWritings.\n\n_Otto Everling._ Die paulinische Angelologie und D\u00e4monologie. 1888.\n\n_Johann Glo\u00ebl._ Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverk\u00fcndigung des Paulus.\n1888. (The Holy Spirit in Paul\u2019s Preaching of Salvation.)\n\n_Hermann Gunkel._ Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der\npopul\u00e4ren Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des\nApostels Paulus. 1888. (The Manifestations of the Holy Spirit\naccording to the Popular View of the Apostolic Age and according to\nthe Teaching of Paul.)\n\n_Eduard Grafe._ Das Verh\u00e4ltnis der paulinischen Schriften zur\nSapientia Salamonis. 1892. (The Relation of the Pauline Writings to\nthe Book of Wisdom.)\n\n_Adolf Deissmann._ Die neutestamentliche Formel \u201cin Christo Jesu.\u201d\n1892. (The New Testament Formula \u201cin Christ Jesus.\u201d)\n\n_Richard Kabisch._ Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenh\u00e4ngen\nmit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus. 1893. (Paul\u2019s Eschatology in\nRelation to his General System.)\n\n[pg 024]\n\n_W. Brandt._ Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des\nChristentums. 1893. (The Gospel History and the Origin of\nChristianity.)\n\n_Ernst Curtius._ Paulus in Athen. 1894.\n\n_E. Bruston._ La Vie future d\u2019apr\u00e8s St Paul. 1894.\n\n_Hans Vollmer._ Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus. 1895.\n\n_Ernst Teichmann._ Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und\nGericht und ihre Beziehung zur j\u00fcdischen Apokalyptik. 1896. (The\nPauline Views of Resurrection and Judgment and their Relation to the\nJewish Apocalyptic.)\n\n_Theodor Simon._ Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus. 1897.\n\n_Paul Wernle._ Der Christ und die S\u00fcnde bei Paulus. (The Christian and\nSin in Paul\u2019s Writings.) 1897.\n\nCRITICISM AND EXEGESIS\n\n_Bruno Bauer._ Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. 1850-1851-1852.\n\n_Christian Hermann Weisse._ Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik der paulinischen\nBriefe. 1867. (Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline\nEpistles.)\n\n_H. J. Holtzmann._ Kritik der Epheser und Kolosserbriefe. 1872. Die\nPastoralbriefe. 1880.\n\n_Eduard Reuss._ Les \u00c9p\u00eetres pauliniennes (\u201cLa Bible,\u201d pt. iii.). 1878.\n\n_Georg Heinrici._ Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die\nKorinther. 1880. Das zweite, etc. 1887.\n\n_P. W. Schmiedel._ Auslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und\nKorinther in Holtzmann\u2019s \u201cHandkommentar.\u201d 1891. (Exposition of the\nEpistles to the Thessalonians and Corinthians in Holtzmann\u2019s\n\u201cHandkommentar.\u201d)\n\n_R. A. Lipsius._ Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, R\u00f6mer und\nPhilipper in Holtzmann\u2019s \u201cHandkommentar.\u201d 1891.\n\nWORKS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER, OR DEALING WITH COGNATE SUBJECTS\n\n_Emil Sch\u00fcrer._ Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. 1873. From the 2nd\ned. (1886) onwards the work bears the title: Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen\nVolkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (E.T. History of the Jewish People\nin the time of Jesus Christ. Edin. 1885.)\n\n_Karl Siegfried._ Philo von Alexandrien als Ausleger des alten\nTestaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss\nbetrachtet. 1875. (Philo of Alexandria as an Expositor of the Old\nTestament, considered both in himself and in regard to his historical\ninfluence.)\n\n_Ferdinand Weber._ System der altsynagogalen pal\u00e4stinenschen\nTheologie. 1880. The second edition (1897) bears the title J\u00fcdische\nTheologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. (Jewish\nTheology exhibited on the basis of the Talmud and allied writings.)\n\n_W. Gass._ Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1881.\n\n_Theobald Ziegler._ Geschichte der christlichen Ethik. 1886.\n\n[pg 025]\n\n_Edwin Hatch._ The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the\nChristian Church (Hibbert Lectures for 1888).\n\n_Theodor Zahn._ Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zum\nChristentum. 1894.\n\n_Adolf Harnack._ Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., 1894. (E.T. History of\nDogma, 1894-1899). Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis\nEusebius. Vol. i., 1897.\n\n\nPROBLEMS many and various confronted theological science when it\nattempted to carry forward Pauline studies from the position in which\nthey had been left by Baur.\n\nIt was needful to clear up once for all the questions of literary\ncriticism, to examine in detail the individual conceptions and trains\nof thought, to make clear the unity and inner connexion of the system,\nto show what r\u00f4le Paulinism had played in the development of early\nCatholic theology, and how far it was at one with primitive\nChristianity, and to solve the question whether the material employed\nin its construction was of purely Jewish, or in part of Greek origin.\n\nIn regard to the literary question a certain measure of agreement was\nin course of time attained. Baur had distinguished three classes of\nEpistles. In the first he placed, as beyond doubt genuine, Galatians,\nCorinthians, and Romans; Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,\nThessalonians, and Philemon formed the second class, being considered\nuncertain; the Pastoral Epistles formed the third class, and were\nregarded as proved to be spurious.\n\nThe views of the T\u00fcbingen master regarding the first class and the\nthird were adopted by the majority of scholars of the next generation.\nNo doubts were raised against the great Epistles; the Pastoral\nEpistles were rejected. Holtzmann, in his work on the Letters to\nTimothy and Titus,_(_26_)_ supplied a detailed argument in favour of\nthis conclusion.\n\n[pg 026]\n\nOf the letters of the intermediate class, the first to the\nThessalonians and that to the Philippians were by many rehabilitated\nas Pauline. The second to the Thessalonians was rejected with\nincreasing confidence. A special problem was presented by the letters\nto the Colossians and Ephesians, both because of their evident mutual\nrelationship and particularly in regard to certain parts of the\nEpistle to the Colossians which made a strong impression of\ngenuineness. Holtzmann offered a solution which gave general\nsatisfaction. He adopted the hypothesis that Colossians was based upon\na genuine Pauline letter which had been worked over by a later\nhand._(_27_)_ The redactor he identified with the author of the\nEpistle to the Ephesians.\n\nWhile there was this general consensus in the critical camp, which was\nratified in Holtzmann\u2019s \u201cIntroduction,\u201d_(_28_)_ the most diverse\nopinions on special points are found. Some attempts were made to save\nthe [pg 027] genuineness of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians.\nFor some, the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians are genuine\nthroughout and represent a later phase of the Pauline theology. Nor\nwere there lacking attempts of all kinds to rehabilitate the Pastoral\nEpistles. Those who did not venture to defend them as wholes make a\npoint of retaining at least the \u201cpersonal references.\u201d\n\nThe presentation of the Pauline teaching was, however, hardly affected\nby the literary divergences. Not even the most conservative of the\ncritics had the boldness to place all the letters which have come down\nunder the name of Paul on a footing of equality. Even those who\nregarded the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians as genuine did\nnot fuse ideas of these Epistles with the system extracted from the\nfour main Epistles, but presented them separately; and any who were\nnot converted to the rejection of the Pastorals at all events took the\nprecaution to give a separate chapter to the Pauline theology of these\nwritings._(_29_)_ If only the personal references might be saved,\nthese Epistles were as completely excluded from the presentation of\nthe Pauline system as if they had been pronounced wholly spurious.\n\nThus it continued to be the case, as it had been with Baur, that,\ngenerally speaking, only the four main epistles were taken into\naccount in describing the Pauline system. The only significant change\nwas that the epistle to the Philippians began to be put on the same\nfooting, and, with a few exceptions, scholars no longer hesitated to\nregard as Pauline the conception of the pre-existence of Christ which\nis expressed in the section on the incarnation and obedience unto\ndeath. It was realised that the main epistles also presuppose this\nview, even if they do not state it so explicitly.\n\nThere were, of course, as time went on, attempts to [pg 028] explain\nthe composition of the four main epistles and Philippians as arising\nby the working up together in each single epistle of two or more\noriginals, but these were not of any real importance for the study of\nthe Pauline doctrine. It was only a carrying out of the task suggested\nby Semler, when he pointed out that we have not got the letters in\ntheir original form but only as prepared for public reading by the\nearly Church. But the constitution of the Pauline material is scarcely\naffected by the attempts to reconstruct these originals. They have a\npurely literary interest.\n\nTheology, so far as it was occupied with the study of the Pauline\nsystem, did not allow itself to be at all disquieted by the rejection\nof the whole of the Epistles proposed by Bruno Bauer in his \u201cCriticism\nof the Pauline Letters.\u201d_(_30_)_ Nor was its confidence shaken by the\nhypothesis that the letters have been worked over to a very large\nextent and in a very thoroughgoing fashion. Christian Hermann Weisse\u2019s\n\u201cContributions to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles,\u201d_(_31_)_\nwhich appeared in 1867, where he sets forth the justification and the\nprinciples of this method, scarcely attracted any attention, as was\nindeed the case with almost all the theological work of this writer.\n\nThe elucidation of the details of the Pauline doctrine is vigorously\npursued. An empirical definition is attempted of the terms sin, law,\nconscience, justification, redemption, election, and freedom. A\nspecial interest attaches to the study of the terms flesh and spirit.\nAfter Holsten had endeavoured to trace the significance of the word\nflesh, L\u00fcdemann\u2014in a brilliant work published in 1872\u2014endeavoured to\narrive at a clear idea of the Apostle\u2019s anthropology and its place in\nhis doctrine of salvation.\n\nThere are, so runs his thesis, two conceptions of [pg 029] \u201cflesh\u201d in\nPaul. The one agrees with the naive, simple Jewish linguistic usage,\nand means only the natural being of man. The other is much more\nprecise and belongs to a dualistic system of thought. In it the flesh\nis defined as the necessary cause of sin and corruption and as the\nabsolute antithesis to spirit. On close examination it appears that\nnot merely two conceptions of \u201cthe flesh\u201d existing side by side, but\ntwo different doctrines of man\u2019s nature, and consequently two\ndifferent conceptions of redemption, are found in Paul.\n\nAccording to the system which connects itself with the simpler,\nbroader conception of the flesh, sin springs from the freedom of the\nwill; the law is assumed to be inherently possible of fulfilment;\nredemption consists in a judgment of acquittal pronounced by God which\nhas its ground solely in His mercy; righteousness is imputed; the act\nwhich brings redemption consists in faith. This circle of ideas, which\nforms a self-consistent whole, is described by L\u00fcdemann as the\n\u201cJewish-religious,\u201d the \u201cjuridical-subjective,\u201d doctrine of\nredemption. It has its source in reflection on the death of Jesus.\n\nThe other system of ideas is defined as the \u201cethico-dualistic.\u201d In\ncontradistinction to the former it makes use of an \u201cobjectively real\u201d\nconception of redemption. It presupposes the more precise, narrower\nconception of \u201cthe flesh,\u201d and regards sin as proceeding from it by a\nnatural necessity. The law is the ferment of sin; death the natural\noutcome of the flesh. Redemption can therefore only consist in the\nabolition of the flesh. It is based on the communication of the\nSpirit, which produces in the man a new creature and a real\nrighteousness. The redemptive act takes place in baptism. The ideas of\nthis second system are based on the Lord\u2019s resurrection.\n\nThe coexistence of a juridical and an ethical system of thought in\nPaul had been held by others before L\u00fcdemann. What he did, however,\nwas to follow out each separately into its details, and to endeavour\nto prove that all the contradictions and obscurities which are to be\nobserved [pg 030] in the conceptions and statements of the Pauline\ntheology find their ultimate explanation in the coexistence of two\ndifferent doctrines of man\u2019s nature and two different doctrines of\nredemption.\n\nHitherto the doctrine of redemption which appears alongside of the\njuridical had been described as \u201cethical.\u201d He remarks that it is\nconceived not merely ethically, but actually physically, and therefore\ndefines it as ethico-physical. Further, he is of opinion that the two\ntheories are not co-equal in importance. He holds that in the\nethico-physical \u201cthe real view of the Apostle\u201d is set forth, which\nonly tolerates the other alongside of it, and more and more tends to\npush it aside wherever in the discussion Paul can count upon a\nthorough understanding of the real essence of the matter.\n\nIn the Epistles the development, he thinks, takes the following\ncourse. The Letter to the Galatians knows only the primitive Jewish\nsystem of thought with reference to Christ\u2019s vicarious suffering and\nrighteousness by faith; it does not advance to the bolder realistic\ndoctrine of righteousness.\n\nIn the Epistles to the Corinthians, according to L\u00fcdemann, the Apostle\ndoes not make much use of dogma. \u201cThe less advanced position of the\nchurch there may have been one cause of this.\u201d But the fundamental\nconceptions of the ethico-physical series of ideas begin to appear in\nthem. Later on they attain to \u201cconstitutive importance\u201d and \u201cforce\ntheir way into the leading dogmatic statements.\u201d In the first four\nchapters of Romans the old view still finds expression. From the fifth\nonwards the new tenets are developed fully and clearly.\n\nThis second series of ideas is not Jewish but Greek. L\u00fcdemann\u2019s view\nis that Paul, \u201cin the attempt to give dogmatic fixity to the doctrine\nof salvation, presses on beyond the horizon of the Old Testament\nconsciousness and is carried in the direction of Hellenism.\u201d_(_32_)_\nThe latter [pg 031] offered him a clearly-thought-out doctrine of man,\nin which the dominant idea was the antithesis of flesh and spirit, and\nmade it necessary for him to think out a physically real doctrine of\nredemption.\n\nPfleiderer_(_33_)_ also works out the two series of ideas, separating\nthem scarcely less sharply than L\u00fcdemann does. But he prefers to\ndescribe the series which runs parallel to the juridical, not as\nphysico-ethical, but as mystico-ethical. Moreover, he does not admit\nthat the ethical series expresses Paul\u2019s view more adequately than the\nother. He is of opinion also that the two sets of conceptions held an\nequal place in the consciousness of the Apostle from the first. By\nlogically thinking out the Jewish idea of the atoning death, Paul was\nled\u2014according to Pfleiderer\u2014to the anti-Jewish conclusion that\nredemption is for all mankind, and that the law is consequently\ninvalidated. With this view there is united another, the source of\nwhich lies in the Hellenistic anthropology. This is that redemption\nconsists in the influence exercised by the Holy Spirit upon the\nfleshly creatureliness, in consequence of which sin and death are\nabolished. The beginning of this process is to be sought in the\nresurrection of Jesus Christ. In the close connexion of the Pharisaic\nand Hellenistic elements \u201clies the characteristic peculiarity of the\ngenuine Pauline theology, which can only be rightly understood when\nthese two sides of it both receive equal attention.\u201d\n\nThat in Paulinism two lines of thought go side by side is recognised\nby almost all the investigators of this period. But in the importance\nassigned to each of them great divergences appear. Reuss makes the\njuridical ideas entirely subordinate to the ethical; in M\u00e9n\u00e9goz the\nformer are more strongly emphasised than the latter. No one except\nPfleiderer holds them to be on an exactly equal [pg 032] footing. In\ngeneral the ethical set of ideas is regarded as the original creation\nof the Apostle, and is assumed to represent the deepest stratum in his\nthought. Accordingly, it is generally also held that the doctrine of\nthe abolition of the flesh by the Spirit comes to its full development\nlater than the other, which is based upon the atonement and imputed\nrighteousness. L\u00fcdemann\u2019s theory of a development within the Pauline\ndoctrine is adopted by the majority, though only in a less pronounced\nform.\n\nIt should be mentioned that the first important attempt to prove the\nexistence of different phases in the thought and life of Paul was made\nby Sabatier._(_34_)_ His work _L\u2019Apotre Paul_ appeared in 1870, two\nyears before L\u00fcdemann\u2019s study. At first the Apostle held, according to\nthe French scholar, a simple doctrine which can be psychologically\nexplained from his rabbinic training and his conversion. At the time\nof his great controversies he was compelled to work out for himself a\nphilosophy of history which would enable him to prove that the law was\nonly a passing episode in the history of salvation, and that\njustification by faith had always lain in the purpose of God. This\ndoctrine takes a dominant position in the Epistles to the Galatians,\nCorinthians, and Romans. In the letters written during his\nimprisonment the Apostle advances to a speculative, gnostic\ndevelopment of his ideas. The coexistence of the juridical and ethical\nseries of ideas does not receive the same prominence in Sabatier as in\nthe later writers, who were influenced by L\u00fcdemann and Pfleiderer.\n\nWhen all is said and done, there is in the works of this period much\nassertion and little proof regarding the development within Paulinism.\nOne almost gets the impression that the assumption of different stages\nof thought was chiefly useful as a way of escaping the difficulty\nabout the inner unity of the system. This [pg 033] problem is,\nhowever, rather instinctively felt than clearly grasped. The scholars\nof this period do not feel it incumbent upon them to trace out the\nconnexion in which these disparate sets of ideas must have stood in\nthe view of Paul. They show no surprise at his passing so easily from\nthe one to the other and arguing from each alternately, and they do\nnot ask themselves how he conceived the most general ultimate fact of\nredemption which underlies both of them. They do not seek to arrive at\na really fundamental view of the essence of Paulinism.\n\nTheir method of procedure in their presentation of the doctrine is\nitself significant. They do not trace its development from one\nfundamental conception, but treat it under dogmatic _loci,_ as Baur\nhad done in his New Testament Theology. The scheme is more or less\nclosely based on that of Reformation dogmatics. It is therefore\nassumed _a priori_ that the Pauline theology can be divided into\npractically the same individual doctrines as that of Luther, Zwingli,\nand Calvin. Really, however, a preliminary question arises whether\nthis arrangement of the material does not introduce a wrong grouping\nand orientation into the Apostle\u2019s system, and whether it does not\ndestroy the natural order and relative importance of the thoughts,\nfalsify the perspective, tear asunder what ought not to be disjoined,\nand render impossible the discovery of the fundamental idea in which\nall the utterances find their point of union. This procedure is\ninnocently supposed to be scientific; as a matter of fact it leads to\nthe result that the study of the subject continues to be embarrassed\nby a considerable remnant of the prepossessions with which the\ninterpretation of Paul\u2019s doctrine was approached in the days of the\nReformation.\n\nIt is not less prejudicial when others, as for example\nHolsten,_(_35_)_ adopt an arrangement of the material suggested by\nmodern dogmatics. As the Pauline theology has, if possible, less\naffinity with the latter than with the Reformation theology, the error\nis almost more serious.\n\n[pg 034]\n\nIn general these scholars are quite unconscious of the decisive\nimportance which attaches to the arrangement and articulation of the\nmaterial. It has, indeed, always been weakness of theological\nscholarship to talk much about method and possess little of it.\n\nOtto Pfleiderer, alone, is not entirely in this state of innocence. He\nhas an inkling that the usual way of approaching the subject is not\nwholly free from objection. In the first edition of his Paulinism\n(1873)_(_36_)_ he raises the question whether the \u201cgenetic method\u201d is\nnot demanded by the task of tracing out the organic progress of the\ndevelopment of dogma in its Pauline beginnings. Practical\nconsiderations, however, determine him \u201cto arrange the matter very\nmuch according to the customary dogmatic _loci,\u201d_ while, however, at\nthe same time giving as much attention as possible to the position of\nthe dogma in the Pauline system.\u201d He fears that the carrying out of\nthe genetic principle would lead to many repetitions, and would make\nit more difficult to get a general view of \u201cthe way in which the\nseparate doctrines were connected with their bases.\u201d\n\nIn order to salve his conscience he gives at the beginning, \u201cby way of\nan introductory outline,\u201d a sketch of the \u201corganic development of the\nPauline gnosis from its single root.\u201d This general view\u2014it occupies\ntwenty-seven pages\u2014is the most important part of the whole book. The\nsucceeding chapters treat of sin, flesh, character of the law, aim of\nthe law, Christ\u2019s atoning death, Christ\u2019s death as a means of\nliberation from the dominion of sin, the resurrection of Christ, the\nPerson of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God and heavenly\nChrist, the appearing of Christ in the flesh, faith, justification,\nsonship, the beginning and the progress of the new life, the Christian\nChurch, the Lord\u2019s Supper, the election of grace, the parousia, and\nthe end of the world.\n\nL\u00fcdemann was prevented by the task which he had set himself from\nadopting the division according to _loci._ [pg 035] His object was\nonly to investigate Paul\u2019s conception of the fleshly man in its\nrelation to his doctrine as a whole. In this way he was led to arrange\nthe ideas in their natural order and, without strictly intending to do\nso, to give a general account of Paulinism, which is almost entirely\nfree from the defective arrangement of other works, permits something\nof the logical articulation of the Apostle\u2019s circle of ideas to\nappear, and certainly penetrates more deeply than the rest into the\nApostle\u2019s world of thought.\n\nAs the works of Reuss, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Holsten, Renan, Sabatier,\nM\u00e9n\u00e9goz, Weizs\u00e4cker, do not aim at understanding and showing the\ndevelopment of this doctrine from a single fundamental thought, there\nare no real divergences in the general view which they take of the\nsystem. The differences of opinion with their predecessors which the\nauthors express in their text and notes relate, in point of fact, only\nto details and minutiae, surprising as this may at first sight appear.\nThe plan and design of the system are in general everywhere the same;\nthe differences regard only the mixing and application of the colours,\nand the question how far Greek influences are to be recognised.\n\nIn going through these works one after another, one is surprised to\nobserve how great is their fundamental resemblance. At the same time\nthere is something curiously \u201celusive\u201d about them. At a given point\none might be inclined to think that one of the authors was formulating\na thought more clearly, or giving it more exclusive importance than\nthe others; and one is just about to note this as a special\ncharacteristic of his view. A few pages later, however, or in a\nfollowing chapter, one finds additions or reservations which show that\nhe does not really think differently from the rest. The differences\nlie not so much in the actual conception as in the literary\npresentation, and in the manner in which the material, which is\nessentially a whole, is parcelled out among the different _loci._\nThere is thus nothing to be [pg 036] gained by analysing the various\nconceptions one by one and comparing them with one another. Since\nthere is no real difference of fundamental view, the comparison would\nlose itself in endless and unessential detail.\n\nTo the general impression of monotony is to be added that of\ncomplexity. At the end of each of these works one is inclined to\ninquire whether the author really means to ask the reader to regard\nwhat is here offered as representing a system of thought which once\nexisted in the brain of a man belonging to early Christianity, and was\ncapable of being understood by his contemporaries. All the arts of\nliterary presentation are employed to subtilise the conceptions, to\ndescribe the thoughts with exactitude, and to bring connexion and\norder into the chaos of ideas. But the result gives no satisfaction.\nNo real elucidation and explanation of Paulinism is attained. The\nresulting impression is of something quite artificial.\n\nThe welcome which these authors\u2019 works received from their\ncontemporaries shows that the latter saw in them an advance in the\nknowledge of Paulinism. They felt them to be satisfactory. That only\nmeans that the readers\u2019 presuppositions and requirements lay within\nthe same limitations as those of the authors.\n\nWhat had been the result arrived at? A description of the Pauline\ndoctrine, a remarkably detailed description, but nothing more. That\ndoubtless implied a certain progress. It did not, however, extend so\nfar as the authors and their readers assumed. Both innocently supposed\nthat in the description they possessed at the same time an\nexplanation\u2014as though the descriptive anatomy of this organism\nsufficed to explain its physiology. They were unconscious that they\nhad so far only looked at Pauline thought from without, and had never\ngained any insight into the inner essence of the system.\n\nIn these works the Apostle\u2019s statements are quoted one after another,\nand developed in his own words. The authors think they have discharged\ntheir task when they [pg 037] have so arranged the course of the\ninvestigation that all important passages can be respectably housed.\n\nThe odd thing is that they write as if they understood what they were\nwriting about. They do not feel compelled to admit that Paul\u2019s\nstatements taken by themselves are unintelligible, consist of pure\nparadoxes, and that the point that calls for examination is how far\nthey are thought of by their author as having a real meaning, and\ncould be understood in this light by his readers. They never call\nattention to the fact that the Apostle always becomes unintelligible\njust at the moment when he begins to explain something; never give a\nhint that while we hear the sound of his words the tune of his logic\nescapes us.\n\nWhat is his meaning when he asserts that the law is abolished by the\ndeath of Jesus\u2014according to other passages, by His resurrection? How\ndoes he represent to himself the process by which, through union with\nthe death and resurrection of the Lord a new creaturehood is produced\nin a man, in virtue of which he is released from the conditions of\nfleshly existence, from sin and death? How far is a union possible\nbetween the natural man, alive in this present world, and the\nglorified Christ who dwells in heaven; and one, moreover, of such a\nkind that it has a retrospective reference to His death? The authors\nwe have named do not raise questions of this kind. They feel no need\nto trace out the realities which lie behind these paradoxical\nassertions. They take it for granted that Paul has himself explained\nhis statements up to a certain point\u2014so far, in fact, as this is\npossible in the world of feeling to which religion belongs.\n\nThis self-deception is made the more easy for them by the fact that\nthey are accustomed to clothe their own religious views in Pauline\nphraseology, and consequently they come to treat as the authentic\nlogic of Paul, arguments which they have unconsciously imported into\ntheir account of his teaching. They fail to reckon with the\npossibility that the original significance of his utterances [pg 038]\nmay rest on presuppositions which are not present to our apprehension\nand conception. For the same reason they all more or less hold the\nopinion that what they have to do with is mainly a psychological\nproblem. They assume that the Pauline system has arisen out of a\nseries of reflexions and conclusions, and would be as a whole clear\nand intelligible to any one who could succeed in really thinking\nhimself into the psychology of the rabbinic zealot who was overpowered\nby the vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.\n\nThe writer who goes furthest in this direction is Holsten. In his work\non the \u201cGospel of Paul and of Peter\u201d_(_37_)_ he describes how Paul,\nwhile he was persecuting the new faith, was, as a Jewish thinker,\noccupied with the thought of the offence of the cross and the alleged\nresurrection. While still a fanatical zealot \u201che constantly carried\nwith him in his consciousness the elements of the Messianic faith,\neven though as negative and negated.\u201d By the keenness of his\ntheological dialectic he was compelled to imagine what the alleged\nfacts would really signify if the belief of the disciples were\njustified. The \u201cprinciple of the Messianic faith\u201d was, in him, \u201calive\nin greater definiteness than even in the consciousness of the\nfollowers of the Messiah whom he persecuted.\u201d The Messiahship of Jesus\ncould not for him take its place as a hope and faith within the Jewish\nsystem of thought and religious life, [pg 039] but necessarily implied\nthe destruction of what he had hitherto held to be true. Thus the\npersecutor had in principle thought out for himself to its ultimate\nconsequences the revolution which would result from the acceptance of\nthe Messiahship of Jesus. And this he translated into word and deed\nafter he had experienced the vision on the Damascus road.\n\nOther writers take as the starting-point for their psychological\narguments the passage in Romans vii., where Paul depicts the despair\nof the man who recognises that the law, although it is spiritual and\nwas given with a view to life, can only in the fleshly man produce\nsin, condemnation, and death. What we there read concerning the\nstruggle between the natural, powerful will of the flesh and the law,\nis, they think, written from the point of view of the pre-Christian\nconsciousness of the Apostle. He had experienced this agony of soul,\nand it was by this that the Jewish religious attitude had been broken\ndown in him. Therefore in his Gospel he does not desire to retain\nanything from the faith of his fathers.\n\nThese two main lines of psychological theory are followed for a longer\nor shorter distance in all the works of this period. Hand in hand with\nthis psychologising goes a tendency to modernisation. The scholars of\nthis period spiritualise Paul\u2019s thought. The transformation varies in\nextent for the different ideas. The statements about the atonement and\nimputed righteousness are the least affected by it. What is\nunintelligible in these is put down to the account of the Jewish\nRabbinic mode of thought in which Paul is supposed to be held\nprisoner. On the other hand, the conceptions regarding union with\nChrist in his death and passion, and the new life in Him through the\nSpirit, are subjected to paraphrase and explanation until nothing of\nthe realistic sense is left remaining. The question is not faced why\nPaul, if he wanted to say anything so \u201cspiritual\u201d and general as this,\nshould have adopted so exaggerated, paradoxical, and materialistic a\nmethod of expression.\n\n[pg 040]\n\nWhatever remains unexplained after the psychologising, the\ndepotentiation, and modernisation, is referred to the peculiar\ncharacter of the religious experience which the Apostle is supposed to\nhave undergone in the vision on the Damascus road. What essential\ndifference there was between this appearance of the Lord and those\nexperienced by the other disciples is nowhere clearly worked out, not\neven by Holsten, who makes the most extensive use of this vision. It\nis simply taken for granted by them all that in the vision itself is\nto be found the explanation, not only of Paul\u2019s conversion, but also\nin some way or other of his call to be a missionary to the Gentiles\nand of the peculiar character of his doctrine.\n\nAll these accounts of his teaching agree in assuming that Paul\u2019s\nsystem of doctrine was in the main a purely personal creation of his\nown, and is in some way to be explained by the special character of\nhis religious experience. The question whether in this way his\nintegral connexion with primitive Christianity is sufficiently\npreserved receives but little attention. In none of these works is the\ninvestigation of the doctrinal material common to Paul and his\nopponents seriously taken in hand. The writers are content with the\naffirmation that both parties took as their starting-point the fact of\nthe death and resurrection of Jesus, without entering into any\nconsideration of the question how far Paul\u2019s reasonings, which they\nrefer back to his inner personal experience, reproduce generally\ncurrent ideas of primitive Christianity and simply carry them out to\ntheir logical issue.\n\nThe question which Ritschl had formerly forced on the consideration of\nBaur has therefore not been faced or solved. It is true the author of\n\u201cJustification and Reconciliation\u201d_(_38_)_ thinks that he has not only\nraised the question but also answered it. He undertakes to explain all\nthe Pauline doctrinal passages on the basis of [pg 041] Old Testament\nconceptions. In this way he hopes to work out the Apostle\u2019s real\nconception of the atoning death of Jesus, and of \u201crighteousness,\u201d and\nbelieves that these will then, since they have been gained from the\nOld Testament, coincide with the primitive Christian views in all\nessential points.\n\nSpeaking generally, Ritschl\u2019s tendency is to make the differences\nbetween Paulinism and primitive Christianity as small as possible, and\nto find them, as he had already done in the \u201cOrigin of the early\nCatholic Church,\u201d not so much in his doctrine proper as in his\nattitude to certain practical questions. Ritschl employs the\ndialectical skill with which nature had richly endowed him to\ntransform and shade off the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles\nuntil it harmonises with the fundamental Christian teaching which he\nassumes for the earliest period and finds necessary for his dogmatics.\n\nHe entirely depotentiates the juridical series of ideas. Moreover, he\nrefuses to admit that Paulinism constitutes a speculative system. He\nassumes that the Apostle moved in a free, untrammelled fashion among\nthe various sets of ideas and felt no real need to combine them into a\nunity.\n\nIn addition to Ritschl, Bernhard Weiss_(_39_)_ and Willibald\nBeyschlag,_(_40_)_ in their New Testament Theologies, endeavour to\nmake clear the relations between Paul and primitive Christianity from\nthe stand-point of critical conservatism. In order to secure a broad\nbasis for the primitive form of apostolic doctrine, they pronounce I\nPeter and the Epistle of James to be documents of the pre-Pauline\nperiod.\n\nThe writer who makes things easiest for himself is Von\nHofmann._(_41_)_ For him there is no \u201cPauline system [pg 042] of\ndoctrine.\u201d The Apostle never uttered anything that did not belong to\nthe common doctrine of Christianity, but \u201caccording to the difference\nof the occasion\u201d brought into prominence this or that aspect of the\nsaving acts of God or of the condition of salvation, and what he thus\nbrought forward, now under one designation now under another, he sets\nforth now in this relation and now in that one. Therefore this writer,\nwho was vaunted by the orthodox as a brilliant opponent of T\u00fcbingen\nerrors, has no scruple in working up together the Pauline ideas along\nwith those of the other New Testament Epistles into a single whole,\nwhich he offers as apostolic doctrine.\n\nAnother problem which is hardly apprehended in its full difficulty by\nthe scholars of this period is that of the total neglect in the\nPauline gospel of the proclamation of the kingdom of God and His\nrighteousness which Jesus committed to His followers. They seem to\nfeel no surprise at the fact that the Apostle, even where it would be\nthe most natural thing in the world, never appeals to the sayings and\ncommands of the Master. Many of them never touch on this question at\nall.\n\nResch, however, in his collection of extra-canonical Gospel-fragments,\neven undertakes to show that in the Pauline letters a whole series of\notherwise unrecorded sayings of Jesus are embodied, and defends the\nhypothesis that the Apostle had taken them from a pre-canonical Gospel\nwhich ranked for him as an authority of equal value with the Old\nTestament. The enigma of the untraced quotation, \u201cWhat eye hath not\nseen, neither hath ear heard,\u201d etc., in I Cor. ii. 9 ff., is solved by\nreferring the \u201cas it is written\u201d to the written Gospel on which Paul\ndraws._(_42_)_\n\nIt is curious that most of these authors believe that they reduce the\nacuteness of the problem by pointing [pg 043] out in the Epistles as\nmany reminiscences of Synoptic sayings as possible. That, of course,\nonly makes the matter more complicated. If so many utterances of Jesus\nare hovering before Paul\u2019s mind, how comes it that he always merely\nparaphrases them, instead of quoting them as sayings of Jesus, and\nthus sheltering himself behind their authority?\n\nAs for those who have some inkling of the problem, their one thought\nis to dispose of it as rapidly as possible, instead of first exposing\nit in its full extent. Among them is Ritschl, who here employs all the\narts and artifices of his exegesis and dialectic. That Jesus and Paul\ndid not at bottom teach the same thing is to this undogmatic dogmatist\nunthinkable.\n\nIn general the writers of this period are involved in the most curious\nconfusions regarding the problem of \u201cJesus and Paul.\u201d They fail to\nperceive that these two magnitudes are not directly comparable with\none another because they think of Paul in complete isolation, and not\nas a feature of primitive Christianity. The differences and\noppositions which reveal themselves between the teaching of Jesus and\nthat of Paul exist also as between the teaching of Jesus and that of\nprimitive Christianity itself. The momentous development did not arise\nfirst with Paul, but earlier, in the community of the first disciples.\nTheir \u201creligion\u201d is not identical with the \u201cteaching of Jesus,\u201d and\ndid not simply grow out of it; it is founded upon His death and\nresurrection. The \u201cnew element\u201d was not brought into Christianity by\nPaul; he found it there before him, and what he did was to think it\nout in its logical implications. The difference of teaching between\nPaul and Jesus is not a difference between individuals, it is\u2014in\nalmost its whole extent\u2014due to the fact that the Apostle belongs to\nprimitive Christianity.\n\nIn its false statement of the problem of Jesus and Paul the\nscholarship of the period after Baur shows that it has not yet\nsucceeded in understanding the Apostle of [pg 044] the Gentiles as a\nphenomenon, an aspect, of primitive Christianity.\n\nThere is frequent mention, in all these studies, of the Jewish roots\nof the Pauline thought. They attempt to explain his views, so far as\npossible, from the materials given in the Law and the Prophets. Some\nauthors had been inclined to assume that in regard to his conception\nof the Law he did not stand wholly upon Old Testament ground, in the\nsense that he sometimes means by it a narrower ceremonial code of\ntemporary validity, and sometimes a universal ethical law which has\nnot been invalidated by the death of Christ. These confusions were put\nan end to by a study of Edward Grafe._(_43_)_ He shows that Paul when\nhe speaks of the law, alike when he uses the article or does not use\nit, always has in mind the whole legal code, and never varies from the\nconviction that this has been set aside by the death and resurrection\nof Christ.\n\nThat in Galatians the ritual aspect of the law, in Romans the ethical,\nis the more prominent, does not alter this fact. Nor is the\nconsistency of the Apostle\u2019s view annulled by the fact that in many\nplaces he formulates the negative judgment quite definitely, while in\nothers he softens it by an admission of the historical and ethical\nsignificance of the law.\n\nThat Paul\u2019s thinking follows the lines of Old Testament conceptions is\nself-evident. The only question is whether the motive forces which\nmake their appearance in his gospel are derived in some way or other\nfrom the Old Testament Scriptures.\n\nThat is not the case. In working up the primitive Christian views he\ndoes not have recourse to the ideas of the ancient Judaism. Nowhere\ndoes Paul attach himself to these. He takes no ideas from the Old\nTestament with a view to giving them a new development, [pg 045] but\nuses only what he can take from it ready formed. His new discovery\nrests on a different basis. The Law and the Prophets serve only to\nsupply him with the Scriptural arguments, positive and negative, of\nwhich he stands in need.\n\nOn the essential nature of the distinctively Pauline world of thought\nthe Old Testament therefore throws no light. This negative result is\nnot, indeed, everywhere clearly formulated. There are some students of\nPaulinism who simply ignore it. Heinrici, in the preface to his study\nof 2 Corinthians (1887), ventures on the assertion that in Paul the\n\u201cspirit of Old Testament prophecy\u201d triumphs over contemporary Judaism.\n\nAnd he is not the only one who clings to the illusion that much help\nis to be gained from the Old Testament for the understanding of the\nApostle\u2019s world of thought. By way of proof they cite every possible\nparallel, even the most remote. But the disproportion between the\namount of the material offered and the smallness of the result\nestablished tells against them.\n\nThat Paul is a child of late Judaism only began to be generally taken\ninto account when its world of thought was made known to theology by\nSch\u00fcrer\u2019s \u201cHistory of New Testament Times,\u201d_(_44_)_ and Weber\u2019s\n\u201cSystem of Palestinian Theology in the Early Synagogues.\u201d_(_45_)_ But\neven after this most scholars shared a certain disinclination to\nrecognise a real connexion between the Apostle\u2019s world of thought and\nthat of late Judaism. Heinrici, who in [pg 046] his study in the\nCorinthian Epistles gives great attention to the question regarding\nthe source of his ideas, definitely denies that \u201cthe intellectual and\nreligious forces of Late Judaism exercised a dominant influence\u201d on\nthe Apostle. He holds, like many others, that Paul, passing over his\nown time, grasped hands with the classical Judaism of the prophets,\nand that one source of his strength is to be found in this fact. This\nprejudice is to be explained by the low estimation in which late\nJudaism had always been held by theologians. It was identified,\nwithout examination, on the one hand with \u201cfantastic apocalyptic\nviews,\u201d and on the other with a \u201csoulless Rabbinism.\u201d\n\nThe admission, however, that Paul in the principles of his exegesis\nwas in agreement with Rabbinism was made by theologians with\ncomparative readiness. This did not carry with it the surrender of\nanything that had been much valued, since the verbal comparison and\ncontrast of passages which he practises, and the illogical and\nfantastic reasoning which appears in his arguments, had always been\ndistasteful to theological science. It was therefore rather welcome to\nit than otherwise, to find, in consequence of the increased knowledge\nof parallel products of late Judaism, an explanation of a weakness\nwhich did not properly harmonise with the greatness of this heroic\nspirit, in the influences to which he had been subjected by reason of\nhis theological education._(_46_)_\n\nAlong with this was accepted the fact that, in common with his\ncontemporaries, he naively treats the Haggadic embellishments of Old\nTestament stories as on the same footing with the Scripture itself.\nHis assumption that the Law was given by the angels (Gal. iii. 19),\nand his reference to the rock that followed the children of Israel in\nthe wilderness and poured out water (I Cor. x. 4), are to be explained\nfrom passages in the Rabbinic literature. [pg 047] No thoroughgoing\ninvestigation was undertaken with a view to determining whether the\nRabbinic principles suffice to explain Paul\u2019s method of scriptural\nargument. In general the view prevails that his \u201ctypological\u201d and\n\u201cspiritualising\u201d _(pneumatisch)_ interpretation goes beyond what can\nelsewhere be shown in Palestinian theology. It is true these two\nmethods of exegesis, going beyond the simple literal sense, are not\nwholly unknown, but they only came to their full development in\ncontemporary Alexandrian Biblical scholarship. For this reason it is\nproposed to assume that Paul had also received an influence from this\nside.\n\nAs examples of Alexandrian exegesis are quoted the interpretation of\nHagar and Sarah as representing the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem\n(Gal. iv. 22 f.), that of the water-giving rock as representing Christ\n(I Cor. x. 4), and the argument from the threshing oxen to the\npreachers of the gospel (I Cor. ix. 9 ff.).\n\nOne of the greatest problems of the Pauline use of Scripture is not\nmentioned in these works. It is assumed that the Apostle attached\nspecial importance to proving the Messiahship of the crucified Jesus.\nHow then can we explain the fact that he never makes any use of the\npassage about the Suffering Servant of the Lord in Isaiah liii? This\nfact is the more surprising because it may be taken as certain that\nthe apologetic of the primitive Christian community gave this passage\na most prominent place in its plan of operations.\n\nA scientific attempt to adduce from the Rabbinic literature\nexplanatory parallels to Pauline thought was made by Franz Delitzsch\nin 1870 in connexion with his Hebrew translation of the Epistle to the\nRomans._(_47_)_ The [pg 048] net result is not great. The parallels\nadduced are so uncharacteristic that they throw no new light on the\nApostle\u2019s ideas.\n\nNo further considerable attempts were made in this direction. Nor did\nWeber\u2019s \u201cTheology of the Early Synagogue\u201d lead to any other important\nworks being undertaken in that department. On the contrary, his sketch\nof the Rabbinic world of ideas makes it apparent that Pauline thought\ndoes not become any more intelligible by its aid than it is in itself,\neven though one parallel or another may be unearthed. Moreover, it is\nto be remarked that the discovery of such parallels would only become\nof importance if proof could be given that they really date from the\nbeginning of the first century. Such proof is, however, quite\nimpossible.\n\nOf the \u201cRabbinism\u201d of Paul\u2019s day we know practically nothing. Even the\nearliest strata of the literature which is at our disposal were not\nformed before the beginning of the third century A.D._(_48_)_ It\nconsists of a codification of tradition carried out by the later\nRabbinic scholasticism. How far it offers us a faithful representation\nof the ideas and character of Rabbinic thought at the beginning of the\nfirst century must remain an open question.\n\nEven if Paul, in virtue of his dialectic and certain external\ncharacteristics, belongs to the world which this literature reveals to\nus, in regard to the content of his ideas and his creative force as a\nthinker he is not to be understood by its aid. To register this fact\nis, however, by no means to deny that he has his roots in the Jewish\ntheology of his time, but only to say that he shows no affinity as\nregards the inner essence of his problems and [pg 049] ideas with what\na later age offers us as the Rabbinism of the first century. It is\npossible, indeed it is in the highest degree probable, that many of\nhis ideas for which no \u201cRabbinic\u201d parallels can be adduced,\nnevertheless have their origin in the Jewish theology of his time. Who\nis to guarantee that the later scholasticism has faithfully preserved\nfor us the Jewish theology which was contemporary with Christianity?\nIt may well have been more living in thought and more profound than\nthe men of the after-time could understand, or their tradition\npreserve. The picture which they draw for us shows only a sun-scorched\nplain, but this yellow, wilted grass was green and fresh once. What\ndid the meadows look like then?\n\nIt is to be remembered that the Apocalypse of Ezra, which shows in its\nown way such depth, while it is derived from the Scribal theology of\nthe first century, is as little to be explained from what on the basis\nof the later literature we think of as the Rabbinism of the period as\nare the Pauline Epistles. Had this writing not been preserved, it\nwould never have occurred to anyone that at that time men belonging to\nthe circle of the Scribes had been tormented in this way by the\nprimary problems of religion, and had brought the questions arising\nout of them into such close relations with eschatology.\n\nFurther, it is to be taken into account that Palestinian Scribism,\neven though it was an independent entity, did not, at the time when it\nhas to be considered in connexion with Paul, exist in absolute\nexclusiveness, but maintained relations with Jewish Hellenism. The\nlatter worked on a basis of ideas which it had in large measure taken\nover from Rabbinism and held in common with the latter. This\nrelationship becomes in the case of Philo clearly apparent. With him\none can never tell where the \u201cRabbinist\u201d ends and the Hellenist\nbegins. But if the theology of the Scribes stood in any kind of\nrelation with Jewish Hellenism, it cannot have been so poor in ideas\nand unspiritual as it appears in the later tradition.\n\n[pg 050]\n\nEven the discourses of Jesus, in spite of the polemical picture which\nthey give of it, create the impression that He had to do with a\nRabbinism which was interested in really religious questions, even\nthough it showed itself incapable of rising to the height of the\nsimple piety to which His preaching of the Kingdom of God and the\nrepentance necessary thereto made its appeal.\n\nIt seems therefore probable that the Epistles of Paul and the\nApocalypse of Ezra, along with its satellite the Apocalypse of Baruch,\nare witnesses to a Rabbinism, or a movement within its sphere, of\nwhich the Rabbinic tradition which later became fixed in written form\ngives us no information.\n\nWhat should we know of the moving forces of the Reformation as they\nmanifest themselves in Luther\u2019s works of the year 1521, if we were\ndependent for our information on the Lutheran scholasticism of the\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries? How would we think of the\nReformation as a whole if we possessed only these witnesses? With all\ndue respect to the vaunted faithfulness of Rabbinic tradition, which\nafter all we are not in a position to check, was it capable of\npreserving the record of a period of living thought? Is an oral\ntradition ever capable of doing so?\n\nThe historical examples in which we are able to test the tradition of\nlater generations by the reality which has subsequently come to light,\nare calculated to shake our faith in the assumption that it can do so.\nWhat did Beethoven\u2019s time know of the achievements of the period of\nBach? Mention is made of the elaborate fugues which had their origin\nat that time; but that the eighteenth century had produced choral\nworks of deep feeling and an elevation secure against change of\nfashion, was entirely unknown to the second generation after Bach,\nalthough there had been nothing to interrupt tradition.\n\nMoreover, it ought not to be forgotten that we possess the history of\nJudaism only in fragments. As regards the political events of the\nfirst century we are [pg 051] comparatively well informed, but of the\nreligious movements we know little, and what does come to our\nknowledge is so disconnected and self-contradictory that it cannot be\ncombined into a single picture. The Baptist, Jesus, Philo, Paul,\nJosephus, and the authors of the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch cover\ntogether about two generations. They are at first sight as entirely\ndifferent as if they belonged to widely separated periods.\n\nThe destruction of Jerusalem interrupts the continuity of development\nof the Jewish people and of its thought. Its life is extinguished.\nHellenism dies out. There arises a Rabbinism which is no longer borne\non the tide of great national and spiritual movements. It becomes\nossified, and confines itself to mere unproductive commentating upon\nthe law. From the past its tradition takes only what lies within the\nfield of its own narrow interests. The problems and ideas which moved\nthe earlier, many-sided period no longer come into view, but fall into\nas complete oblivion as if they had never occupied Jewish religious\nthought.\n\nThe scholarship of the period after Baur is indeed far enough from\nembarking on reflexions of this kind. It takes scarcely any notice of\nwhat remains of the Late-Jewish non-Hellenistic literature. Even the\ncommentators make scarcely any use of the parallels to Pauline ideas\nand conceptions which are found in Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch,\nthe Apocalypse of Ezra, and here and there in the Testaments of the\nTwelve Patriarchs.\n\nIt is nothing less than astonishing that the close affinities with the\nApocalypse of Ezra do not receive any recognition. In this work there\nare elaborate discussions of the problems of sin, the Fall of our\nfirst parents, Election, the wrath, long-suffering, and mercy of God,\nthe prerogative of Israel, the significance of the law, the temporal\nand the eternal Jerusalem, of the prospect of dying or surviving to\nthe Parousia, the tribulation of the times of the End, and the\nJudgment. The close affinity between this writer and Paul strikes the\neye at once. [pg 052] Writers on Paulinism are, however, so obsessed\nby the idea that the teaching of Paul is a \u201cpersonal creation\u201d that\nthey cannot bring themselves to accept the view that the religious\nproblems which struggle for solution in his letters had also occupied\nhis Jewish contemporaries or at least a section of them._(_49_)_\n\nThe claims of Late Judaism on Paul were therefore taken to be\ndischarged when his Rabbinic dialectic and exegesis, and to a certain\nextent his eschatology also, had been ascribed to it.\n\nThe chapter on the future-hope which connected Paul on the one hand\nwith Judaism and on the other with primitive Christianity, is never\nomitted in any account of his teaching given by the scholars of the\npost-Baur period. In it is collected all that the Epistles have to say\nregarding the parousia, the resurrection, the judgment, and the\nKingdom of the Last Times. The treatment, however, is by no means\nthorough. Scarcely anywhere is there an attempt to arrange the\nscattered notices in an orderly way and bring them into relation with\none another. It is taken for granted that they are inconsistent with\none another, as a necessary consequence of the fantastic character of\nthe material. That Paul may have had a clear plan of the events of the\nEnd in which all his statements can find a place, is not taken into\naccount. These writers therefore set no limit to the admission of\ninconsistencies, and draw a picture which is, to put it plainly,\nmeaningless.\n\nSo far, it occurs to no one that the want of connexion may perhaps\nresult from the fact that the separate [pg 053] statements have not\nbeen carefully examined in regard to what they actually mean, and to\ntheir mutual relations. It is taken as quite certain that the \u201csimple\u201d\neschatology of I Thessalonians is superseded by the more complicated\nview of the Corinthian letters; and these in turn are not the last\nstage in this \u201cdevelopment\u201d of the Apostle\u2019s thought. No attempt is\nmade to get a clear idea in what order he thinks of the judgment and\nthe resurrection of the dead, or as to whether he holds that there is\none resurrection and one judgment, or a resurrection of the\n\u201crighteous,\u201d and another besides, and whether he assumes this to be\naccompanied by one judgment or two.\n\nThe authors regard with a certain amount of self-satisfaction the way\nin which they have emphasised the importance given to the eschatology\nby Paul. In the chapter devoted to it they have certainly emphasised\nagain and again, \u201cwith the utmost energy,\u201d the fact that he really\n\u201cshared\u201d the eschatological expectations of his time and admitted them\nto an important place in his creed. The chapter in question, however,\nonly gets its turn after the whole \u201csystem of doctrine\u201d has been\nsafely housed in the earlier chapters without seeking any aid from the\neschatology or even saying a word about it. As in the Church prayers\nof to-day, one catches an echo of it only at the end. This means that,\nwhen all is said and done, these writers regard it only as a kind of\nannexe to the main edifice of Pauline doctrine. That is a fact which\ntheir brave words about the importance attributed to it in their\naccount do not alter in the slightest. None of these students of\nPaulinism asks himself whether there is an organic connexion between\nthe eschatological expectations and the system as such, and whether\nthe fundamental conceptions and concatenation of ideas are not somehow\nor other conditioned by the hope of the final consummation. It is\nsimply taken as self-evident that eschatology can only form an\nincidental chapter in Paul\u2019s teaching.\n\n[pg 054]\n\nThe most natural course to follow in the investigation would have been\nto begin with the eschatology as the most general and\n\u201cprimitive-Christian\u201d element, and then to have tried to find a path\nleading from here to the central doctrine of the new life in union\nwith the dying and resurrection of Christ. This course is nowhere\nfollowed.\n\nThat is the more surprising as it is generally assumed that the\n\u201cmissionary preaching\u201d of the Apostle took an almost purely\neschatological form, and was scarcely distinguishable from the\nprimitive-Christian preaching of repentance, the judgment, and the\nparousia. The point to examine would therefore have been precisely how\nthe \u201cPauline theology\u201d grew out of the eschatology which Paul shared\nwith primitive Christianity. Instead of that, these writers begin with\nthe \u201cdoctrinal system,\u201d and attach to that by way of appendix an\naccount of the eschatology. It here first becomes fully apparent what\na misfortune it was for Pauline study in the post-Baur period that it\nkept to the method of presentation under _loci,_ and consequently\naccorded eschatology, in principle, no greater importance for\nPaulinism than it had had for Reformation theology.\n\nBernard Weiss, agreeing in this with Havet, lays strong emphasis on\nthe eschatology, and makes a beginning in the direction of an\nintelligent presentation of Paulinism. Instead of beginning, like the\nothers, with the \u201cdoctrine of man,\u201d or with \u201csin and the law,\u201d he\nfirst sets forth \u201cthe earliest preaching of Paul as Apostle of the\nGentiles,\u201d which he makes to consist of nothing but the proclamation\nof the judgment and the parousia. But having got this length, he does\nnot feel any need to point out the paths which lead from here to the\n\u201cteaching of the four great doctrinal and polemical epistles.\u201d He\nsimply puts the two sections side by side, and even falls into the\ninconsistency of devoting another chapter to the eschatology at a\nlater point. The doctrine of Paul consists therefore for these\nscholars of a theology of the [pg 055] present and a theology of the\nfuture which have no inner connexion with one another. It is indeed\ncited as an achievement on his part that he turned the eye of faith\nfrom the exclusive contemplation of the \u201chereafter\u201d to take in the\npresent also. How he came to do so\u2014he alone of this first Christian\ngeneration\u2014to point to present \u201cblessings of salvation\u201d in addition to\nthose of the future, is not explained. The co-existence of the two is\nsimply noted as a fact.\n\nHow far the scholars of this period were from taking the Pauline\neschatology seriously, is evident from the fact that they neglected to\nenquire into its connexion with that of Late Judaism. Otto Everling,\nwho in 1888 took in hand to give an account of one of its main\nfeatures, its angelology and demonology, was not able to refer to any\nprevious work in this department._(_50_)_ A theologian to whom he\nspoke of his design answered that \u201cone ought not to examine the\nbirth-marks of a genius like the Apostle.\u201d\n\nEverling brings forward the passages which speak of Satan, the angels,\nand the demons, one after another, and adduces parallels from Enoch,\nthe Ascension of Isaiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jubilees,\nthe Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.\nHis review of the material shows in what a step-motherly fashion it\nhad been treated by previous commentators of all shades of opinion.\n\nIn the result it appears that the Pauline statements about angelology\nand demonology have not sprung from his own imagination, but all have\ntheir earlier analogues in the Late-Jewish theology, or at any rate\ncan be understood as inferences from the conceptions there laid down.\nIt further appears that his statements stand in systematic connexion\nand mutually supplement one another.\n\nIn its main lines the Pauline doctrine of the angels shows us the\nfollowing picture. Spiritual beings who, in accordance with the\nhierarchic arrangement adopted in [pg 056] Late-Jewish theology, are\ndivided into various classes, played a prominent part at the giving of\nthe law. From that time forward they acted as overseers of the chosen\npeople, and also as the real powers behind the gods of the heathen. By\nthe death and resurrection of Christ their power has been in principle\nabolished, although it continues to be still in some way exercised\nupon those who offer sacrifices to idols or submit themselves to the\nlaw.\n\nBelievers in Christ, however, stand over against them as a class of\nmen who are liberated from their sway, and who possess a wisdom which\nunderstands better than their own the great events in which the\nhistory of the world is about to close.\n\nThese angelic existences feel that their domination is threatened, and\nfight with all the weapons at their command. It is at their\ninstigation that the attempt is made to corrupt the Gospel by\nlegalism; all the difficulties which the Apostle encounters, all the\ncorporeal sufferings which he has to bear, are to be attributed to\nthem. It is on their account that women must be veiled when attending\nthe services of the Church, since otherwise they run the risk of\nbecoming the victims of their lust, as of old their mother Eve was\nseduced by the devil. Most dangerous of all is their skill in\ndeception: Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.\n\nWith the appearance of the Lord begins the decisive struggle which is\nto lead to the destruction of these powers. They are to be delivered\nup to judgment, to receive their sentence at the mouth of the saints,\nwhom, until the parousia, they have still the power to harass with\ncunning and cruelty, though not to destroy.\n\n\u201cIn its proper historical surroundings Christianity shows up in its\ntrue majesty,\u201d said Richard Rothe once. Everling drew from these\nwords, which he placed at the beginning of his book, courage to make a\nthorough investigation of matters which had previously been timidly\navoided because of their strangeness.\n\nHow wide-reaching was the significance of his synthetic [pg 057] study\nhe had hardly realised. His intention was to depict clearly and in\nvivid colours the imposingly fantastic Late-Jewish background of\nPauline theology. The theology of his time took the same view. It\naccepted the offered gift somewhat constrainedly, but on the whole\ngratefully enough. If it had the impression that the background as\nthus restored, while no doubt \u201cinteresting,\u201d was somewhat too glaring\nand obtrusive, it remained confident that the \u201cdoctrinal system\u201d which\nit throws into relief is not otherwise affected by it. The\nappendix-chapter on eschatology grows in size and acquires a certain\nconnectedness. But there seemed no reason to fear that it might grow\nso vigorously as to overpower those into which the Pauline theology\nproper is neatly parcelled out.\n\nIn reality, however, there was quite sufficient reason for anxiety.\nEverling had shown that angelology and demonology were, as a matter of\nfact, component parts of Paul\u2019s cosmology. That they consequently also\nentered into his fundamental conception of redemption was a point\nwhich he had not especially emphasised. But the fact was written in\ngiant characters across his work. From the moment when Paul\u2019s\nstatements regarding God, the devil, the angels, and the world are\napprehended in their organic connexion, it becomes abundantly evident\nthat for him redemption, in its primary and fundamental sense,\nconsists in a deliverance from the powers which have their abode\nbetween heaven and earth. It is therefore essentially a future good,\ndependent on a cosmic event of universal scope.\n\nIt at once becomes evident that the investigation of Paulinism must\ntake as its starting-point these ideas as being of the most general\ncharacter, and endeavour to show how the other statements regarding\nredemption are derived from them. Theological science was thus forced\ninto the road which it had hitherto sedulously avoided. The deceptive\ncharacter of the division of Paulinism under _loci,_ by which it had\nlong been kept in [pg 058] an unhappy state of subservience to\nReformation and modern prejudices, now became apparent. But for all\nthat theology held to the old way and was determined to cast out\nanyone who set foot upon the new. That is the explanation of the fate\nwhich befel Richard Kabisch\u2019s \u201cEschatology of Paul.\u201d_(_51_)_ Kabisch\nhad been considering the plan of a work on the Pauline Ethic, and in\ndoing so had become aware that it was to a large extent conditioned by\nthe eschatological expectations. Thereupon he resolved to begin with a\npreliminary study of the eschatology._(_52_)_\n\n\u201cSalvation,\u201d so runs his argument, is thought of by Paul as\n\u201cdeliverance\u201d from judgment and destruction. \u201cJustification\u201d and\n\u201creconciliation\u201d are subservient to this deliverance and do not\ndescribe a state of salvation independent of it. The spiritual goods\nwhich are characterised by many theologians as the object of the\nApostle\u2019s wrestling and striving are in reality only the anticipatory\nfirst-fruits of the blessedness which the future has in store. This\nblessedness consists in the believer\u2019s being freed at the parousia\nfrom the fleshly body in order to put on the heavenly robe of glory.\nThus eschatology is the foundation both of the dogmatics and ethics of\nthe Apostle.\n\nLife and death are for him physical conceptions. Spiritual death and\nspiritual life in the modern religious sense are unknown to him. Even\nwhere, as in Rom. vi., he speaks of a dying and rising again which are\nnot accompanied by any change in the outward and visible existence of\nthe individual, he does not mean a spiritual dying and rising again\nbut, inconceivable as it may [pg 059] appear, a physical occurrence.\nEverything spiritual goes back to something corporeal. That is true\nalso as regards the ethics. It is not from the consciousness of the\n\u201cideal possession of eternal life\u201d that he infers the duty of walking\nin newness of life, but from the fact that one who shares the death of\nChrist must also share His resurrection. Both events have reference to\nthe present. It is \u201ca simple logical consequence\u201d that we should walk\nin accordance with this physical newness of life in order to show that\nthe fleshly, _sarkic,_ body has been put off.\n\nThe new life of which Paul speaks as a present spirit is therefore\nbased on the \u201crepetition\u201d of Christ\u2019s bodily resurrection, which is\nrendered possible by the _unio mystica_ with him. It guarantees to the\nindividual his indestructibility even though the corruptible world, to\nwhich his fleshly corporeity belongs, falls a prey to destruction. The\nbeliever will then have a part in the new world-substance.\n\nPaul\u2019s soul is therefore thrilled with the eager desire for life,\nshaken with the dread of destruction. His faith, hope, and fear all\nrevolve about one centre\u2014the abolition of corruption and the bestowal\nof incorruption. His religion is a \u201cwill-to-live\u201d in a large elemental\nsense. He yearns for redemption from the creaturehood which is under\nthe sway of Satan and his powers, and from the body which they hold in\nthrall. The moment in which the relative positions of the world of\nspirits and the world of men are to be reversed, and a great final\nrenewal of all things is to be brought in\u2014that moment cannot come\nquickly enough for him. Therefore he seeks in some way to antedate it.\n\nThe future condition of existence is that of \u201cglory.\u201d It is\nanticipated in the present life by the possession of the \u201cSpirit\u201d\nwhich belongs essentially to the heavenly light substance.\n\nThus Kabisch endeavours to explain the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit\npurely on the ground of the Late-Jewish metaphysic. A super-earthly\nsubstance enters [pg 060] into the corporeity of those who in virtue\nof the _unio mystica_ with Christ have entered into the experience of\nHis death and resurrection. It produces in them a new being, and gives\nthem a claim to the future perfected glory, and this while their\nfleshly existence still continues to the outward eye unaltered.\n\nThe great paradoxes of Paulinism are here for the first time clearly\npointed out and so described that their real eschatological essence\nappears._(_53_)_ But Kabisch did not succeed in explaining them. In\nwhat sense is a \u201crepetition\u201d in the believer of the dying and rising\nagain of Christ possible? How can it produce a reconstitution of their\ncreaturely being while their fleshly existence continues outwardly as\nbefore? To these questions Kabisch gives no answer.\n\nIn the account of the eschatological events and their issue it is\nshown that the blessings and anticipations referred to by Paul are\nalso present in the Late-Jewish theology. That the Apostle expresses\nhis views about the future world in disconnected fragments, apparently\ndistributed fortuitously through the text, does not show that it was\nnot clear and consistent in his own mind, but exactly the opposite.\nThe eschatological remarks come in so naturally and without appearing\nto need [pg 061] explanation just because this whole set of\nconceptions was to the Apostle so long familiar and self-explanatory,\nthat he can draw on it whenever he wishes as easily as an educated\nEuropean uses the multiplication table.\n\nStrangely, however, Kabisch does not succeed in giving a clear and\nsimple picture of the order and relation of the final events\npresupposed in the letters. He gets confused over the various\nresurrections and judgments, and finds the sole way of escape in\nattributing to the Apostle a resurrection of the righteous only, and\nnot a general resurrection in addition. In consequence he is forced to\nthe conclusion that the righteous enter the Kingdom without passing\nthrough a judgment, and that what is meant by the judgment is always\nthe destruction of the wicked at the parousia.\n\nThat is to make the Apostle contradict not only Jewish apocalyptic,\nbut his own utterances, since it is certain that the Epistles\nfrequently make mention of believers appearing at the judgment.\n\nThe difficulties which Kabisch here encounters are significant. They\nshow that it is not possible to understand the Pauline statements\nsimply by the light of the Late-Jewish eschatology. What for the\nApostle composed a simple picture remains for the writer who\nendeavours to describe his apocalyptic full of obscurities and\ncontradictions. It is as if one or two conceptions were lacking which\nwould have enabled him to \u201cget out\u201d his game of patience\nsatisfactorily.\n\nIt is true Kabisch has not done everything possible in order to attain\nclearness. He has neglected to adduce for comparison the eschatology\nof the Baptist and of Jesus, and to examine how far the Pauline\nsimplification of apocalyptic is here prefigured. He thus falls into\nthe universal but none the less unintelligible error of failing to\ncall the two most important witnesses to the Late-Jewish\neschatological expectations. Are they the less so because they belong\nto the New Testament? Further, he neglects, as do all the other\nwriters, to consider what [pg 062] are the primary questions which the\ntheory of the events of the End had to answer.\n\nWhat happens at the parousia to the non-elect? And what to the elect\nwho have not become believers because the Gospel message has not\nreached them? The ultimate fate of these two classes of men can surely\nnot be the same? Do those who at the parousia do not enter into glory\nsuffer \u201cdeath\u201d or \u201cdestruction\u201d? What is the relation between these\ntwo conceptions?\n\nAccording to I Cor. xv. 26, death is only to be vanquished at the end\nof the Messianic kingdom. Is a general resurrection before that\nconceivable? Does it follow as a consequence of this triumph over\ndeath?\n\nSince Kabisch does not raise these and similar questions, he does not\nfind the path which alone can lead to the understanding of the logic\nof the events of the End. Undoubtedly, in the eschatology of a thinker\nlike Paul, all these problems must have been considered and thought\nout. They form the implicit presuppositions which guarantee and make\nclear the inner logic of his scattered and seemingly disconnected\nstatements.\n\nAlthough he has not explained the paradoxes of the Pauline mysticism,\nnor succeeded in making clear the ground-plan of his eschatology,\nKabisch\u2019s book is one of the most striking achievements, not only in\nthe department of Pauline study, but in historical theology as a\nwhole. For the first time since L\u00fcdemann\u2019s investigation of the\nApostle\u2019s doctrine of man, in 1872, the problem of the Pauline\ndoctrine of redemption receives a new formulation.\n\nThe two works show a curious analogy. Their authors have a\nconsciousness of the fact that the theology of the Apostle is a living\norganism, and are preserved by some good genius from splitting it up\ninto Reformation or modern _loci._ They endeavour to grasp the\nthoughts and connecting links of the doctrine of redemption from a\nsingle point of view. L\u00fcdemann makes the \u201canthropology\u201d his\nstarting-point, Kabisch the eschatology. [pg 063] Both are led, almost\ncontrary to their intention, to give a general account of Paulinism.\nBoth see in the paradoxical statements about the abolition of the\nflesh in the union with the death and resurrection of Christ the\ncentre of his doctrine; both arrive at the result that what is in view\nis a really physical redemption.\n\nIn the explanation of the facts which they agree in observing they\ndiverge widely. L\u00fcdemann claims the Pauline doctrine of redemption as\nHellenistic; Kabisch endeavours to understand it on the basis of Late\nJudaism. Theological science cast out the innovator and held to the\nconviction that the Apostle\u2019s system of thought was Greek. It was\nacknowledged that he had made the eschatology of the Apostle\nintelligible; but in the attempt to pass from the eschatology to the\ncentre of the Apostle\u2019s system of doctrine, contemporary scholarship\nsaw only an extreme onesidedness for which there was no justification\nin the documents, which deserved neither examination nor refutation,\nbut simply rejection.\n\nOn what lines had theology developed and defended the theory of Greek\nelements in Paulinism? In the first place, it is to be remarked that\nin regard to the extent and importance of the influence which is\nsupposed to have been exercised, various groupings are to be observed\namong the different writers. Pfleiderer, Holsten, Heinrici,_(_54_)_\nHavet, and others see in Paulinism the actual first step in the\nHellenisation of Christianity. They assume, as Baur also had taken for\ngranted before them, that the ethical series of ideas, the series\ndominated by the antithesis of flesh and spirit, is derived from Greek\ninfluences.\n\nSchmiedel,_(_55_)_ in his commentaries, and Harnack_(_56_)_ express\n[pg 064] themselves with more reserve. According to the latter,\nHellenism, no doubt, \u201chad its share\u201d in Paul. The Apostle of the\nGentiles \u201cprepared the way for the projection of the Gospel upon the\nGraeco-Roman world of thought,\u201d but he never gave to Greek ideas \u201cany\ninfluence upon his doctrine of salvation.\u201d Lipsius,_(_57_)_ Bernhard\nWeiss, and Weizs\u00e4cker do not take much account of borrowings from\nGreek sources, but are concerned to explain Paul from and by himself\nso far as possible.\n\nIt is not so easy as might be supposed to determine the attitude of\nthe various authors towards the problem of the Hellenic influence in\nPaul. This is partly due to want of accuracy in the terminology.\n\u201cHellenistic\u201d is used to mean both Jewish-Hellenistic and Greek in the\nstrict sense. The authors frequently express themselves in such a way\nthat it is not obvious whether they mean the one, or the other, or\nboth together. Attempts to establish an accurate terminology, to\nconfine \u201cHellenistic\u201d to the meaning \u201cJewish-Hellenistic,\u201d and to use\nHellenic for Greek in the full sense, have not succeeded.\n\nBut the want of clearness is not wholly to be put down to the account\nof the language; it is partly due to the mental attitude of the\nwriters. The problem really includes two questions. First, Was Paul\nunder the influence of Jewish Hellenism? Secondly, Did Greek thought\nin itself, apart from the alliance into which it had entered with\nJudaism, exercise any influence upon his views? Instead of keeping\nthese questions separate these writers constantly confuse them, and\nassume that they have proved the existence of Greek ideas in the [pg\n065] Apostle\u2019s system of doctrine when they have only discussed his\nrelations with Jewish-Hellenism.\n\nSometimes one actually gets the impression that in this difficult\nquestion they intentionally make their discussions a little obscure\nand inconsistent, and are more concerned to conceal than to reveal\ntheir views, in order not to lay themselves open to attack.\n\nThe discovery and the grouping of their opinions is therefore\nassociated with difficulties, and can never be carried out in a way\nentirely free from objection. Fortunately the discussion and decision\nof the question does not depend on drawing them up in three divisions,\neach under the banner of its particular view, and so putting them\nthrough their facings.\n\nIt suffices to note the fact that in the study of the subject from\nBaur onward the greatly predominating opinion is that Paul was not\nonly influenced by Jewish Hellenism but also derived some of his ideas\ndirectly from Greek thought. It is also safe to assert that of all the\nwriters in question\u2014even though some of them take up an attitude of\nreserve to Pfleiderer\u2019s more thoroughgoing views, none of them denies\nthe influence of Jewish Hellenism on Paul. The difference between them\nconsists rather in the fact that some assume in addition to this what\nmay be called \u201cfree\u201d Greek influence, while others are sceptical on\nthis point and think that the facts can be explained without this\nassumption.\n\nIt is to be expressly remarked that the latter do not try to arrive at\nan understanding of the essence of Paul\u2019s thought by a different\nmethod, but only to clothe the usual explanations in different words.\nThis is the case with Weizs\u00e4cker.\n\nThe well-known account of Paulinism in his \u201cApostolic Age\u201d_(_58_)_\nneither offers any new idea nor raises any new problem. Though he is\nin some respects more cautious than Pfleiderer, because he feels the\ndifficulty of proving Greek influence more strongly than the latter,\nin other [pg 066] respects he is less exacting than Pfleiderer with\nhis logical development of Baur\u2019s ideas, since he is content with\nexplanations which do not satisfy Pfleiderer.\n\nThat Bernard Weiss in dealing with Pauline theology dispenses with the\nassumption of Greek influence is due to the fact that his\ninvestigation holds strictly to the lines of \u201cBiblical theology,\u201d and\non principle takes no account of anything beyond the borders of the\nCanon.\n\nIt is interesting to note that both Weiss and Weizs\u00e4cker deliberately\navoid a discussion of Greek and Hellenistic influence on Paul, and\nconfine themselves to an objective account of Paul\u2019s doctrine. Indeed,\nit may be remarked that in the study of the subject between Baur and\nHoltzmann the problem is never thoroughly discussed.\n\nThe question how far the alleged influences are proved or provable may\nbe held over for the present, and in the first place we may\ninterrogate Holsten, Pfleiderer and their followers as to what their\nview really means, and what they think they can explain by means of\nit.\n\nAt bottom the question turns on the antithesis of flesh and spirit. In\nthe clearly defined form in which this antithesis presents itself in\nPaul, it is held that it must be regarded as Greek. This view had been\nexpressed by L\u00fcdemann, who was the first to develop it clearly.\nIndependently of him, Holsten_(_59_)_ and Pfleiderer brought it into\ngeneral currency.\n\nIt is universally taken for granted that the dualism is derived from\nPlatonism. Whether Paul took it direct from Greek sources or from\nJewish Hellenism is not clearly explained. L\u00fcdemann seems to assume\nthe former, Holsten to imply the latter; Pfleiderer is doubtless to be\nunderstood in the sense that both possibilities have to be taken into\naccount, separately and in combination.\n\nThe psychological process is differently conceived by [pg 067] Holsten\nand by Pfleiderer. The former holds that Greek ideas were already in\nhis pre-Christian period present to the mind of the Apostle, who had\nbeen in touch with Jewish Hellenism, but they had as yet played no\npart in his thinking. By his religious experience at the vision of\nChrist on the Damascus road they were called into activity and helped\nhim to give form to his new knowledge. In this way Holsten thinks it\npossible to understand Paulinism as both a personal creation of the\nApostle and at the same time a product of the influence of Greek\nideas. The emphasis lies, however, on the personal creation; the\ninfluence of the Greek ideas is thought of as subsidiary.\n\nFor Pfleiderer the process was more largely determined from without.\nPaul\u2019s conversion creates as it were a void in his Jewish\nconsciousness. The thought-forms which he has hitherto used prove\nincapable of dealing satisfactorily with the implications of his new\nfaith. So the Apostle is driven to have recourse to another system of\nideas. He no longer remains indifferent to the ideas which stream in\nupon him from Jewish Hellenism and Greek thought. They become\nsignificant to him; he allows them to exercise their influence upon\nhim. In this way there arises a remarkable duality in his thought.\nPharisaic and Hellenistic trains of ideas form two streams \u201cwhich in\nPaulinism meet in one bed without really coalescing.\u201d By way of\nconjecture Pfleiderer several times advances the suggestion that\nApollos the Alexandrian may have introduced the Apostle to the\nAlexandrian Platonism.\n\nHeinrici, again, in his commentaries on the Corinthian Epistles\nsuggests that the Apostle\u2019s doctrine is a synthesis of elements taken\non the one hand from the Jewish prophets and on the other from Greek\nthought._(_60_)_ Paul, he thinks, reached back beyond Late Judaism to\njoin hands with the ancient prophetism, and similarly rose [pg 068]\nsuperior to Alexandrianism and drew direct from Greek thought. In both\ncases what he seeks is an ethical force. That he possessed the insight\nand the power to find this in the thought of the ancient world and to\napply it to the formation of a Christian system of thought was a great\nspiritual achievement, pregnant with consequences for the future\ndevelopment of Christianity.\n\nOne might have expected that these various views would be worked out\nin detail. That is not the case. In the last resort none of these\nwriters gets beyond the general and simple assertion that the\nantithesis of flesh and spirit is Greek. But even this is not further\nexplained by means of parallels from Greek literature. There is no\nattempt to show in what sense Paul\u2019s utterances become more\nintelligible in the light of these analogies than they are in\nthemselves.\n\n\u201cThe Greek dualism,\u201d writes Holsten, \u201cunderlies all the decisive\nelements of his thought, and makes itself apparent in a series of\nindividual traits.\u201d Any one who goes through his work in the\nexpectation of finding evidence adduced in support of this statement\nwill be disappointed. It is as though the author had forgotten as he\nwent on writing what he had set out to do.\n\nIt is also matter for astonishment that no serious attempt is made to\nextend the range of the Greek elements beyond the single antithesis of\nflesh and spirit. The suggestion is no doubt met with that the\npessimism, the longing for death, and the ethical teaching of the\nApostle, belong essentially to the tone of thought prevalent in the\nHellenic world. But these remain mere _obiter dicta_ which are not\nworked out in any way.\n\nIt is as though these writers one and all had an instinctive feeling\nthat their thesis, so long as it is kept quite general, has an\nadmirable air of credibility and admits of being nicely formulated,\nbut that when any attempt is made to follow it out into detail it\nyields little in the way of tangible results. Paulinism is deceptive.\nIts outward appearance is such that the assertion that [pg 069] here\nGreek influences have been at work seems the most self-evident\npossible, but when this has to be shown in detail it leaves the\ninvestigator whom it has drawn on by its specious appearance\ncompletely in the lurch.\n\nThe curious thing is that Holsten, Pfleiderer, and their followers do\nnot venture to formulate the unwelcome admission which may be read\nbetween their lines, but keep up the game with one another as if\neverything was going as well as heart could wish. They overdo their\nair of unconcern, as though from an uncomfortable sense that they\nmight in the end lose confidence in their assertion, and so find\nthemselves unable to explain how Paul arrived at his dualistic\nantithesis between flesh and spirit.\n\nFor this is what it all ultimately comes to. The assertion of Greek\ninfluence is a kind of pillared portico behind which they construct\nthe edifice of Paulinism as they understand it. The style, however, is\nonly maintained as regards the front. What lies behind that is\nstyleless, neither Greek nor Jewish, without plan, without character,\nwithout proportion. Those writers who wholly or partially dissent from\nthe assumption of Greek influences carry out the same plan with the\nsame materials, and with the same unconcern as regards the style. The\nonly difference is that they do not conceal it by building a special\nfa\u00e7ade in front of it, whether it be that, like Harnack, they have a\nfuller sense of the difficulties, or, like Weiss and Weizs\u00e4cker,\npersuade themselves that Paulinism, according to their construction of\nit, looks sufficiently well as it is.\n\nThere is, however, one point on which Pfleiderer and his followers\nthink that they can point to definite results of the influence of\nGreek ideas. They maintain that the Apostle\u2019s eschatological\nexpectations have been transformed by them. This has reference to the\npassage in 2 Cor. v. I ff. in which Paul gives expression to his\ndesire not to be \u201cunclothed\u201d but to be \u201cclothed upon.\u201d The natural\ninterpretation which is given by Bernard Weiss and others understands\nthe Apostle as speaking [pg 070] of his eager desire to experience the\nparousia while still alive in the body, in order to share that\ntransformation in which \u201cwhat is mortal will be swallowed up by life,\u201d\nand not to have to pass through a time of waiting in an intermediate\nstate of non-being or death.\n\nPfleiderer in his \u201cPrimitive Christianity\u201d does not accept this\nexplanation, but maintains that this passage and two others\u2014Phil. i.\n21 f. and iii. 8 f._(_61_)_\u2014imply a departure from the Pharisaic\neschatological hope in which the Apostle\u2019s thought elsewhere moves. In\nthis later period of his life, represented by 2 Corinthians and\nPhilippians, he turns away\u2014so runs the theory\u2014from the primitive view\nof an intermediate state of death, followed by a subsequent\nresurrection, and comes to hold that his soul, immediately after his\ndeparture, will pass into the presence of Christ in order to dwell\nwith Him. And Paul is more and more driven to adopt this view in\nproportion as his life is daily exposed to greater danger, and he has\nto reckon with the possibility of dying before the parousia takes\nplace. Under the pressure of this inward anxiety, guided by\nPlatonising Alexandrianism, illuminated by the Greek spirit, he\ncreates\u2014we are still following Pfleiderer\u2014a spiritualising hope of\nfuture blessedness, which in the sequel becomes of the utmost value to\nGentile Christianity by enabling it to reconcile itself to the delay\nof the parousia.\n\n[pg 071]\n\nPfleiderer believes also that he can show the course of the\ndevelopment by which the new conception was arrived at. In I\nThessalonians, he thinks, the Apostle still rested unquestioningly in\nthat notion of a corporeal resurrection which primitive Christianity\nshared with Judaism. But in the explanations in I Cor. xv. the\ninfluence of the Greek ideas becomes observable, while in 2\nCorinthians and Philippians it becomes dominant.\n\nThis construction of the course of events is defended by Pfleiderer\nand his followers\u2014Holsten here stands apart\u2014with fanatical energy, as\nthough they wished to make noise enough to distract attention from the\nfact that they have so very little else to point to in the shape of\npositive evidence of Greek influence in Paul.\n\nWhat are the difficulties which are raised by the assumption of Greek\nideas in Paul\u2019s doctrine? They are many and various, and they grow\ngreater in proportion as the new element in Paul is more strongly\nemphasised. Take the problem of explaining the dualism of flesh and\nspirit. It is assumed that this has been done when it has been\ndeclared to be Greek. But in doing so a duality has been introduced\ninto Paul himself which creates many more difficulties than the\ndualism it was invoked to solve.\n\nThe Apostle is made to think Judaically with one-half of his mind and\nHellenically with the other, and nevertheless is supposed to be\ncapable of being conceived as a single integral personality. In the\nwritings of L\u00fcdemann and Holsten the difficulty does not yet appear in\nits full magnitude. They understand by the Jewish element especially\nthe juridical series of ideas referring to the atonement and imputed\nrighteousness. Holsten is, moreover, in a specially favourable\nposition, because in the last resort he ascribes the origin of the\nsystem not so much to the influence of Greek ideas as to the inward\nexperience on the Damascus road, which of course eludes analysis. If\nthey are thus referred exclusively to the separate but coexistent\njuridical and mystical sets of [pg 072] ideas, a Jewish and a Greek\nelement can at need be thought of as in some way or other combined in\na single consciousness.\n\nBut for Pfleiderer the conception of the Jewish element has become\nmuch more comprehensive and vital, because he appreciates the\nsignificance of the eschatological ideas. The result of that is to\nmake the opposition which has to be recognised much more acute. And,\nnevertheless, it must continue to be asserted that Paul was\nunconscious of the inconsistencies!\n\nIf the difficulty could be got over by pointing to an opposition of\nwhich the Apostle was conscious, and which he had made an effort to\nreconcile, the position of the theory would be much more favourable.\nBut for that it would be a necessary condition that he should\nsomewhere have expressed the consciousness that he bore two souls\nwithin his breast,_(_62_)_ and that the marks of compromise should\nappear in his work as they do, for example, in that of Philo. That,\nhowever, is not the case. He is conscious of no opposition, and steps\nunconcernedly from the one world into the other, turns back again to\nthe first, and keeps on doing this over and over again. Where,\naccording to Pfleiderer\u2019s view, he is venturing a leap over the abyss,\nhe has all the air of putting one foot calmly before the other on a\nlevel road. We must, therefore, take it to be the case that he had not\nthe slightest inkling of the opposition.\n\nThis conclusion seems to negate psychology and render a historical\ncomprehension of the Apostle impossible, but Pfleiderer hardens his\nheart and boldly accepts it. There remains, he says, \u201cno alternative\nbut to admit that Paul kept the two different kinds of conceptions in\nhis consciousness side by side but unrelated, and jumped from one to\nthe other without being aware of the opposition between them.\u201d\n\nThere is, however, a further complication in the [pg 073] question.\nPfleiderer holds that in 2nd Corinthians and Philippians a Greek\nspiritualising future-hope has displaced the Jewish Pharisaic hope. In\nthe last period of his life, he maintains, the Apostle no longer\nbelieves in a corporeal resurrection, but in a presence of the soul\nwith Christ which begins immediately after death.\n\nBut the new conception does not in fact displace the old, although it\nis diametrically opposed to it. Pfleiderer has to admit that Paul,\neven in the writings of the latest period, advances without misgiving\nthe doctrine of the \u201cawakening of the whole man from the sleep of\ndeath,\u201d just as if the new doctrine of \u201cthe presence with the Lord\nbeginning immediately after death\u201d were not in existence, although it\nis the outcome of long years of mental struggle.\n\nPfleiderer, however, is prepared to accept even this portentous fact\nalso, and to go on contentedly believing that Paul lived in a kind of\nmental twilight which is at once Jewish-eschatological and\nGreek-spiritualistic. He expresses this euphemistically by speaking of\nthe Pauline eschatology as \u201chovering between the Pharisaic hope of the\nhere and the Greek hope of the hereafter.\u201d The way to a scientific\nunderstanding of Paulinism lies, therefore, for Pfleiderer through a\n_credo quia absurdum._\n\nBy his assertions about 2 Cor. v. I ff. he had brought the assumption\nof Hellenistic ideas in Paul into a dangerous position. Previously\nwhen a student of the subject had stated it to be his view that the\nsharp antithesis of flesh and spirit was Greek, there was no way in\nwhich this belief could be countered. If he was, further, convinced\nthat the Apostle\u2019s brain was so organised that he could at the same\ntime think consistently along two separate lines, Greek-spiritualistic\nand Jewish-eschatological, without noticing their divergence and\nwithout ever mingling the two sets of ideas, a mind accustomed to work\nby the methods of historical criticism was similarly powerless against\nviews arrived at as if by revelation.\n\nPfleiderer, however, makes the mistake of referring [pg 074] to a\nmatter of fact when he asserts that the Apostle\u2019s conception of a life\nafter death became Hellenised. Thereupon controversy about the Greek\nelement in Paul rages furiously over 2 Cor. v. I ff.\u2014it was only now\nthat controversy had become possible. The simple wording of the\npassage is against Pfleiderer, for its subject is not the soul\u2019s being\n\u201cat home with Christ,\u201d but the Apostle\u2019s longing for the parousia.\nPfleiderer himself would never have arrived at his exposition had it\nnot been for the laudable desire to produce at last some tangible\nexample of the influence of Greek thought upon the Apostle\u2019s ideas.\n\nThe point which Pfleiderer raised here was after all only a particular\ncase in relation to the general question whether a Hellenistic\ninfluence is to be recognised in the Apostle\u2019s conceptions of the\nfinal state and the times of the End. It was in this wider aspect that\nKabisch dealt with the problem in his work on the Pauline eschatology.\nHis decision is in the negative. The much-discussed \u201cdevelopment\u201d of\nthe views of I Thessalonians into those of I Corinthians xv., and of\nthese again into those of 2 Corinthians and Philippians, is, he\nmaintains, a delusion. The conception of the things of the End is a\nunity, and remains the same throughout.\n\nTo oppose this view Teichmann entered the lists._(_63_)_ In his\nover-confident zeal he plays the part of Polos in Plato\u2019s Gorgias.\n\nHe goes much further than Pfleiderer, and seeks to show that Greek\nideas actually superseded the whole Jewish Eschatology of Paul. In\nconsequence of the [pg 075] influx of new thoughts one antinomy after\nanother arises in the Apostle\u2019s conception of the things of the End.\nTo trace out and exhibit these in detail is the goal of Teichmann\u2019s\nendeavour.\n\nHe arrives at the following conclusions:\u2014In I Thessalonians Paul still\nassumes that Christians will enter the kingdom of heaven with their\n_earthly_ bodies. Not before I Corinthians xv. does he introduce the\nidea of a \u201ctransformation.\u201d He is then led to do so by the development\nof the Greek doctrine of flesh and spirit. In the second Epistle to\nthe Corinthians he carries out this new conception to its logical\nissue. \u201cThe compromise which he had attempted in I Cor. is abandoned,\nand the result is that the conception of the resurrection of the dead\nis set aside.\u201d Along with the resurrection of the dead the Apostle\nalso strikes out from his programme of the future the parousia. \u201cFor\nthe expectation of the descent of Christ to earth he substitutes the\nentry of the believer into the heavenly world. A resurrection of the\ndead, a descent of Christ to earth, was now no longer necessary.\u201d\n\nNot only so, but the conception of the judgment is also abolished. In\nthe first place, Paul draws this inference \u201cat least so far as\nChristians are concerned.\u201d That subsequently, in following out his\nideas, \u201che should also arrive at the conception of universal\nblessedness, can in view of his universalism cause no surprise.\u201d \u201cAs\nall men were included in Christ at His resurrection, so all must\nreceive the Spirit, they must all be made alive.\u201d The End does not,\ntherefore, mean blessedness for some and destruction for others, but\neternal life for all. But since eternal life depends on the possession\nof the Spirit, it must be assumed that those who are not believers at\ntheir death \u201ccome to faith in Christ in the period between the\nparousia and the delivery of all authority into the hands of God, and\nin consequence of this the Spirit is given to them.\u201d\n\nTeichmann professes to have demonstrated the [pg 076] Hellenisation of\nthe Pauline eschatology. What he actually shows is what it would have\nbecome if it had really undergone Greek influence.\n\nNot one of his \u201cresults\u201d can be proved from the Apostle\u2019s letters.\nWhere is there a single word to suggest that the Apostle abandoned the\nconception of the judgment and that of predestination to life or to\ndamnation? Where does he ever speak of universal blessedness? Where\ndoes he hint at the possibility that mankind as a whole is to be\nconverted to belief in Christ between the parousia and the delivery of\nall authority into the hands of God, and will thereupon receive the\nSpirit? What grounds are there for supposing that he gives up the idea\nof the parousia as superfluous? In his zeal to discover antinomies and\ntrace developments, Teichmann forgets to take account of the most\nelementary facts. He asserts, for instance, that in I Thessalonians\nthose who arise from the dead enter the kingdom of God in their\nearthly bodies. But from the Jewish Apocalyptic and from the teaching\nof Jesus it clearly appears that the resurrection included within\nitself a transformation of this creaturely corporeity into a glorified\ncorporeity. It would not do for Teichmann to remember this. He is\nbound, even where he represents the Apostle as still wholly under the\nsway of Jewish conceptions, to bring him into an inconceivable\nopposition to these in order that the transformation which is taught\nin I Corinthians xv.\u2014entirely in accordance with Jewish\neschatology\u2014may be represented as derived from the Greek doctrine of\nthe Spirit.\n\nWithout intending it, he thus supplies the most brilliant refutation\nof the theory of the Hellenisation of the Pauline eschatology. He\nengaged battle on ground on which Pfleiderer and his school had\nincautiously ventured forth in the heat of action, and he has to find\nby experience that he is unable to make good a single position. A\nHellenisation of the eschatology is quite impossible to prove. Kabisch\nturns out to have been right. The [pg 077] Apostle holds on this point\ntoo vigorous and too clear a language.\n\nBut if that be so, the theory that the doctrine of flesh and spirit is\nGreek is itself most seriously imperilled. Teichmann felt, and therein\nhe was more logical and consistent than the rest, that if there were\nany Hellenistic ideas in Paulinism they must necessarily have attacked\nand displaced the Jewish eschatology. Pfleiderer\u2019s view that the two\ncould have subsisted side by side without\u2014except in the case of 2\nCorinthians v. I ff.\u2014influencing and interpenetrating one another is\nan untenable theoretical hypothesis. From the whole range of the\nhistory of thought no analogy could be produced for this harmonious\ncoexistence of two different worlds of thought.\n\nA further difficulty of the theory of the Hellenisation of Paulinism\narises from the fact that the Apostle\u2019s views have to be more and more\nspiritualised in proportion as the Greek element is emphasised.\nL\u00fcdemann, overpowered by the impression of the documents, had\nexpressly characterised the doctrine of redemption which is bound up\nwith the dualism of flesh and spirit as not ethical but physical.\nHolsten and Pfleiderer do not venture to follow him in that. The\nPlatonism which they seek to discover in Paulinism cannot be brought\ninto connexion with a physical doctrine of redemption, but is thought\nof as the antithesis of the \u201ccrude Jewish ideas.\u201d The whole of the\nmystical teaching about dying and rising again with Christ, about the\nnew creature and the influence of the Spirit, has therefore to be\nspiritualised.\n\nThis brings them into conflict with the natural, literal meaning of\nthe Apostle\u2019s statements, in which the materialistic character of his\nconceptions maintains itself against all the arts of exegesis. The\ninterpretation given by Pfleiderer and his school deprives them of\ntheir original meaning to an even greater extent than the modern\ninterpretation in general does.\n\nMost unfortunately for those who seek to spiritualise Paul, his\ndoctrine of the Spirit in particular shows no [pg 078] trace of Greek\ninfluence. As though from an apprehension that they might be deprived\nof one of their most indispensable illusions, for thirty years after\nBaur the students of Paulinism had neglected to deal with this\nsubject. At last in the year 1888 Gunkel undertook the task._(_64_)_\nHe investigates the influence of the Holy Spirit as conceived by the\npopular view of the Apostolic age, and according to the doctrine of\nthe Apostle, and is obliged to come to the conclusion that a Greek\nelement in the latter is not to be assumed.\n\nThe Apostle, according to Gunkel\u2019s exposition, takes over the\nprimitive Christian view and accepts it in all points. His own\ndoctrine merely represents an elevation, a development of what he\nfound already present. He introduces\u2014I Cor. xii.-xiv.\u2014an ethical\njudgment and valuation of spiritual gifts, which was new to the\nChristian community. While the latter had regarded \u201cspeaking with\ntongues\u201d as the highest manifestation of supernatural power, he puts\nall the _charismata_ on a lower footing than love. He gives a further\ndevelopment to the primitive Christian doctrine by attributing to the\ninfluence of the Spirit a large number of the characteristics of the\nChristian life which were not so regarded by the primitive community.\nLove, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness,\nmeekness, chastity are, according to Gal. v. 22, fruits of His power.\nHe generalises, therefore, in such a way that all Christian willing,\nfeeling, knowledge, hope, and action proceed from the _pneuma_, which\nfor the common view was only thought of in connexion with revelations\nand miracles.\n\n[pg 079]\n\nThere is a further point in which, according to Gunkel, Paul raises to\na higher level the view which he took over. By the possession of the\nSpirit the primitive Church was made certain that the end of the\npresent age was at hand and the new age was about to dawn. For the\nApostle the temporal relation becomes an inner one. The Spirit is for\nhim the earnest of the coming kingdom of God. Already in the present\nhe calls into being the future life in believers and gives them the\ncertainty, and to some extent even the reality, of the life which is\nabout to dawn for them.\n\nThe Pauline doctrine of the Spirit is therefore simply a development\nof the primitive Christian doctrine. That it was so long regarded as\nGreek is due, according to Gunkel, to the fact that scholars never\nexamined it as a whole, but always confined themselves to the\ndiscussion of the dualism of spirit and flesh. This prevents the\nrelation of the doctrine to the views of the primitive community, and\nespecially its relation to the doctrine of the future age, from\nbecoming apparent.\n\nOne very weighty theoretic objection to the admission of Greek\nelements in Paulinism is passed over by its defenders in complete\nsilence. If the thoughts developed by the Apostle of the Gentiles had\ngrown up upon the soil of Hellenism, the original apostles and those\nclosely associated with them would certainly have been aware of this\nand attacked them on that ground. From the records, however, as we\nhave them in the letters, it appears certain that they only reproached\nhim with his attitude towards the law, and found no other point to\nobject to in his teaching. The primitive Christian community at\nJerusalem accused him of keeping back something from his churches; it\ndid not discover anything new and essentially foreign in his thought.\nIn spite of the keenness of the struggle, it was never made a charge\nagainst him that he had \u201cheathenised\u201d the Gospel. That shows how\ncompletely out of the question the assumption of Greek influences was\nfor his [pg 080] opponents. But the fact that his contemporaries\ndiscovered nothing of the kind in him forms a strong presumption\nagainst any such theory when brought forward in later times.\n\nThe objection which arises from the side of the history of dogma tends\nto the same result. Those who hold the theory of Greek elements in\nPaul must, if they are to be consistent, assert that he pioneered a\npath for the Gospel into the Hellenic world and prepared the way for\nthe early Greek theology. And they do so most emphatically. Pfleiderer\nexplains_(_65_)_ that the Greek Church-theology arose by the expulsion\nfrom Paulinism of its specifically Jewish elements, and by the free\ndevelopment of its \u201cuniversally intelligible Hellenistic side.\u201d The\nnoble Platonic idealism had a place in the doctrinal system of the\nApostle of the Gentiles, \u201cand conferred on it its capacity to win the\nGraeco-Roman world for Christianity.\u201d \u201cThe understanding of Paulinism\nis therefore a fundamental condition for the understanding of the\nEarly Church.\u201d And all the adherents of the theory, whatever their\nprecise shade of opinion, express themselves to the same effect.\n\nBut the history of dogma holds a different language. It has to record\nthe fact, inconceivable as it may appear, that on the generations in\nwhich Greek dogma was taking shape Paul exercised no influence\nwhatever. Even the external literary influence is very slight. If one\nsets aside the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians it is not even\npossible to speak of a deutero-Pauline literature. The Pastoral\nEpistles and the second letter to the Thessalonians profess to be\nwritten by the Apostle, but contain not a single thought which is\ncharacteristic of his teaching. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 1\nClement, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the writings of Ignatius, in\nthe works of Justin, expressions occur which show acquaintance with\nthe Epistles of Paul, and may have [pg 081] been influenced by him in\nrespect to their wording; but beyond that they show no trace of his\nconceptions or his spirit.\n\nThe remarkable point, therefore, is that the post-Apostolic writers,\nthough they are acquainted with the works of the Apostle of the\nGentiles, make no real use of them. His ideas remain foreign,\nlifeless, so far as they are concerned.\n\nThat is also shown by the fact that early Greek Church-theology is\nquite independent of him. It is concerned with the incarnation and\nresurrection of Christ and with regeneration; Paul\u2019s speculations deal\nwith the death and resurrection of the Lord, and he never speaks of\nregeneration. The underlying logic is in the two cases so different\nthat the representatives of Greek theology, even if they wished to do\nso, could not appeal to the Apostle. No community of thought between\nhim and Justin is to be discovered.\n\nEven Baur had to learn how little Greek theology attached itself to\nPaul,_(_66_)_ although he wished to derive it from a compromise\nbetween the Pauline and the Petrine Gospel. So long as he is carrying\nout his theory on the lines of the history of the Church and its\nliterature, the mistake does not become so apparent, because the\nuniversalism and freedom from the law which gradually establish\nthemselves are set down as Graeco-Pauline. In treating the history of\ndogma, however, where he is dealing exclusively with the development\nof the Greek conception of the Person of Christ and of the redemption\neffected through Him, he can, as a matter of fact, make nothing of\nPaul. He hardly mentions him.\n\nWhat Baur was unwilling to acknowledge to himself, Harnack has\nirrefutably proved._(_67_)_ According to his [pg 082] showing there is\nno bridge leading from the Pauline Gospel to the doctrine of the Early\nGreek Church. The \u201chistory of dogma,\u201d strange as it may appear, only\nbegins after Paul. The forces which are there at work have not been\nset in motion by him.\n\nThe same result is arrived at by Edwin Hatch in his work on Hellenism\nand Christianity._(_68_)_ A trained philological scholar possessing\ngreat knowledge of and insight into the late Greek and early Christian\nliteratures, he endeavours to describe in detail the process by which\nChristianity became Hellenised. In doing so he does not find it\nnecessary to deal with Paul. For the points of contact which he finds\nto exist between the two worlds no examples are to be discovered in\nthe letters of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hatch\u2019s observations lead\nhim to make the process of Hellenisation only begin with the second\ncentury.\n\nThe history of dogma cannot, therefore, accept the suggestion that\nPaul recast the Gospel in the moulds of Greek thought. The process\nbegan later, and of its own motion. It did not derive its impulse from\na single great personality, but began gradually and on all sides. It\nwas the Greek popular mind as represented by the members of the\nGentile churches which Hellenised the Gospel for itself. Men like\nIgnatius and Justin bring this work to a provisional completeness by\ncombining the current ideas into a primitive but in its own fashion\nimpressively clear and living system, and creating a connexion between\nChristology, the conception of redemption and the doctrine of the\nsacraments; the [pg 083] Fourth Evangelist carries this system of\ndoctrine back into the preaching of the historic Jesus. These men\nreceived no kind of impulse from Paul. Of the work which he did they\nmake no use. They know it, but it seems as if it were impossible for\nthem to use it.\n\nThe recognition of the true state of the case begins when one gets rid\nof the seemingly so natural but in reality unjustified assumption that\nthe universalism_(_69_)_ and freedom from the law for which Paul\nfought his battles, imply a Hellenisation of Christianity and form the\nGreek element in his doctrine.\n\nRitschl and Harnack, in opposing this assumption of Baur and his\nsuccessors, went to the other extreme. They maintained that\nuniversalism and freedom from the law were purely practical and\nseparable views, which had, properly speaking, nothing to do with the\nfundamental ideas of the doctrine of redemption. In this way they\nsucceeded, no doubt, in liberating the history of dogma from the\nprejudices of the T\u00fcbingen school; but they did less justice to the\nApostle\u2019s statements than those whom they were attacking, since on\nevery page of his writings he implies an actual connexion between his\ndoctrines and the practical views which he is defending. It is to be\nnoted that Ritschl and Harnack never clearly explain why Paul holds a\ndifferent view on these points from that of the primitive community.\n\nTruth here appears as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis.\nUniversalism and freedom from the law do in fact belong to the history\nof dogma, but not in the way Baur thought. And they are in themselves\npractical views, but at the same time they claim to be logically\nderived from the system of doctrine. The presuppositions on which they\nare based have nothing to do with Greek thought; it was purely by\nsystematically thinking out to its conclusions the primitive Christian\ndoctrine that Paul was led to his theories of the universal [pg 084]\ndestination of the Gospel and of emancipation from the law.\n\nThese are the facts as they lie clearly before us in the letters. But\nto register them is not to explain them. How, exactly, do these\nconclusions result from the logic of the primitive Christian belief as\nrightly worked out in the Apostle\u2019s mind? That is the form which the\nquestion takes as the next stage, after Baur, Ritschl, and Harnack.\n\nThe negative result that the Pauline attitude in regard to these\npoints is not Greek is in any case established. And so too is the\nother result that the creators of Greek dogma did not take him as\ntheir starting-point, and cannot therefore have discovered anything\nHellenic in him. They had no consciousness that he had already\nquarried and shaped the material which they needed for their edifice.\n\nBut if they did not recognise in him one who had made a beginning in\ntheir direction, it is more than questionable whether modern\nhistorical criticism is right in professing to find Greek elements in\nhim. If so, it must be supposed to have a better instinct for what is\nHellenic than the men who Hellenised Christianity.\n\nIn any case it has no right to talk at large about the significance of\nPaulinism for Greek Christianity, as though the history of dogma was\nnot there to prove the contrary.\n\nHow do the Debit and Credit of the theory stand at this point? For the\ncredit side, it claims that the dualism of flesh and spirit is of\nGreek origin, but it does not get beyond the general assertion. No\nserious attempt has been made to demonstrate the existence of Greek\nconceptions in the particular aspects of the doctrine, and to explain\nthe pessimism, the desire for death, and the ethical teaching of the\nApostle as derived from the non-Jewish world of thought. That the\nPauline universalism and doctrine of freedom from the law are directly\ninspired by the Greek spirit it no longer has the right to assert.\n\n[pg 085]\n\nIn a single instance its defenders venture to point to the influence\nof Greek religious thought on the Apostle\u2019s views. They seek to show\nthat his Jewish, eschatological conception of the future life and his\nview of the events of the End were in time entirely transformed by it,\nif not actually cancelled. But the attempt to prove this from the\ndocuments has not been successful.\n\nMeanwhile the following difficulties appear. The theory is obliged to\nassume a dualism between Jewish and Greek elements in Paul, and to\nassert that on the one hand he never allowed the two systems of\nthought to coalesce, while on the other he never became conscious of\ntheir disparity; it has to attribute to him a capacity for combining\ncontradictions, which allows him to maintain alongside of one another\na spiritualistic doctrine of immortality and a crudely materialistic\nnotion of resurrection without becoming aware of their\nincompatibility; it is logically forced to the conclusion that he set\naside the Jewish eschatology, with its conceptions of judgment and\ncondemnation, in favour of a doctrine of universal blessedness,\nwhereas there is in the Epistles not a single hint pointing in this\ndirection; it is forced, in order to make his statements appear\n\u201cPlatonic,\u201d so to spiritualise them that the natural sense of the\nwords disappears; it must ignore the proved fact that his doctrine of\nthe spirit, when taken in its full compass and not confined to the\nantithesis of spirit and flesh, is most naturally explained as a mere\ndevelopment of the primitive Christian view; it must meet the\nobjection\u2014which it never can do\u2014that the original apostles never\ndiscovered anything of an essentially foreign, Greek character in\nPaul\u2019s views; it must, when confronted with the history of dogma, bend\nitself with what grace it may to the admission that Paulinism\nexercised no influence upon the formation of early Greek theology, and\ncannot therefore have been felt by the men who were concerned in that\nprocess as itself representing a first stage in the Hellenisation of\nChristianity.\n\n[pg 086]\n\nThe theory therefore explains nothing, but creates difficulty upon\ndifficulty.\n\nIn view of this relation of its assets to its liabilities it would\nhave no alternative but to declare itself bankrupt, had it not\nastutely refrained from keeping any accounts.\n\nAnd so far we have considered the mere for and against. Even if the\nbalance had here inclined in favour of the theory, that would not have\nproved anything. The ideas in question ought not to be considered as\nGreek until it had been shown that they actually were so. But this\nwould require it to be shown that exactly corresponding ideas were to\nbe found in the preceding or contemporary Greek literature, and that\nPaul betrayed some kind of acquaintance with this literature. The\npossibility that it was a mere case of analogy would have to be\nsystematically excluded, so far as that is possible.\n\nBut such a method of proof has never been seriously contemplated by\nthe adherents of the theory. In going through their works one is\nastonished to see how lightly they have treated their task. They have\nnever properly collected the material; it is much if here and there a\npoint is thoroughly considered.\n\nThe assumption of Greek elements in Paulinism appeared something so\nself-evident, and indeed, if one desired to arrive at any\nunderstanding of him, so necessary, that from the first it came\nforward with an assurance which secured credit for it everywhere\nwithout its needing to produce adequate guarantees.\n\nWhen L\u00fcdemann in the year 1872 worked out clearly the dualism of flesh\nand spirit, he added, as a thing to be taken for granted, that it was\nGreek in character. His successors show a similar absence of\nmisgiving.\n\nIn order to bring the question once for all to an issue, let us gather\nup and put to the test, along with the poor fragments of attempted\nproof, every consideration that can be cited in favour of the\nassumption of Greek elements in Paulinism.\n\nThe Apostle was born and grew up in Tarsus, the [pg 087] \u201cAthens of\nAsia Minor\u201d as Ernest Curtius has called it._(_70_)_ In his native\ncity, as Heinrici expresses himself, \u201crhetoric and Stoic philosophy\nwere to be met with in the market-place.\u201d_(_71_)_\n\nNo limits are set to the estimate of what the child of the Diaspora\nmay have absorbed, retained, and laid up in his mind from the\nintellectual life by which he was surrounded.\n\nBut just as large a place might be claimed for the contrary argument,\nwhich would lay stress upon the exclusiveness of strictly Jewish\ncircles of the Diaspora in regard to the Greek culture by which they\nwere surrounded.\n\nNeither argument proves anything. A thousand possibilities on the one\nside do not produce a certainty any more than on the other.\n\nThe greater probability, however, is on the side of the assumption of\nexclusiveness. Although he lived in the middle of Hellenism, it is\npossible that Paul absorbed no more of it than a Catholic parish\npriest of the twentieth century does of the critical theology, and\nknew no more about it than an Evangelical pastor knows of theosophy.\n\nThe decision lies solely with his works.\n\nThe case is similar as regards the argument from his language. It is\ninconceivable, so writers like Heinrici and Curtius urge, that a\nlanguage like Greek could be familiar to a man like Paul without\ncausing a flood of ancient conceptions and ideas to stream in upon\nhim. Heinrici, indeed, is prepared to decide the question on this\nground alone, and concludes his exposition of the Corinthian Epistles\nwith a close analysis of their vocabulary. This shows, he thinks, that\nGreek concepts and expressions far outweigh in number and importance\nthe \u201cspecifically Christian\u201d and those which show the influence of the\nOld Testament or the language of the synagogue. [pg 088] But in\nopposition to this, Schmiedel,_(_72_)_ a not less thorough\ncommentator, expresses himself as follows: \u201cWe must be on our guard\nagainst concluding too hastily from the predominantly Hellenistic\ncharacter of Paul\u2019s language to a Hellenistic mode of thought. With a\nlanguage of which one learns colloquially the current use, one does\nnot by any means necessarily assimilate all the thought-forms of which\nit contains, so to speak, the geological record.\u201d\n\nHere too, therefore, one argument is balanced by another.\n\nA fact which seems to carry us a little further is the Apostle\u2019s\nexclusive use of the Greek version of the Old Testament. In a detailed\nstudy, of the year 1869, Kautzsch_(_73_)_ showed that out of\neighty-four quotations which occur in the Epistles thirty-four agree\nexactly with the Septuagint, thirty-six show small deviations, and ten\ndepart from it more widely. Two others show a considerable difference,\nwithout, however, throwing doubt upon the author\u2019s acquaintance with\nthe wording of the ordinary translation; two others, again, from Job,\ndiffer from it entirely.\n\nThis investigation was carried further by Hans Vollmer_(_74_)_ and\nbrought to a provisional conclusion. According to him the deviations\nare to be explained by the fact that Paul did not use a single\ncomplete recension of the LXX, but had recourse to different editions\nfor different books. In Job he had before him a version which shows\naffinity with the later Jewish translations. To explain the remaining\npeculiarities Vollmer brings forward a hypothesis. He is inclined to\nassume that the Apostle used Greek Scriptural anthologies in which [pg\n089] separate passages were collocated, or freely combined with one\nanother. In such collections\u2014their existence is not\ndemonstrable\u2014various versions were, he thinks, used promiscuously.\nPerhaps the passage quoted as Scripture in I Corinthians ii. 9, which\nis not traceable in the Old Testament,\u2014\u201cAs it is written, what eye\nhath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart\nof man, hath God prepared for them that love Him\u201d\u2014may be derived from\nan anthology of this kind.\n\nIt is in any case certain that the Apostle always makes use of Greek\ntranslations; and it is further certain that he argues from\npeculiarities in their wording which for one who knew Hebrew, as he\nalso certainly did, must have been recognisable as mistranslations. He\ntherefore goes so far as to ignore the original.\n\nNevertheless these facts do not warrant us in drawing conclusions of a\ntoo far-reaching character. If he wrote in Greek at all he could not\ndo otherwise than use the Greek translations which were familiar to\nhim, and in the synagogues of the Diaspora were regarded as\n\u201cauthentic,\u201d as the Vulgate is for the Latin Church according to the\ndecrees of the Council of Trent. That being so, it was out of the\nquestion for him, in making quotations, to introduce renderings of his\nown from the original.\n\nIn all historical cases of theological bilingualism the same fact is\nto be observed. Scripture is never \u201cpersonally\u201d translated, but always\ncited in accordance with a recognised version._(_75_)_\n\nThat Paul should turn to account the mistakes of the version need not,\nin view of his exegetical principles, cause us any surprise. Whether\nhe forces his thought [pg 090] directly upon the original, or gets it\nexpressed by the Greek version, comes to much the same thing. The fact\nthat he adopts the errors of the LXX and finds his account in them\ndoes not make him a Greek. It only shows that he belongs to the Jewish\nDiaspora. But does this imply that he has his place in the\nJewish-Hellenistic movement?\n\nThis assumption is often taken as so self-evident that any examination\nof it appears superfluous. The defenders of the theory of Greek\ninfluence in Paul, therefore, feel themselves dispensed from this duty\nand act accordingly.\n\nEven those who, like Harnack, do not admit a more far-reaching direct\ninfluence of Greek ideas upon the Apostle, do not feel any doubt about\nhis relations with Jewish Hellenism.\n\nBut the sceptics of the self-evident, with whom science can never\ndispense, must dare to be tactless enough to put the question here\nalso, \u201cWhat is really proved?\u201d As we have to do with a characteristic\nliterature which lies before us with some measure of completeness, the\nverdict cannot be difficult to arrive at.\n\nPfleiderer and his followers had all along asserted that Paul in his\neschatology and anthropology showed dependence on the Wisdom of\nSolomon, which doubtless dates from the first century before Christ.\nOthers denied this. In an essay which appeared in 1892, Grafe sought\nto sift the material and decide the question._(_76_)_\n\nAs \u201ccrucial\u201d instances for the relationship he thinks the following\nmay safely be taken: Romans ix. shows affinity with Wisdom xii. and\nxv. in regard to what is said of the Divine omnipotence and mercy; in\ntheir references to heathen idolatry the two authors coincide in a\nremarkable way; the views regarding the relationship of body and soul\nwhich are implied in 2 Cor. v. I ff. find a parallel in Wisd. ix. 15,\nwhere there is a reference to [pg 091] the earthly tabernacle which\nweighs down the thinking soul. The facts do not, according to Grafe,\njustify the conclusion that Paul is dependent on the pseudo-Salamonian\nBook of Wisdom, but he does regard it as having been made highly\nprobable that the Apostle knew and had read the book.\n\nIt is not a clear \u201cyes\u201d that one hears in Grafe\u2019s essay. When it is\nquoted, however, by writers on Paulinism it gets a push towards the\npositive side which makes it say exactly what Grafe did not venture to\nassert.\n\nScarcely more productive is Vollmer\u2019s cast of his net into the works\nof Philo._(_77_)_ He thinks that, in view of the affinities pointed\nout by him, \u201cthe acquaintance of the Apostle with the works of the\nAlexandrian writer will have become less improbable to others besides\nhimself.\u201d\n\nBut that is not the point at all. That Paul, a scholar of the\nDiaspora, would have been aware of the existence of so important a\nwork as the Wisdom of Solomon, and would not have been wholly ignorant\nof its contents, is really self-evident. And is it likely that none of\nthe writings of his older Alexandrian contemporary\u2014Philo died probably\nabout the beginning of the forties\u2014would have come to his knowledge?\nOn the contrary, the most probable assumption is that he was\nacquainted with the whole of the earlier and later Hellenistic\nliterature. Whether this can be more or less clearly proved by certain\nreal or supposed parallels does not really matter.\n\nThe important point is that he does not use the ideas which are here\noffered to him. Jewish-Hellenistic theology is so characteristic a\nproduct that it can never [pg 092] be overlooked even where it is only\na subsidiary element. But in Paul no trace of it can be shown. Its\nproblems, its speculations regarding the Logos, Spirit, and Wisdom,\nits ethics, do not interest him; he makes no use of its theories. On\nthe other hand he is concerned with eschatology and with the person of\nthe Messiah, which for it seem to have no existence.\n\nThe characteristic mark of Jewish Hellenism is that it brings the\ndifferent ideas into an external juxtaposition without effecting their\ninterpenetration. Whether it is a question of philosophical or other\nwritings, of problems of ethics, or of the doctrine of God and the\nDivine administration of the world, the Greek element always shows up\nplainly in contrast with the Jewish, and can be clearly recognised as\nPlatonic or Stoic. It is a case of mosaic work, better or worse\nexecuted as the case may be.\n\nAny one who proposes to show that Paul was influenced by Jewish\nHellenism ought, therefore, to begin by recognising that the union of\nthe two worlds of thought which is supposed to have taken place in him\nis of an entirely different order from that found in other cases,\ninasmuch as a real synthesis is effected, and the problems involved\nare such as do not elsewhere occupy Jewish Hellenism, while on the\nother hand those which interest it are here left out of account. How\nmuch is left then by way of a common element?\n\nPaul\u2019s attitude towards Jewish Hellenism is one of indifference. From\nhis letters, written as they are in Greek, we should never learn that\nin his time there existed a literature in which the old Jewish\ntheology, using the universal language of the period, entered into\ndiscussion with Greek philosophy and religious thought, and formed an\nexternal combination with them.\n\nAll the proofs which are offered of his acquaintance with this\nliterature only serve to render more unintelligible the fact that he\nis not in the slightest degree influenced by it.\n\nThe phrase-making by which theologians of the [pg 093] post-Baur\nperiod disposed of Paul\u2019s independence in regard to Jewish\nHellenism\u2014so far as they became aware of it\u2014is quite inept. Heinrici,\nas we have seen, maintained that he had risen superior to\nAlexandrianism.\n\nIt is to be remarked that the theoretic question whether he was never\ninfluenced by this movement, or whether the influence only ceased when\nhe became a Christian, must remain open. In the latter case he must\nhave put off along with what was specifically Jewish also what was\nJewish-Hellenistic. It would then belong to the things which,\naccording to Philippians, were formerly gain to him, but which now he\ncounted dross, and had cast aside in order to gain Christ.\n\nThis latter view is inherently possible if one is prepared to take\nliterally what the Apostle says about that radical breach with the\npast to which we can apply no standard of measurement, and which we\nare unable to conceive. But the other alternative\u2014that he had never\nbeen influenced by it\u2014is the more probable.\n\nPractically both come to much the same thing. We know only the\nChristian Paul, and we find it to be a fact that in his letters no\nspecifically Jewish-Hellenistic conceptions are to be found.\n\nThe \u201cself-evident\u201d is therefore once more negated by the facts.\n\nWe may call attention to a curious parallel. _A priori_ the assumption\nmight appear justified that the Apostle of the Gentiles would have\ntaken from Jewish Hellenism material wherewith to Hellenise\nChristianity. In reality he did not do so. _A priori_ it was to be\nexpected that the creators of Greek theology would have taken from\nPaulinism material for the construction of their doctrines. In reality\nthey did not do so. The three points which it seemed would allow\nthemselves to be joined to form a triangle, lie, in reality, in\ndifferent planes, belong to different systems, and have no natural\nrelation to one another.\n\nIf Paul stands solitary, without receiving or exercising [pg 094]\ninfluence, between these two factors in which Greek characteristics\nare manifest, it follows that he does not exhibit their common\nelement. If he did not adopt Platonism and Stoicism in the convenient\ncompound which Jewish Hellenism had mixed ready for him, it is\nantecedently little probable that he made use of the uncompounded\nsubstances in the form in which they are to be met with in Greek life\nand literature.\n\nWhat are the possibilities of direct influences which have to be taken\ninto account?\n\nIt is to be remarked that Paul never gives the slightest hint that he\nis making use of something which is familiar to and valued by the\nGreeks in his churches. The Acts of the Apostles indeed pictures him\nas a preacher who in the Areopagus at Athens takes as his\nstarting-point an inscription upon an altar, and quotes from the Greek\npoet Aratus the pantheistic saying that men are of the Divine race\n(Acts xvii. 28). But for this Paul, the author of Acts, must take, all\nresponsibility._(_78_)_\n\nThe Apostle of the Gentiles who is made known to us by the Epistles\nwears a different aspect. In this sense he never became a Greek to the\nGreeks. We find in him no trace of any high estimation of heathenism\nand its thought. It is for him idolatry, nothing less nor more. His\nestimate is purely negative.\n\nHe can therefore hardly have intentionally taken over anything from\nGreek thought. It is possible, however, that he did so unconsciously.\n\nThe most obvious suggestion is to assume that this was the case in\nregard to ethics. What he says in Rom. ii. about conscience, which in\nthe heathen takes the place of the law, might be based on ideas\nderived from Greek rationalism. But on close examination what we find\nhere is not so much a positive valuation of natural ethical feeling,\nbut rather the creation for dialectic purposes of something to serve\nas an analogue to the law. Paul\u2019s [pg 095] purpose is to prove that\nJew and Greek are alike delivered over to sin; consequently the\nposition in the two cases, if an injustice on the part of God is not\nto be suggested, must be made as similar as possible.\n\nThe assumption of Greek ideas here is rendered improbable by the fact\nthat Paul\u2019s ethic as a whole is not to be explained as Hellenic.\nNeither Gass nor Ziegler in their works on the history of Christian\nethics have ventured any attempt in this direction._(_79_)_ In general\nthe Pauline ethic has been little treated by the students of Paulinism\nof the post-Baur period. The only monograph dedicated to the subject\ntook a form that was purely biblico-theological and without\ninterest._(_80_)_ It is interesting to note that Kabisch, when he\nplanned to work up the ethical material, found it necessary first to\ndeal with the eschatology. That does not suggest the presence of\nHellenic influences.\n\nIt has also been maintained with a certain confidence that the\npessimism of the Apostle is Greek, because it recalls the view of the\nworld which we find in the writings of Seneca and Epictetus.\n\nSeneca was his contemporary. That the Apostle knew the works of this\nwriter is not held by any one to be proved._(_81_)_ Epictetus worked\nat the end of the first century, [pg 096] was himself acquainted with\nChristianity, and was doubtless influenced by it, even if\nunconsciously._(_82_)_\n\nAll that could come into question, even as a possibility, is that the\nApostle might have adopted the same generally current ideas of his\nperiod which are expressed by these two writers.\n\nThe expressions which are quoted as parallel have only an external\nresemblance. They are not really analogous. The roots from which the\npessimism springs are entirely different in the two cases.\n\nIn the philosophers it is purely a result of reflection on the\nconditions of the present life. Existence appears to Seneca a burden\nwhich one may at any time cast off\u2014by suicide. For Paul the present\nworld is evil because it is sinful, lies under the dominion of the\nangel powers, and is subject to corruption. He judges it, not in\nitself, but with reference to a new and perfect world which is soon to\nappear. The idea of suicide does not enter into his thoughts, indeed\nhe dreads that he might be released from the present earthly existence\nbefore the parousia occurs.\n\nSeneca\u2019s religion is resignation, Paul\u2019s is enthusiasm. The two may\nshow verbal similarities, but no affinity of thought exists between\nthem.\n\nFurther, the anthropology and psychology_(_83_)_ of the Apostle are\nclaimed as Greek. Pfleiderer lays great stress upon this point. He\ndoes not, however, offer any proofs.\n\nWhat Paul has to say about man rests in the first place [pg 097] on\nordinary observation and is of a self-evident character. The special\nfeatures of his view which go beyond this are to be explained from\neschatology and not from Greek thought. Anthropology and psychology,\nin the development which he gives them, have reference not to the\nnatural man but to the redeemed man, who is risen with Christ, endowed\nwith the Spirit, and already living in a supernatural condition. His\nconception of the natural condition of man is determined by reference\nto its actual abolition, and therefore has quite a different\norientation from that of the Greek thinkers.\n\nHow do matters stand in regard to the assertion that his system\ncontains Platonic elements?\n\nWhat comes into question is not Platonism proper, but the religious\nmodification and popularisation of it which later on, in the third\ncentury, came to completion in Neo-Platonism. What this philosophy has\nin common with Paul is the general desire for deliverance from\ncorporeity. When it is more closely considered, however,\ncharacteristic differences appear.\n\nPlatonism as a religion has to do with the deliverance of the soul\nfrom its imprisonment in the body, Paul looks for the deliverance of\nthe whole human personality. In the one case the antithesis is between\nsoul and body, in the other between the supernatural body and the\ncorruptible flesh. Platonic religious feeling desires release from all\ncorporeity, what Paul hopes for is a different kind of materiality. He\nbelieves in a resurrection, Platonism in mere immortality. For him the\nfate of the individual is so bound up with cosmical, eschatological\nevents that the new state of existence can only result from a cosmical\nrevolution. Platonism knows nothing of a temporally conditioned\nredemption of this kind, but represents it as coming to pass\nimmediately after death.\n\nThe materialism which is implicate in eschatology thus opposes a\nbarrier to the Platonising of Paul\u2019s religious thought.\n\nFor his conception of spirit a parallel might be sought [pg 098] in\nStoicism, which teaches that a spiritual substance proceeding from God\npermeates the universe, including corporeal organisms, and manifests\nitself in man as the rational soul. Common to this philosophy and to\nPaul is the material conception of spirit. But the differences which\nit exhibits are of such a kind that there can be no question of the\nApostle\u2019s dependence upon it. In the Stoic philosophy the spirit is\nidentical with the rational soul; in Paul it is introduced as\nsomething new alongside of the latter, and ends by displacing it.\n\nAccording to the philosophic conception it is active in the world from\nall eternity; according to the doctrine of the Apostle it first\nappears in the times of the End, and is only bestowed upon a limited\nsection of mankind. The one view is a pantheistic monism, the other is\na theistic dualism.\n\nThe Book of Wisdom and Philo are Stoic in their mode of thought, but\nPaul is not so.\n\nIt is inconceivable how the Stoic _heimarmene_ can have been brought\ninto connexion with the Pauline doctrine of predestination.\n\nThe philosophic conception of fate thinks of the world-process as an\nunbroken chain of cause and effect in which also the actions of living\nbeings have their place. Pauline foreordination is a pure will-act of\nGod, non-rational and non-moral, and has to do with the ultimate\nissues of existence, not with the vicissitudes of life. To see a\nconnexion between the two doctrines of predestination is as\nunjustifiable as it would be to identify the cosmic conflagration of\nthe Pauline eschatology with that of the Stoic theory.\n\nPaulinism has, in general, a different spirit from that of the Stoa.\nIts author is moved by the fear of death and corruption and yearns for\na new being. To the Stoic such ideas are, as \u201cpassion,\u201d contemptible.\nHe reckons\u2014as you may read in Marcus Aurelius\u2014with the present world\nas the only one there is, and with the present life as the only one\nwhich he has to live.\n\n[pg 099]\n\nWhatever views and conceptions are brought up for comparison, the\nresult is always the same\u2014that Paulinism and Greek thought have\nnothing, absolutely nothing, in common. Their relation is not even one\nof indifference, they stand opposed to one another. Had the Apostle\nbeen influenced by Hellenism in any shape or form, he could never have\nconceived his system in the way he did.\n\nNevertheless it is possible to understand how theology came to class\nhis doctrine as Greek. The mysticism which enters into it bears a\ncertain analogy to that which springs from Greek religious thought and\nfeeling. Since Judaism, itself guileless of any mysticism, produced\nnothing of the kind, could not create out of itself anything of the\nkind, the only possible alternative seemed to be to explain it as due\nto Greek influences, and to explain the essential character of\nPaulinism in accordance with this hypothesis.\n\nBut this road leads to an impasse. In this way it is possible only to\nmisinterpret the mysticism of the Apostle, not to understand it.\nCritical theology is confronted with the at first apparently\ninexplicable fact that there has arisen on Jewish-Christian soil a\nsystem of thought which externally has all the air of being a twin\nformation to that of Greek religious mysticism, but inwardly has\nnothing whatever to do with it.\n\nThe actual result of the study of Paulinism in the post-Baur period is\ntherefore wholly negative, and it must become evident that it is so\nthe moment any one attempts to substitute references and proofs for\nmere assertions. This the scholars of that period avoided doing; they\nwere prevented from making the attempt by the scientific instinct of\nself-preservation.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 100]\n\nIV\n\n\nH. J. HOLTZMANN\n\n\n_Heinrich Julius Holtzmann._ Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen\nTheologie. 1897. Vol. ii., 532 pp. On Paulinism, 1-225.\n\n_William Wrede._ \u00dcber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten\nNeutestamentlichen Theologie. (1897.) (On the Task and the Method of\nthe so-called New Testament Theology.)\n\n\nHOLTZMANN\u2019S \u201cNew Testament Theology\u201d was eagerly awaited on all sides.\nIt was hoped that it would bring about a clearing of ideas such as had\nbeen produced in regard to questions of criticism by his\n\u201cIntroduction.\u201d\n\nIn the new work the author follows the method which seemed to him to\nhave proved its usefulness in the former work. He lets every writer\nwho has dealt with the subject have his say at the appropriate place,\neven though he runs the risk of not making his own opinion distinctly\nheard amid the strife of tongues._(_84_)_\n\nWhile in the \u201cIntroduction\u201d the advantages of the method predominate,\nin the \u201cTheology\u201d its disadvantages are conspicuous. The former work\ndealt with a series of questions which are already formulated and can\nbe answered with a clear yes or no. There is therefore some sense in\ntaking the suffrages of the writers, living and dead. It leads up to a\nverdict which in a certain sense [pg 101] may be given forth as the\nobjective result of the period under survey.\n\nBut when it is a question of the content of thought in the New\nTestament writings, the questions are not so clearly formulated. The\ncontinual hearing of opinions has not the same usefulness. On the\ncontrary, the account of the subject becomes thereby only the more\ncomplicated and confused.\n\nHere the result of Holtzmann\u2019s threading his own view through those of\nothers is that neither the one nor the other stands out with any\nclearness. Undoubtedly, he knows the literature as no one else does,\nand has absorbed into his own mind and worked up all that it has to\noffer. But a clear view of the state of opinion is what he does not in\nthe end succeed in conveying, since he intentionally omits to give a\nsketch and criticism of the works cited and contents himself with\nquoting passages from them.\n\nThis unfortunate atomistic method does not even allow the individual\nproblems to appear as clearly as would be desirable. In the post-Baur\nstudy of Paulinism, various questions had come up one after another\nwhich, taken together, form its fundamental problem. The most natural\nprocedure for one who intended to make critical use of the work\nalready done would have been to sketch these in their full extent and\nthen formulate them more exactly and exhibit their inner connexions.\n\nBut that is not the kind of treatment which Holtzmann aims at. He has\nthe feeling that this is no longer necessary, and agrees with\ncontemporary scholars in thinking that assured results have been\nattained in sufficient number to admit of a simple positive account of\nthe system. In accordance with this view he feels it to be his duty to\nact as a critical camera, focussing the views on his lens and\ncombining them into a picture.\n\nOne looks, therefore, in vain in his work for a fundamental statement\nand solution of the problems. They are mentioned where they happen to\ncome up, and are [pg 102] there discussed in a fragmentary fashion. In\naddition to this the author\u2019s peculiarly subtle and delicately shaded\nmethod of exposition has to be reckoned with. Any one who is not\nfamiliar with it runs the risk of passing too lightly over these\npassages and failing to appreciate the significance which Holtzmann\nhimself attaches to his remarks. What he intends to give is a\nGeneral-staff map of the results of investigation. The heights and\nhollows are not shown as such, but represented by curves which are\nonly later to be carried out in relief.\n\nHoltzmann does not stand above the post-Baur study of the subject, but\nwithin it.\n\nThat is immediately evident from the fact that, speaking generally, he\ntakes as the plan of his exposition the scheme, partially\n\u201cReformation,\u201d partially modern, which the head of the T\u00fcbingen school\nhad used in his theology and left as a legacy to his successors. After\ndealing with the doctrine of man, law, sin, and corruption, he\ndescribes the \u201crevolution\u201d (conversion). Then follow Christology, the\nwork of redemption, and the Divine righteousness. The close is formed\nby the chapters on the \u201cethical\u201d material, the \u201cmystical,\u201d and\n\u201ceschatology.\u201d\n\nThe difficulties and errors which are involved in this division of the\nsubject have not been escaped by Holtzmann any more than by others. At\nevery step it is evident how unnatural is an arrangement of the\nmaterial which leaves out of account the connexions inherent in the\nsystem. How much art is expended on breaking off the thread at a given\nmoment, in order to take it up again in a later chapter! How many\nunnecessarily fragmentary representations! How many annoying\nrepetitions! How many references forward and backward! Thus, for\nexample, what Paul has to say of redemption is not developed\nconnectedly but split up among a number of chapters. And the same\nthing happens with regard to the doctrine of the death and\nresurrection of Christ.\n\nThe division which he has taken over leads Holtzmann [pg 103] to\nregard the Pauline teaching on redemption from the stand-point of the\nReformation doctrine. Involuntarily he always thinks either of the\nindividual man, or humanity, instead of the entity always present to\nthe mind of the Apostle, the group of the elect of the last\ngeneration, who have been subjected to the influence of the death and\nresurrection of Christ. He quotes the acute remark of\nSchmiedel_(_85_)_ that \u201cthe men who had sought (and found) in Jesus\nbefore His death forgiveness and peace of soul\u201d are left out of\naccount by the Apostle, but he does not go further into the problem\nwhich this suggests. The temporally conditioned character and the\ngeneral point of view of the Pauline doctrine of redemption is, owing\nto the faulty division, practically overlooked.\n\nNot less unfortunate is the plan on which the significance of the\ndeath and resurrection of Christ is dealt with. Having begun with the\npsychology of the natural man, and the man in process of conversion,\nHoltzmann endeavours to explain the facts by which redemption is\nconditioned from this starting-point. He asks what these two events,\nthe death and resurrection, signified for Jesus and what they\nsignified for the believers. Jesus is thereby proved to be the\nMessiah; the influence upon believers is described on the basis of the\nclassical passages in the Epistles. But the inner connexion of the two\neffects is not clear, and it is equally unintelligible wherein the\nsaving significance of the death and resurrection consists.\n\nHoltzmann is, in fact, still straitly confined to the Reformation and\nmodern point of view, from which the twofold event of the death and\nresurrection of Christ is considered by itself, in isolation, and an\nattempt is made to get behind it by psychologising, and thus to\ndiscover how, according to the statements of Paul, it produced a\ncomplete change in God and man, and effected justification and\nreconciliation. This attempt overlooks the fact that on the Apostle\u2019s\nview it is primarily a cosmic [pg 104] event which alters the\ncondition of the whole creation and introduces a new Age, and that\neverything else is only a consequence of this fundamental effect.\n\nAs Holtzmann, like his predecessors, has thus omitted to consider the\nmost fundamental aspect of redemption as conceived by Paul, he is not\nconcerned to trace out the most general conception of the effect of\nthe death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is as much as to say\nthat he, like the rest, is condemned to a mere descriptive treatment,\nusing Pauline phraseology, and is practically unable to give any\nexplanation.\n\nThis unfortunate result becomes apparent in regard to the question of\nthe Law. He is unable to make it in any way intelligible how Paul was\nnecessarily led, as a matter of reasoning, to the conviction that it\nwas no longer valid. In the last resort he can only appeal to the\nunique character of the vision on the Damascus road. He assumes that\nthis \u201cbrought to an issue in the zealous Pharisee not only a\ntheoretic, but also an ethical crisis, terminating that painful\ncondition of inner division which Paul pictures out of his own inmost\nconsciousness when he speaks of the experiences which are associated\nwith subjection to the law.\u201d \u201cPreviously,\u201d he continues, \u201cthe Pharisee\nhad anxiously sought to conceal from himself, or to argue away, the\nfact that the law was impossible of fulfilment, and was therefore no\nway of salvation, but rather the contrary. There now rose upon this\nmelancholy scene, strewn with the shattered fragments of attempts to\ngain righteousness, a new light streaming from the Christ, whom the\nlegalists had delivered to death, whereas His being raised again by\nGod guaranteed the actual presence of another way of salvation. Not\nonly did his former legal service appear to him a life of sin, his\nPharisaic rabbinism as foolishness, his attack upon the Messianic\ncommunity as enmity to God, but even in his inmost being a crisis had\ntaken place in consequence of which a tension, under which he had\nhitherto groaned, had suddenly been relaxed.\u201d\n\n[pg 105]\n\nHow do we know that Paul when he was still a persecutor of the\nChristians was suffering inward distress from his experiences of the\npowerlessness of the law? How did the vision of Christ bring about the\nresolution of this tension? How, exactly, did it reveal a way of\nsalvation by which the abolition of the law was implied?\n\nIn themselves the vision of Christ, and the law, have nothing to do\nwith one another. What Paul received in that moment was the conviction\nof the Messiahship of Jesus. While other believers were content simply\nto adopt this conviction, he proceeds to draw from it in some way or\nother the conclusion that the law was henceforth invalidated. Whether\nhe did that at the moment or only later, we do not know. What is\ncertain is only that he does draw this conclusion, though it is not\ncontemplated either in the thoughts of Jesus or in those of the\nprimitive community.\n\nHow he came to draw it is not explained by Holtzmann, any more than by\nthe scholars of the post-Baur period generally. The assumption that\nthe Apostle experienced along with the vision an ethical crisis which\nset him free from the law, is a psychological hypothesis about which\nthe letters have nothing whatever to say. It does not even prove what\nit professes to prove. Exactly how the abrogation of the law is\nsupposed to be effected by the death and resurrection of Christ is not\nobvious. It is to be remarked, too, that Paul always treats the\nabolition of the law as a logical conclusion, not as a psychological\nexperience.\n\nIn other connexions, too, Holtzmann often has recourse to Holsten\u2019s\nexpedient of taking what is unintelligible in the Apostle\u2019s statements\nas accounted for by the Damascus vision.\n\nIn this way the doctrine of the \u201cnew creature\u201d is made to go back to a\n\u201cpersonal experience,\u201d and \u201ca perception so keen as to be apprehended\nby the senses, of the destruction of the law of sin in the members.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe complex of new ethical powers, motives, duties, [pg 106] and aims\n. . . which formed itself in him has as its centre the risen Christ\nwho had appeared to him in that moment as light, to be henceforth the\nvital centre and the guiding star of his individual life. . . . Hence\nthe \u2018new creation.\u2019 It is a simple generalisation and application of\nthis personal experience to cover all analogous cases, since now all\nbaptized persons appear as, on the negative side, dead to sin, on the\npositive side as walking in a \u2018newness of life\u2019 corresponding to the\nresurrection.\u201d\n\nSo Holtzmann. Paul, however, never speaks of his theory of the new\ncreature as if he were expressing by it the generalisation and\nobjectivation of an inner experience, but represents it as being\nlogically and actually involved in the death and resurrection of the\nLord for those who believe in him, and regards his own renewal as only\na special case of the general law which operates in all the believing\nelect.\n\nThat is just the characteristic and unintelligible thing about\nPaulinism, that its creator does not seem to have the faintest\nconsciousness of holding up his personal experiences as something to\nbe imitated, but presents his whole system as something that\nimmediately and objectively grows out of the facts, something which\ncan be examined by the higher, but in its own way logical\nunderstanding from which \u201cgnosis\u201d is derived.\n\nTo treat his Damascus \u201cexperience\u201d as a source of theoretic knowledge,\nas is done by modern theology, in order to be dispensed from rendering\nany account to ordinary or philosophic thought, would have been out of\nthe question for an unsophisticated mind such as his, and indeed for\nthe mental attitude of antiquity in general.\n\nOf Paul\u2019s objective statements Holtzmann always, in order to be able\nto interpret them, makes something subjective.\n\nThis error in method\u2014which he shares with scholars of the post-Baur\nperiod generally\u2014runs through the whole of his undertaking.\n\nHe frequently takes occasion to point to the element of [pg 107]\n\u201cgnosis\u201d in the Apostle\u2019s doctrine. At bottom, however, he is afraid\nthat his doctrine may be too much considered as an intellectual\nconstruction. For that reason he provides a special section on \u201cthe\nreligious character of the doctrine.\u201d \u201cPaul\u2019s world of thought,\u201d he\nthere tells us, \u201cis, to put it in a word, not merely a product of\nintellection, it is antecedently to that a product of experience also;\nin this it differs fundamentally from any of the artificially\nexcogitated gospels of Gnosticism proper. . . . The first condition\nfor any understanding of Paulinism is that we should not obscure the\nvolcanic character of its origin by any method which implies the\ngradual addition of one grain of sand to another. The whole system of\ndoctrine means nothing more nor less than the way in which the Apostle\nobjectified to himself the fundamental decisive experience of his life\nand theoretically explained its presuppositions and consequences. The\ndoctrine fits the experience with a theory.\u201d\n\nHow, then, does Holtzmann know that Paul is not after all a Gnostic\npure and simple? The whole character of his system makes him appear\nso. He himself claims to be one,_(_86_)_ and is quite unaware that his\ndoctrine is nothing more than the form given by the constructive\nimagination to a personal experience.\n\nHe knows no distinction between \u201cgnostic\u201d and \u201creligious.\u201d What is\nreligious is for him gnostic, and what is gnostic, religious. Any one\nwho strictly distinguishes the two in him is modernising.\n\nHis mission to the Gentiles and his universalism are also, according\nto Holtzmann, to be explained directly from the vision at his\nconversion. The Christ who has won through to triumph by way of death,\nso Holtzmann explains, implies for the Apostle the purification of the\nMessianic idea from all the carnal elements which in Judaism still\ncling to it. In the exalted Christ he sees [pg 108] also the head of\nthe Church gathered out from both Jews and Gentiles.\n\nHow, exactly, does the vision at the conversion carry with it the\nelimination of the carnal elements which in Judaism cleave to the\nMessianic idea? Paul, it is true, sees a glorified Person; but the\nJewish Son-of-Man Messiah also belongs to the supernatural world.\nFurther, universalism is provided for in the eschatology of Late\nJudaism, and in that preached by Jesus, since it is assumed that among\nthose elected to the Kingdom of God others will be revealed who do not\nbelong to the people of Israel. Universalism is therefore involved in\nthe Jewish conception of the Messiah. Whereas, however, Late Judaism\nand Jesus only represent it as realised in the coming supernatural\nAge, Paul antedates it and affirms that distinctions are already\nabolished in consequence of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and\ninfers from this the justification and the duty of preaching to the\nheathen. The problem has therefore nothing to do with the\n\u201cpurification of the Messianic idea,\u201d and consists simply in the fact\nthat the Apostle assumes this universalism to be already applicable to\nthe present natural era, just as he also asserts that believers are\nalready in a condition of resurrection life.\n\nHoltzmann is not much concerned to show the connexion of the Pauline\nstatements with Jewish theology and eschatology in order to arrive in\nthis way at a new formulation of the problems. In fact he clearly\nbetrays the tendency to make as little use as possible of eschatology\nin explaining the Pauline system of doctrine.\n\nKabisch\u2019s work is in the highest degree distasteful to him. He refers\nto it only occasionally, and with reserve. It is true he cannot avoid\nacknowledging that, \u201cwith all the exaggerations, monstrosities, and\ninconsistencies which may be pointed out\u201d in its emphasising of the\nphysical character of the conceptions and ideas associated with the\ndualism of flesh and spirit, the work embodies a sound idea. But he\nnever so much as mentions that this [pg 109] insistance on the\n\u201cphysical\u201d is ultimately due to the fact that all the conceptions and\nideas are traced back to eschatology. Any one who is not already\nacquainted with Kabisch\u2019s fundamental idea will not learn it from\nHoltzmann.\n\nTrue to the Baur and post-Baur tradition, Holtzmann postpones the\nchapter on eschatology to the end. That this arrangement does not\ncontribute to a satisfactory treatment of the ethics is not\nsurprising. The eschatological roots of the conception of\npredestination discussed in this chapter, or of the designation of\nbelievers as \u201csaints\u201d are hardly visible. That the most general\nethical maxims of the Apostle are conditioned by the expectation of\nthe nearness of the parousia, and that the ethical implications of the\nmystical dying and rising again with Christ have also in the last\nresort an eschatological orientation, is never fairly recognised.\nHoltzmann finds himself, therefore, rather helpless when he has to\ndeal with points in which the eschatological character of Paul\u2019s ethic\ncomes most clearly to light. In the directions given in I Corinthians\nvii. about married and unmarried persons, about marrying or remaining\nsingle, he finds a certain \u201chesitation.\u201d In a quite general way, he is\nwilling to assume that \u201cthe so closely bounded view of the future\nexplains why in this and other departments there was no complete\ndevelopment of the ethics.\u201d\n\nThis halting estimate of the ethical significance of eschatology shows\nthat Holtzmann regards the Pauline ethical teaching from the modern\npoint of view.\n\nHe is bound to take this course with regard to eschatology because he\nagrees with Pfleiderer and the rest in admitting a comprehensive\ninfluence of Greek ideas upon Paul, and is well aware that a man\ncannot serve two masters.\n\nEven in the Apostle\u2019s doctrine of man he finds a Hellenistic factor\nalongside of the Jewish, and asserts that the \u201cemphasis rests on the\nformer.\u201d Wherever reference is made to the antithesis of flesh and\nspirit [pg 110] he thinks that the influence of the Greek element is\nmanifest. By regarding sin as implicate in the empirical nature of man\n\u201cPaul abandons in principle the ultimate basis of the Jewish\nphilosophy and ethic.\u201d\n\nGreek, or to speak more precisely, Alexandrian, is the metaphysical\nbackground of his conception of Christ. According to Holtzmann, Paul\nnever really goes back expressly to Daniel or the Apocalyptic Messiah.\nHis own special view grew up, Holtzmann thinks, out of speculations\nallied to those of Philo about the two accounts of the creation and\nthe heavenly and earthly Adam. The primary point for him is \u201cthe\nmetaphysical hypothesis of the two classes of mankind\u201d which stand\nopposed to each other as the \u201cpsychic\u201d and the \u201cpneumatic\u201d creation.\n\nThat the \u201csubjective,\u201d ethical interpretation of the work of\nredemption is based on Hellenistic ideas is for Holtzmann\nself-evident. It is not less certain for him that the idea of\npredestination is \u201cborrowed\u201d from the Book of Wisdom, and consequently\n\u201cin one of the most conspicuous points of the Pauline world of thought\nits Hellenistic origin\u201d must be regarded as proved. That the idea of\npredestination is inherent in eschatology, and that Jesus Himself\nmakes use of it, is not taken into account.\n\nThe doctrine of baptism \u201ccomes to base itself entirely on the\nHellenistic side of Paul\u2019s theology.\u201d In general, he transformed the\ntwo sacred ceremonies of primitive Christianity after the analogy of\nthe Greek mystery-cults, and thus \u201copened up for the early Catholic\nChurch a way\u201d into which it was forced by the natural progress of\nevents.\n\nHoltzmann sees in Paul\u2019s system of thought the first, but at the same\ntime a far-reaching Hellenisation of Christianity. The Apostle, so\nruns his verdict, \u201cby bringing Hellenistic forms of thought to bear\nfor the first time upon Christian conceptions, prepared the way for\nthe passing over of the latter from the Semitic to the Hellenic world,\nand beyond this again to the modern world.\u201d\n\n[pg 111]\n\nThe influx of Greek ideas is thought of, as by Pfleiderer, as coming\nthrough the intermediary channel of Jewish Hellenism. The question\nwhether any literary relationship to the latter can be detected in\nPaul is dismissed in a few lines. Holtzmann admits that \u201cno tangible\ninfluence\u201d of Philo\u2019s writings is to be recognised. He is, however, of\nopinion that Grafe has proved \u201cwith all the greater certainty\u201d the\nApostle\u2019s dependence on the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom.\n\nInstead of giving a regular proof he confines himself, as his\npredecessors had done, entirely to general considerations, which he\nsums up in the following sentences \u201cIn any case Paul was by birth and\nparentage a son of the Diaspora, and from his youth up breathed at any\nrate at times a Greek atmosphere. His letters show, in regard to\nvocabulary and rhetoric, sometimes even as regards tone of feeling and\nmental attitude, not a few surprising affinities with Greek thought.\nSome kind of communication from this side, and that not merely\noccasional or accidental, one must certainly assume. The only question\nwhich remains is in regard to the extent and intensity of this\nHellenistic, or even it may be Hellenic, admixture, which became\namalgamated with his Jewish scholasticism. This is certainly the point\non which depend all the problems which Pauline study is called on at\nthe present day to face. . . .\u201d\n\nWith this the matter is disposed of\u2014on the third page of the work!\nGunkel\u2019s and Kabisch\u2019s arguments to show that the doctrine of the\nSpirit is intelligible apart from Greek influences, are left out of\naccount; that Hatch in his \u201cInfluence of Greek Ideas\u201d had nothing to\nsay about any Hellenisation of the Gospel on the part of Paul is not\nmentioned. On the contrary there follows a profession of faith in\nPfleiderer\u2019s doctrine that Paul in the course of his career even\nadvanced to the Hellenisation of his eschatology. Holtzmann cheerfully\nand courageously defends this theory to its ultimate consequences, and\nholds that in Paul\u2019s dread of being found unclothed [pg 112] (2 Cor.\nv. 3) his national mode of feeling and a Greek mode of thought \u201care\ncombined in a fashion which no one would have dreamed of inventing.\u201d\n\nThe usually so cautious scholar goes in this case unhesitatingly\nforward. The difficulties which arise out of the assumed collocation\nand opposition of Jewish and Greek ideas fascinate instead of alarming\nhim.\n\nHere, as in some other points, Holtzmann betrays Kantian tendencies\nand instincts, and is inclined to exhibit the problems as antinomies.\nPaul\u2019s system of teaching, as it had shaped itself in the course of\nthe study of the subject since Baur, appears to him a unique\nformation, since in it are combined two worlds of thought and two\ndifferent sets of religious ideas which are supposed to hold each\nother in equipoise and mutually interpenetrate one another. He takes\nit to be his task to lay bare this remarkable construction in its\nminutest details, and to show how the most diverse thoughts sometimes\nconflict, sometimes stand in a state of tension, sometimes mutually\nlimit, and sometimes supplement each other. If he succeeds in making\nclear the position and relation of the various strata of thought, the\nsystem, he believes, will become intelligible.\n\nThis idea runs through his whole treatment of the subject, and gives\nhim courage to take over all the contradictions and compromises which\nscholars from Baur onwards have discovered, and even to add new ones\nin addition. He is especially interested in the questions regarding\nthe juridical and ethical sets of ideas, the relation of the \u201cpopular\u201d\nmissionary preaching to the \u201csystem of doctrine,\u201d the antithesis\nbetween \u201ctheory\u201d and \u201cpractice\u201d in the ethics, and the inconsistencies\nof the eschatology.\n\nIn these discussions there is much penetrating observation. The\npicture, however, does not become clearer, but rather more confused.\n\nHis predecessors had done their best in their treatment of the subject\nto conceal its fragmentary character, and [pg 113] when all was said\nand done had been content to put in the foreground only a few leading\nideas, which could be brought under a single point of view. They\nworked with perspective, light and shade. Holtzmann brings all the\ndetail into one line and places it under the same illumination. The\nfact that the system becomes in this way much more complicated than it\nhad already been made by the scholarship of the period awakes in him\nno misgivings, but increases his confidence, since he sees in it one\nof those offences which needs must come.\n\nEven the objection that so complicated a system of doctrine could not\nhave been understood in primitive Christian times does not alarm him.\nHe anticipates it by declaring that the actual contemporaries and\nadherents of the Apostle could neither understand nor imitate him,\neven if they had wished to do so. How, indeed, could they possibly\nhave done so! The whole of Paulinism is a \u201csystematisation of the\nChrist-vision\u201d and a \u201cgeneralisation\u201d of that which the Apostle had\nexperienced in his own soul, and consequently ascribed to all who walk\nin the same way as an experience which they must necessarily undergo.\n\u201cWhat this man with his unique spiritual endowment had experienced,\nfelt, and thought amid influences and surroundings which could only\nonce have arisen, could never be exactly in the same way experienced,\nfelt, and thought by any other man.\u201d\n\nHoltzmann, therefore, like Harnack, accepts the saying that no one\never understood Paul, with the sole exception of Marcion . . . who\nmisunderstood him! It is not enough for him to regard the system, as\nhad been usual among scholars since Baur, as a personal creation of\nthe Apostle; he goes the whole way with Holsten in maintaining that\nthe personal creation was nothing else than the interpretation of a\nunique personal experience.\n\nBut that is to admit that no connecting links between Paulinism and\nprimitive Christianity can be discovered; and does not that really\nimply an abandonment of all attempt to explain the Apostle\u2019s doctrine?\nIs it [pg 114] understood at all if it is not understood in relation\nto primitive Christianity?\n\nWhat right has any one to assert that it was unintelligible to his\ncontemporaries? Paul confidently ascribes to them an understanding of\nit. And how are we to explain the success which is evidenced by the\nestablishment of the Pauline churches and the victorious struggle for\nfreedom from the law? Can the least understood of all early Christians\nhave exercised the greatest influence? These fundamental questions are\nnot asked by Holtzmann. His confidence in the results already attained\nleft no room for them.\n\nWhat he aimed at he has successfully accomplished. He has worked up\ninto one great symphony the themes and motifs of the Pauline\nscholarship of the post-Baur period, a symphony such as he alone, at\nonce critic and artist, could have written. Even one who does not\nallow himself to be carried away by it will again and again take up\nthe score with its subtle counterpoint and skilful instrumentation,\nand always find in it new beauties.\n\nNever was Holtzmann so impressive\u2014this was to be observed even in his\nlectures\u2014as in his treatment of Paulinism. Here he could grip his\nhearers, because he wished to do so\u2014he who usually showed a certain\ndread of allowing the feeling, the enthusiasm, which glowed in him, to\nbecome perceptible when he was dealing with matters of scholarship.\nThe system as modelled by him lives because he has breathed his own\nlife into it. But it is not historic.\n\nHe thinks to sift out and preserve what is of permanent value in the\nheritage left by Baur and his pupils, of whom he was proud to count\nhimself spiritually one. In reality he leads up to a declaration of\nbankruptcy, and that especially in the powerful closing chapter\nentitled \u201cRetrospect and Prospect.\u201d\n\nHere he endeavours forcibly to combine into one whole the results of\nPfleiderer, Holsten, and Harnack.\n\nFrom Pfleiderer he takes over the view of the [pg 115] wide-reaching\nGreek influence in Paulinism, and from Holsten he takes the theory\nthat the system had its birth in the unique experience of the vision\nof Christ on the way to Damascus.\n\nNow these two views might at need be combined, though it is not quite\neasy to show\u2014and this difficulty is constantly coming to light in\nHoltzmann\u2014how what is in one aspect a purely subjective experience,\nnever exactly to be repeated by any other, appears in another aspect,\nby a kind of miracle, as Greek religious thought, and thus becomes\nuniversally intelligible.\n\nBut into this synthesis Holtzmann tries to introduce in addition\nHarnack\u2019s recognition that Paulinism had no part in the formation of\nearly Greek theology.\n\nNow Holsten and Harnack again, on their part, might be combined. The\nPauline teaching, if it is referred to a unique personal experience,\nmight well remain for the Apostle\u2019s contemporaries and successors a\nbook with seven seals.\n\nBut Pfleiderer and Holsten and Harnack cannot all be brought together.\nIf Paulinism was largely Greek, it must have had some influence. How\nis it conceivable that Greeks should not have recognised and\nunderstood the Greek spirit? The triumvirate planned by Holtzmann\ncannot, therefore, be brought to pass, even if Holtzmann is regarded\nas the connecting-link between Harnack and Pfleiderer. In defiance of\nall the facts of the history of dogma the last-named must assert an\ninfluence of the Pauline system upon the growth of Greek dogma, since\nhe sees in Paul the first step in the Hellenisation of Christianity.\n\nAny one who shares his premisses must also draw his conclusions, and\nHoltzmann is not bold enough to do that. He agrees with him in\nasserting the Hellenic character of Pauline doctrine, in other\nrespects he bows to the facts of the history of dogma. But this means\nthat, however he may wrap it up in qualifying clauses, he is asserting\nthe impossible, namely, that Christianity [pg 116] as Hellenised by\nPaul remained uninteresting and unintelligible to the Greeks.\n\nThe edifice which he constructs, therefore, breaks down from within,\neven though he may be able for a time to maintain it in outward\nappearance intact.\n\nThus there met in this universal critical spirit, which examined all\nthings and desired to do justice to all, Baur and the history of dogma\nwhich took its rise from Ritschl and was opposed to Baur, and held a\nnew settlement of accounts. Once more it was made manifest that the\nquestion of Paul\u2019s relation to primitive Christianity on the one hand,\nto early Greek dogma on the other, had not been solved, and that his\nteaching therefore had not been understood.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 117]\n\nV\n\n\nCRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES\n\n\n_Edward Evanson._ The Dissonance of the four generally received\nEvangelists. (1792.)\n\n_Bruno Bauer._ Kritik der Apostelgeschichte (1850). Kritik der\npaulinischen Briefe (Galatians, 1850; I Corinthians, 1851; remaining\nEpistles, 1852). Christus und die C\u00e4saren. Der Ursprung des\nChristentums aus dem r\u00f6mischen Griechentum (1877). (Christ and the\nCaesars. How Christianity arose out of the Graeco-Roman Civilisation.)\n\n_Albert Kalthoff._ Die Entstehung des Christentums. 1904. (E.T. by J.\nMcCabe, The Rise of Christianity, 1907.)\n\n__Allard Pierson.__ De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten. (The\nSermon on the Mount and other Synoptic Fragments.) 1878.\n\n_A. Pierson and S. A. Naber._ Verisimilia. 1886.\n\n_A. D. Loman._ Quaestiones Paulinae. (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1882; 1883;\n1886\u2014written in Dutch.)\n\n_Rudolf Steck._ Der Galaterbrief. 1888.\n\n_W. C. van Manen._ Paulus, 3 vols. Vol. i. deals with the Acts of the\nApostles (1890); vol. ii. with the Epistle to the Romans (1891); vol.\niii. with the Epistles to the Corinthians (1896). The criticism of the\nEpistle to the Romans has been translated into German under the title\n\u201cDie Unechtheit des R\u00f6merbriefs,\u201d by G. Schl\u00e4ger. 1906.\n\n_M. Friedl\u00e4nder._ Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen griechischen\nWelt. (Judaism in the pre-Christian Greek World.) 1897.\n\n_J. Friedrich (Maehliss)._ Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs. (The\nSpuriousness of the Epistle to the Galatians.) 1891.\n\n_J. H. Scholten._ Historisch-kritische Bijdragen. (Contributions to\nHistorical Criticism.) 1882.\n\n_G. Heinrici._ Die Forschungen \u00fcber die paulinischen Briefe; ihr\ngegenw\u00e4rtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben. (The Critical Study of the\nPauline Letters; its Present Position, and the Tasks which await it.)\n1886.\n\n_J. M. S. Baljon._ Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief\nvan Paulus aan de Galati\u00ebrs. (Exegetic and Critical Essay on the\nEpistle of Paul to the Galatians.) 1889.\n\n[pg 118]\n\n_Wilhelm Br\u00fcckner._ Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die\nBriefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind. (The Chronological Order in\nwhich the Epistles of the New Testament were written.) 1890.\n\n_Carl Clemen._ Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe. 1893. Die\nEinheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe. (The Integrity of the Pauline\nEpistles.) 1894. Paulus, 2 vols., 1904.\n\n_Christian Hermann Weisse._ Philosophische Dogmatik (3 vols., 1855;\n1860; 1862). Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe.\n(Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Brought out\nby Sulze in 1867.\n\n_J. M. S. Baljon._ De Text der Breven van Paulus. 1884.\n\n_Daniel V\u00f6lter._ Die Composition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. (The\nComposition of the chief Pauline Epistles.) 1890. Paulus und seine\nBriefe. 1905.\n\n_Friedrich Spitta._ Untersuchung \u00fcber den Brief des Paulus an die\nR\u00f6mer. (Examination of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans\u2014in his work,\nZur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. iii., 1st half,\n1901.)\n\n\nTHOSE critics who reject the Pauline letters as a whole profess to\nhave derived the impulse thereto from Ferdinand Christian Baur, to be\nhis true because logically consistent disciples, and to bear the same\nrelation to him as Schopenhauer did to Kant. This profession, which\nhas always filled the \u201clegitimate\u201d T\u00fcbingen school with indignation,\nis in many points well founded.\n\nBaur\u2019s criticism was occupied with the _Corpus Paulinum_ which\nremained after the exclusion of the Pastoral epistles. In the ten\nremaining Epistles, which show a large degree of inner homogeneity, he\nprofessed to discover differences on the basis of which some were to\nbe assigned to the Apostle, others to the school which took its rise\nfrom him.\n\nOnce the rights of such a criticism are admitted, nothing can prevent\nit from working itself out to its limit, and seeking to explain all\nthe Epistles as products of a school which went under Paul\u2019s name.\n\nThe T\u00fcbingen master held that the Epistles to the Corinthians and that\nto the Ephesians could not both be from the same hand. But the\ndifferences between the former and the Epistle to the Galatians are in\ntheir own way scarcely less great, if one considers that the violent\n[pg 119] controversy about the law with which the latter is filled is\nnever mentioned in the others.\n\nThe letters to the Romans and to the Galatians, on the other hand,\ndeal partly with the same subjects, since they both treat of sin, law,\nand justification by faith. Nevertheless they are far from coinciding.\nFor all their agreement in fundamental views they show remarkable\ndifferences in detail. Is it, if this line of argument be followed,\nafter all so indubitably certain that the four main epistles are from\nthe same pen?\n\nIs it certain that they are by Paul? Strictly examined, Baur\u2019s\nassumption that they are so rests only on tradition, which in respect\nof the other letters he impugns. Has he then the right to rely on it\nso confidently as regards the main epistles? In conformity with his\nown principles he ought to have felt himself obliged to exercise\n\u201cpositive criticism\u201d here also, and would only have had the right to\nregard them as Pauline after it had been proved that they really\nbelong to primitive Christian times and have the historical Apostle of\nthe Gentiles as their author.\n\nThe assumption of the genuineness of the four main epistles is by no\nmeans so self-evident as it may seem to us in our simplicity. The Acts\nof the Apostles know nothing of any literary activity of Paul. It is\nonly from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the Gnostics that we first\nhear of his Epistles. Justin and the remainder of early Christian\nliterature are silent in regard to his writings. Supposing that the\nfirst Epistle of Clement does not belong to the first century, the\nearliest evidence for the Epistles comes from the second century. If\nthe Ignatian letters are not genuine, Marcion, about the middle of the\nsecond century, is the first witness to an actual _Corpus paulinum_!\n\nFor any one who has to defend the ordinary view, the position is very\nfar from being favourable. So far as outward evidence goes it is\nhardly more difficult to defend the theory that the letters originated\nin an inner circle [pg 120] of Gnosticism and were gradually given out\nunder the name of Paul.\n\nMoreover, Baur made larger concessions than he realised to the opinion\nwhich jeopardised his position, when he maintained that Paulinism\nrepresents a Hellenisation of the Gospel.\n\nIs it probable that a single individual belonging to the primitive\nChristian community, immediately after the death of Jesus, by himself\nachieved this result? Historical analogy is uniformly in favour of the\nview that developments of that kind have a gradual beginning, and are\nonly accomplished in the course of two or three generations. It would\ntherefore be inherently much more probable that Paulinism should be\nthe work of a school which sought to reconcile Christianity with\nHellenism. In any case a writer who regards it as Greek ought to face\nthe difficulty of explaining it as at the same time belonging to\nprimitive Christianity, and ought not to regard this hypothesis as\nself-evident, but as standing in need of proof.\n\nThese theoretic considerations regarding the basis of the views of\nBaur and his successors are so obvious that they were bound to come up\nsooner or later. The fact was that in one particular point the\nT\u00fcbingen master had held back from unprejudiced criticism and had\nfoisted upon critical science the traditional belief. In doing so he\nhad obeyed an instinct of caution. Those who proceeded further along\nthe path of questioning and investigation arrived, some with\nsatisfaction and some with dismay, at the result of declaring all the\nepistles to be spurious.\n\nIt was Bruno Bauer who about the middle of the nineteenth century\nopened the ball with his criticism of the Pauline letters._(_87_)_\n\n[pg 121]\n\nThis work is not on the same level as his criticism of the\nGospels._(_88_)_ The objections which have to be brought against F. C.\nBaur\u2019s views are not clearly developed nor completely stated. In what\nsense Paulinism is to be considered the work of a school with Greek\nsympathies within Christianity is not explained.\n\nIn addition to this, Bruno Bauer complicates his task by regarding not\nmerely the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles, but Christianity\nin general, as a creation of the Greek mind. It was not, however,\nuntil twenty-five years after the appearance of his criticism of the\nPauline letters that he attempted to prove this in the confused work\non \u201cChrist and the Caesars.\u201d_(_89_)_\n\nIt was not Palestine, according to his thesis, but Rome and Alexandria\nwhich cradled Christianity. Palestine merely supplied the background\nfor the picture which the first Evangelist undertook to create of the\nbeginnings of a movement which really originated with Seneca and [pg\n122] his adherents. Whether there ever was a Jesus or a Paul may be\nleft an open question. It is in any case certain that the one did not\nutter the sayings which the Gospels put into his mouth, and that the\nother is not to be regarded as the author of the letters.\n\nThe Christian \u201ccommunity\u201d arose among the oppressed, the slaves and\nJews, of the great city. They formed associations and fostered in one\nanother a yearning for the End of the Age, developed the\nPlatonico-Stoic thoughts of Seneca into the sayings of the Sermon on\nthe Mount, and invented for themselves their hero, Christ. The spirit\nof the new creation came from the West; its framework was furnished by\nJudaism.\n\nJudaism brought with it a tendency towards legalism. In the Flavian\nperiod the Greek ethical philosophy struck up an alliance with the\nlaw. This movement was opposed by the freedom-loving Gnosis. In the\nlast years of Hadrian and the first half of the reign of Marcus\nAurelius matters came to an issue. So far as the struggle took a\nliterary form we have the evidences of it in the Pauline letters and\nthe Acts of the Apostles. Galatians is the last of the letters, issued\nat the crisis of the struggle, and was directed against Acts, which\nappeared at the same time.\n\n\u201cThe figure of this champion of a universal Church and freedom from\nthe law of ordinances\u201d must have been already known to the Church.\nWhat was new was the association with his name of an epistolary\nliterature, the production of which occupied a series of earnest and\nable men for some forty years.\n\nIn the Acts of the Apostles Paul is co-ordinated with or subordinated\nto Peter, the representative of the Judaeo-Roman hierarchic tendency.\nThat reflects the issue of the struggle. The freedom-loving party was\ndefeated; in the last quarter of the second century Catholicism became\nsupreme in the Church.\n\nNo attention was paid to Bauer, and in part he himself was responsible\nfor the neglect. The bitterness and the [pg 123] carelessness of his\nwriting, the contradictions in which he becomes involved, the\nfantastic imagination which he allows to run riot, made it impossible\nfor the few who read him to regard him seriously.\n\nNevertheless, in detached observations, and in some of the incidental\nideas, he displays a critical acumen which has something great about\nit.\n\nAfter dismissing him with a few sharp words, the T\u00fcbingen school and\ntheir successors enjoyed a respite of thirty years, so far as radical\nscepticism was concerned. At the end of that time Bauer reappeared,\nlike a _Nero Redivivus,_ in peaceful Holland._(_90_)_\n\nIn a critical introduction to his study of the Sermon on the Mount,\nAllard Pierson examined the earliest witnesses for the existence of\nChristianity, and in doing so threw out the question whether the\nhistoricity of the main Pauline epistles was so completely raised\nabove all doubt that they could be treated with perfect confidence as\narchives from the earliest period of the new faith._(_91_)_\n\nIn the year 1886 he published, in association with the philological\nscholar, Samuel Adrian Naber, the _Verisimilia._ The book was not\nadapted to make a deep impression. It was too much the ingenious essay\nfor that.\n\nThe two friends combined their efforts in order to show New Testament\nexegetes how much they had left unexplained in the Epistles to the\nThessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and how many\nproblems, incoherencies, and contradictions appear when one reads\nthese writings with an open mind._(_92_)_\n\n[pg 124]\n\nBut instead of making a thorough examination of the problems and\nlaboriously arguing the case with the other students of Paulinism, the\nauthors at once proceed to suggest what appears to them a possible\nsolution. They claim to have discovered that the inconsistencies are\ndue in the main to the presence of two strata of thought which have\nbeen worked together. The one is of a sharply anti-Jewish character;\nthe other consists of milder and more conciliatory ideas.\n\nIf it be assumed, so runs their argument, that Christianity was in its\nreal origin a Jewish sect which had liberal ideas in regard to the law\nand directed its expectation towards the Messiah, the antinomian\nsections of the Epistles represent documents of that period.\n\nThe present form of the letters is due to the fact that a later\n\u201cChurchman\u201d\u2014the authors call him _Paulus episcopus,_ and think that he\nmay have served as model for the Paul of Acts\u2014worked into them the\nsecond, milder set of ideas.\n\nAt the time when Pierson and Naber launched this hypothesis, A. D.\nLoman had just finished the series of \u201cQuaestiones Paulinae\u201d which he\nthrew out in the [pg 125] _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ of\n1882-1886._(_93_)_ The battle began in earnest.\n\nLoman confines himself to dealing with the external arguments, and\nonly proposes to examine how far the assumption that these letters\nwere written by the Apostle in primitive Christian times can or cannot\nbe proved from the early witnesses. His decision is negative.\n\nBut his calmly written yet wonderfully living study shook two other\nthinkers out of their security, and compelled them to carry on the\nwork of destruction to a further point.\n\nSteck_(_94_)_ and van Manen_(_95_)_ undertook the task of\nsupplementing the external arguments, of presenting the internal\narguments by means of an analysis of the letters, and of offering a\ndetailed hypothesis regarding the origin of the Pauline literature.\n\n[pg 126]\n\nIn respect of external arguments the three scholars combine to urge\nthe following considerations:\u2014\n\nActs, they argue, knows nothing of any literary activity of Paul; and\nit tells us nothing of the conflicts which these letters, if we are to\nbelieve their own evidence, called forth.\n\nWhen the T\u00fcbingen school set up the axiom that Acts is less\ntrustworthy than the Epistles, they made things easy for themselves.\nThere are weighty arguments to support the opposite opinion.\n\nThat the moment a mission to the heathen was undertaken the question\nof the observance of the law must come up is clear. The most natural\nthing to happen would be that it should come up for discussion on\npurely practical lines and should take the form: how much must the\nGentile Christians take over of the Commandments in order that the\nJewish believers might have table-fellowship and social intercourse\nwith them?\n\nThis is the form of the problem which Acts presupposes, and it gives\nus in the account of the so-called Apostolic Council a decision in\naccordance therewith.\n\nThe Epistle to the Galatians, on the other hand, asserts that the\nquestion of the validity of the law as such was raised at that time,\nand that Paul and the original apostles agreed to divide the spheres\nof their mission work into Gentile and Jewish. About the most pressing\nneed, the establishment of a _modus vivendi_ in mixed churches,\nnothing was done. This representation is much less natural than the\nother.\n\nNor is the case different in regard to the picture of Paul which these\ntwo sources give us. In Acts everything is clear and simple. The\nApostle appears at first rather as an assistant to Barnabas, but\nafterwards makes himself independent, and maintains his position in\nrelation to the original apostles by the force of his personality, in\na free but not a hostile fashion.\n\nIn the letters, on the other hand, everything is unintelligible.\nStress is laid on the fact that the Apostle of [pg 127] the Gentiles\nafter his conversion has no intercourse with the original apostles and\nthe Church, receives nothing whatever of the doctrinal tradition about\nJesus, and draws his gospel entirely from revelation.\n\nThe statements regarding the external facts of his life are extremely\nconfused. After his conversion he is said to have first spent three\nyears in \u201cArabia\u201d and then to have gone to Damascus, and from there,\nthree years after his conversion, to have paid his \u201cvisit of ceremony\u201d\nto the Church at Jerusalem, during which, however, he says that he saw\nonly Peter, and James the Lord\u2019s brother. After that he spent fourteen\nyears in Syria and Cilicia.\n\nWho can form a clear picture of the journeys implied in the letters,\nor of the relation of Paul to his churches?\n\nWho can understand the character here presented? Sometimes the Apostle\nis radical, sometimes conservative, sometimes bold, sometimes\ndespairing; in small things firm, in great things weakly yielding; now\nviolent, then again mild; in all ways full of uncertainties and\ncontradictions.\n\nFar from arousing belief, the statements of the letters about the\nApostle create difficulty upon difficulty and doubt upon doubt, if\nonce one ventures to read them with an open mind. On the one side it\nseems as if a certain tendency to bring him into opposition with the\noriginal apostles made itself felt throughout, while on the other hand\nthe traits are thrown together without any reference to an integral\npsychologically intelligible picture.\n\nThe most natural view is, therefore, that Acts represents what is\nhistorically most authentic, while in the letters an imaginary picture\nis drawn, exhibiting throughout the same tendency, but composed by\nvarious hands.\n\nThe external attestation in the early literature of a Pauline\ncollection of letters, which is in any case not too brilliant, is\nfurther reduced by the radicals. The Ignatian letters are held\u2014as they\nalso are by the T\u00fcbingen [pg 128] school\u2014to be spurious; and they\nendeavour to bring down the first epistle of Clement from the time of\nDomitian to the middle of the second century._(_96_)_ If all this is\nadmitted, the first attestation of the letters is that of Marcion.\nWhat, then, is there to oppose to the view that they had their origin\nin Gnostic circles and were only later forced upon the Church?\n\nWith this agrees, too, the fact that the Second Epistle of Peter,\nwhich alone in the New Testament makes mention of Paul\u2019s literary\nactivity,_(_97_)_ and which itself certainly belongs to the period of\nthe struggle with Gnosticism, treats it as something in the nature of\na \u201cgift from the Greeks.\u201d_(_98_)_\n\nIn any case, in view of the silence of Justin, the _Shepherd_ of\nHermas, the _Didache,_ and the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ the attestation\nof the Pauline letters is no better than that of the Johannine\nliterature._(_99_)_\n\nGreat stress is laid on the fact that among the Gnostics the Epistles\nexisted in a shorter form than in the Church, as appears from the\nreckoning which Tertullian holds with Marcion._(_100_)_ If this\nshorter text can be reconstructed [pg 129] and proves to be the\nbetter, this would show that the Epistles passed from the hands of the\nGnostics into that of the Church, and underwent in the process an\nexpansion of a certain \u201ctendency.\u201d\n\nIn the hope of showing this, van Manen in the year 1887 reconstructed\nthe Marcionite text of the Epistle to the Galatians._(_101_)_ In\nregard to the other Epistles he does not attempt this, as Tertullian\u2019s\nindications are insufficient.\n\nThe examination of the internal arguments takes the following form.\nThese \u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics analyse the letters and point out all\nthe difficulties which come to light in the course of exegetical\nstudy. They triumphantly establish the fact that there are many seams\nand divisions between the various verses and sections, that an\nethico-mystical doctrine is found alongside of the juridical doctrine\nof justification, that the view of the law is subject to remarkable\nvacillations, and that it is not possible to weld together the\ndifferent parts of the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, to\ndetermine the proper address of the Epistle to the Galatians, whether\nto the district or the province, to decide whether Romans presupposes\nJewish-Christian or Gentile-Christian readers, and various questions\nof that kind.\n\nThe next point is to discover, if possible, some kind of system in the\ndifficulties, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Steck and van Manen\nprofess to be able to show that there is such a system.\n\nWhat the letters tell us regarding the conversion, the life and work\nof Paul is not, according to them, to be considered earlier and more\nauthentic than Acts, but is [pg 130] based on information which either\ncoincides with the reports there given or points to an earlier common\nsource. The material supplied by Acts is worked up in the letters\nunder the influence of a tendency.\n\nThe existence of a written Gospel is also implied. All the passages in\nthe Epistles which recall sayings of the Lord, and what the Epistles\nto the Corinthians in particular have to tell us about the institution\nof the Lord\u2019s Supper and the resurrection of Jesus, make, they think,\nthe impression of having been drawn from Luke, or an earlier Gospel\nwhich is one of his sources. Steck and van Manen are even inclined to\nhold that in Rom. ii. 16 and xvi. 25 the words \u201cmy Gospel\u201d refer to a\nwritten Gospel, as indeed the Church Fathers also thought.\n\nThat the four main Epistles cannot all be from the same hand is, they\nthink, manifest from the differences between them. Further, the order\nin which they were written can, these writers think, be recognised.\nThis order does not agree with that generally accepted, since the\nEpistle to the Galatians is not placed before Corinthians and Romans,\nbut concludes the series. Steck endeavours to give a detailed proof\nthat it was written after Romans and presupposes the latter. Wherever\nin Galatians there appear gaps and obscurities, a glance at Romans\nalways, he affirms, gives the desired explanation. The more strongly\nthe opposition to the law comes to expression, the later is the\nwriting in question to be placed in the series of the Pauline\nwritings, in which a development is traceable.\n\nAnother point to which the \u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics attach importance\nis to discover criteria by which various strata can be distinguished\nin the main Epistles themselves. They propose to regard the Epistles\nto the Corinthians as fragments of Pauline literature which have\ngradually been worked up together into letters. In regard to the\nletter to the Romans, van Manen holds that it originally consisted,\nroughly speaking, of chapters [pg 131] i.-viii., and was only\ngradually extended to its present form._(_102_)_\n\nIt is also, these critics consider, certain that a number of hands\nhave been at work on the letters, and that the increasingly\nanti-Jewish tendency shows us the direction followed by the efforts of\nthe Pauline school.\n\nSteck and van Manen assume that the teaching represented in the\nEpistles is of a Greek character. They think they can show that the\nPauline school were influenced by Philo and Seneca, and seek to\nexplain Paulinism as an \u201cattempt to spiritualise primitive\nChristianity.\u201d\n\nEssentially, they think, it belongs to Gnosticism, since it sets aside\nthe \u201cauthority of tradition\u201d and derives all knowledge, without\nhistorical mediation, from the revelation of the Spirit, and conceives\nof this knowledge as a system. The deification of Jesus Christ which\nis represented in the letters is also to be regarded as Greek and\nGnostic.\n\nBy these observations Steck and van Manen are inevitably led to the\ndecisive consideration regarding \u201ctime and space.\u201d\n\nCould a Christology of this kind come into being a few years only\nafter the death of the historical Jesus? Is an intense anti-Judaism in\nprimitive Christian times intelligible? Can Greek, Gnostical ideas be\nassumed to have existed in the first generation?\n\nSteck and van Manen deny that this is possible and demand a longer\nperiod for the transformation of which the evidence lies before us.\nTherefore the historic Paul, [pg 132] if there ever was such a man, as\nis almost certainly the case, was not the creator of the Paulinism\nrepresented by the Epistles.\n\nHow, then, is the origin of the letters and the doctrine to be\nexplained?\n\nOn the basis of the facts which they observe in the documents, and the\nconsideration regarding the necessity of time and space, the\n\u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics throw out the following hypothesis.\n\nChristianity, they hold, remained at first Jewish. But as time went\non, and as it spread beyond Palestine, two different tendencies\nmanifested themselves within it. One, as the result of contact with\nGentiles, and no doubt in consequence of the destruction of the Jewish\nState, moved in the direction of attaching less and less importance to\nthe law, while the other maintained the older stand-point.\n\nIn general the development, due to the influence of Graeco-Roman\nideas, proceeded without a struggle. Its goal was a \u201ccatholicism\u201d such\nas meets us in Justin.\n\nWithin this \u201cGnostic\u201d party, however, there appeared a school which\nput the question of the relation to Judaism and the law in its most\ntrenchant form, as a question of principle, and sought to bring it to\na decisive issue.\n\nSomewhere or other\u2014perhaps in the Roman Church, perhaps in several\nplaces at the same time\u2014where Gnostics and representatives of the\nolder view were at odds, an open conflict broke out. The former party\nfought with literary weapons, dating back the controversy by means of\nan epistolary literature specially created for the purpose into\nprimitive Christian times.\n\nIn the course of the struggle the antithesis became more and more\nacute. The climax is marked by the Epistle to the Galatians. Here a\n\u201cGnostic\u201d endeavours, with the aid of the already existing Pauline\nliterature, and depending more particularly on Romans, to defend the\nstand-point of liberal Gentile Christianity against a \u201cJewish\nChristianity\u201d which, as it seems, was \u201cmaking [pg 133] headway.\u201d \u201cWith\nall the force of his intellectual superiority\u201d he scourges the\ntendencies of a period which was endeavouring to make Christianity\nonce more Jewish.\n\nThe form of a letter to the Galatians was given to the work, according\nto Steck\u2019s hypothesis, \u201cbecause the literary _genre_ of Apostolic\nletters held an established position; and since the churches at Rome\nand Corinth already had their Epistles, the Galatian province,\nfamiliar in connexion with the first missionary journey in Acts,\nsuggested itself as the appropriate scene of the struggle, since it\nwas there that the Apostle had first had to suffer from the\npersecutions of the Jews. As the Epistle to the Galatians followed on\nthe three other main epistles, and the Epistle to the Romans had\nalready selected as its time and place the last visit of the Apostle\nto Corinth, shortly before his arrest at Jerusalem, the time of the\nRoman imprisonment suggested itself as the situation of the writer to\nbe implied in the Epistle. During his imprisonment Paul receives news\nof the threatened, and in part already accomplished, falling away of\nthe Galatian churches from his Gospel, and feeling himself about to\ntake leave of the world he directs to the wavering churches this\nletter as the purest and most intense expression of his heart and\nmind.\u201d\n\nThe main Epistles originated about the years 120-140. The elements\nfrom which they are worked up may be ten or twenty years earlier. A\nfinal redaction may have taken place even subsequently to 140.\n\nWhy, exactly, the school of thought which created this literature took\nPaul as its patron, it is, according to van Manen, impossible to\nexplain. He holds that the historic Apostle had as little to do with\nPaulinism as John the Apostle with the theology of the Fourth Gospel.\nSteck, on the other hand, is inclined to admit the historical\njustification of this connexion. For him, it is to be held as certain\nthat Paul was the first to \u201copen the door of the Christian salvation\nfreely to the Gentiles.\u201d The doctrine [pg 134] of justification by\nfaith must therefore already in some shape or other have formed part\nof his preaching. Only the strictly systematic and sharply anti-Jewish\ndevelopment of the doctrine was supplied by the later school.\n\nSteck is therefore here, as on some other points, more conservative\nand less \u201ccritical\u201d than van Manen. Nevertheless the differences are\nnot very noticeable in comparison with the extent of the views which\nthey share.\n\nTheology of the post-Baur period generally had ignored Bruno Bauer; it\nwould willingly have treated in the same way those who took up his\nwork again. Since this was not possible, and references to \u201cwild\nhypotheses\u201d and \u201crash, wrong-headed critics\u201d did not completely\nsuffice to dispose of them, the authorities great and small had\nnecessarily to undertake a refutation, which they prudently confined\nto the most pressing and the easiest points.\n\nThe discussions were for the most part carried on in periodicals. A\nwork on the other side of an importance at all corresponding to those\nof Loman, Steck, and van Manen was not forthcoming._(_103_)_\n\n[pg 135]\n\nHow far is it possible to refute their view?\n\nIn the domain of the external arguments, the main strength of the\nrevolutionaries, the position is not so favourable to them as Loman\nwished to represent it. The transference of the first Epistle of\nClement to the middle of the second century is not possible._(_104_)_\nThe fact that Justin knew and used Paul\u2019s writings, while he does not\nname him, is not explained by the hypothesis that they did not rank\nfor him as Church writings._(_105_)_\n\nThe Marcionite text of Galatians reconstructed by van Manen is not\nbetter but worse than the canonical text._(_106_)_ If the Ignatian\nletters, as is now generally held, are genuine, the attestation of the\nPauline Epistles is in much better case than was formerly supposed.\nThat Acts says nothing about the literary activity of the Apostle has\nat most the value of an _argumentum e silentio._ It is not otherwise\nin regard to the fact that Acts has nothing to say of the conflicts\nbetween him and his churches. In regard to the question of priority as\nbetween its narrative and that of Galatians there is at least nothing\ncertain to be said.\n\nThe position of matters is therefore that the Epistles to the Romans\nand Corinthians are witnessed to by the first Epistle of Clement at\nthe end of the first century, but that neither the legitimate nor the\nillegitimate [pg 136] representatives of the T\u00fcbingen tradition can\nexplain why Justin and the remaining writers of the beginning of the\nsecond century are not under the influence of these Epistles, and,\nwith the exception of Clement, do not even mention them.\n\nThe hypothesis brought forward by Steck and van Manen in regard to\ndifferent strata within the Epistles and the development which\nculminates in the antinomianism of the Epistle to the Galatians cannot\nbe proved from the texts; the evidence is read into them by the\nexercise of great ingenuity.\n\nBut the negative observation which formed their starting-point holds\nits ground. Ordinary exegesis has not succeeded in getting rid of the\nillogical transitions and contradictions and making Paul\u2019s arguments\nreally intelligible. The impression of a certain disconnectedness is\nnot to be denied. But Steck and van Manen have not succeeded in\ndiscovering the law and order which ought to prevail in it, and\nshowing how the chaos arose in connexion with the creation of this\nliterature.\n\nAgainst the hypothesis of the origin of Paulinism in the second\ncentury there lies the objection that it is built on purely arbitrary\nassumptions. Whence do Steck and van Manen know anything about\nanti-Jewish conflicts taking place at that time? There is no evidence\nof any such thing in the contemporary literature; and the writings of\nthe apostolic Fathers make quite in the contrary direction.\n\nOn the other hand, the general considerations which led them to adopt\nthis hypothesis have not been in any way invalidated. The illegitimate\nT\u00fcbingen critics share with the legitimate school the presupposition\nthat Paulinism signifies a Hellenisation of the Gospel; they are also\nat one with their adversaries in regarding this unproved and\nunprovable assumption as proved. The difference is that they do not\nfollow the others in their second exhibition of na\u00efvet\u00e9\u2014that of\nregarding this Greek religious faith as being coincident with\nprimitive [pg 137] Christianity, but demand space and time for a\ndevelopment of this character. But the two wrestlers have the same\nchain about their feet; whichever of them throws the other into the\nwater must drown along with him.\n\nThat they are both involved in the same fundamental view of Paulinism\nsometimes comes to the consciousness of the post-Baur theology and its\nradical opponents. In a momentary aberration of this kind Heinrici\nventures to praise Bruno Bauer for having discovered the relationship\nof Paul to the religious life of the ancient world, and is prepared to\nsee his weakness only in the inferences which he draws from this\ndiscovery._(_107_)_\n\nSteck, on his part, praises Heinrici\u2019s commentary on the Epistles to\nthe Corinthians, in which the Hellenistic element is so excellently\ntraced, and expresses the hope that the exegete and his party will\nconsider carefully whether the composition of this work \u201cdoes not\nstand in an even much closer relationship to Hellenism than had\npreviously been supposed.\u201d\n\nThe more the theologians who derive from Baur emphasise the Greek\nelement in Paulinism the more helpless they are against the\n\u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics. For it is after all merely a matter of\nclearness and courage of thought whether they venture to raise the\nquestion about space and time. The moment they take this step they are\nlost. Nevermore can they find the way which leads back through the\ngreen pastures of sound common-sense theology, but are condemned to\nwander about with the revolutionaries in the wilderness of flat\nunreason. Wearied with problems, they come at last, like Steck and van\nManen, to a condition of mind in which the wildest hypothesis appeals\nto them more than rational knowledge, if the latter demands the\nsuppression of questioning.\n\nHow is it conceivable that a man of the primitive Christian period\ncould, in consequence of a purely practical controversy regarding the\nobservance or non-observance of the law by Gentile believers, go on,\nas Baur and [pg 138] his successors represent\u2014to reject the law on\nprinciple? How could it be possible that, at that time, doctrine\nshould take a frankly Gnostic shape, and in deliberate contempt of the\ntradition of the historic Jesus, should, under the eyes of the men who\nhad been His companions, appeal only to revelation?\n\nThat is the element of greatness in the \u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics, that\nthey did not forget the duty of asking questions, when it had fallen\nout of fashion among other theologians. To show that their hypothesis\nis untenable is by no means to get rid of it, as accredited theology\nwished to persuade itself. A few squadrons of cavalry which were\nskirmishing in the open have been cut off; the fortress has not been\ntaken, indeed the siege has not even been laid.\n\nThe chronicle of the discussion between contemporary theology and the\nrevolutionaries is quite without interest. As soon as the refutation\non points of detail was finished, and the fundamental questions\nregarding time and place came on the scene, there remained nothing for\nit to do but to stammer, with an embarrassed smile, something about\ntradition, intuition, an unmistakable impression, the stamp of\ngenuineness, and the like, and to break off the conversation as\nquickly as might be.\n\nWhat it could or could not refute, and what the other party could or\ncould not prove, followed necessary from the form which the problem\nhad assumed. The construction of the illegitimate T\u00fcbingen critics\nanswers, in reverse, to that of the legitimate school, like the\nreflection in a mirror to the object reflected. The presuppositions\nand the difficulties are the same in the two cases; the two solutions\ncorrespond except that they go in opposite directions. Both recognise\nthat not only a conflict of practice, but one involving theory and\nprinciple, for and against the law, is fought out in the letters. The\nlegitimate school place it in primitive Christian times, but cannot\nshow how it was possible at that period, and how it could break off so\nsuddenly that in the post-Pauline [pg 139] literature there is not an\necho of it, and it seems as though it had never been.\n\nThe illegitimate school represent the struggle as having occurred in\nthe course of the second century, but can cite no evidence for this\nfrom the remaining literature, can point to no traces of the gradual\ngrowth of the opposition, or show how a struggle of that kind could\nbreak out at that time.\n\nBoth explanations labour in vain at the problem of the inexplicable\nneglect of Paulinism in the post-Apostolic literature.\n\nBoth parties assume as a datum that the doctrine of the letters is to\nbe considered as a Hellenised Christianity. The one party represents\nthe process which leads to this result as taking place in primitive\nChristian times, without being able to show how such a thing is\npossible, or how the Greek and the Jewish-eschatological elements\nmutually tolerated and united with one another.\n\nAccording to the other party, the Hellenisation came about in the\ncourse of a long development. But they cannot explain why Paulinism\nshows an entirely different character from that of the Greek\nChristianity which appears elsewhere in the literature of the second\ncentury. They assert that it belongs to Gnosticism; and are right in\nthis so far as regards the form of the system. On the other hand they\ncannot allow themselves to consider seriously the difference between\nthe doctrine of the letters and the fundamental views of the known\nGnostic schools, or the hypothesis flies in pieces. The Gnostics were\nreal spiritualists, opposed to eschatology, and denying a corporeal\nresurrection; Paul is an eschatologist, looking for the parousia and\nthe transformation of the body. Therefore the \u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d critics\nmust either explain the Jewish eschatological element in the system in\nsuch a way as to spiritualise it, or else drop it out of sight.\n\nAnd as a matter of fact the ominous word eschatology is, one might\nalmost say, never mentioned in their works.\n\n[pg 140]\n\nThe parallel between what the one and the other construction can and\ncannot make intelligible goes through to the last detail. For both it\nis true that the ostensible solution in each case introduces openly or\notherwise a new problem which arises out of the solution itself. The\nsum of what is explained and unexplained is the same for both.\n\nAt first sight the position of the legitimate successors of the\nT\u00fcbingen school is more favourable than that of the other party. They\nhave tradition and natural impression on their side, and are able to\nregard the situation implied in the Epistles as historic, whereas\ntheir opponents are bound to show that it is fictitious. When\nsubjected to critical examination, however, they are no better off,\nfor they cannot give any proof that the main epistles can belong to\nprimitive Christianity and to it only. When they declared again and\nagain that the attacks of the radicals had served a useful purpose in\ninciting them to examine anew their results, and to make corrections\nwhere necessary, that was the mere cant of criticism. If they had\ndared to make an effort to understand the objection which Loman,\nSteck, and van Manen constantly repeated, and to consider whether they\ncould really prove the Pauline origin of the main epistles, or whether\nthey did not really by their conception of the doctrine make it\nimprobable, they would have been bound to perceive that nothing could\nbe done by revising and correcting; it was a case of mutually\nexclusive alternatives.\n\nAs matters stood, they had to choose between being consistent but\nirrational, or rational but inconsistent. They chose the latter form\nof the dilemma and left the other to the radicals.\n\nThe Ultra-T\u00fcbingen critics on their part cannot escape the blame of\nraising the question in a one-sided purely literary form, and not\nconcerning themselves with the thought contained in the Epistles,\nbecause they felt that herein lay the weak point of their undertaking.\nInstead of analysing the system, they made play with the [pg 141]\ncatchwords Greek and Gnostic, and thought to have got rid in that way\nof the question regarding the essential character of Paulinism. If\ncontemporary theology did not grasp the problem which was presented to\nit in its full significance, that was partly due to the pettifogging\nway in which it was formulated. The representatives of radical\ncriticism were like criminals who cannot rise to the height of their\ncrime!\n\nFor a time it almost looked as if a _modus vivendi_ had been found\nbetween the successors of Baur\u2019s school and the radicals. Steck, who\nstood on the right wing of the revolutionaries, refused to give up the\nbelief that the historic Paul had in some way or other fought a battle\nfor freedom from the law, and might be indirectly claimed as the\nstarting-point of the theology which reaches its full development in\nthe Epistles. From this it was only a short step to the hypothesis\nthat the Epistles were not wholly spurious but combined thoughts of\nthe Apostle with later views.\n\nA criticism based on the distinction of original and interpolated\nelements did not need to be now for the first time called into being.\nIt already existed, and had indeed made its appearance\ncontemporaneously with Bruno Bauer\u2019s. Like the latter it had been\neither talked down or left to die of neglect.\n\nIn the first volume of his \u201cPhilosophic Dogmatic\u201d (1855), when\nspeaking of the documentary sources of our knowledge of Christianity,\nChristian Hermann Weisse defines his attitude towards the Pauline\nEpistles and offers the results of a study extending over many years,\nwhich he had undertaken in opposition to the conservatives on the one\nside and the T\u00fcbingen school on the other._(_108_)_\n\nHis method he himself describes as criticism based on style. A man\nlike Paul, he argues, has so characteristic a literary style that it\nwill serve one who has made himself [pg 142] thoroughly familiar with\nit as an unfailing criterion of what is genuine and what is not. Such\na method of criticism must of course be prepared to be accused of\narbitrariness and subjectivity. But that is no great matter. The\nfruits will vouch for the goodness of the tree.\n\nThe standard of indubitably genuine Pauline style is furnished,\naccording to Weisse, by the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It bears\nin all its parts the stamp of the most complete integrity and\ngenuineness. The eye which has acquired due fineness of perception by\nthe study of this writing discovers that only the Second Epistle to\nthe Corinthians, the First to the Thessalonians, and that to Philemon,\n\u201ccan boast of preserving in the same purity the original apostolic\ntext.\u201d The Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and\nColossians \u201chave interwoven in them a regular series of\ninterpolations, which so far efface the genuine apostolic character of\nthe style in many places as to render it unrecognisable, and have\ngiven rise to that difficulty of disentangling the meaning which has\nmade Romans especially a _crux interpretum,_ and by the forced\nartificiality, intrinsic falsity, and unnaturalness of these\ninterpretations has made this Epistle the bane of theological study;\nof which, in virtue of the character of its fundamental ideas, it was\nfitted to be the most precious treasure.\u201d_(_109_)_\n\nThe whole of these interpolations are, he thinks, from one and the\nsame hand, and go back to a time previous to the ecclesiastical use of\nthe writings. The redactor cherished withal the most respectful awe of\nthe Apostle\u2019s words, and has hardly deleted a single one of them.\n\nWhat remains after the elimination of the secondary stratum in the\nEpistles to the Romans and Philippians [pg 143] does not prove to be\nan integral whole. The latter consists of two letters to this church,\nthe second beginning with iii. 3. With the former there has been\nworked up a letter to a church in Asia Minor, consisting of ix.-xi.\nand xvi. 1-20._(_110_)_\n\nWeisse did not get the length of publishing the reconstructed text of\nthe Epistles. When his pupil Sulze carried it through after his\ndeath,_(_111_)_ the prophecy which the author had put on record in his\n\u201cDogmatics\u201d regarding his undertaking was fulfilled. It met with\n\u201cuniversal disbelief.\u201d\n\nIn part the cause of this ill-success lay in the one-sidedness of the\nprinciple maintained by the author. Weisse confines himself entirely\nto \u201cstylistic criticism.\u201d While he recognises the possibility of a\ndistinction between genuine and spurious based on the contents, the\ntrains of thought, of the letters, he will have nothing to do with it.\n\nWith the controversy about the genuineness of the main Epistles there\nbegan a new era of \u201cinterpolation criticism.\u201d Daniel V\u00f6lter, rendered\nconfident by the professedly \u201cassured results\u201d of the criticism of the\nApocalypse in regard to the distinction of sources, thinks to find in\na similar procedure the solution of the Pauline problem, and hopes\nthat it will be possible by \u201ccareful criticism\u201d to separate the\ngenuine from the spurious._(_112_)_\n\nHe differs entirely from Weisse in seeking the criterion for the\ndistinction of what is genuine from what is spurious in the\nsubject-matter. What is simple and \u201cplain\u201d\u2014the [pg 144] latter\nexpression recurs again and again\u2014is to be regarded as\nprimitive-Christian and Pauline, but anything which has the appearance\nof being complicated or having the character of a speculative system\nis to be regarded as of later origin.\n\nThus wherever we find a highly developed Christology, speculations\nregarding the Spirit, and eschatology, strongly predestinarian views,\nand an advanced estimate of baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, we are,\naccording to V\u00f6lter, in the presence of interpolations. A further mark\nby which these may be recognised is an advanced antinomianism.\n\nThe doctrine of the historic Paul includes, according to this author,\nthe following points: The central point in it is the death of Christ,\nregarded as an atoning death appointed by God and ratified by the\nresurrection. Man becomes partaker of its fruits by faith, and thus\nobtains justification by the forgiveness of sins, of which he is given\nassurance by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Faith also includes\nwithin it, however, a \u201cmystico-ethical partaking in the death of\nChrist.\u201d Therefore in the act of faith there takes place at the same\ntime an inner conversion to a life well-pleasing to God, which causes\nthe believer \u201cto appear blameless on the day of Christ and makes him a\npartaker in the resurrection.\u201d\n\nAs regards the relation of the Epistle to the Galatians to Acts V\u00f6lter\ntakes over the conclusions, unfavourable to the former, of the radical\ncritics. Consequently this work is spurious throughout. It only\nreproduces the ideas of the interpolators of the letters to the Romans\nand Corinthians, and pushes to an extreme the antinomianism there\nrepresented. It dates from near the end of the first century.\n\n[pg 145]\n\nIn the Epistles to the Corinthians\u2014we are still following V\u00f6lter\u2014the\ninterpolations are not very extensive. The most important is the\ncorrection applied to the original Pauline doctrine of resurrection,\nin 2 Corinthians 4 and 5, where the redactor has worked in his\nPlatonico-Stoic doctrine of immortality.\n\nThe Epistle to the Romans has been very extensively\ninterpolated._(_113_)_ The original writing was addressed to Gentile\nreaders. The interpolator, on the other hand, has in view readers \u201cwho\noccupy an Old Testament stand-point.\u201d That is connected with the\nfar-reaching development which began at Rome after the Neronian\npersecution. At that time, as is proved, V\u00f6lter thinks, by the Epistle\nto the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas, together with the first\nEpistle of Clement and the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, the Church at Rome\n\u201cfell back upon a religious stand-point determined by Old Testament\nideas.\u201d It is this \u201creduction of Christianity to Jewish Old Testament\nreligion, modified by Christianity,\u201d that the interpolator is\nconcerned to combat. In doing so he is forced to enter upon general\nspeculations regarding the flesh, sin, and the law; in order \u201cto\ndefend the independence and superiority of Christianity\u201d he develops\nan antinomianism, according to which the law had as its sole purpose,\n\u201cby intensifying the misery of sin, to prepare men for deliverance\nfrom sin and the law, by the redemption which is in Jesus\nChrist.\u201d_(_114_)_\n\nV\u00f6lter\u2019s work is one of the adroitest performances in the whole field\nof Pauline study. It is not only that it represents what is in its own\nway a brilliant synthesis between Weisse and the radicals; its main\nsignificance [pg 146] lies in the fact that it breaks off the barren\nliterary-critical logomachy, and directs attention once more to the\nsubject-matter.\n\nSteck and van Manen had failed, once they went beyond the simple\nregistration of inconcinnities in the text; V\u00f6lter lets the\ntheological problems have something to say for themselves. He observes\nmore clearly than any one had stated it before exactly wherein the\ncomplexity of the question of the law consists, and rightly refers it\nto the fact that some passages take for granted its observance by the\nJews as unquestionably right and proper, and only seek to maintain the\nfreedom of the Gentiles in regard to it, whereas others reject it in\nprinciple, in such a way that Paul would be obliged to maintain also\nthe emancipation of the Jews . . . if the rules of logical inference\nare to be applied. As it is, however, there is a want of congruence\nbetween the negative theory and the limitation of the practical\ndemand.\n\nIn an equally thoroughgoing fashion V\u00f6lter deals with the problems of\nChristology and of the doctrine of the Spirit, and eschatology.\n\nHis solution is ingenious and elegant. Of the hypothesis which places\nthe controversies about the law in the post-apostolic period only so\nmuch is taken over as is absolutely necessary. The connexion between\nPaulinism and Gnosticism is made as loose as possible. The eschatology\nhas a certain importance given to it. Hellenic elements are not\nassumed to be present in the primitive doctrine; on the other hand, a\nknowledge of the Book of Wisdom, Philo, Seneca and the Graeco-Roman\nphilosophy in general is ascribed to the interpolators.\n\nThe criterion by which to distinguish what is genuine from what is not\nis ingeniously chosen. It is not particularly difficult to separate in\nthe letters the parts which are mainly plain and practical from those\nwhich relate to an antinomian speculative system. The resulting\ndivision between original text and interpolations has a [pg 147] more\nnatural and simple air than is the case in any of the other attempts\nto draw the line between them.\n\nNevertheless, it was scarcely possible that this work should\ncontribute anything to the solution of the Pauline problem. It is\nbuilt upon sand, for the argument on which everything is based is\nunsound.\n\nV\u00f6lter asserts that \u201csimplicity\u201d is the mark of what is genuinely\napostolic and Pauline. Since when? How does he know this? How, if it\nwere just the other way round, and the strange, the abstruse, the\nsystematic, the antinomian, the predestinarian represented the\noriginal element, and what is simple came in later!\n\nWhat he describes as the doctrine of the historic Paul has not a very\nconvincing look. It has not the ring of what we find elsewhere in\nearly Christian literature, but has a suspicious resemblance to the\nGood Friday and Easter-day meditations of the _Christliche\nWelt.__(_115_)_\n\nWhat does not strike the modern man and his theology as distinctly\npeculiar is gathered together and receives the stamp of approval as\nhistoric Paulinism! V\u00f6lter, like every one else, has failed to\nconsider, or to grasp, that fundamental question as to what is\nprimitive-Christian in the Apostle\u2019s teaching, which, since the\nencounter between Baur and Ritschl, had tacitly dominated the\ndiscussion and had been again forced on the theological centre-party\nby the radicals. Otherwise it would have been impossible that he,\nafter promising a \u201ccautious criticism,\u201d should have so incautiously\ndecided that what is simple is what is primitive-Christian.\n\nApart from V\u00f6lter, the criticism which claims to distinguish various\nsources and detect interpolations is of a more innocent and guileless\ndescription. It does not plunge into the depths of the Pauline\nproblems in the attempt to reach the firm ground that has never yet\nbeen reached, but amuses itself by determining what and how many\noriginal writings of the Apostle may have been worked up into the\ncanonical Epistles to the [pg 148] Corinthians, Romans, and\nPhilippians. This work, at which Semler had already made a beginning,\nis in itself necessary and interesting. The results, however, prove to\nbe uncertain and contradictory, because the criteria by which the\ndeletions, dissections, and combinations are determined, are always\nderived from subjective impression.\n\nThe one consolation in regard to them is that any importance which\nattaches to these results concerns almost exclusively the\npre-canonical literary history of the Epistles and does not affect our\nknowledge of the Pauline system. The supposed interpolations are of a\nsubsidiary character. The text as a whole is hardly seriously affected\nby them. The sense is scarcely altered by the dislocations and\nconflations by which one critic or another restores the original\nletters and releases the present-day reader from the tutelage of the\nso inconceivably astute redactor.\n\nIt remains to remark that most of the scholars who have occupied\nthemselves with this work do not trouble themselves very much about\nthe meaning and the connexion of Paul\u2019s statements, but are like\nsurgeons who think more of their skill in handling the knife than of\nbeing quite sure about the diagnosis which is to direct the incision,\nand therefore not seldom fall victims to the temptation of having\nrecourse to an operation in cases where it turns out to have been\nunnecessary or even injurious._(_116_)_\n\nAs a work which stands much above the average of [pg 149] the usual\ncutting-up hypotheses we may mention Spitta\u2019s work on Romans._(_117_)_\n\nHe distinguishes in the canonical Epistle two writings, a longer one\nconsisting of, in the main\u2014allowing for incidental\ninterpolations\u2014chapters i.-xi. with fragments from xv. and xvi., and a\nshorter writing which is made up of chapters xii., xiii. and xiv.,\nwith fragments of xv. and xvi. The longer one, which is the older, is\nsupposed to have been preserved entire, the shorter is of later\norigin, and it lacks the introduction.\n\nThe problem of the composite character of the main epistle in\nconnexion with the address and similar questions, is solved by\nsupposing that it is a working up of an earlier general treatise\nintended for Jewish Christians into a letter addressed to the Roman\nGentile Christians.\n\nThe controversy about the much-discussed series of greetings in Rom.\nxvi. is disposed of by attaching this to the shorter epistle, which is\nheld to have been written between the first and second imprisonment.\nIt is true this solution can only find favour with those who have made\nup their minds to take upon them the burdensome hypothesis of the\nsecond imprisonment along with the complete or partial acceptance of\nthe genuineness of the Pastoral epistles.\n\nIn working them up, the redactor is supposed to have followed the\nmethod of bringing in the arguments of the second letter in those\nplaces in the first where they seemed most appropriate. That he showed\nno remarkable address in this process is credited to him as a proof of\nhis historical existence.\n\nHoltzmann has nothing very complimentary to say about the\nrepresentatives of the dissection and interpolation criticism. In his\nNew Testament Theology he reproaches them with \u201cstraining out the\ngnat,\u201d and indulging in critical vivisection, instead of studying the\n[pg 150] currents and undercurrents of Jewish and Hellenistic thought\nwhich run side by side through Paul\u2019s work, and so becoming cured of\ntheir mania.\n\nIn connexion with this, it is, however, curious that he himself, when\nhe was asked why he never lectured on the Epistle to the Romans, used\nto say that the composition of Romans was, in his opinion, too\nproblematical for him to venture to deal with the Epistle, so long as\nhe was not obliged to do so.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 151]\n\nVI\n\n\nTHE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY\n\n\n1899. _Paul Feine._ Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus nach\nseinem Werdegange dargestellt. (Paul\u2019s Gospel of Freedom from the Law:\na Study of its Growth.)\n\n_Paul Wernle._ Paulus als Heidenmissionar. (Paul as a Missionary to\nthe Gentiles.)\n\n_Heinrich Weinel._ Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator. (Paul as a\nChurch Organiser.)\n\n_Hermann Jakoby._ Neutestamentliche Ethik. (New Testament Ethics.)\n\n1900. _Arthur Titius._ Der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der\nSeligkeit. (Paulinism with Special Reference to Final Salvation.)\n\n_A. Drescher._ Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus. (The Life of Jesus in Paul\u2019s\nWritings.)\n\n_Karl Dick._ Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus. (The Literary\nUse of the First Person Plural in Paul\u2019s Writings.)\n\n_Adolf Harnack._ Das Wesen des Christentums. (Translated under the\ntitle \u201cWhat is Christianity?\u201d)\n\n1901. _Paul Wernle._ Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion. (Translated under\nthe title \u201cThe Beginnings of Christianity.\u201d)\n\n1902. _Otto Pfleiderer._ Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und\nLehren. (Primitive Christianity, its Documents and Doctrines.) Second,\nrevised and extended edition. (Translated, 4 vols., London,\n1906-1911.)\n\n_Paul Feine._ Jesus Christus und Paulus.\n\n_G. F. Heinrici._ Das Urchristentum. (Primitive Christianity.)\n\n1903. _Georg Hollmann._ Urchristentum in Corinth. (Primitive\nChristianity in Corinth.)\n\n_Emil Sokolowski._ Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer\nBeziehung zu einander. (The Conceptions of \u201cSpirit\u201d and \u201cLife\u201d in\nPaul, in their Relations to one another.)\n\n_Wilhelm Bousset._ Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen\nZeitalter. (The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times.) Die\nj\u00fcdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und ihre\nBedeutung f\u00fcr das Neue Testament. (Jewish Apocalyptic: its Origin as\nindicated by Comparative Religion, and its Significance for the New\nTestament.)\n\n[pg 152]\n\n_Paul Volz._ J\u00fcdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba. (Jewish\nEschatology from Daniel to Akiba.)\n\n_W. Heitm\u00fcller._ Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and the\nLord\u2019s Supper in Paul\u2019s Teaching.)\n\n_Martin Br\u00fcckner._ Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie. (How\nthe Pauline Christology arose.)\n\n1904. _Heinrich Weinel._ Paulus. (E. T. St. Paul: The Man and his\nWork, 1906.)\n\n_Ernst von Dobsch\u00fctz._ Die Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters. (The\nProblems of the Apostolic Age.)\n\n_Maurice Goguel._ L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul et J\u00e9sus-Christ.\n\n_Alfred Juncker._ Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus.\n\n_William Wrede._ Paulus. (E. T. by E. Lummis, 1907.)\n\n1905. _Hugo Gressmann._ Der Ursprung der israelitisch-j\u00fcdischen\nEschatologie. (The Origin of the Israelitish-Jewish Eschatology.)\n\n1906. _Paul Feine._ Paulus als Theologe. (Paul as a Theologian.)\n\n_P. K\u00f6lbing._ Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus. (The\nSpiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus upon Paul.)\n\n_Eberhard Vischer._ Die Paulusbriefe. (The Pauline Epistles.)\n\n_Wilhelm Karl._ Beitr\u00e4ge zum Verst\u00e4ndnis der soteriologischen\nErfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus. (Contributions\ntowards the Understanding of the Soteriological Experiences and\nSpeculations of the Apostle Paul.)\n\n_W. Bousset._ Der Apostel Paulus.\n\n1907. _Adolf J\u00fclicher._ Paulus und Jesus.\n\n_Arnold Meyer._ Wer hat das Christentum gegr\u00fcndet, Jesus oder Paulus?\n(Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?)\n\n_A. Schettler._ Die paulinische Formel \u201cDurch Christus.\u201d (The Pauline\nFormula \u201cthrough Christ.\u201d)\n\n_J. Wellhausen._ Israelitische und j\u00fcdische Geschichte (6th ed.).\n\n1908. _Carl Munzinger._ Paulus in Corinth.\n\n_Hans Windisch._ Die Ents\u00fcndigung des Christen nach Paulus. (The\nPurification of the Christian from Sin in Paul\u2019s Teaching.)\n\n_Reinhold Seeberg._ Dogmengeschichte. (History of Dogma.) 2nd edition.\n\n_Wilhelm Walther._ Pauli Christentum, Jesu Evangelium.\n\n1909. _Adolf Harnack._ Dogmengeschichte. 4th edition.\n\n_Martin Dibelius._ Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. (The World\nof Spirits according to Paul\u2019s Belief.)\n\n_Johannes Weiss._ Paulus und Jesus. (E. T. by H. T. Chaytor, 1909.)\nChristus: Die Anf\u00e4nge des Dogmas. (Christ: The Beginning of Dogma. E.\nT. by V. D. Davis, 1911.)\n\n_Johann Haussleiter._ Paulus.\n\n_R. Knopf._ Paulus.\n\n_W. Olschewski._ Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie. (The Roots\nof Pauline Christologie.)\n\n1910. _A. Schlatter._ Neutestamentliche Theologie.\n\n[pg 153]\n\n_R. Drescher._ Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus.\n\n_Eberhard Vischer._ Der Apostel Paulus und sein Werk.\n\n_Julius Schniewind._ Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus (The\nMeaning of the Terms \u201cWord\u201d and \u201cGospel\u201d in Paul\u2019s Writings.)\n\n1911. _Adolf Deissmann._ Paulus, eine kultur- und\nreligionsgeschichtliche Skizze. (Paul, A Sketch with a Background of\nAncient Civilisation and Religion.)\n\n_Johannes M\u00fcller._ Die Entstehung des pers\u00f6nlichen Christentums der\npaulinischen Gemeinden. (How the personal Christianity of the Pauline\nChurches arose.)\n\n\nTHE dawn of the twentieth century found Pauline scholarship in a\npeculiar frame of mind. The criticism of the Ultra-T\u00fcbingen critics\nhad not succeeded in disquieting it, nor Holtzmann in reassuring it.\n\nThat the problems by which Loman, Steck, and van Manen were tormented\nwere mere cobwebs of the imagination was so completely taken for\ngranted that in dealing with the Pauline teaching no further attention\nwas paid to them. On the other hand, however, the problems previously\nrecognised by critical scholarship had not been so completely solved\nby Holtzmann that they could be considered as done with.\n\nThe disquisitions in which in his \u201cNew Testament Theology\u201d he resumed\nthe results of the whole study of the subject since Baur, did not have\nthe effect which he had expected. They were much discussed and much\npraised; the massive learning and wide reading, the art of the\nliterary treatment and the subtlety of the dialectic compelled\nadmiration. But behind all this chorus of appreciation, a certain\nsense of depression made itself felt. People were dismayed to find\nthat Paulinism was so complicated, and that the web of Paul\u2019s thought\nmust be so delicately and cautiously handled if it was to be\ndisentangled. Was the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles really a\nproduct of such extremely intricate mental processes as it was here\nrepresented to be?\n\nThe process of disillusionment did not go so far as to lead to the\ncalling in question of the fundamental view there offered. But results\nwere not put forward with [pg 154] the same confidence as before;\neffort was directed rather to strengthen them by revision and\ncorrection.\n\nIt was in this frame of mind that Pfleiderer prepared the second\nedition of his \u201cPrimitive Christianity.\u201d_(_118_)_ Whereas he had\nformerly taken for granted the influence of the Greek world upon Paul,\nas being something self-evident, he now feels obliged to offer proof\nof it, in a newly inserted chapter upon Hellenism, Stoicism, and\nSeneca, in order to arrive at the result . . . that his Greek\neducation was in any case \u201ca problematical possibility.\u201d While he had\npreviously held that the combination of the Alexandrian Platonic\ndoctrine of immortality with eschatology was the great work\naccomplished by the Apostle of the Gentiles, he now is inclined to see\na spiritualisation of the future-hope already prepared for in Judaism,\nand quotes the Apocalypse of Ezra and Jewish Hellenistic literature in\ntestimony of this._(_119_)_\n\nFate willed that about the same time theology should be seized by the\nimpulse of popularisation, and now found itself in the position of\nbeing obliged to offer assured, absolutely assured, results in\nreference to Paulinism. The most important works of this character are\nPaul Wernle\u2019s \u201cBeginnings of Christianity\u201d and Heinrich Weinel\u2019s\n\u201cPaul.\u201d_(_120_)_\n\n[pg 155]\n\nThe efforts of these writers are directed to bring the author and his\nthoughts into close relations with our time. It is not his theology in\nits subtleties and its contradictions that they seek to grasp and to\nportray, but his religion\u2014what lies behind the system and the formula.\nIn this way they hope to escape many difficulties over which Holtzmann\nhad laboured, and to be able to bring out the fundamental and\nintelligible elements which in him had been rather to seek.\n\nWernle makes Paul discourse in the character of the great missionary\napologist; Weinel draws him as the preacher of the religion of\ninwardness, who as \u201cPharisee,\u201d \u201cSeeker after God,\u201d \u201cprophet,\u201d\n\u201capostle,\u201d \u201cfounder of the Church,\u201d \u201ctheologian,\u201d and \u201cman,\u201d was all\nthings in one.\n\nThe lively portraiture, quite different from the conventional works on\nthe subject, found a ready welcome, and incited others to imitation.\n\nIn consistently emphasising the apologetic aspect of Paul\u2019s teaching\nWernle brought up many ingenious ideas for discussion. Weinel, on his\npart, brought again to the consciousness of both theologians and\nlaymen the poetic and emotional element in the Apostle\u2019s world of\nideas.\n\nBut they found no new way of grasping and understanding him.\n\nThey walk in a shady path which runs parallel to the main road. But\nits pleasantness is associated with certain dangers, which they\nthemselves, and those who followed them, have not always escaped.\n\nWhen earlier writers on the subject modernised, they did so\nunconsciously. Wernle and Weinel, however, do [pg 156] so on\nprinciple, and have no scruple about throwing light on what is obscure\nin Paulinism by the use of more or less appropriate catchwords of the\nmost modern theology.\n\nNot seldom they imagine they are explaining something when they are in\nreality only talking round the subject. In this way there enters into\ntheir treatment a kind of forced ingenuity, one might almost say\nflimsiness.\n\nTheir love of graphic description also sometimes becomes a temptation\nto them. They do not always remember to keep it within bounds, and\nsometimes allow themselves to fall into a kind of artificial na\u00efvet\u00e9.\nWernle in particular delights to wield a pre-Raphaelite brush. He\npictures the Apostle, for instance, in the evening at his inn,\nreceiving visitors, exhorting and consoling them, weaving tent-cloth,\nbusy with a letter, all at the same time. \u201cSometimes stones would come\nflying into the room as he was dictating\u2014the Jews had set on the city\nmob to attack him. Many an abrupt transition in his letters may have\nhad its origin in a violent interruption of this kind.\u201d_(_121_)_\n\nFeine and Titius begin with a critical examination of previous views.\nThey are not in this wholly disinterested, being in search of a\nPaulinism which has more to offer to modern religion, as they apprehend\nit, than the one-sidedly historical post-Baur liberalism. The result\nis that while they show themselves free from many of the\npresuppositions and prejudices which are common to the others, they\nare at the same time not in a position to put Paulinism on a new\nhistorical basis. They agree [pg 157] in opposing the separation of\nPaulinism from Primitive Christianity which is practised by Holsten\nand Holtzmann. They refuse to be converted to the unsatisfactory view\nthat Paulinism, as being a so unique personal creation, must have\nremained unintelligible even to Paul\u2019s contemporaries. Before making\nup their minds to derive the whole of Paul\u2019s doctrine from the vision\nat his conversion and the influence of Greek ideas, they propose to\nexamine it in reference to the conceptions which connect it with\nJesus, with primitive Christianity, and with Judaism.\n\nConsequently they are loth to admit Greek elements and the resulting\nduality in the Apostle\u2019s thought. Feine maintains that in the\nApostle\u2019s mind before his conversion, Greek ideas were only present in\nso far as they had already been adopted by Pharisaism. Titius \u201cwill\nnot deny that there is a touch of Hellenism in the great Apostle,\u201d but\nis far from seeking to explain the doctrine of flesh and spirit and\nthe mysticism connected with the \u201cnew creation\u201d purely from this point\nof view. On the other hand both of them assign a large part in the\nformation of Paul\u2019s doctrine to his Jewish consciousness, and\nconsequently are led to a comprehensive recognition of eschatology.\n\nIn his examination of the individual views Titius always takes the\nfuture-hope as his starting-point\u2014indeed his book begins with chapters\non God and eschatology. He shows that redemption, in the most general\nconception of it, is a liberation from the present evil world and a\ndeliverance looking to the world which is to come, and that\njustification was originally bound up with the thought of the judgment\nat the parousia. Instead, however, of systematically carrying out the\nanalysis in this fashion, he breaks off and begins to work up the\nhistorical material which he has brought to light on the lines of the\nproblems, definitions, and distinctions of modern theology, because,\nas the very title of his book shows, he undertakes his investigation\nwith a view [pg 158] to showing the significance of New Testament\nteaching for the present day. In order to portray the \u201creligious life\u201d\nhe makes it a principle \u201cnot to hesitate to turn aside from the\nhighway, to which the technical terms serve as sign-posts.\u201d Thus he\ncomes finally to discover everywhere that Paul clarified the doctrines\nwhich he took over and transformed them into ethico-religious teaching\nand subjective experience. From \u201cthe edifice of\neschatologico-enthusiastic thought, most closely connected with it but\nunmistakable in its distinctive character,\u201d he sees, to his\nsatisfaction, \u201cthe spiritual life of the new religion\u201d showing forth.\n\nHere also, therefore, as with Wernle and Weinel, there is conscious\nand intentional modernisation, in order to discover the religion of\nPaul behind his theology.\n\nOne difference there is, however. The others brought to this\nundertaking a certain na\u00efvet\u00e9 and enthusiasm which enabled them to see\nthe modern and the historical the one in the other. Titius is an\nobserver with a keen eye for the really historical. He holds past and\npresent side by side but separate, and must apply a mighty effort of\nwill and understanding and do violence to his feelings in order to\nbring them into connexion. Out of these inner pangs a book has come to\nthe birth which in matters of detail is full of just and suggestive\nremarks, but as a whole is unsatisfactory.\n\nThe problem of the relation of Paul to Jesus stands for Titius and\nFeine as the foreground of the interest. Both hold the view that the\nconnexion is a much closer one than criticism had hitherto been\nprepared to admit. The indifference which the Apostle professes\nregarding \u201cChrist after the flesh\u201d is not to be understood in the\nsense that he had no concern with His teaching. In his detailed\nmonograph Feine endeavours to prove that Paul shows himself familiar\nwith the words and thoughts of the historic Jesus, and in his\neschatology, doctrine of redemption, ethics, attitude towards the law,\nand conception of baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, only carries to a\nfurther [pg 159] point of development what is already present or\nfore-shadowed in the teaching of Jesus. Titius set himself the same\ntask, and believes himself to have proved \u201cto how great an extent the\nApostle bases his views on the thoughts of Jesus, attaches himself to\nthem, and further develops them.\u201d_(_122_)_\n\nThis result is opposed by Maurice Goguel,_(_123_)_ who offers a\nthoroughgoing defence of the usual view. He is prepared to admit that\nPaul knew more of the life and teaching of Jesus than his Epistles\nshow; but a fundamental difference in doctrine is, he thinks, not to\nbe denied, and he finds that it consists in the fact that the one\npreaches \u201csalvation,\u201d the other the way of obtaining it. In his\nutterances about redemption through the death and resurrection of\nChrist, the parousia, Christology, Church and sacraments, Paul\nexpresses, according to Goguel, views which go much beyond the horizon\nof the historical Jesus. A point of contact is only to be found in the\nsimple ethical teaching. In reference to the law, Jesus prepared the\nway for what the Apostle of the Gentiles accomplished, without fully\nmeasuring the far-reaching consequences of his attitude.\n\nThe problem which theology since the time of Baur had always avoided\nnow therefore came at last to discussion. Goguel\u2019s essay did not\nindeed greatly elucidate the matter. That the thesis of Feine and\nTitius goes far beyond what the material warrants was not difficult to\nprove. On the other hand, it had, in justice, to be conceded to them\nthat they had shown that there was [pg 160] something in common\nbetween the fundamental conceptions of Jesus and Paul on which\nsufficient stress had not previously been laid.\n\nGoguel\u2019s sharp antitheses are at first sight more convincing than the\nsomewhat involved argument of Feine, because he has the direct\nevidence of the text on his side. The difficulty, however, immediately\nmakes itself felt when he endeavours to make it intelligible exactly\nwhy Paul was forced to create new conceptions. He cannot point to any\nobjective factors to account for this development, and is consequently\nreduced to explaining everything psychologically.\n\nFrom this exceedingly complicated controversy one thing results with\ncertainty, namely, that the problem, in the form in which it is\nstated, is an unreal one. The statement of the problem which is here\npresupposed leaves out of account the middle term, primitive\nChristianity.\n\nThe credit of having expressed this clearly, and thus put an end to\nthe unprofitable wrangling about \u201cJesus and Paul\u201d and \u201cJesus or Paul,\u201d\nbelongs to Harnack._(_124_)_ If, he writes in the 1909 edition of his\n\u201cHistory of Dogma,\u201d even in the first generation the religion of Jesus\nunderwent a change, it must be said that it was not Paul who was\nresponsible for this but the primitive Christian community. He is not,\nhowever, able to explain why the Apostle of the Gentiles goes still\nfurther than the primitive community.\n\nThe question of the peculiarly inconsistent attitude of the Apostle\ntowards the law is not elucidated by Titius and Feine.\n\nThe ethics are treated in monographs by Jakoby and Juncker._(_125_)_\nThe former gives a detailed description. [pg 161] The latter tries to\ndiscover the fundamental principle, and naturally finds himself\nobliged to deal with the whole doctrine of redemption. In the method\nwhich he applies he recalls Titius. With historical insight he\nrecognises, in his fine chapter upon the origin of the new life, that\nall the ethical conceptions of Paul are in one way or another of an\neschatological and \u201cphysical\u201d character. Later on he falls a victim to\nthe temptation to modernise.\n\nThus he tries, for instance, to show that Paul did not think of the\ninfluence of the Spirit in man as analogous to a physical process,\nbut, on the contrary, \u201cregarded the feeling of thankful love towards\nGod and Christ as the subjective root of the new way of life.\u201d So that\nwe find here, too, the dread of recognising anything objective in the\nApostle\u2019s views and the tendency, not indeed to fall into the\n\u201cone-sidedly intellectual view,\u201d but to bring into the foreground the\n\u201cspecifically religious estimate of the Apostle\u2019s person and gospel.\u201d\n\nIt is no accident that the scholars of this period are so anxious to\ndistinguish between theology and religion. This expedient covers\ndismay and apprehension.\n\nMeanwhile the study of Late Judaism had been going its own way. The\nfurther it advanced the more evident it became that this was the soil\non which the theology of Paul had grown up. Holtzmann\u2019s New Testament\nTheology had not availed to render theological science proof against\nthe assaults which it was to experience in the next few years from\nthis direction. The impression was too strong to be escaped. And when\nthe results [pg 162] of the study were presented, with a certain\nprovisional completeness, in Bousset\u2019s powerful book on \u201cJewish\nReligious Life in New Testament Times,\u201d it became certain that the\napprehension had not been unfounded._(_126_)_\n\nThe na\u00efve spiritualisation of the theology as practised by Holsten,\nPfleiderer, and Holtzmann\u2014by the latter no longer quite na\u00efvely,\u2014was\nover and done with._(_127_)_ The recognition of a \u201cphysical\u201d_(_128_)_\naspect in Paul\u2019s expectations of the future was no longer sufficient.\nIt had to be [pg 163] admitted that his doctrine of redemption as a\nwhole bore this character, and that the fundamental strain in his\nmysticism was not ethical but physical, as L\u00fcdemann had declared as\nlong ago as 1872 without suspecting the far-reaching consequences of\nhis observation.\n\nThe only question now was how much had to be conceded to this alien\nsystem of thought which was endeavouring to draw Paul within its\nborders, and how much could be saved from it.\n\nIn this quandary theologians had recourse to the expedient of applying\nthe distinction between \u201ctheoretical\u201d (theological) and \u201creligious\u201d to\nthe doctrine of the Apostle, as Holtzmann had already tried to do when\nhe could no longer refuse to recognise its Gnostic, intellectualistic\ncharacter.\n\nThe position became especially critical in view of the concessions\nwhich had to be made regarding the Pauline conception of baptism and\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper. Up to this time, that chapter had given little\ntrouble to theological science. It had been taken for granted that at\nbottom it could only be a question of symbolism. The doctrine of\nredemption on its ethical side found, it was thought, in the sacred\nceremonies its cultual expression.\n\nHoltzmann, too, in the section on \u201cMystical Conceptions\u201d_(_129_)_\n_(Mysteri\u00f6ses)_ had still to all intents and purposes taken the same\nground. Baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper are, he explains, in the first\nplace, acts of confession by which the death of the Lord is\nproclaimed. To this has to be added, in the case of the Lord\u2019s Supper,\nthe significance of a communion meal, and in the case of baptism the\nvalue of a symbolic act. It creates, according to Romans vi., a\nmystical fellowship with the buried and risen Christ. \u201cThe outward\nsymbol of complete immersion signifies and represents the\ndisappearance of the old, fleshly man, the coming forth out of the\nwater represents the forthgoing of a new, spiritual man.\u201d\n\nPaul, Holtzmann thinks, puts the content of his [pg 164] \u201cexperience\u201d\ninto this ceremonial act, and thereby cuts it loose from the earlier\nview which had arisen from its connexion with John the Baptist.\nStrictly speaking, he transforms both the cultus-acts, by bringing his\nnew conception of Christianity into connexion with them in order to\ngive it cultual expression.\n\nProbably\u2014we are still following Holtzmann\u2014he did this under the\nguidance of analogies which he found in the Mystery-religions of the\nperiod. The expressions which he uses at any rate remind us sometimes\nof the language which is associated with them. This, then, was the\npoint from which the later transformation began. \u201cIt was, in fact,\nPaul who from an outlying, one might almost say a remote point of his\nsystem of thought, opened up for the early Catholic Church a road\nwhich it would, indeed, most probably have followed even without this\nprecedent, which was given, as it were, merely incidentally and\ncasually.\u201d\n\nIt is interesting to observe precisely what views are intended to be\nexcluded by these guarded explanations. Holtzmann is concerned to\nemphasise the view that baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper have in the\nApostle\u2019s doctrine a rather subordinate importance, and that they are\nnot real sacraments but quasi-sacramental acts. He deliberately avoids\nthe plain issue, on which after all everything really depends, whether\nbaptism and the Supper effect redemption or only represent it.\n\nBut those who came after him were obliged to raise this question, and\nso far as they were willing to respect the documents were obliged to\nanswer that the sacraments not only represent but effect redemption.\nWernle remarks regretfully that the cultus-acts have in Paul a much\ngreater importance than one would be inclined to expect, and that in\ncertain passages he tolerates or even suggests \u201cpagan\u201d views. Weinel\nis obliged to admit that alongside of the religion of inwardness which\nhe has discovered in the Apostle\u2019s teaching, a sacramental religion,\nwhich is inherently opposed to it, from time to [pg 165] time appears.\n\u201cSometimes,\u201d he writes, \u201cit is faith that brings the Spirit, sometimes\nbaptism, sometimes it is faith that unites with Christ, sometimes the\nLord\u2019s Supper.\u201d Titius feels himself obliged to give up the symbolical\ninterpretation of Romans vi., which for Holtzmann still forms a fixed\ndatum, and admits that the atmosphere of this chapter is\n\u201csupranaturalistic,\u201d and that the baptism there referred to is a real\nbaptism into the death of Christ and an equally real partaking in His\nresurrection. Feine, in _Jesus Christus and Paulus,_ insists that the\nsacramental character of the cultus-acts described by Paul should be\nuniversally acknowledged.\n\nHeitm\u00fcller, in his work on \u201cBaptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper in Paul\u2019s\nWritings,\u201d_(_130_)_ gives the old and the new view side by side, and\nshows that it is the latter which alone is justified by the documents.\nThe mystical connexion which in baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper is set\nup between the believer and Christ is a \u201cphysico-hyperphysical one,\u201d\nand has as its consequence that the believer shares _realiter_ in the\ndeath and resurrection of Christ.\n\nFor the liberal conception of Paulinism this was a blow at the heart.\nIf redemption is effected through the sacraments, these are no longer\nan \u201coutlying point\u201d in the Apostle\u2019s doctrine, but lie at its centre.\nAnd at the same time the distinction between \u201ctheoretical\u201d\n(theological) and \u201creligious\u201d is rendered impossible. A doctrine of\nredemption which is thus bound up with Mysteries which work in a\nphysico-hyperphysical way is in its essence purely\nsupernaturalistic._(_131_)_\n\n[pg 166]\n\nThe courage of theological thinkers was put to a severe test. When\nBaur and his followers made their profession of faith in unbiassed\nfree investigation they could have had no inkling that it would become\nso difficult for a later generation to remain true to this principle.\n\nTo give up the distinction between \u201ctheoretical\u201d and religious and to\nfollow a purely historical method meant, as things stood at the\nbeginning of the twentieth century, to be left with an entirely\ntemporally conditioned Paulinism, of which modern ways of thought\ncould make nothing, and to trace out a system which for our religion\nis dead.\n\nAt this crisis theology encountered in William Wrede a candid friend\nwho sought to keep it in the path of sincerity. His _Paulus,_ short\nand written in such a way as to be universally intelligible, appeared\nin the year 1904._(_132_)_\n\nThe \u201ctheology,\u201d he writes, is in Paul not to be separated from the\n\u201creligion.\u201d His religion is through and through theological; his\ntheology is his religion.\n\nThe theory which Holtzmann introduced in his \u201cNew Testament Theology,\u201d\nand which Wernle, Weinel, Heitm\u00fcller, Titius, and the rest had\ndeveloped, thus came to an untimely end before it had left its nonage.\nIt survived only seven years.\n\nAnd then the second expedient\u2014that Paul had thought out no system, but\njust put down his thoughts in any kind of fortuitous order\u2014is set\naside. The framework of the doctrine of redemption, Wrede declares, is\nvery closely articulated. Further, it is not really complicated, but\nis at bottom quite simple, if once we take account of the\nthought-material out of which it is constructed and take the most\ngeneral conceptions as the starting-point.\n\nRedemption\u2014this is, according to Wrede, Paul\u2019s train [pg 167] of\nthought\u2014is not something which takes place in the individual as such,\nas the later Christian view was, but signifies a universal event in\nwhich the individual has a part.\n\nIt consists in the deliverance of mankind from the dominion of the\npowers which hold sway over this world. These powers have been\ndestroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus, as will become\nmanifest at the parousia. Thus redemption is essentially an insurance\nfor this future.\n\nBut it is even in the present real, though not visible. Christ is the\nrepresentative of the human race. What happened to Him, happened to\nall.\n\n\u201cAll men are therefore from the moment of His death set free, as He is\nHimself, from the hostile powers; and all are by His resurrection\ntransferred into a condition of indestructible life.\u201d The proof of\nthis change is given by the Spirit. He represents in the redeemed the\nsuper-earthly life, as a \u201cgift of the last times in which the powers\nof the world to come already exercise an influence upon the present\nexistence.\u201d\n\nThis wholly \u201cobjective\u201d conception of redemption is, Wrede admits, for\nour modern modes of thought rather impersonal and cold. \u201cIt takes\nplace in a way which is wholly external to the individual man, and the\nevents seem, as it were, to be only enacted in Christ.\u201d\n\nRedemption is effected in the sacraments. \u201cThe \u2018physical\u2019\ntransformation is effected by physical processes.\u201d Paul\u2019s thought\nmoves, therefore, among crude, unsubtilised conceptions.\n\nHis statements about justification by faith and about the law are\nbased upon this fundamental view, and represent merely the\n\u201ccontroversial teaching\u201d to which he was forced in order to maintain\nthe cause of freedom from the law.\n\nThe material of his world of thought was, therefore, Jewish. What was\nthe transformation by which it became Christian?\n\n[pg 168]\n\nPaul\u2019s conception of the Christ_(_133_)_ was fully formed before he\ncame to believe in Jesus. At his conversion, by the vision on the road\nto Damascus, the only new element that he took up into his conception\nwas that this heavenly being had temporarily assumed a human form of\nexistence in order by His death and resurrection to redeem mankind and\nto bring in the new order of things. An influence of the teaching of\nJesus upon the theology of the Apostle to the Gentiles is not to be\nrecognised. Wrede makes the gap between the two as wide as possible,\nand insists that Paul\u2019s gospel must be considered as independent of,\nand essentially different in character from, that of Jesus.\n\nThe Apostle\u2019s adoption of the view that the end of the law had come,\nis, according to Wrede, partly due to his experiences at his\nconversion, partly to the exigencies of the mission to the Gentiles.\n\nOf the value and the remarkable literary beauty of the book it is\nimpossible to say too much. It belongs, not to theology, but to the\nliterature of the world.\n\nBut one must not, in one\u2019s admiration, forget justice. What is here\nset forth is not absolutely new. A view of a similar character, and\nmore closely reasoned, had been put forward by\nKabisch\u2014Kabisch,_(_134_)_ whom theologians had passed over in complete\nsilence, because they did not know what to make of him. Wrede does\nnothing else than to give to the presentation of the latter\u2019s\ndiscoveries the advantage of his literary skill, while at the same\ntime showing that the separation of \u201ctheory\u201d (theology) and \u201creligion\u201d\nwhich had barred the way to their acceptance is not tenable. There is\none thing which is to be regretted in Wrede\u2019s book, and that is that\nthe terse popular method of presentation forbids any detailed\ndiscussion of the problems. If the author had worked [pg 169] out his\narguments thoroughly, and replied to his opponents and predecessors,\nhe would have been obliged to face many questions which, as it was,\ndid not force themselves upon him.\n\nWhat are the points that remain obscure?\n\nWrede proposes to conceive the possibility of redemption in such a way\nthat \u201cmankind,\u201d in view of Christ\u2019s solidarity with the race by virtue\nof His earthly life, has a part in His death and resurrection. This\nview is, in this form, untenable. In Paul, salvation has not reference\nto mankind as a whole, but only to the elect. It is also questionable\nwhether the idea of racial solidarity suffices to explain how the\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus can realise themselves in other men.\n\nWhat is the basis of the mystical union with Christ? To this question\nWrede has given no answer.\n\nThen, too, the inconsistent attitude of Paul towards the law was not\nexplained by him. He does not even succeed in showing how the Apostle\narrived at the idea that the law was no longer valid. The suggestion\nthat it was in part through his experience at his conversion, in part\nthrough the exigencies of the mission to the Gentiles, is a mere\nexpedient. Unless it is possible to explain Paul\u2019s attitude, with all\nits inner contradictions, as a logical and necessary conclusion from\nhis system as a whole, it remains for us practically\nunexplained._(_135_)_\n\nAgain, Wrede gives no scheme of the events of the End, although such a\nscheme obviously belongs to the \u201csystem.\u201d\n\nIt is not explained, either, how the death of Jesus can be interpreted\nat the same time as taking place for the forgiveness of sins. In\ngeneral, the relation between the essential theology, as laid down in\nthe mystical doctrine of redemption, and the \u201ccontroversial doctrines\u201d\nis not clear.\n\n[pg 170]\n\nIn regard to the question of the relation of Paul to Jesus, Wrede\nholds that they lived in two wholly different worlds of thought. This\nis connected with his view that the Galilaean Master made no claim to\nthe Messiahship, but was first raised to Messianic dignity after His\ndeath, and that this claim was then projected back into the Gospels in\nthe form that Jesus had made His rank known to His disciples only, and\nhad enjoined upon them to keep silence until after His death._(_136_)_\nHis preaching was, above all things, ethical. So far as concerns\neschatology and the meaning to be attached to His death, the Apostle\nof the Gentiles received no impulse of a theological character from\nHim.\n\nPaul, therefore, created something essentially new, which has, one\nmight almost say, nothing to do with the thought of Jesus, and also\ngoes far beyond the conceptions of primitive Christianity._(_137_)_\n\nThus for Wrede, as for Holsten and Holtzmann, the doctrine of Paul is\nan isolated entity without connexion in the past or influence upon the\nfuture. And he, too, finds himself unable to explain why the system\nthus remained without influence. That the \u201ccontroversial theology,\u201d\nwith its insistence on the atoning death, lost its significance when\nthe question of the law ceased to be actual may appear plausible. But\nwhy did the mystical doctrine of redemption get pushed aside instead\nof being further developed? Its presuppositions\u2014if Wrede\u2019s account of\n[pg 171] matters is correct\u2014could hardly have been much altered in the\nnext generation.\n\nA valuable supplement in many respects to Wrede\u2019s views is offered by\nMartin Br\u00fcckner\u2019s study of the origin of the Pauline\nChristology._(_138_)_\n\nThe author offers a detailed proof that the Pauline Christology arose\nby the insertion of the earthly episode of the incarnation, dying and\nrising again into the already present conception of a pre-existent\nheavenly Personality._(_139_)_ Incidentally he gives an admirably\nclear account of the Jewish eschatology and its formation._(_140_)_\n\nHe shows that the Jewish eschatology itself, in the Apocalypses of\nEzra and Baruch, distinguished between the temporally limited\nMessianic Kingdom and the subsequent complete renewal of the world,\nand that, in conformity with this, two resurrections have to be\nrecognised. One, in which only a limited number have a part, takes\nplace at the appearance of the Messiah; the other, the general\nresurrection, only follows at the end of the intervening Kingdom. The\nscene of the latter was pictured, he thinks, by Paul, as by his Jewish\npredecessors, as the land of Palestine, with the New Jerusalem as its\ncentre.\n\nIt is interesting to notice how Wrede and Br\u00fcckner, without themselves\nremarking it, have refuted one of the weightiest objections of the\nUltra-T\u00fcbingen critics. [pg 172] The latter had asserted that it was\nimpossible that the process of deification of the Person of Jesus\ncould have reached its completion within a few years, and had claimed\nfor it at least two generations. Now, however, it is shown that it is\nnot this process at all, but another, which could take place in a\nmoment, which has to be considered, since it is only a question of the\ntaking up of the episode of the incarnation, death, and resurrection\ninto the already present and living conception of the Messiah.\n\nThe immediate effect of Wrede\u2019s presentation of matters was that\nwriters ventured more confidently to accept the \u201cphysical\u201d view of the\nPauline doctrine of redemption, and that the distinction between\n\u201ctheory\u201d (theology) and religion, where writers could not make up\ntheir minds to do without it, was applied with moderation._(_141_)_\n\n[pg 173]\n\nBut he did not succeed in forcing on a thorough revision of previous\nviews. Harnack, for instance, in the 1909 edition of the \u201cHistory of\nDogma\u201d stands by his account of 1893, unshaken._(_142_)_\n\nReinhold Seeberg_(_143_)_ undertook in 1908 a very interesting attempt\nto walk in new paths, but does not deal with Wrede and his problems.\nHe holds to the view that the Apostle did not create \u201ca unified\nsystem,\u201d but that his thought moved amid a number of different sets of\nideas, which for him were held together by \u201creligion as an\nexperience.\u201d\n\nThis neglect of Wrede\u2019s work does not mean anything; it was simply\nthat the history of dogma could make nothing of his view. It is\nsignificant, however, that among those who accepted his view in\nsubstance, no one made the attempt to carry it to victory by a\ncomprehensive presentation of it on an adequate scale.\n\nThe cause of this lies in the peculiar difficulties which lie\nconcealed in the scheme which he sketched out.\n\nThe fact is that the \u201cphysical\u201d element which is to be recognised in\nPaul\u2019s doctrine is neither all of one piece nor wholly to be explained\nfrom Late Judaism. Strictly [pg 174] speaking, it takes three\ndifferent forms, of which one is peculiar to the eschatology, another\nto the mystical doctrine of redemption, and the third to the\nsacraments.\n\nThe \u201cmaterialism\u201d of the conception of redemption which is directed\ntowards the future has to do with super-earthly powers, with judgment,\nbodily resurrection and transformation.\n\nSomewhat different is the \u201crealism\u201d of the mystical doctrine of the\nnew creation, which asserts that believers here and now experience\ndeath and resurrection in fellowship with Christ, and so put on,\nbeneath the earthly exterior which conceals it, a nature essentially\nimmune from corruption.\n\nDifferent from this conception again is the sacramental, inasmuch as\nit represents in some inexplicable fashion an externalisation of it.\nWhat, according to the mystical doctrine, seemed to take place by\nitself without being connected with an external act, is here to be\nthought of as the effect of eating and drinking, and cleansing with\nwater. The sacramental conception is a magical conception.\n\nOf these three varieties of the \u201cphysical,\u201d only the first can be\nimmediately explained from Late Judaism. For the two others it offers\nno analogy. Late Judaism remained true to its Judaic character in\nknowing nothing of either mysticism or sacraments.\n\nOn the other hand, these three varieties of the \u201cphysical\u201d in Paul\u2019s\ndoctrine of redemption do not stand side by side unrelated, but seem\nto be somehow connected in such a way that the eschatological element\ndominates and supplies the basis of the other two. The most obvious\nprocedure would have been to attempt to derive the mystical and\nsacramental conceptions from the eschatological, as being the\nroot-conception.\n\nA beginning in this direction had been made by Kabisch when he\nattempted to exhibit the connexion between eschatology and the\nmystical doctrine of the real dying and rising again with\nChrist._(_144_)_\n\n[pg 175]\n\nBut in doing so he did not take into account the sacraments. It was\njust these, however, which seemed to make it _a priori_ impossible to\nexplain Paulinism exclusively on the basis of Late Judaism. Therefore\nWrede and his followers seek other sources. They try to explain the\nsystem, not solely from the side of eschatology, but from that of\n\u201cComparative Religion,\u201d and hold that it betrays the influence not\nonly of Late-Jewish but also of Oriental ideas generally, such as are\nfound in the Mystery-religions.\n\nNo doubt the first question which here arises is whether the methods\nof Comparative Religion are essentially applicable to the explanation\nof Paulinism.\n\nTo apply the methods of Comparative Religion means to study the\nindividual religions, not in isolation, but with the purpose of\ninvestigating the mutual influences which they have openly or covertly\nexercised on one another.\n\nAt bottom, therefore, it is a necessary outcome of the application of\nscientific methods generally, and it only received a special name\nbecause theological scholarship so long shut its doors against it.\n\nUnder this distinctive name the method attained to influence and\nhonour in connexion with the critical study of the Old Testament and\nthe Graeco-Oriental cults. In the former department of study it made\nan end of the prepossession that Judaism had developed entirely by its\nown inner impulses, and showed how much material of a generally\nOriental character it had adopted. In particular it showed that\nLate-Jewish Apocalyptic is full of conceptions from the Babylonian and\nthe Irano-Zarathustrian religions, and represents a combination of\nuniversal cosmological speculations with the future-hope of the\nancient Jewish prophetism._(_145_)_\n\nIn the comparative study of the heathen religions it became apparent\nthat the Mystery-religions, which [pg 176] entered on their conquering\nprogress westwards about the same time as Christian Gnosticism,\ncombined Greek religious feeling and a Greek cosmogony with Oriental\ncultus-ideas.\n\nIn both these cases it is a question of contacts and influences which\nwere due to political and cultural relations, and produced their\neffect in the course of extended periods of time and under favourable\nhistorical circumstances. The method cannot simply be applied without\nmore ado to the explanation of the ideas of an individual man, since\nmost of its presuppositions would not here be valid. In the case of\nreligions, syncretism can work its way in and develop; in the case of\nindividuals it can only be recognised in a very limited degree. The\ntaking over and remoulding of foreign conceptions is a process\nrequiring numbers and time. The individual comes into question only so\nfar as he is organically united with a community which is active in\nthis way, and allows its instincts to influence him.\n\nPaul belongs to Late Judaism. Whatever he received in the way of\ninfluences such as Comparative Religion takes account of came to him\nmainly through this channel. The suggestion that apart from this he\nmight be personally and directly affected by \u201cOriental\u201d influences\ncalls for very cautious consideration. In particular we ought to be\nvery careful to guard against raising this possibility to a certainty\nby general considerations regarding all that the child of the Diaspora\nmight have seen, heard, and read. The question can only be decided by\nwhat we actually find in the Epistles.\n\nIt is further to be remarked that Late Judaism was no longer in his\ntime so open to external influences that any and every kind of\nreligious conception which was floating about anywhere in the Orient\ncould necessarily impose itself on Paul\u2019s mind through this medium.\nThe period of assimilation was, speaking generally, at an end. The new\nmaterial had been\u2014before Paul\u2019s day\u2014worked up along with the old into\na set of Apocalyptic conceptions, [pg 177] which, in spite of the\nelbow-room which the heterogeneous ideas necessarily claimed for\nthemselves, did form a system, and appeared from without as relatively\ncomplete and self-sufficing. The Oriental material has been poured\ninto Jewish moulds and received a Jewish impress.\n\nA still further point is that any one whose thought moves in the\nApocalyptic system created by the books of Daniel and Enoch is not so\nmuch exposed to, as withdrawn from, the action of free Oriental\ninfluence. He is already saturated with those elements in regard to\nreceptivity which the Jewish mind possesses and the tendency to\nassimilation, and possesses it not as something foreign to himself but\nas Jewish. Apocalyptic tends to produce in him immunisation as against\nfurther syncretistic infection.\n\nThis assertion is susceptible of historical proof. Late Judaism\nstands, even before the beginning of our era, apart from the Oriental\nreligious movements. And it continues unaffected by them. Not one of\nits representatives was concerned in the syncretistic movement. Philo\nseeks to rationalise Judaism by the aid of Platonico-Stoic philosophy,\nbut he gives no place to the religious and cultural ideas by which he\nwas surrounded in Egypt. It is as though they had no existence for\nhim.\n\nTo apply the comparative method to Paul would, therefore, generally\nspeaking, mean nothing more or less than to explain him on the basis\nof Late Judaism. Those who give due weight to the eschatological\ncharacter of his doctrine and to the problems and ideas which connect\nit with works like the Apocalypse of Ezra are the true exponents of\n\u201cComparative Religion,\u201d even though they may make no claim to this\ntitle. Any one who goes beyond this and tries to bring Paul into\ndirect connexion with the Orient as such commits himself to the\nperilous path of scientific adventure.\n\nConsiderations of that kind were not taken into account by Wrede and\nhis followers. But even if they had become conscious of the\ndifficulties in the way of the application of the method to Paul, they\ncould not have acted otherwise. [pg 178] In spite of all theoretical\nwarnings this path had to be followed.\n\nIf once the mystical doctrine of the dying and rising again with\nChrist is recognised to be \u201cphysical,\u201d and the view of baptism and the\nSupper to be sacramental, and if it is a further datum of the question\nthat Late Judaism knows nothing of mysticism or sacraments; and if one\nis not content to assume that the Apostle has created or invented this\nnon-Jewish element out of his inner consciousness; there is at first\nsight no alternative but to make the attempt to explain it from\nconceptions and suggestions which are supposed to have come into it\nfrom without, from some form or other of Oriental syncretism.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 179]\n\nVII\n\n\nPAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION\n\n\n_Gustav Anrich._ Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das\nChristentum. (The Ancient Mysteries in their Influence on\nChristianity.) 1894.\n\n_Martin Br\u00fcckner._ Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den\norientalischen Religionen und ihr Verh\u00e4ltnis zum Christentum. (The\nSaviour-God who dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and\ntheir Relation to Christianity.) 1908.\n\n_Karl Clemen._ Religionsgeschichtliche Erkl\u00e4rung des Neuen Testaments.\n(An Explanation of the New Testament on the basis of Comparative\nReligion.) 1909.\n\n_Franz Cumont._ Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra. 1899. (E. T. by T. J.\nMcCormack, 1903.) Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain.\n1906.\n\n_Adolf Deissmann._ Licht vom Osten. 1908. (E. T. by L. R. M. Strachan,\n\u201cLight from the Ancient East,\u201d 1910.) Die Urgeschichte des\nChristentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung. (The Early History of\nChristianity in the Light of Linguistic Research.) 1910.\n\n_Albrecht Dieterich._ Abraxas. 1891. Nekyia. 1893. Eine\nMithrasliturgie. 1903.\n\n_Arthur Drews._ Die Christusmythe. 1909. (E. T. by C. D. Burns.)\n\n_Albert Eichhorn._ Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament. (The Lord\u2019s\nSupper in the New Testament.) 1898.\n\n_Johannes Geffken._ Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums. (From the\nFormative Period of Christianity), 2nd ed., 1909.\n\n_P. Gennrich._ Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in der\ndogmengeschichtlichen und religionsgeschichtlichen Betrachtung. (The\nDoctrine of Regeneration . . . from the point of view of the History\nof Dogma and of Comparative Religion.) 1907.\n\n_Otto Gruppe._ Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu\nden orientalischen Religionen. (The Greek Cults and Myths in their\nRelation to the Oriental Religions), vol. i., 1887. Griechische\nMythologie und Religionsgeschichte. (Greek Mythology and Comparative\nReligion), 2 vols., 1906.\n\n_Hermann Gunkel._ Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst\u00e4ndnis des Neuen\nTestaments. (Contributions to the Understanding of the New Testament\nfrom the point of view of Comparative Religion.) 1903.\n\n[pg 180]\n\n_Adolf Harnack._ Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den\nersten drei Jahrhunderten, vol. i., 1906. (E. T. by J. Moffatt, \u201cThe\nMission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,\u201d\n2nd ed., 1908.)\n\n_Hugo Hepding._ Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult. (Attis, his Myths\nand Cultus.) 1903.\n\n_W. Heitm\u00fcller._ Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. (Baptism and the\nLord\u2019s Supper in Paul\u2019s Teaching.) 1903.\n\nIm Namen Jesu. Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung\nzum neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe. 1903. (In the\nName of Jesus. A Study of the New Testament from the point of view of\nthe History of Language and of Comparative Religion, with Special\nReference to Early Christian Baptism.)\n\n_Adolf Jacoby._ Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum.\n(The Ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity.) 1910.\n\n_Georg Mau._ Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden\nauf K\u00f6nig Helios und die G\u00f6ttermutter. (The Emperor Julian\u2019s\nPhilosophy of Religion as shown in his Orations on King Helios and the\nDea Mater.) 1908.\n\n_Max Maurenbrecher._ Von Jerusalem nach Rom. (From Jerusalem to Rome.)\n1910.\n\n_Salomon Reinach._ Cultes, mythes et religions. (1905-1906-1908.)\n\nRichard Reitzenstein. Poimandres. 1904.\n\nDie hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre Grundgedanken und\nWirkungen. (The Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Their fundamental Ideas\nand their Influence.) 1910.\n\n_E. Rohde._ Psyche. 1894. 3rd ed. 1903, 2 vols.\n\n_H. R. Roscher._ Lexikon der griechisch-r\u00f6mischen Mythologie. (Lexicon\nof Graeco-Roman Mythology.) 3 vols. 1884-1909.\n\n_Ernst Eduard Schwartz._ Paulus. Charakterk\u00f6pfe aus der antiken\nLiteratur. (Character Sketches from Ancient Literature.) 1910.\n\nW. B. Smith. Der vorchristliche Jesus nebst weiteren Vorstudien zur\nEntstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums. (The pre-Christian Jesus,\nwith other Preliminary Studies for a History of the Origin and Growth\nof Christianity.)\n\n_Wilhelm Soltau._ Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen\nKirche. (The Survival of Paganism in the Early Christian Church.)\n1906.\n\n_Hermann Usener._ Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. (Studies in\nComparative Religion.) 1889; 1899.\n\n_Paul Wendland._ Die hellenistisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur in ihren\nBeziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum. (Hellenistic-Roman\nCivilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity.) 1907.\n\n_Paul Wernle._ Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion. 1901. (E. T. by G. A.\nBienemann, \u201cThe Beginnings of Christianity,\u201d 1903.)\n\n_Georg Wobbermin._ Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der\nBeeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen.\n(Studies in Comparative Religion with reference to the Question of the\nInfluence of the Ancient Mysteries on Primitive Christianity.) 1896.\n\n[pg 181]\n\n\nTO the Bonn philologist Hermann Usener belongs the credit of having\nbeen the first to bring the Comparative Study of the pagan religions\nas they existed at the beginning of the Christian era into contact\nwith theological science._(_146_)_ In E. Rohde\u2019s _Psyche_ the Greek\nand late-Greek conceptions regarding ghost-worship and immortality\nwere introduced to a wider circle of readers.\n\nA generally intelligible survey of the cults which come into question\nis offered by Franz Cumont in his work on the Oriental religions in\nRoman paganism._(_147_)_\n\nIt was Phrygia in Asia Minor which gave to the world the worship of\nAttis and the Dea Mater; from Egypt came that of Isis and Serapis;\nSyria supplied the great sun-god whom Heliogabalus and Aurelian, for\nreasons of [pg 182] state, proclaimed as the supreme divinity. The\nreligion of Mithra is of Persian origin.\n\nOf these cults, ancient literature, both pagan and Christian, has\npreserved some records, but it is only since discoveries of\ninscriptions and papyri have supplemented this information_(_148_)_\nthat any real understanding of the character and history of these\nreligions has become possible.\n\nThe myth on which the worship of Cybele and Attis is based has been\nhanded down in various and conflicting versions.\n\nSo much, however, is certain, that Attis, the beloved of the Dea\nMater, was represented as having been killed by a boar sent by Zeus,\nor by the jealous goddess herself. Every year in the spring-time there\ntook place at Pessinus the great orgiastic lamentation for him, which,\nhowever, ended with a joyful festival. It seems, therefore, as if a\nresurrection of the slain Attis was assumed to have taken place,\nalthough the myth had nothing to say about that, but only in some of\nthe versions related that he was changed into an evergreen fir tree.\n\nAt bottom it is a form of nature-worship, which shows a close\nrelationship with that of the Thracian Dionysus-Sabazios and with that\nof Adonis as worshipped at Byblos in Syria, and it has in some\nrespects undergone modification due to contact with these. The primary\nidea underlying both myth and cultus is the decay and revival of\nvegetable life.\n\nThe worship of Cybele and Attis penetrated to Rome as early as the\nyear 204 B.C. In the previous year the Sibylline books had given the\noracle that Hannibal would not be driven out of Italy until the sacred\nstone from Pessinus was brought to Rome. This was done; [pg 183] and\nthe Carthaginians vacated the country. The foreign divinities had a\ntemple assigned to them on the Palatine. But when the Senate came to\nknow of the orgiastic feast which was associated with their worship,\nit forbade the citizens to take part in it and placed the cult under\nstrict control. Thus, in spite of its official recognition, it led a\nsomewhat obscure existence until Claudius, by the public festival\nwhich he established for it\u2014which lasted from the 15th to the 27th\nMarch\u2014gave it a high position in public esteem.\n\nIn the deepening of its religious character which it underwent in\nbecoming associated with Greek religious feeling of the decadence\nperiod, the worship of Attis was brought into connexion with the\nthought of immortality. In the \u201cAgape,\u201d in which the partakers were\nhanded food in the \u201ctympanon\u201d and drink in the \u201ccymbalon,\u201d they were\ninitiated as \u201cmystae\u201d of Attis and thereby became partakers of a\nhigher life.\n\nMysteries were also celebrated in which a dying and rising again was\nsymbolised; and there were others based upon the thought of a union\nwith the divinity in the bridal chamber.\n\nFrom the middle of the second century onward the \u201ctaurobolium\u201d appears\nin connexion with the service of Cybele and Attis. This is a kind of\nblood-baptism. The \u201cmystes\u201d lies down in a pit, which is covered with\nboards. Through the interstices there trickles down on him the blood\nof a bull offered in sacrifice. The lamentation for the dead Attis\nsounds forth; the \u201cmystes\u201d applies it to himself. Then when the hymn\nof jubilation follows, he rises out of the grave as one who is now\ninitiate and deified._(_149_)_\n\nThe process by which the worship of Attis was transformed into a\nmystery-religion which gave guarantees of immortality remains for the\nmost part shrouded in obscurity. In view of the scantiness of our\ninformation [pg 184] we are thrown back upon hypothetical\nreconstruction for the details of the development and the significance\nof the mysteries._(_150_)_\n\nThe worship of Serapis was a creation of Ptolemy Soter, who desired to\nunite the Greek and Egyptian populations of his empire by the bond of\na common worship. The derivation of the word Serapis is uncertain.\nWhether it arose from Osiris-Apis or from the Chaldaean Sar-Aps\u00ee is a\ndebated point. The cultus language was Greek. Serapis was doubled with\nOsiris. The new cult went forth into the world as the religion of\nSerapis and Isis. In Rome it was vehemently opposed as being immoral;\nthe temples of Isis, who was identified with Venus, justified this\nreputation. It was not officially recognised until the time of\nCaligula. By this time it was, however, widely diffused wherever the\nGreek language was spoken. Its adherents were found chiefly among the\nslaves and freedmen. From the third century onwards it is\nover-shadowed by the worship of Mithra.\n\nThe myth, which was represented annually, makes the mourning Isis seek\nout the scattered fragments of the corpse of Osiris and raise a lament\nover it. Then the limbs are laid together and wound round with\nbandages, whereupon Thoth and Horus raise the slain Osiris to life\nagain, and this is announced amid jubilant outcries.\n\nIn the service of Osiris-Serapis the worshipper gains assurance of\neternal life. Therein consisted the attraction of this religion.\n\nThe early Egyptian doctrine was simple enough. After his resurrection\nOsiris became lord of the world [pg 185] and at the same time judge of\nthe dead. Those who at their trial before him are not approved fall a\nprey to destruction; others have eternal life with him in a realm\nbelow the earth.\n\nLife\u2014and this was the tremendously serious feature of this\nreligion\u2014was therefore regarded as a preparation for death. This is\nthe thought reflected in the mysteries, no doubt modelled on those of\nEleusis,_(_151_)_ which were attached to the Egyptian cultus after the\nworship of Serapis-Osiris had been ordained by authority. They\nrepresent the esoteric element. By means of the tests which he\nundergoes in the Serapeum, of the ecstasy which he experiences and the\nceremonies of initiation in which he takes part the believer wins his\nway, along with Osiris, from death to life, and acquires the assurance\nof eternal being.\n\nDistinct from these mysteries is the exoteric religion with its daily\nacts of worship. These consist in the unveiling, awaking, clothing,\nand feeding of the statues of the gods. The \u201cliturgy,\u201d which was\neverywhere punctiliously followed, is derived from the primitive\nEgyptian religion. Speaking generally, the exoteric form of the\nworship of Osiris could come to terms with any, even the lowest, forms\nof paganism.\n\nThe Syrian Baal-cults had no doubt from the second century onwards\nbecome widely diffused, and in the third century enjoyed the favour of\nthe Emperors. For the development of popular religion, however, they\nwere of less significance than the religions of Attis and Osiris,\nbecause they were not capable of becoming ennobled and deepened by the\nreligious yearnings of the Greek spirit.\n\nMithra was the father of the sun-god._(_152_)_ The origin of [pg 186]\nthe cult is obscure. It first became known through the pirates who\nwere taken prisoners by Pompey. It spread through the Roman armies\nwhich in the first century advanced towards the Euphrates; they took\nit over from their opponents. Thus Mithra was primarily a soldiers\u2019\ngod. With the legions he penetrated to the utmost bounds of the Roman\nEmpire. He therefore passed direct from the barbarians into the Roman\nworld without previously becoming at home in the Greek world. From the\nmiddle of the third century onwards the new cult spread so vigorously\nthat it was regarded as the strongest rival of Christianity.\n\nIn the intervening period, from the first century onward, it adopted\nin growing measure elements from all the other cults, and in this way\nbecame the universal \u201cworship.\u201d\n\nRegarding the myth, little is known; and in the cultus it played no\nspecial part. As the \u201cslayer of the bull\u201d Mithra doubtless belongs to\nthe class of star-gods, and represents the supreme sun-god.\n\nThe characteristic feature of this religion is its dualism. Mithra, as\nthe supreme, good god, is opposed by the powers of the evil\nunder-world. Hence the earnest character of its ethic, which is not\ncontemplative as in the Osiris cult, but active.\n\nThe secret of the power of this new faith lies indeed mainly in the\nimpulse to action which essentially belongs to it, and in the large\nand simple ethical life to which this conception of the divinity gives\nrise. The Mithra-religion, differing in this from the Egyptian cults,\nplaces the scene of eternal life in an upper realm of light and not in\nthe under-world. The supreme divinity himself guides the souls of\ndeparted believers through the seven planetary spheres to the land of\nthe blessed, and thus becomes their \u201cRedeemer.\u201d\n\nAs Mysteries there are observed here, as in other cults, sacred meals\nand baptismal rites. Above these again there was, according to\nDieterich, a supreme initiation, [pg 187] which represented a progress\nto the throne of Mithra. The actions and the formulae used in this\nceremony are, he thinks, preserved almost complete in the great\nParisian \u201cmagic\u201d papyrus. Dieterich, who is opposed on this point by\nCumont and Reitzenstein, denominates this document a \u201cMithra-liturgy,\u201d\nand supposes the prayers to be used in the course of the ascent which\nconducts the \u201cmystes\u201d from the world of the four elements through the\nstars to the realm of the gods, where, under the guidance of the\nsun-god, he passes through the heaven of the fixed stars and attains\nto the presence of the highest god._(_153_)_\n\nThis process he conceives as having been represented, as part of the\ncultus, in the Mithra-grottos, which is rendered not improbable by the\ndiscoveries of objects which might have to do with a _mise en sc\u00e8ne_\ncorresponding to this conception. In any case there was some\nsacramental representation of the heavenward journey of the soul\ntowards the attainment of immortality. It remains questionable\nwhether, as the supreme mystery which the religion possessed, it was\n\u201cexperienced\u201d by the believers only once, or had its regular place in\nthe cultus.\n\nThe prayers extol in lofty language re-birth from the mortal to the\nimmortal life. The invocation with which the \u201cmystes\u201d approaches\nMithra is highly impressive. \u201cHail to thee, lord, ruler of the water;\nhail to thee, stablisher of the earth; hail to thee, disposer of the\nspirit. Lord, I that am born again take my departure, being exalted on\nhigh, and since I am exalted, I die; born by the birth which engenders\nlife, I am redeemed unto death, [pg 188] and go the way which thou\nhast appointed, as thou hast made for a law and created the sacrament\n. . .\u201d_(_154_)_ Here the text breaks off. Perhaps later on the return\nof the initiate to earth was described. Dieterich, however, thinks\nthis improbable.\n\nAccording to Dieterich the liturgy arose in the second century, and\nbelongs to the Graeco-Egyptian Mithra-cult; about 200 A.D. it was\nannexed by the \u201cmagians\u201d and from that time forward was preserved\namong them; about 300 it was embodied in the Paris manuscript which\nhas come down to us.\n\nA valuable insight into the feelings and impressions associated with\nthe Mysteries is given by the Hermetic writings, preserved mainly in\n\u201cPoimandres.\u201d_(_155_)_ They profess to be derived from Hermes, who in\nthe thought of later times became the god of revelation, and in the\nprominence which they give to the philosophico-religious element they\nmark a stage in the development of Greek religious thought from the\nMystery-religions to Neo-Platonism. In their present form the\ndocuments of this later Hermetic religion, which is marked by a\ncertain profundity, doubtless belong to about the third century; but\nthe original form dates, perhaps, from before the beginning of the\nsecond century.\n\nThese are the cults and religions which have to be taken into account.\nThey are parallel to Christianity in so far that they, like it\u2014though\nin general doubtless somewhat later\u2014make their appearance in the\nancient world as religions of redemption. Certain analogies are not to\nbe denied. The only question is how far these go, and how far the\nMystery-religions really exercised an influence upon the views and the\n[pg 189] cultus-forms of the early, and especially of the primitive,\nchurch._(_156_)_\n\nThe first to examine the facts with any closeness was Anrich in his\nwork, \u201cThe Ancient Mysteries and their Influence on\nChristianity.\u201d_(_157_)_\n\nHe comes to the conclusion that both the Pauline and the Johannine\nviews of Christianity \u201care to be understood as in the main original\ncreations of the Christian spirit on the basis of genuine Judaism,\u201d\nand if they show the influence of Greek thought, it is at most in a\nsecondary fashion. There is, he asserts, \u201cno apparent reason to refer\nthe views on baptism and the communion-meal which meet us in the two\ncases to influences of the latter character.\u201d It is only at a later\ntime that a real influence comes into question.\n\n[pg 190]\n\nThis negative conclusion has since been much disputed. That the\nauthor, in accordance with the position of Pauline scholarship at that\nperiod, did not sufficiently take into account the \u201cphysical\u201d element\nin the mystical doctrine of redemption and in the conception of\nbaptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, and consequently does not give\nsufficient weight to the analogy between the religion of the Apostle\nof the Gentiles and that of the Mysteries, is certain. But it ought to\nbe recognised as equally certain that to many points he has given the\nprominence which they deserved, and that the students of Comparative\nReligion would have in many respects done better if they had allowed\ntheir bold advance to be somewhat checked by his prudent warnings, and\nhad learned something from him in regard to the formulation of the\nproblems.\n\nA point which ought to be more clearly grasped than it has hitherto\nbeen, in the investigation of Paul\u2019s relation to the\nMystery-religions, is that for purposes of comparison Paulinism must\nbe regarded as a distinct entity; very often Paul\u2019s doctrine has been\nincluded in the \u201cReligion of the New Testament\u201d or taken together with\nthe Johannine and the Early Greek theology. On this method only false\nresults can be looked for. Paulinism, and therein lies the special\nproblem which it offers to scholarship, is an original phenomenon\nwhich is wholly distinct from Greek theology.\n\nThis implies, too, that only the literal sense of the language of the\nEpistles must be considered, and that it is not permissible to\ninterpret it through the Johannine theology, as is almost always done.\nIt is nothing less than incredible that, to take the most flagrant\nexample, philologists like Dieterich and others in discussing\nPaulinism, always calmly talk about \u201cRe-birth,\u201d although in the\nEpistles which rank as certainly genuine, this word and the\ncorresponding verb never occur._(_158_)_ That [pg 191] many\ntheologians fall into the same confusion is no excuse._(_159_)_\n\nThe surprising thing is precisely that Paul, when he is speaking of\nthe transformation of the man into a new creature, always makes use of\nthe two words death and resurrection, and describes the new thing that\ncomes about as an already experienced resurrection, without ever\nintroducing the conception of re-birth which seems to lie so near at\nhand. In this limitation lies his as yet unexplained peculiarity, and\ntherewith the problem of his relation to Greek theology and, in\ngeneral, to everything that can be called Greek religious life.\n\nThe Johannine doctrine, that of the earlier Greek Fathers, and the\nMystery-religions, have this in common, that they make use of the\nconception of re-birth. In that, they show themselves to be growths of\nthe same soil, and stand together over against Paulinism. Any one who\ninterprets the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles in accordance\nwith the conception of re-birth, has, by the aid of the Johannine\ntheology, first conformed it to the Mystery-religions, and has himself\nintroduced the conception which forms the common basis.\n\nThe same procedure has been followed in regard to other points also.\nThe Paulinism which the students of Comparative Religion have in view\nis mainly an artificial product which has been previously treated with\nthe acids and reagents of Greek theology.\n\nAnother point which calls for close attention is the chronological\nquestion in connexion with the history of the Mystery-religions. It is\nfrom the beginning of the [pg 192] second century onwards that these\ncults become widely extended in the Roman empire. It is only at this\nperiod\u2014the worship of Serapis as an artificial Graeco-Egyptian\ncreation is perhaps an exception\u2014that they come under the influence of\nlate Greek religious thought and feeling, which developed with the\ndecline of the Stoa, and become transformed from imported cults into\nuniversal Mystery-religions. The dates and the inner course of this\ndevelopment are for us obscure. So much, however, is certain, that\nPaul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they\nare known to us, because in this fully-developed form they did not yet\nexist. Assuming the most favourable case, that from his youth up he\nhad had open eyes and ears for the heathen religions by which he was\nsurrounded, he can only have known the cults as they were in their\nuncompounded state, not as what they passed into when they became\nfilled with the Greek yearning for redemption, and mutually influenced\none another.\n\nConsiderations of this kind lead an authority like Cumont to insist\nagain and again upon the difficulties which stand in the way of\nassuming an influence of the Mystery-cults on the earliest\nChristianity._(_160_)_ Especially does he hold it to be quite\nimpossible that the Mithra-religion should have had any point of\ncontact with Paul.\n\nAnother point which should be mentioned is that those who are engaged\nin making these comparisons are rather apt to give the\nMystery-religions a greater definiteness and articulation of thought\nthan they really possess, and do not always give sufficient prominence\nto the distinction between their own hypothetical reconstruction and\nthe medley of statements on which it is based. Almost all the popular\nwritings fall into this kind of inaccuracy. They manufacture out of\nthe various fragments of information a kind of universal [pg 193]\nMystery-religion which never actually existed, least of all in Paul\u2019s\nday._(_161_)_\n\nIn particular, these works aim at getting hold of the idea of a \u201cGreek\nRedeemer-god\u201d who might serve as an analogue to Jesus Christ. No\nfigure deserving of this designation occurs in any myth or in any\nMystery-religion; it is created by a process of generalisation,\nabstraction, and reconstruction. Before using the phrase Redeemer-God,\none should remember that it means a God who for the sake of men came\ninto the world, died and rose again. Having realised that, one may\nthen try how far the Mystery-religions supply anything corresponding\nto this\u2014the only adequate\u2014definition._(_162_)_\n\n[pg 194]\n\nIt is also to be remarked that, on the other hand, there is no\n\u201cRedeemer-god\u201d in Primitive Christianity. Jesus is, it cannot be\nsufficiently emphasised, not thought of as a god, but only as a\nheavenly being, who is entrusted with the mission of bringing in the\nnew world. It was only later in the Greek and Gnostic theology that He\nwas deified. For Paul he is \u201cSon of God\u201d in the simple, Old-Testament\nand Apocalyptic sense.\n\nWe may further recall Cumont\u2019s warning that analogies do not\nnecessarily imply dependence. \u201cResemblances,\u201d he writes in the preface\nto his _Religions orientales,_ \u201cdo not always imply imitation, and the\nresemblance of views or usages must often be explained by community of\norigin, not by any kind of borrowing.\u201d In the same essay he points out\nthat analogies are sometimes exaggerated, if not actually created, by\nthe use of language chosen by the critic.\n\nAnd Dieterich expresses himself in the following terms against this\nmania for finding analogies. \u201cIt is,\u201d he writes, in his edition of the\n\u201cMithra-liturgy,\u201d \u201cone of the worst faults of the science of\nComparative Religion, which is at present becoming constantly less\ncautious, to overlook the most natural explanations, not to say ignore\nand avoid them, in order to have recourse to the most far-fetched,\nand, by the most eccentric methods, to drag out analogies which, to\nthe unsophisticated eye, are absolutely invisible.\u201d\n\nThese are the principles by which it has to be decided, whether\nComparative Religion has hunted down its game according to fair\nforest-law, or whether its \u201cbag\u201d is poached.\n\nThe chief point to which research was at first directed was the\ndiscovery of relationships between the two sets of sacramental views.\n\nIt seemed so easy to discover common conceptions [pg 195] here, in\nview of the fact that in both cases cultus-meals and lustrations\nplayed a part and had a sacramental value. But, on closer examination,\nit appears that it is very difficult to get beyond the simple fact of\nresemblance of a very general character.\n\nDieterich, in his commentary on the \u201cMithra-liturgy,\u201d is obliged to\nadmit that we have very little exact knowledge regarding the sacred\nmeals of the Mystery-religions._(_163_)_ That they were supposed to\nconvey supernatural powers is about the only thing that can be said\nwith safety. Regarding the special conceptions and actions which made\nthis eating and drinking sacramental no information has been\npreserved. A comparison\u2014not to speak of the establishment of a\nrelation of dependence\u2014is therefore impossible.\n\nAs soon as the students of Comparative Religion attempt to bring\nforward concrete facts, they are obliged to leave the domain of the\nmystery-religions and draw their material from the primitive\nNature-religions. Here they find the primary conception\u2014a man believes\nthat he unites himself with the divinity by eating portions of him,\nor\u2014this is a secondary stage of the conception\u2014by consuming some\nsubstance which has been marked out for this purpose as representative\nof the divinity and has had his name attached to it.\n\nThe following series of examples recurs in all the books:\u2014\n\nThe dead Pharaoh, when he enters heaven, causes his servants to seize,\nbind, and slay the gods, and then devours them in order thus to absorb\ninto himself their strength and wisdom, and to become the strongest of\nall.\n\nIn Egypt anyone who wishes to become truthful swallows a small image\nof the goddess of truth.\n\nIn the Thracian orgiastic worship of Dionysos Sabazios [pg 196] the\nsacrificial ox is torn to pieces by the participants while yet alive,\nand swallowed raw.\n\nA Bedouin tribe in the Sinai peninsula slaughters, amid chanting, a\ncamel bound upon the altar, and then eagerly drinks its blood and\nimmediately devours the still bloody flesh half raw.\n\nThe Aztecs, before sacrificing and eating their prisoners of war, give\nthem the name of the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered.\n\nNow, by the round-about way of this primitive conception the connexion\nbetween Paul\u2019s cultus-feast and that of the Mystery-religions\u2014which\ncannot be directly shown\u2014is supposed to be established.\n\nIt is suggested that this primitive conception of union with the god\nin the cultus, by an act of eating performed with this special\npurpose, after it had in the normal development of the various\nreligions been transformed or completely laid aside, came to life\nagain in the mysticism of the Mystery-religions and of Paulinism.\nMysticism, according to Dieterich\u2019s view, draws its nourishment from\nthe lowest strata of religious ideas. The belief in the union of God\nand man which, among the cultured classes, was no longer anything but\na metaphor, rises up again from below with irrepressible power.\n\u201cRising from below, the old ideas acquire new power in the history of\nreligion. The revolution from beneath creates new religious life\nwithin the primeval, indestructible forms.\u201d_(_164_)_\n\nThat we have here a combination of two still unproved hypotheses is\nnot sufficiently emphasised. In the Mystery-religions ancient cults\ncertainly enter into direct union with higher religious conceptions,\nso that the general presupposition on which this hypothesis of\nComparative Religion is based is to a certain extent admissible. But\nwhether precisely this primitive conception of the mystic fellowship\ncreated by eating and drinking the god awakened to new life in them,\nmust remain an open question, since our information does not suffice\nto prove [pg 197] it. Of an eating of the god there is nowhere any\nmention. And the primitive Mysteries were not founded on this idea.\nRather, they consist essentially in the representation of the actions\nperformed by the divinity, and rest on the thought that the\nreproduction of these events will create in the participant some kind\nof corresponding reality. It is a symbolism which is charged with a\ncertain energy, a drama which becomes real.\n\nThis being so, the significance of the cultus-meal comes much less\ninto view than that of the pattern actions which had to be further\ndeveloped and interpreted. If we possess so few typical statements\nabout the Mystery-feasts, is it not partly because they had no very\nremarkable features and did not take a very exalted position in the\nhierarchy of cultus-acts? If in the Paris Magic-papyrus we really\npossess a Mithra-liturgy, and if the inferences and explanations which\nDieterich has attached to it are sound, then we have proof that in\nthis developed cultus of the second century the highest sacrament was\na pictorial mystery in which the \u201cmystes\u201d believed that he in some way\nexperienced the heavenly journey of the soul which he, along with\nothers, enacted.\n\nIn any case, the assertion that in the Mystery-religions the ancient\ncultus-conception of a union with the divinity effected by a meal,\ncame to life again, goes far beyond what can be proved. That union is,\neven in its secondary forms, always closely connected with a\nsacrificial feast, and cannot properly be detached from it. The\nsacrificial feast, however, is not a feature in the Mystery-religions,\nand so far as we can get a glimpse of their beginnings never had any\nsupreme importance in them. The interpretation of these cults on the\nanalogy of the primitive religions of various races, ancient or\nmodern, who devoured oxen, camels, or prisoners of war as substitutes\nfor the divinity, cannot therefore be established.\n\nThe vestiges of this ancient conception are to be found, not in the\nMystery-religions, but in the ordinary heathen sacrificial worship, in\ncases where the sacrificial [pg 198] feast has been retained in\nconnexion with it. Here there certainly exists in some form or other\nthe conception of a fellowship with the god set up by eating. It is to\nbe noted that Paul in I Cor. x. draws a parallel between the Lord\u2019s\nSupper, which unites us to Christ, and these feasts. How expositors\nhave arrived at the idea of making him refer here to the cultus-meal\nof the Mystery-religions is quite inexplicable.\n\nThe hypothesis that the earliest Christian conception of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper in some way represented the surviving influence of an ancient\ncultus idea, is at first sight much more plausible than the\ncorresponding hypothesis in the case of the Mystery-religions. At any\nrate the existence of the desiderated fact is here proved. The\nconception of the sacramental eating stands in the centre of the\nbelief; by this act, fellowship with a divine Being who has died and\nrisen again is maintained; and what is eaten and drunk is brought into\nrelation to the person of Christ, inasmuch as it is called, in some\nsense or other, His body and blood.\n\nNevertheless in the decisive point the alleged facts break down.\n\nPaul knows nothing of an eating and drinking of the body and blood of\nthe Lord. When Dieterich gives it as the Apostle\u2019s view that \u201cChrist\nis eaten and drunk by the believers and is thereby in them,\u201d and adds\nthat nothing further need be said about the matter, what he has done\nis, instead of taking Paul\u2019s words as they stand, to interpret Paul\nthrough John\u2014and through a misunderstanding of John at that.\n\nIt is not of an eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ that\nPaul speaks in the First Epistle to the Corinthians; he always speaks\nonly of eating and drinking the bread and the cup. He assumes, no\ndoubt, that this somehow or other maintains a communion with the body\nand blood of Christ (I Cor. x. 16-17), and that anyone who partakes\nunworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord (I Cor. xi.\n27). He quotes, too, the words [pg 199] in which the Lord, on the\nhistoric night, after the Supper, speaks of bread and wine as His body\nand His blood. But the conception which seems inevitably to arise out\nof this, that the participant partakes of the body and blood of the\nLord, is not found in him.\n\nThe recognition of this fact does not make his sacramental doctrine\nany clearer. It is a question of fulfilling the demand of sound\nscholarship that we should respect the text, and not interpret it on\nthe basis of inferences which the Apostle neither drew nor could draw.\nHis fundamental view that the feast effects or maintains fellowship\nwith the exalted Christ is perfectly clear. What is not clear is how\nhe brought this view into relation with the historic words of Jesus\nabout the bread and wine as being His body and blood, and interpreted\nit in accordance therewith. Did it arise out of these words, or did he\nreceive it from some other quarter and afterwards make use of it for\nthe interpretation of the historic words?\n\nThe difficulty lies in the fact that for Paul the body and blood of\nthe historic Christ no longer exist, and that, on the other hand,\nwhile the glorified Christ has, indeed, a body, it is not a body\nthrough which blood flows and which is capable of being consumed on\nearth. To speak of the body and blood of Christ is, from the\nstand-point of the Apostle\u2019s doctrine, an absurdity. He cannot in his\ndoctrine of the Supper bring the historic words into harmony with his\nChristology, and yet is obliged to do so. The compromise remains for\nus obscure.\n\nIt is certain, however, that neither he nor the primitive Christian\ncommunity held that the body and blood of Christ was partaken of in\nthe Supper. That is evident from the fact that the historic words of\nJesus did not form part of the service, and this is the case down to a\nlater date. No kind of consecration of the elements as the body and\nblood of the Lord occurred in the liturgy.\n\nIf there is anything which may be considered as a definite result of\nrecent research, it is that the view of primitive and early\nChristianity regarding the Lord\u2019s [pg 200] Supper was not arrived at\nby way of inference from the words of Jesus about bread and wine and\nflesh and blood, but, strange as it may appear, arose from a different\nquarter. The Church\u2019s celebration was not shaped by the \u201cwords of\ninstitution\u201d at the historic Supper; it was the latter, on the\ncontrary, which were explained in accordance with the significance of\nthe celebration.\n\nIt is a no less serious error when Dieterich asserts that the Gospel\nof John in chapter vi. proclaims the Pauline doctrine \u201conly in a still\nmore corporeal fashion.\u201d\n\nIn the Evangelist, bread and wine are\u2014as is evident to anyone who will\ntake the trouble to acquaint himself with his presuppositions in the\nspiritually related works of Ignatius, Justin, and Tertullian\u2014not the\nbody and blood of Christ, but the flesh and blood of the Son of Man.\nIn this change in the expression lies the logic of the thought. The\nelements of the Lord\u2019s Supper perpetuate the appearance of the Son of\nMan in the world inasmuch as they, as being the flesh and blood of\nthat historic Personality, possess the capacity of being vehicles of\nthe Spirit. As a combination of matter and Spirit which can be\ncommunicated to the corporeity of men, they execute judgment. The\nelect can in the sacrament become partakers of that spiritual\nsubstance, and can thus be prepared for the resurrection; others who\nare not from above, and are not capable of receiving the Spirit,\nreceive simply earthly food and drink, and fall a prey to corruption.\nTherefore the Evangelist makes the Lord close His discourse about the\neating and drinking of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man with the\nwords, \u201cIt is the spirit that giveth life.\u201d\n\nThis is the language of the early Greek theology, which explains the\nworking of the sacraments by the combination of the Spirit with matter\nwhich takes place therein. The Fourth Evangelist projects this later\nview back into the discourses of the historic Jesus, and makes Him\nprophetically announce that after His exaltation a time will come when\nthe Spirit which is now in Him will unite itself [pg 201] with the\nbread which, by the miracle of the loaves, has just been raised in a\nsignificant way out of the category of simple earthly elements, and\nwill subsequently manifest its power in preparing men for the\nresurrection.\n\nIn this sense, as vehicles of the Spirit, the elements carry on the\nmanifestation of the Son of Man; in this sense it is possible to speak\nof eating and drinking His flesh and blood, and to regard this as\nnecessary to life. But all this is not thought of \u201ccorporeally\u201d in the\nna\u00efve sense of an eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus,\nbut can only be understood on the basis of the doctrine of the working\nof the Spirit in the sacraments. Apart from the Spirit, there is in\nthe Supper no body and no blood of Christ.\n\nThat is for the Fourth Evangelist so much a fixed datum that he is\nobliged to omit the account of the historic Last Supper of Jesus with\nHis disciples. That the Lord could have so designated the bread which\nwas eaten and the wine which was drunk on that occasion, is for him\nunthinkable. As long as He Himself is alive there is certainly no\nSpirit; it is only on His exaltation that the Spirit is liberated from\nthe historic personality of the Son of Man and becomes separated from\nthe Logos as the Holy Spirit, in order in the sacraments to lead a new\nexistence\u2014and this time an existence capable of being communicated to\nothers. From this moment onwards bread and wine become, in the\nChurch\u2019s celebration of the sacrament, the flesh and blood of the Son\nof Man in the sense explained above. Previously this had by no means\nbeen the case, any more than there had been a Christian baptism which\neffected regeneration. The Spirit who associates Himself with the\nwater and produces this effect, did not as yet exist in this form of\nbeing. Jesus cannot, therefore, on this view, have baptized, any more\nthan He can celebrate the Supper with His disciples. Therefore, the\nFourth Evangelist, in order to guard against possible\nmisunderstandings, definitely asserts that even if the disciples did\nbaptize\u2014a mere baptism with water [pg 202] which is incapable of\nworking regeneration\u2014the Master Himself made no use of water in this\nfashion._(_165_)_ His task consisted only in marking out water for\nthis use by the miracle at Cana of Galilee, and, by His discourses\nabout the water of life and regeneration by water and the Spirit,\npointing men\u2019s minds to the thought that in the future, water, in\nassociation with the Spirit, would be necessary to life and\nblessedness. In that day \u201cout of his body shall flow rivers of living\nwater\u201d because the Spirit will be present (John vii. 37-39).\n\nThe students of Comparative Religion are so far in the right as\nagainst ordinary theology that they make an end of the unintelligent\nspiritualising of the Johannine doctrine, and try to give due weight\nto the \u201cphysical\u201d element in its conception of redemption. They are\nmistaken, however, in regarding this \u201cphysical\u201d element as something\nprimitive, and in thinking to explain it by analogies drawn from the\nprimitive nature-religions.\n\nThe Fourth Gospel represents the views of a speculative religious\nmaterialism which concerns itself with the problem of matter and\nspirit, and the permeation of matter by Spirit, and endeavours to\ninterpret the manifestation and the personality of Jesus, the action\nof the sacraments and the possibility of the resurrection of the\nelect, all on the basis of one and the same fundamental conception.\n\nAccording to this theory, Christ came into the world in order to\naccomplish in His own Person the as yet non-existent union of the\nSpirit with the fleshly substance of humanity. In consequence of this\nact the elect among mankind can in the future become partakers of the\nSpirit. Jesus Himself, however, cannot as yet impart this to them\neither as the Spirit of knowledge\u2014that is why the disciples are\nportrayed as so \u201cunintelligent\u201d\u2014or as the Spirit of life. The Spirit\nalways needs, in the world of sense, to [pg 203] be connected with\nmaterial vehicles. He cannot work directly, in the sense of\ncommunicating Himself from Jesus to believers. He must, therefore, in\norder to enter into the elect, be received by them in combination with\nsome material element. The material media chosen for this purpose are\nmade known by Jesus by means of miracles and by references to the\nfuture.\n\nThe na\u00efve\u2014and unhistorical\u2014conception that Jesus instituted the\nsacraments is not recognised by the Johannine gnosis. According to it\nHe did not establish them, but created and predicted them.\n\nBy His incarnation the possibility of the union of humanity and Spirit\nupon which the working of the sacraments depends, is provided. By His\naction in regard to the food and wine and the words He spoke in\nconnexion therewith, He pointed to a mystery which was to be revealed\nin connexion with these substances; by His death, resurrection, and\nexaltation He abolished His earthly mode of existence and set the\nSpirit free for the new method of working, in virtue of which He was\nable to prepare men for the resurrection. Jesus, according to this\nview, came into the world to introduce the era of effectual\nsacraments. It was thus that He became the Redeemer.\n\nThe teaching of the Johannine theology, therefore, rests upon the two\nprinciples, that the Spirit can only work upon men in combination with\nmatter, and that it only becomes present in this state as a\nconsequence of the exaltation of the Lord. Anyone who has once\nrecognised these presuppositions will give up once for all the search\nfor a primitive element which is to be explained from the\nnature-religions. On the other hand, it is certain that Christianity\nhere presents itself as the most highly developed Greek\nMystery-religion which it is possible to conceive.\n\nNow for Paul again. Anyone who ascribes to him the conception of a\nsacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ does\nviolence to his words. [pg 204] But admitting that he really thought\nin this way, that would prove nothing. It would first need to be shown\nthat it really was a cultus-conception drawn from the primitive\nnature-religions which came to life again in him. Now, for the\nMystery-religions the necessary presuppositions might appear to be\npresent, since they arise out of ancient cults which sprouted and grew\nup again in later times. Paul, however, is a Jew, and even as a\nbeliever in Christ he stands, in spite of his polemic against the law,\nwholly and solely on the basis of the absolute, transcendent Jewish\nconception of God. Any relation on his part to the nature-cults cannot\nbe proved and ought not to be assumed. By what wind were the seeds of\nthis primitive conception wafted to his mind? And how could they\nsuddenly sprout and grow in the stony soil of a Jewish heart? The\nApostle would certainly be the first and the only Jewish theologian to\nfall under the spell of the primitive conception of eating the god!\nAnd where was such a conception at that time to be found?\n\nBut what matter such prosaic considerations when it is a question of\ngreat ideas, of ideas, moreover, fathered by Comparative Religion?\n\nWhen Heitm\u00fcller in the spring of 1903 appeared before the members of\nthe Clergy Theological Society_(_166_)_ in Hanover to give them the\nlatest information about baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, he led them\nabroad, after an introduction on the \u201cphysico-hyperphysical\u201d in Paul,\nfirst to the Aztecs, then in the clouds of night, by the torch\u2019s\ngleam, to the Thracian mountain sides, and thence to Sinai._(_167_)_\nAnd when they had assisted at the slaughtering and devouring of the\nprisoners of war, the ox, and the camel, he expressed himself to the\nfollowing effect: \u201cLittle as the _\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd_ of Paul might seem\nto have in common with these . . . proceedings, and [pg 205] loth as\nwe at first are even to name the Lord\u2019s Supper in the same breath with\nthem, as little is it to me a matter of doubt that, when looked at\nfrom the point of view of Comparative Religion, the Lord\u2019s Supper of\nprimitive Christianity has the closest connexion with them. Those\npictures supply the background from which the Lord\u2019s Supper stands\nout; they show us the world of ideas to which the Lord\u2019s Supper\nbelongs in its most primitive, and therefore perspicuous, form.\u201d\n\nEntering more into detail, this \u201cHylic\u201d_(_168_)_ of the Comparative\nmethod explains that the primeval concrete and sensuous conception of\nthe _communio_ established by partaking of the flesh and blood of the\nanimal in which the divinity itself dwelt, comes to light again in the\nprimitive Christian Lord\u2019s Supper, at the highest stage of the\ndevelopment of religion, and under this new form acquires a new\nlife._(_169_)_ It would be precarious, he further observes, in view of\nthe fragmentary condition of the sources to attempt to prove a direct\ndependence on definite phenomena\u2014on the cultus feast of the\nMithra-mysteries, for example: \u201cIt will be safer to point to the\ngeneral characteristics of the time, which abounded with ideas of that\nkind. The infant Christianity lived in an atmosphere which, if I may\nbe allowed the expression, was impregnated with Mystery-bacilli, and\ngrew up on a soil which had been fertilised and made friable by the\ndecay and intermixture of the most various religions, and [pg 206] was\nspecially adapted to favour the upgrowth of seeds and spores which had\nbeen long in the ground.\u201d\n\nNow, there is no such thing as an atmosphere impregnated with\nbacteria. Medical science has long since shown that this conception\nrests on an error, the air being practically free from germs. In\ntheology it is more difficult to get rid of fantastic imaginations,\nsince historical proofs are only available for those who are capable\nof thinking historically.\n\nIt must not be overlooked that the eating and drinking which\nestablishes communion with Christ is only one side of the Pauline\nconception of the Supper. Alongside of it there exists the other,\nwhich sees in the feast a confession of faith in the death and the\nparousia of the Lord, and is quite as significant as the former. It\nis\u2014in I Cor. xi.\u2014developed in connexion with the repetition of the\nhistoric words of Jesus; on it is based the argument that a careless\npartaking is a transgression against the body of the Lord. And on the\nbasis of this conception, cases of illness and death in the church are\nto be understood as a warning chastisement pointing to the Last\nJudgment. This conception must be somehow or other eschatologically\nconditioned.\n\nThe communion which is established in the Lord\u2019s Supper is a communion\nof the eagerly-waiting man with the coming Lord of Glory. The only\nthing which remains obscure is how this is brought about. The\nconfession of faith in the death and parousia which is combined with\nthe act of eating and drinking does not suffice to explain this\nfurther effect. Further, it remains inherently obscure how by eating\nand drinking the dying and return of the Lord can be shown forth,\nespecially as the Early Christian celebration consisted only in a\ncommon meal, and in no way reproduced, as present-day celebrations do,\nthe actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper.\n\nWhat are the results to which the students of Comparative Religion\nhave to point in regard to the Lord\u2019s Supper? They are obliged at the\noutset to give up the [pg 207] attempt to explain it from the\nMystery-religions, or even to point out in the latter any very close\nanalogies. In place of this they attempt to make intelligible both the\nmeal which formed part of the mystery-cults, and that of Pauline\nChristianity, as growths which, from scattered seeds of ancient\nconceptions of the cultus-eating of the divinity, spring up from the\nsoil of syncretism in two different places at the same time. Neither\nin the one case nor the other, however, can they render this even\napproximately probable. Up to the present, therefore, neither a direct\nnor an indirect connexion between the cultus-meal of Paul and those of\nthe Mystery-religions has been shown. The only thing which is certain\nis that in both cases a cultus-meal existed. About that of the\nMysteries we know almost nothing; about that which Paul presupposes we\nhave more information, but not such as to enable us at once to\nunderstand it.\n\nThe question regarding baptism took from the first a simpler form,\nsince the hypothesis of a renascence of primitive cultus-conceptions\nhas not to be considered.\n\nBoth Paul and the Mystery-religions attach a religious significance to\nwashings. That, however, does not suffice to establish a peculiarity\nwhich would connect them together, since the attachment of this\nsignificance to lustration is bound up with the elemental symbolism of\ncleansing and is found more or less in all religions.\n\nThe real question is whether Paulinism and the Mystery-religions, when\nthey go beyond the most general notions, and advance from the symbolic\nto the effectively sacramental, follow the same lines and present the\nsame views.\n\nOnce again, Paul\u2019s view is the more fully, that of the\nMystery-religions the less fully known. Developed baptismal doctrines\nand rites seem only to have been present in the Egyptian cults. These\ndistinguish between the bath of purification and baptism, the latter\nconsisting [pg 208] in a sprinkling with a few drops of a consecrated\nand consecrating fluid._(_170_)_\n\nThe advance beyond the idea of purification, where it is to be\nobserved, moves in the direction of the idea of Re-birth,\nRegeneration. A clear formulation of this developed view\u2014comparable in\ndefiniteness with the Early Christian reference to the \u201cbath of\nregeneration\u201d _(_171_)_ \u2014does not occur. The thought remains hovering\nbetween purification and renewal.\n\nThat is as much as to say that, so far as our information goes, no\ntypical points of contact with Paulinism present themselves.\n\nThe Apostle implies a baptism in the name of a divine person. Of a\nbaptism performed in the name of Osiris, Attis, or Mithra we know\nnothing, though no doubt the assumption naturally suggests itself that\nthe lustrations and baptisms practised in these cults were considered\nto be at the same time acts of confession of faith in the divinity\nwith whose worship they were associated. But this character was by no\nmeans so distinctly stamped on them as was the case in Christian\nbaptism\u2014as is, indeed, readily intelligible. In the Mystery-religions\nthe confession of the god is naturally implied; in Christianity there\nis the special confession of faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. To\nthis there was nothing analogous.\n\nAs regards the utterance of the name of the divinity and the magical\nefficacy attaching thereto according to ancient conceptions, many\nillustrations can be adduced from Comparative Religion. But the really\nimportant point, the association of the utterance of the name with a\nbaptismal rite, cannot be directly shown to have existed in the\nMystery-religions._(_172_)_\n\n[pg 209]\n\nIn order to arrive at his sacramental view Paul does not follow the\nnatural method of advancing by way of the thought of purification to\nthat of renewal by regeneration, but follows a different route, which\nleads him to an estimate of it that has nothing to do with the\nfundamental conception of purification, and therefore remains without\nanalogy in the Mystery-religions. This is a fact of great\nsignificance.\n\nThe Mystery-religions speak, as Paul also does, of the _pneuma_ and\nits workings, but the possession of the _pneuma_ is never represented\nas an immediate and inevitable consequence of baptism.\n\nWith the Mystery-religions are associated speculations about the\nrenewal of man\u2019s being, represented as taking place in regeneration,\nwhich they bring into some kind of relation, closer or more remote,\nwith baptism. But when Paul speaks of the new creature which comes\ninto being in the sacrament, the thought of regeneration does not for\nhim come into view, for he makes no use of it at all. Instead of that\nhe asserts in Rom. vi. that in baptism there is an experience of death\nand resurrection in fellowship with Christ, from which results newness\nof life and the new ethic associated therewith. How the act and the\nresult are logically connected he does not explain. He is content to\nplace them side by side.\n\n[pg 210]\n\nSo far as we know, there exists in the Mystery-religions no analogue\nto this dying and rising again effected solely by the use of water. To\ninterpret Rom. vi., as Dieterich does, as referring to a spiritual\ndeath and \u201cnew birth\u201d is not permissible, since the text says not a\nword about that. The post-Pauline theology, that is the Johannine and\nEarly Greek theology, explain baptism as regeneration, and seek to\nfind a logical basis for this effect in the doctrine that the Spirit\nunites with the water as the generating power. Paul has nothing of all\nthis.\n\nNor does he show any knowledge of the idea that Christian baptism\narose out of the baptism of Jesus as an imitative reproduction of it.\nHe never, in fact, mentions the baptism of Jesus. Nowhere does he\nsuggest that in baptism the new man, the \u201cChild of God,\u201d is born in\nthe believer, as Jesus was in this act raised to His Messianic office.\n\nThere is in fact no evidence from the earlier literature which\nsuggests the existence of views of that kind regarding the origin and\nsignificance of Christian baptism. In early Christianity it is as far\nfrom being an imitative reproduction of the baptism of Jesus as the\nChurch\u2019s Lord\u2019s Supper was from being an imitative reproduction of the\nhistoric Last Supper. The conception of an \u201cimitative reproduction\u201d\nwas first introduced by modern theology.\n\nTo cite the _taurobolium_ as an analogue of Paul\u2019s baptism, with the\ndeath and resurrection which it effects, is not admissible. In the\nfirst place, the _taurobolium_ is a baptism of blood; in the next\nplace it is closely connected with a sacrifice; in the third place,\nthe burial and rising again are actually represented. The sacramental\nsignificance is thus derived from the many-sided symbolism. In Paul\nthere is no trace of all this. \u201cPlain water\u201d effects everything.\n\nOne point in regard to which great hopes had been placed on the\nMystery-religions was the solution of the enigma of I Cor. xv. 29.\nWernle regarded it as self-evident that the Apostle in permitting and\napproving [pg 211] baptism for the dead had allowed himself to become\ninfected by the heathen superstition of his Corinthian converts, and\ntook him to task for this lapse in his book on the \u201cBeginnings of\nChristianity.\u201d In his zeal he forgot to enquire whether the heathen\nhad any superstition of the kind._(_173_)_\n\nThose who tried to supply this omission did not meet with much\nsuccess. The heathen showed themselves better than their reputation\nand less \u201csuperstitious\u201d than the Christians! Of a baptism for the\ndead, or anything at all of this nature, they show no trace.\n\nFailing more relevant evidence, some have quoted Plato, who in the\n_Republic_ (ii. 364-5) makes Adeimantos say, appealing in confirmation\nto the Orphic writings, that by means of offerings and festivals,\natonement and purification for past misdeeds is effected for whole\ntowns as well as for single individuals, for the living and also for\nthe dead.\n\nThis passage, however, does not refer at all to personal dedications\nwith a view to \u201crenewal,\u201d such as the baptism practised in the\nMystery-religions and in Christianity, but to expiatory sacrifices in\nthe ancient Greek sense._(_174_)_\n\nIn the _Taurobolia_, representation of one living person by another is\nsupposed to have been possible, but there is no mention of a\nrepresentation of the dead._(_175_)_\n\n[pg 212]\n\nThe baptism _of_ the dead which is attested by a papyrus is not a\nbaptism _for_ the dead._(_176_)_\n\nThat living persons went through the ceremonies of initiation for the\ndead is not known.\n\nThus baptism for the dead has not, so far at least, proved susceptible\nof explanation from heathen sources, but must be regarded as a\npeculiarity of Christianity!\n\nThe outcome of the study of the sacraments from the point of view of\nComparative Religion is a very curious one. The Apostle thinks\nsacramentally; in fact his doctrine is much more \u201cmysterious\u201d than\nthat of the Mystery-religions. But the nature of the sacramental\nconception is quite different in him from what it is in them; it is as\nif they had grown up on different soils.\n\nThe difference relates both to the conception of the supernatural\nworking of the sacraments, and also to the position which the\nsacramental element takes in the doctrine as a whole.\n\nIn the Mystery-religions the sacramental idea arises by way of an\nintensification and materialisation of the symbolic. The act effects\nwhat it represents. The result can in a sense be logically understood\nwhen once the thought is grasped that the world of appearance and the\nworld of reality stand in mysterious connexion with one another.\n\nIn Paul we have an unmediated and naked notion of sacrament such as is\nnowhere else to be met with. Symbolism is no doubt involved in the\nmost general significance of the act. In this sense baptism is a\n\u201ccleansing\u201d and a \u201cconsecration,\u201d_(_177_)_ and the sacred feast\nestablishes [pg 213] fellowship among the partakers. But the\nassertions which go beyond this show not the faintest connexion with\nthe outward significance of the rite. Contact with the water is\nsupposed to effect a dying and rising again with Christ, a partaking\nin His mystical body, and the possession of the Spirit. The eating and\ndrinking at the Lord\u2019s Supper is a confession of faith in the death\nand the parousia of Christ, and is also fellowship with Him.\n\nThe sacramental is therefore non-rational. The act and its effect are\nnot bound together by religious logic, but laid one upon the other and\nnailed together.\n\nWith that is connected the fact that in Paul we find the most prosaic\nconception imaginable of the _opus operatum._ In the Mystery-religions\nthere is a mysterious procedure surrounded by imposing accessories.\nThe impressive appeal of symbolism is brought to bear in every part.\nEvery detail is significant, and lays hold upon the attention.\n\nIn Paul everything is flat and colourless. While some of his\nreferences might suggest the impression that his conception of\nChristianity bore some kind of analogy to the Mystery-religions, yet\nas a whole it entirely lacks the corresponding atmosphere. There is\nnothing of the effective _mise en sc\u00e8ne_ characteristic of the Greek\nsacramental beliefs. How lacking in solemnity must have been the\nmethod of celebrating the Lord\u2019s Supper, when it could degenerate into\nan ugly and disorderly exhibition of gluttony! How little does the\nApostle think of the external act of baptism, when he founds a church\nin Corinth and himself performs the rite only in the case of one or\ntwo individuals!_(_178_)_ He preaches sacraments, but does not feel\nhimself to be a mystagogue; rather, he retains the simplicity in\nregard to forms of worship which belongs to the Jewish spirit.\n\nThere were no long preparations for the cultus ceremonies, and nothing\nis known of a distinction between higher and lower grades of\ninitiation, such as form an [pg 214] essential part of the\nMystery-religions. The first ceremony of initiation confers at once\nfinal perfection. Among those who are admitted there prevails the most\ncomplete equality. The conception of the \u201cmystes\u201d does not exist.\n\nIn the Mystery-religions everything centres in the sacred ceremonies.\nThey dominate thought, feeling, and will. If they are removed the\nwhole religion collapses.\n\nIn Paulinism it is otherwise. The doctrine of redemption is no doubt\nclosely connected with the sacraments, but the latter are not its\nbe-all and end-all. If baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper are taken away\nthe doctrine is not destroyed, but stands unmoved. It looks as though\nthe weight of the building rested upon these two pillars, but in\nreality it does not totter even if these supports are withdrawn.\n\nThe Johannine and the early Greek doctrine are conceived as real\nMystery-religions. The Fourth Evangelist and Ignatius know no other\nredemption than that which is bound up with the sacraments. In Paul\nthe redemption can be thought of apart from them, since the whole\nmystical doctrine of fellowship with Christ rests upon the single\nconception of faith. Nevertheless he allows it to be closely bound up\nwith the external ceremonies, and seems to have no consciousness of\nthe fact that this connexion is unnecessary and illogical.\n\nThe remarkable duality in Paulinism lies, therefore, in the fact that\nthe sacramental idea is intensified to an extreme and unintelligible\ndegree, while at the same time the necessity of the sacred ceremonies\ndoes not logically result from the system as a whole, as this would\nlead us to expect.\n\nThe sacramental views of the Apostle have thus nothing primitive about\nthem, but are rather of a \u201ctheological\u201d character. Paul connects his\nmystical doctrine of redemption with ceremonies which are not\nspecially designed with reference to it. It is from that fact, and not\nfrom a specially deep love for Mysteries, [pg 215] that the\nexaggeratedly sacramental character of his view of baptism and the\nLord\u2019s Supper results. It is in the last resort a question of\nexternalisation, not of intensification.\n\nIt is therefore useless to ransack the history of religions for\nanalogies to his conceptions. It has none to offer, for the case is\nunique. The problem lies wholly within the sphere of early Christian\nhistory, and represents only a particular aspect of the question of\nPaul\u2019s relation to primitive Christianity. The fact is, he did not\nintroduce the sacramental view into the sacred ceremonies, but found\nalready existing a baptism and a Lord\u2019s Supper which guaranteed\nsalvation on grounds which were intelligible from early Christian\ndoctrine. He, however, transformed the primitive view of salvation\ninto the mystical doctrine of the dying and rising again in fellowship\nwith Christ. Since the connexion between redemption and the sacraments\nwas given _a priori_, he draws the inference that the sacraments\neffect precisely that wherein, according to his gnosis, the inner\nessence of redemption consists. How far they are appropriate to the\neffect which, on the ground of his mystical doctrine, he holds to take\nplace, does not for him come into question.\n\nIn the sacraments the believer becomes partaker in salvation.\nTherefore, he concludes, in them that happens which constitutes\nredemption, namely, the dying and rising again with Christ.\n\nPaul therefore takes the sacraments by storm. He does not theorise\nabout the ceremony, but ascribes to it without more ado the postulated\neffect. That is not a procedure which could have been followed either\nby a Greek or by a modern mind.\n\nPaulinism is thus a theological system with sacraments, but not a\nMystery-religion.\n\nThis may be confirmed by a further observation. The Apostle occupies a\nstrongly predestinarian stand-point. Those who are \u201ccalled\u201d inevitably\nreceive salvation; those who are not, can never in any way obtain it.\nThere [pg 216] is no analogue to this in the Mystery-religions. They\ncan only conceive of election in the sense and to the extent of\nholding that there is a calling and predestination to the receiving of\nthe initiation which confers immortality. And there are actually some\nbeginnings of such a conception._(_179_)_\n\nBut Pauline predestination is quite different. It is absolute, and\nseems inevitably to abolish the necessity and meaning of the\nsacraments. Anyone who belongs to the number of the elect becomes\n_ipso facto_ partaker of the resurrection. At the end of all things a\ngreat company from the generations of long-past times will arise to\nlife without ever having received baptism or partaken of the Lord\u2019s\nSupper. That being so, what becomes of the sacraments? In what respect\nare they necessary?\n\nA good deal of energy has been expended in seeking analogies from\nother religions for the Corinthian baptism for the dead; it would\nreally have been much more to the point to enquire why baptism for the\ndead was considered desirable. If the dead are among the elect, they\nhave no need of it; if not, they could not have inherited life, even\nif they had received the sacrament during their sojourn on earth. To\nwhat end, then, is this baptism for the dead?\n\nThe most important point to notice is that everywhere in the Pauline\nsacraments the eschatological interest breaks through. They effect,\nnot re-birth, but resurrection. That which in the near future is to\nbecome visible reality, they make in the present invisibly real by\nanticipation. The Greek Mysteries are timeless. They reach back to\nprimitive antiquity, and they profess to be able to manifest their\npower in all generations. In Paul the sacraments have temporal\nboundaries. Their power is derived from the events of the last times.\nThey put believers in the same position as the Lord, in that they [pg\n217] cause them to experience a resurrection a few world-moments\nbefore the time, even though this does not in any way become manifest.\nIt is a precursory phenomenon of the approaching end of the world.\n\nSeparated from the eschatology, the Pauline sacraments would become\nmeaningless and ineffectual. They are confined to the time between the\nresurrection of Jesus and His parousia, when the dead shall arise.\nTheir power depends on the present, and also on the future, fact. In\nthis sense they are \u201chistorically\u201d conditioned.\n\nWhile therefore in the Mystery-religions and in the Johannine theology\nthe sacraments work of themselves, in Paul they draw their energy from\na universal world-event, from which it is, as it were, transmitted.\n\nIt now becomes clear why the Apostle cannot describe as a \u201cRe-birth\u201d\nthe condition brought about by baptism. The renewal consists in the\nfact that the coming resurrection-life is, for the short period which\nremains of the present course of the world, received by anticipation.\nRe-birth, on the other hand, implies an uneschatological system of\nthought in which the individual reckons more or less on a normal span\nof life, for which he seeks an inner divine being which shall subsist\nalongside of or above the earthly. It is only at a period when\neschatology is falling into the background that the Greek conception\nof re-birth, such as is associated with the Mysteries, can supersede\nthe old mystico-eschatological conception of the proleptic\nresurrection. Accordingly it presently appears in Justin and the\nFourth Evangelist. From that point onwards baptism brings re-birth. In\nPaul it produced only an antedated dying and rising again.\n\nThe sacramental conception of the Apostle is therefore derived from an\nentirely different world of thought from that of the\nMystery-religions.\n\nIt is a different question, however, in what relation his\n\u201cphysical\u201d_(_180_)_ mysticism in itself, apart from the [pg 218]\nsacraments, bears to the world of ideas associated with the Greek\nMystery-religions.\n\nTo this question Reitzenstein, the \u201cpneumatic\u201d_(_181_)_ among the\nstudents of Comparative Religion, devotes a careful study. He avoids\nconventional catchwords and rash conclusions, and endeavours to\ndiscover the conceptions and ideas which are common to both, and to\nfollow them out in detail.\n\nWith this purpose he brings together everything which he can find in\nthe language of the Mysteries and the Hermetic literature relating to\nsuch ideas as \u201cservice\u201d and \u201cmilitary service\u201d of God,\n\u201cjustification,\u201d \u201cpre-existence,\u201d \u201cgnosis,\u201d \u201cspirit,\u201d \u201crevelation,\u201d\n\u201cpneumatic,\u201d \u201cheavenly garment,\u201d and \u201ctransformation.\u201d\n\nFor the first time the material for a study of Paul from the point of\nview of Comparative Religion is brought together with a certain\ncompleteness, and the impression which it makes is very powerful. The\ntheologian who reads these passages with an open mind will be lifted\nout of the ruts of conventional interpretation. It is as if a flood of\nnew thought had streamed into the channels of ordinary exegesis,\nwhether critical or otherwise, and swept away the accumulations of\nrubble.\n\nWhether all the explanations are sound, and whether many expressions,\nsuch as _e.g._ \u201cservant\u201d and \u201cprisoner\u201d of Christ, and imagery\u2014for\nexample, that taken from the military life\u2014could not be just as well\nexplained directly as by the roundabout way of their use in the\nMystery-religions, may be left an open question. What is certain is,\nthat Reitzenstein has made an end of the cut-and-dried conception that\nPaul simply translated his theology from Jewish thought into Greek\nlanguage, and proves that [pg 219] he knows the scope and exact\napplication of the words of the religious vocabulary, and along with\nthe terms and expressions has taken over suggestions for the\npresentation of his ideas. Without the possibilities and\npresuppositions supplied by the religious language of the Greek Orient\nit would have been more difficult for him to create his mysticism. He\nfound in existence a tone-system in which the modulations necessary\nfor the development of his theme offered themselves for his\ndisposal._(_182_)_\n\nReitzenstein remarks with much justice that particular words and\nphrases do not of themselves prove very much, but that what is really\nof importance is the connexion of the passages. Are there sets of\nideas in Paul which are allied with those of the Mystery-religions?\nWhat realities stand in the two cases behind the references to the\nmystical doctrine of the miraculous new creation of the man while in\nhis living body?\n\nThe description and paraphrasing which commentaries and New Testament\ntheologies bestow upon the Apostle\u2019s assertions do not suffice for\nReitzenstein. He wants to understand and come to grips with the\nthought, and to arouse in others the same discontent.\n\nThe possibility that the Pauline mysticism might be capable of being\nexplained from within appears to him excluded. With all the reserve\nwhich he imposes upon himself he nevertheless believes himself to have\nproved that the central conception of \u201cthe deification and [pg 220]\ntransfiguration of the living man is derived from the Mysteries.\u201d The\nconviction of a miracle of transformation taking place in his own\nperson, is, he pronounces, not Jewish. Therefore he thinks that Paul\nrepresents a kind of ancient Jewish prophetism modified by the\ninfluence of the Hellenistic Mystery beliefs.\n\nThe \u201chistory of the development\u201d of Paul\u2019s thought he conceives as\nfollows: The influence of Greek mysticism, with which he had already a\nliterary acquaintance, helped to prepare the way for that momentous\ninner experience which eventually caused a rupture between the Apostle\nand his ancestral religion. \u201cThis influence,\u201d he thinks, \u201cincreased in\nthe two years of solitary struggle for the working out of a new\nreligion.\u201d A renewed study of Greek religious literature became\nnecessary \u201cfrom the moment when the Apostle dedicated himself to, and\nbegan to prepare for, his mission to the _\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2_.\u201d\n\nBy the method which he applies, Reitzenstein is necessarily driven to\nadopt this far-reaching view. He makes no effort to take into the\nfield of his argument the Late-Jewish eschatology, as preserved in the\npost-Danielic literature, in the discourses of Jesus, and the\nApocalypses of Baruch and Ezra. Whatever is not self-explanatory, and\ncannot be explained from the Old Testament, is, according to him,\nderived from the world of thought associated with the\nMystery-religions.\n\nThe proper procedure would really have been to examine the conceptions\ndrawn from apocalyptic thought and those from the Mystery-religions\nindependently, and then to decide which of them rendered possible the\nbetter explanation. The best way would have been for Reitzenstein to\ndiscuss the matter step by step with Kabisch, who had sought to derive\nthe fundamental conceptions of the Pauline mysticism from eschatology.\n\nThe total neglect of eschatology forces him to some curious\nconclusions. After showing, in opposition to a canonised confusion of\nthought, that there is not the slightest connexion between Paul\u2019s\ndoctrine of the first [pg 221] and second Adam in I Cor. xv. 45-49 and\nPhilo\u2019s theory about the two accounts of the creation in Genesis,\nsince in that case the pneumatic heavenly man would be the first, and\nthe psychic earthly man the second,_(_183_)_ he comes to the\nconclusion that the view set forth in I Corinthians must have\nunderlying it \u201cthe belief in a god \u2018Anthropos,\u2019\u201d who came to be\nidentified with Christ.\n\nThis hypothesis naturally suggests itself to Reitzenstein, because in\n_Poimandres_ he believes himself to have discovered a myth about\nAnthropos._(_184_)_ But is this, even if it were held to be proved, of\nsuch a character that the Pauline conception of the first and second\nAdam could without more ado be derived from it? Is the complicated\nhypothesis necessary?\n\nPaul\u2019s conception can be explained without the least difficulty on\neschatological grounds. The first Adam brought mankind under the\ndominion of death. Christ is the Second Adam because He by His\nresurrection becomes the founder of a new race, which in virtue of\nthat which has taken place in Him becomes partaker of an imperishable\nlife, and acquires a claim to the future possession of the pneumatic\nheavenly body which He already bears. The Second Man comes from heaven\nbecause the pre-existent Christ, in order to become the founder of the\n\u201chumanity of the resurrection,\u201d must appear upon earth and assume\nfleshly corporeity. He is \u201clife-giving spirit\u201d because the _pneuma_\nwhich goes forth from Him as the glorified Christ, works in believers\nas the power of the resurrection. This being so, what purpose is\nserved by bringing in the very doubtful myths about the god Anthropos,\nespecially as Paul, though he certainly thinks of his Second Adam as a\nheavenly being, never anywhere speaks of Him as God.\n\n[pg 222]\n\nThis is typical of a series of similar cases._(_185_)_\n\nOn the other hand, it is just this one-sidedness which makes the charm\nand the significance of the book. Reitzenstein shows, both positively\nand negatively, how far the analogies from the Mystery-religions will\ntake us. Ordinary theologians\u2014since Kabisch had remained without\ninfluence\u2014had simply designated as Greek everything which they could\nnot understand from Late Judaism, and described as Late-Jewish\nwhatever they could not understand as Greek. Reitzenstein,\nthe\u2014unconscious?\u2014antipodes of Kabisch, would like to make an end of\nthis simple game and compel people to choose one horn or other of the\ndilemma. Instead of entering on theoretic discussions, full of \u201cnot\nonly, but also,\u201d and \u201ceither . . . or,\u201d he goes straight forward as\nfar as he thinks he can feel firm ground under his feet, and has thus\ncontributed, to an extraordinary degree, to the clearing up of the\nsituation.\n\nContrary to his intention and conviction, however, the outcome is not\npositive but negative.\n\nLike Dieterich and others, Reitzenstein takes it for granted that\nPaulinism makes use of the conception of Re-birth, and he feels that\nthat is in itself a sufficient reason for not regarding it as a\nproduct of Judaism._(_186_)_\n\nThe assumption being unsound, all the discussions and arguments based\non it fall to the ground. In particular, the fine parallels from the\nHermetic literature must be given up. Further, it is not legitimate to\ntreat the [pg 223] mysticism of the Mystery-religions and that of Paul\nas directly corresponding to one another. The former is a\nGod-mysticism, the latter a Christ-mysticism. The resulting\ndifferences are greater than at first sight appears. In the\nGraeco-Oriental conception, what is in view is the \u201cdeification\u201d of\nthe individual man. As the divinity of the particular Mystery which is\nbeing celebrated is always thought of as the highest divinity, the\nmortal enters into union with the being of God as such.\n\nThe Pauline Christ, however, even though He is called the Son of God,\nis not God, but only a heavenly Being. The renewal which is effected\nby fellowship with Him is not a deification\u2014the word never occurs in\nthe Apostle\u2019s writings\u2014but only a transference into a state of\nsuper-sensuous corporeity, which has to do with a coming new condition\nof the world.\n\nGreek thought is concerned with the simple antithesis of the divine\nworld and the earthly world. Paulinism makes out of this duality a\ntriplicity. It divides the super-earthly factor into two,\ndistinguishing between God and the divine super-earthly, which is\npersonified in Christ and made present in Him. God, and therein speaks\nthe voice of Judaism, is purely transcendent. A God-mysticism does not\nexist for the Apostle\u2014or, at least, does not yet exist. A time will\ncome no doubt in the future, after the termination of the Messianic\nKingdom, when God will be \u201call in all\u201d (I Cor. xv. 28). Until then\nthere is only a Christ-mysticism, which has to do with the\nanticipation of the super-earthly life of the Messianic Kingdom.\n\nTo treat Graeco-Oriental and Pauline mysticism as corresponding\nfactors, is to perform a piece in two-four time and a piece in\nthree-four time together, and to imagine that one hears an identical\nrhythm in both.\n\nAnother point of difference is that Graeco-Oriental mysticism works\nwith permanent factors; the Pauline with temporal and changing ones.\nThe Messianic-Divine drives out the super-earthly angelic powers which\n[pg 224] previously occupied a place between God and the world. It is\nin the very act of coming. But in proportion as it advances, there\npasses away not only the super-sensuous angelic element, but also the\nearthly and sensuous. Christ-mysticism depends upon the movement of\nthese two worlds, one of them moving towards being, the other towards\nnot-being, and it continues only so long as they are in touch with one\nanother as they move past in opposite directions. The beginning of\nthis contact is marked by the resurrection of the Lord, the end by His\nparousia. Before the former it is not yet possible to pass from one to\nthe other, after the latter it is no longer possible. A mysticism\nwhich is thus bound up with temporal conditions can hardly be derived\nfrom the Greek timeless conceptions.\n\nThe act, moreover, by which the individual becomes partaker in the new\nbeing is in the two cases quite different. The Mystery-religions\nrepresent the \u201ctransfiguration\u201d of the living being as effected by his\nreceiving into himself a divine essence, by means of the gnosis and\nthe vision of God. It is thus a subjective act. According to Paul\u2019s\nteaching the \u201ctransfiguration\u201d is not brought about by the gnosis and\nvision of God. These are rather the consequence of the renewal, the\nefficient cause of which is found, not in the act of the individual,\nand not in the inherent efficacy of the sacrament, but in a\nworld-process. So soon as the individual enters by faith and baptism\ninto this new cosmic process he is immediately renewed in harmony\ntherewith, and now receives spirit, ecstasy, gnosis, and everything\nthat these imply. What according to the Greek view is the cause, is\nfor Paul the consequence. Thus, even though the conceptions show a\ncertain similarity, they do not correspond, because they are connected\nwith the central event of the mysticism in each case by chains which\nrun in opposite directions.\n\nA figure which exactly illustrates one\u2019s meaning may claim pardon even\nfor somewhat doubtful taste. In the Mystery-religions, individuals\nclimb up a staircase step [pg 225] by step towards deification; in\nPaulinism they spring in a body into a lift which is already in motion\nand which carries them into a new world. The staircase is open to all;\nthe lift can only be used by those for whom it is especially provided.\n\nSo far as Comparative Religion is concerned, therefore, the case is\nexactly the same in regard to the \u201cphysical\u201d element in the mystical\ndoctrine of redemption as it was in regard to that of the sacramental\ndoctrine. On close examination the historico-eschatological character\nof the Pauline conception is in both cases so all-pervading that it\ninvalidates any parallel with the Mystery-religions, and leaves them\nwith nothing in common but the linguistic expression. The mystical and\nsacramental aspects of the \u201cphysical\u201d element in redemption do not for\nhim stand on the same footing with the eschatological, which is\nimmediately given with the conceptions of transformation and\nresurrection, but must be in some way capable of being derived from\nit. Only when that is done will the Pauline doctrine of redemption be\nexplained.\n\nIt is to be noted that Reitzenstein tries in vain to render\nintelligible either the connexion of the soteriological mysticism with\nthe facts of the death and resurrection, or the fellowship which is\ntherein presupposed between the believer and the Lord. In his\nexposition of Rom. vi. the parallels with the Mystery-religions force\nhim into a wrong line, and compel him to think of the objective\nprocess as a subjective one. He assumes that everything becomes clear\nand simple if once the Apostle is understood to speak of a _voluntary_\ndying, which is neither purely physical nor merely metaphysical, but\nis based upon the thought that we must not sin any more because we\nhave taken upon us Christ\u2019s person and lot, and have crucified our\nnatural man.\n\nBut in Paul it is not a question of an act which the believer\naccomplishes in himself; what happens is that in the moment when he\nreceives baptism, the dying and [pg 226] rising again of Christ takes\nplace in him without any cooperation, or exercise of will or thought,\non his part. It is like a mechanical process which is set in motion by\npressing a spring. The minute force employed in pressing the spring\nbears no relation to that which thereon comes into play; only serves\nto release a set of forces already in existence.\n\nIn the Mystery-religions the thought is: We desire not to sin any\nmore, therefore we will undergo initiation. Paul\u2019s logic is the\nconverse of this, and takes the objective form: Christ\u2019s death and\nresurrection is effectually present in us; therefore, we are no longer\nnatural men and cannot sin any more.\n\nThe whole distinction lies in the fact that the mysticism of the\nApostle of the Gentiles is based on historico-eschatological events,\nwhereas the Mystery-religions are in their nature non-historical.\nWhere they make use of myths they use them in the last resort merely\nas pictures of that which the \u201cmystes\u201d performs or undergoes, not as\nevents charged with a real energy, as the death and resurrection of\nJesus are for Paul.\n\nBut the fact of the far-reaching outward and inward resemblances of\nlanguage between the Graeco-Oriental and the Pauline mysticism are not\naffected by that. As though by a pre-established harmony in the\nhistory of religion, it came about that the mysticism which developed\nout of eschatology was able to find complete representation in the\nlanguage of the Mystery-religions, and found there ready to its hand\nconceptions and expressions which facilitated, suggested, and in some\ncases were even indispensable to its fuller development.\n\nReitzenstein\u2019s merit is that of having determined exactly and\nunmistakably the meaning of Paul\u2019s language, and having at the same\ntime shown that Jewish Hellenism and Greek philosophy had practically\nno part in him.\n\nOf course, it is not possible to decide how much of this [pg 227]\nreligious language Paul found already in existence, and how much he\ncreated for his purpose. It must not be forgotten that the Oriental\nMystery-religions did not receive their complete development under\nGreek influence until a considerable time after the appearance of the\nApostle of the Gentiles. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that\nhe and they found in existence the same Greek religious vocabulary,\nlaid hold of it, and perfected it.\n\nOne error of the students of Comparative Religion deserves particular\nmention, for it is typical. In consequence of the parallelism which\nthey maintain between the Mystery-religions and Paulinism, they come\nto ascribe to the Apostle the creation of a \u201creligion.\u201d_(_187_)_\nNothing of the kind ever entered into his purpose. For him there was\nonly one religion: that of Judaism. It was concerned with God, faith,\npromise, hope and law. In consequence of the coming, the death, and\nthe resurrection of Jesus Christ, it became its duty to adjust its\nteachings and demands to the new era thus introduced, and in the\nprocess many things were moved from the shadow into the light and\nothers from the light into the shadow. \u201cChristianity\u201d is for Paul no\nnew religion, but simply Judaism with the centre of gravity shifted in\nconsequence of the new era. His own system of thought is certainly for\nhim no new religion. It is his belief, as fully known and worked out\nin its implications, and it professes to be nothing else than the true\nJewish religion, in accord both with the time and with the Scriptures.\n\nAnother remark that has to be made is that the students of Comparative\nReligion are inclined to make an illegitimate use of the word\neschatology when it suits their purpose. They think themselves\njustified in applying it wherever in the Mystery-religions there is\nmention of death, judgment, and life after death, but they forget that\nin doing so they are using it in a much more general sense than that\nwhich we have to reckon with in the Pauline [pg 228] doctrine. The\nterm eschatology ought only to be applied when reference is made to\nthe end of the world as expected in the immediate future, and the\nevents, hopes, and fears connected therewith. The use of the word to\ndesignate the subjective future end of individuals, in connexion with\nwhich no imminent catastrophe affecting all mankind is in question,\ncan only be misleading, since it creates the false impression\u2014_exempla\ndocent_\u2014that the Pauline eschatology can be paralleled and compared\nwith an eschatology belonging to the Mystery-religions. Of eschatology\nin the late Jewish or early Christian sense there is not a single\ntrace to be found in any Graeco-Oriental doctrine._(_188_)_\n\nTherefore, the Mystery-religions and Paulinism cannot in the last\nresort be compared at all, as is indeed confirmed by the fact that the\nreal analogies both in the mysticism and the sacramental doctrine are\nso surprisingly few. Reitzenstein\u2019s attempt has not succeeded in\naltering this result, but only in confirming it. What remains of his\nmaterial when the circle of ideas connected with the thought of\n\u201cre-birth\u201d is eliminated, and the all-pervading eschatological\ncharacter of the fundamental ideas and underlying logic of Paulinism\nare duly considered in making the comparison?\n\nFinally, the question may be permitted, What would have been the\nbearing of the result if Dieterich and Reitzenstein had really proved\nthe dependence of the Apostle\u2019s doctrine upon the Mystery-religions?\nThe simple declaration of the result would have been only [pg 229] the\nbeginning of things, for immediately the problem whether, understood\nin this way, the Apostle\u2019s doctrine could still have belonged to\nprimitive Christianity would have arisen and called aloud for\nsolution. The theory that Paul personally transformed the Gospel on\nthe analogy of the Graeco-Oriental Mystery-religions is menaced by the\nsame difficulties which previously brought about the downfall of the\ntheory held by the Baur and post-Baur theology, that he Hellenised the\nGospel. The hypothesis advanced by the students of Comparative\nReligion is only a special form of that general theory, and can do\nnothing to minimise the _a priori_ difficulties, or those raised by\nthe history of dogma in connexion with it.\n\nHow does Paulinism as understood by Dieterich and Reitzenstein fit\ninto the history of the development of Christianity?\n\nIf the Apostle during the first generation had introduced such a\ntremendous innovation as the Greek \u201cphysical\u201d mysticism of redemption\nand the sacraments into primitive Jewish Christianity, could the\nlatter have permitted this and continued to keep him in its midst? How\nwas it possible for it to admit without a struggle, indeed unnoticed,\nsomething so entirely alien, and to raise no objections either to the\nChristology or to the mysticism or to the sacramental doctrine of the\nApostle, but simply and solely to his attitude towards the law?\n\nAnd how, on the other hand, could the later Hellenising theology pass\nover in silence the man who had been its precursor in uniting the\nconceptions of Graeco-Oriental religion with the Gospel? The\ninexplicable fact that Paulinism played no part in the subsequent\ndevelopment, but is left to lie unused and uncomprehended, becomes\nstill more inexplicable if Dieterich and Reitzenstein are right. They\nassert that the Hellenising force did not issue from philosophy but\nfrom the Graeco-Oriental religious movement, and found expression in\nPaul not less than in the Johannine and early Greek theology. [pg 230]\nWhy, then, are the results so different in the two cases that they\nhave no kind of outer or inner relation to one another? If the same\nforce is applied at different times to the same object and in the same\nline, can the resultant movement vary so much in direction? How is it\npossible that Paul represents a Hellenisation of Christianity which is\nso unique in character and so unnoticed by others? How could two\ndifferent types of Greek transformation of the Gospel come into\nexistence, and in such a way, moreover, that the second discovered\nnothing Hellenic in the first?\n\nAccording to the theory of Dieterich and Reitzenstein, Paulinism ought\nto be detached from early Christianity and closely connected with\nGreek theology. The contrary is the case. It stands in undisturbed\nconnexion with the former, whereas it shows no connexion whatever with\nthe latter.\n\nAny one who thinks of the Apostle\u2019s doctrine as in any sense a\nHellenisation of the Gospel, whether he owes allegiance to ordinary\ntheology or to Comparative Religion, has gone over to the radicalism\nof the Ultra-T\u00fcbingen party, and must, like it, go forth with his Paul\nout of primitive Christianity into a later period, unless, indeed, as\nthe Comparative method admits, he is prepared to consider the faith of\nthe early Church as Graeco-Oriental, or Paul as the founder of\nChristianity.\n\nIn any case the hypothesis of a Hellenising of the Gospel in early\nChristianity carried out by Paul as an individual is a historic\nimpossibility. From the dilemma, either early Christian or Greek,\nthere is no escape, however one may twist and turn.\n\nIf the students of Comparative Religion had been better acquainted\nwith the attempt of the Ultra-T\u00fcbingen critics, and had had a more\naccurate understanding of the difference between Paulinism and the\nJohannine and early Greek theology, they could hardly have retained\nthe open-mindedness necessary to the commencement of their\nundertaking; for in that case they would have been [pg 231] forced to\nreflect on the inconvenient consequences of their possible victory.\n\nSince they did not enter on such considerations it was difficult for\nthem to do justice to Harnack. Here and there they took occasion to\naccuse him of being behind the times and reproach him with having\ngiven too much importance to the influence of philosophy in relation\nto the Hellenising of Christianity, and too little to that of the\nMystery-religions. They are not wholly wrong in this. He does not give\nsufficient recognition to the \u201cphysical\u201d and sacramental elements in\nPaulinism, and does not work out sufficiently fully the parallel\nbetween the Mystery-religions and the Johannine and early Greek\ntheology. In laying the foundations of his history of dogma he is too\nexclusively interested in the development of the Christology, instead\nof starting from the curious complex of Christology, soteriology, and\nsacramental doctrine which is characteristic of the Pauline as well as\nof the Johannine and early Greek theology, and determines the course\nof the history of dogma.\n\nBut this somewhat one-sided view of primitive and early Christianity\nis far from affording the complete explanation of his attitude of\nreserve in regard to the results arrived at by the students of\nComparative Religion. If he forms a low estimate of the influence of\nthe Mystery-religions upon Paul and the earliest period of\nChristianity, he is led to that result by pressing considerations from\nthe history of dogma, by which the consequences of the theory put\nforward by the students of Comparative Religion are made clear to him.\nLike Anrich, he recognised from the beginning the weaknesses of the\ntheory, which remained hidden from the champions of the method.\n\nIt is not possible for any one who holds that Paulinism shows the\ninfluence of the Mystery-religions to stop half-way; he has to carry\nhis conclusion back into primitive Christianity in general and to\nexplain even the genesis of the new faith as due to syncretism. The\nlatter [pg 232] stand-point is taken up by Hermann Gunkel_(_189_)_ and\nMax Maurenbrecher._(_190_)_\n\nThey hold that the belief in a redeemer-god, such as was present in\nJewish Messianism, was also widely current in the Graeco-Oriental\nreligions, and that subsequently, in consequence of the historic\ncoming of Jesus, these two worlds of thought came into a contact which\ngenerated a creative energy. From the process thus set in motion\nprimitive Christianity arose. This account of its genesis also\nexplains, they think, why it goes much beyond the \u201cteaching of Jesus\u201d\nand the religious ideas which formed the content of Late Judaism, and\nincludes mystical and sacramental beliefs.\n\nThe historic Jesus did not, according to Gunkel and Maurenbrecher,\nhold Himself to be the \u201cRedeemer.\u201d Therefore, the real origin of\nChristianity does not lie with Him but with the disciples. They,\nhaving been laid hold of by the power of His personality, and finding\nthemselves compelled to seek a solution of the problem of His death,\nreferred to Him the already existing myth of the Saviour-God, and\nthereby gave to the set of ideas which had hitherto only existed as\nsuch a point of historical attachment, both for Orientals and Jews.\nFrom this time forward the religious ideas which attached themselves\nin the one case and the other to the conception of a redeemer-god\nflowed into a common bed and formed the stream which, as Christianity,\noverflowed the world.\n\nMaurenbrecher, who seeks to work out the hypothesis in rather fuller\ndetail, holds that in Galilee, which in view of its history had\ncertainly not always been a purely Jewish country, the Messianic idea\nand the non-Jewish belief in redemption were already present and had\nto some extent intermingled, and that it was, therefore, no accident\nthat the new religion which after the death of Jesus took [pg 233] its\nrise in the revelation made to Peter should have gone forth from\nGalilee. The advantage, he goes on to explain, which the young\nChristianity possessed among a purely heathen population in comparison\nwith the other competing Oriental religions, arises from the Jewish\nelement, \u201cwhich in consequence of the peculiar intermixture of which\nChristianity was the outcome had entered into the universal Oriental\nreligion of redemption.\u201d \u201cConversely, however, it was precisely the\nnon-Jewish element in the Christian faith which for the Jews made this\nnew religion a really new and higher stage of their religious life.\u201d\n\nThis hypothesis is unable to recognise any unique character in Paul.\nWhat Dieterich and Reitzenstein claim for him, it finds already\ncompletely realised in the primitive community. The result is that\nMaurenbrecher hardly knows what to make of him, and emphasises his\nJewish side much more strongly than his Graeco-Oriental aspect.\n\nThe solution of the problem worked out by Gunkel and Maurenbrecher is\nnot based purely on Comparative Religion, but, as the latter writer\njustly points out, is a kind of synthesis between the views of liberal\ntheology and that of its opponents. The fundamental idea comes from\nthe latter; but in agreement with the former the existence of a\nhistorical Jesus is retained.\n\nThe retention of this remnant of critical history is, however,\nunnecessary and illogical. If the origin of Christianity essentially\ndepends on the intermixture of an Oriental belief in a redeemer with\nthe Jewish expectation of the Messiah, and, given a contact and\ninterpenetration between the two, must necessarily have arisen, it is\nnot obvious why the r\u00f4le of a historical Jesus should be\u2014or whether it\ncan be\u2014retained in connexion with it.\n\nIn Gunkel and Maurenbrecher it is only a stop-gap, which is brought\ninto a wholly external connexion with the growth of the new religion.\nThey retain His coming as the phenomenon by which the contact of the\ntwo religious worlds is set up, but not as a fructifying element.\n\n[pg 234]\n\nThere is no obvious reason for continuing to take into account this by\nno means indispensable auxiliary force. If the Oriental belief in a\nredeemer and the Jewish Messianic hope were inherently adapted to one\nanother, and destined to produce by their fruitful union a new\nreligion, then, after all, any kind of impulse, even a mere train of\nthought, might have set the process in motion. The assumption of the\nexistence and the death of the Galilaean Rabbi becomes superfluous if\nonce it ceases to supply the efficient cause for the arising of\nChristianity. Since Comparative Religion finds the latter in the\nmutual interpenetration of Jewish and Graeco-Oriental elements, it can\nget along just as well with myth as with the questionable history of\nthe Synoptists. Such is the teaching of William Benjamin\nSmith,_(_191_)_ and Arthur Drews.\n\nBoth these writers make a rather extravagant use of the privilege of\nstanding outside the ranks of scientific theology. Their imagination\nleaps with playful elegance over obstacles of fact and enables them to\ndiscover everywhere the pre-Christian Jesus whom their soul desires,\neven in places where an ordinary intelligence can find no trace of\nhim.\n\nSmith takes it for granted that the \u201cNaasenes, whose origin goes back\nto the most remote antiquity, worshipped a Jesus as a divinity.\u201d How\nChristianity grew out of this cult he does not tell us, but consoles\nus with the promise of later revelations. In the preface he betrays\nthe fact that he is now only publishing \u201cthe first quarter of the\nevidence which he has collected,\u201d and intends to go on quietly\ncollecting and arranging his material \u201cuntil [pg 235] the whole\nirresistible host can take the field together,\u201d and further, that it\nis not the\u2014inevitable\u2014victory which is his main concern, but the\nstimulus imparted to others.\n\nDrews_(_192_)_ does not play the amateur quite so completely, but\nendeavours on the basis of his belief in the pre-Christian Jesus to\npresent a coherent picture of the way in which Christianity arose; and\nhe makes Paul its creator. \u201cThe Jesus-faith,\u201d so runs his thesis, \u201chad\nlong existed in numerous Mandaean sects in Western Asia, in many\nrespects distinct from one another, before the belief in the\nJesus-religion acquired a fixed form and its adherents became\nconscious of their religious _differentia_ and their independence of\nthe official Jewish religion.\u201d This ancient faith first meets us as a\nnew religion in the letters ascribed to Paul. The citizen of Tarsus,\ntrained as a Pharisee, heard of a sect-god named Jesus, and brought\nthis conception into connexion with the belief in the death and\nresurrection of Adonis and the thought of the suffering \u201cservant of\nthe Lord\u201d in Isaiah liii., and thus arrived at the idea that a god had\nappeared in human form, and had by his death and resurrection become\nthe Redeemer, and had enabled men \u201cto become God.\u201d This was the\nbirth-hour of Christianity. For a historic personality, \u201cto serve, so\nto speak, as the living model for the God-man,\u201d there was no need in\norder to produce this Jesus-religion, which then entered on its\nworld-wide career of victory.\n\nDrews\u2019 thesis is not merely a curiosity; it indicates the natural\nlimit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates of Comparative\nReligion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest.\n\nPaulinism, in the judgment of the adherents of this much-vaunted\nmethod, is to be regarded as a synthesis between primitive\nChristianity and the conceptions current in the Mystery-religions. If\nthis be taken as the starting-point, it is necessary to proceed to the\nconclusion\u2014since the synthesis cannot be conceived as [pg 236]\naccomplished by an individual\u2014that Christianity itself is a product of\nsyncretism. And if the constitutive factor in the new faith is seen in\nthe combination of the Jewish Messianic expectation with a\nGraeco-Oriental belief in a redeemer-god who dies and rises again, the\nassumption of the existence of a historic Jesus who was not Himself\ntouched by Hellenic ideas becomes a worthless subsidiary hypothesis.\nIt becomes quite a natural step to leave it on one side and to regard\nthe synthesis as either developing gradually, by an impersonal\nprocess, or as coming to birth in the brain of the author of the\nPauline Epistles, who thus becomes the creator of early Christianity.\nDrews is justified in appealing to Gunkel, and asserting that he is\nonly offering his ideas with a logically necessary correction.\n\nOf course, every further logical step in this direction involves\nfurther sacrifice of historical understanding and an increasing\nnecessity to indulge in imaginary constructions. But all these\nconsequences are already present in germ in the mere assertion that\nPaul is to be understood from the Mystery-religions, even though those\nwho maintain this view do not want to proceed any further than the\nfacts which have to be explained seem to them to warrant. As between\nthe students of Comparative Religion and Drews the relation is similar\nto that between the legitimate and illegitimate T\u00fcbingen schools.\nHere, too, the alternative lies between \u201cscientific and inconsistent,\nand consistent and unscientific.\u201d That means that an absolute antinomy\nappears between the logic of the attempted solution and that of the\ndata of fact; which is as much as to say that the problem has been\nwrongly grasped, and that this way, whether it be followed for a\ncertain distance only, or right to the end, can never lead to the goal\nof a satisfactory solution.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 237]\n\nVIII\n\n\nSUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM\n\n\nTHE study of Paulinism has nothing very brilliant to show for itself\nin the way of scientific achievement. Learning has been lavishly\nexpended upon it, but thought and reflection have been to seek.\n\nWriters went to work with an almost inconceivable absence of plan, and\nwanted to offer solutions before they had made clear to themselves the\nscope of the problem. Instead of seeking a definite diagnosis, they\ntreated the symptoms separately, with whatever means happened to come\nto hand.\n\nIt was inevitable, therefore, that the study of the subject should\nmove along intricate and continually recrossing paths, and engage in\nlong and devious wanderings, only, in some cases, to arrive back again\nat the point from which it started. That Paul\u2019s doctrine of redemption\nwas thought out on the lines of a physical nature-process had been\nasserted by L\u00fcdemann as long ago as the year 1872. Nevertheless,\ntheology hit on the plan of \u201cspiritualising\u201d it, and took very nearly\nthirty years to get back to this discovery.\n\nThe account which we have given of the history of the subject has\nrevealed the structure of the problem and given it room to develop\nitself. The inner connexion of the questions determines in advance\nwhat the individual solutions can and cannot effect, and at the same\ntime [pg 238] shows what must be provided for in any solution which\nprofesses to offer a really historical explanation.\n\nTo neglect this structure, this schematism of the problem is not\npermissible. It has not been independently invented and imposed from\nwithout upon the past history of research, but represents its actual\nresults, and points the way for all subsequent attempts at a solution.\n\nThe problem consists in the two great questions: what Paul\u2019s doctrine\nhas in common with primitive Christianity, and what it has in common\nwith Greek ideas.\n\nIt is complicated by the fact that our only information about the\nbeliefs of the primitive Church comes from Paul. His writings are the\nfirst\u2014and indeed the only\u2014witnesses which we possess upon the point,\nsince the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of James give us\ninformation at best about a non-Pauline, certainly not about a\npre-Pauline Christianity.\n\nThe standard by which the primitiveness of Paul\u2019s Christianity has to\nbe measured and tested has, therefore, in the first place to be\narrived at by the method of arguing backward from itself.\nNevertheless, the difficulty is not so great as it appears when thus\ntheoretically stated. The most general features of the earliest dogma\ncan be found without difficulty in the Epistles. These consisted in\nthe belief in the Messiahship of the Jesus who had died and risen\nagain, and in the expectation of His parousia in the immediate future.\n\nMoreover, the problem as a whole is simplified by the fact that the\nsecond of the fundamental questions has been clearly answered by the\nhistory of Pauline study. The answer is this: Paulinism and Hellenism\nhave in common their religious terminology, but, in respect of ideas,\nnothing. The Apostle did not Hellenise Christianity. His conceptions\nare equally distinct from those of Greek philosophy and from those of\nthe Mystery-religions.\n\nThe affinities and analogies which have been alleged cannot stand an\nexamination which takes account of their real essence and of the\ndifferent way in which the ideas [pg 239] are conditioned in the two\ncases. Neither Baur nor the theology which owes allegiance to him, nor\nthe students of Comparative Religion, have succeeded in proving their\nassertions. It is also interesting to observe that those who undertake\nto explain Paul by the aid of the Graeco-Oriental Mystery-religions,\nentirely deny the philosophic Hellenism which a more conventional\ntheological opinion has found in him; so that it is a case of Satan\u2019s\nbeing driven out by Beelzebub. On the other hand, the Comparative\nstudy of Paulinism has the merit of having made an end of the\n\u201cspiritualising\u201d and \u201cpsychologising\u201d which were practised for a whole\ngeneration.\n\nThe impossibility of anything in the nature of a Hellenic gospel being\npresent in Paul appears from the fact, that every view of this kind\nwhen thought out in its logical implications must arrive at a point\nwhere it has to do violence to historical tradition. It became\napparent that it is impossible for a Hellenised Paulinism to subsist\nalongside of a primitive Christianity which shared the Jewish\neschatological expectations. One must either, as the Ultra-T\u00fcbingen\ncritics did, transplant the Epistles and the doctrine from the\nprimitive period to the second century, or, as some of the votaries of\nComparative Religion have endeavoured to do, explain primitive\nChristianity as a product of Graeco-Oriental syncretism.\n\nThat only a very few investigators have drawn these inferences is not\ndue to the fact that they are not justified. It was want of courage,\nof logical consistency, and of the necessary contempt for the rest of\nthe facts which prevented them from making the venture. So they\noffered compromises, imposingly dressed out in words but inwardly\nuntenable, and talked themselves and others into believing the\nimpossible, namely, that a Hellenisation of the primitive Christian\nbelief effected by Paul as an individual is really conceivable.\n\nThe half-and-half theories which represent Paulinism as consisting\npartly of Greek, partly of Jewish ideas, are [pg 240] in a still worse\ncase than those which more or less neglect the former element.\nEncumbered with all the difficulties of the Hellenising theory they\nbecome involved in the jungle of antinomies which they discover or\nimagine, and there perish miserably.\n\nThe solution must, therefore, consist in leaving out of the question\nGreek influence in every form and in every combination, and venturing\non the \u201cone-sidedness\u201d of endeavouring to understand the doctrine of\nthe Apostle of the Gentiles entirely on the basis of Jewish primitive\nChristianity. That implies, in the first place, that the Pauline\neschatology must be maintained in its full compass, as required by the\nutterances of the letters. But merely to emphasise it is not\neverything. The next point is to explain it. What was the scheme of\nthe events of the End, and what answer was given by eschatological\nexpectation to the fundamental questions which could not be avoided?\nAre there two resurrections or one; one judgment or two? Who are to\nrise again at the parousia? Does a judgment take place then? On whom\nis it held? What are its standards and its subject? Wherein do reward\nand punishment consist? What happens to the men of the surviving\ngeneration who are not destined to the Messianic kingdom? What is the\nrelation between judgment and election? What is the fate of believers\nwho are elect and baptised but who have fallen from grace by unworthy\nconduct? Can they lose their final blessedness, or are they only\nexcluded from the Messianic kingdom? Does Paul recognise a general\nresurrection? If so, when does it take place? Is it accompanied by a\njudgment, or do only the elect rise again? When does the judgment take\nplace at which the elect judge the angels?\n\nNot until Pauline eschatology gives an answer to all the \u201cidle\u201d\nquestions of this kind which can be asked will it be really understood\nand explained. And it must be somehow possible, by the discovery of\nits inner logic, to reconstruct it from the scattered statements in\nthe documents. [pg 241] We have no right to assume that for Paul there\nexisted in his expectation manifest obscurities, much less that he had\noverlooked contradictions in it.\n\nIs there, then, any possibility of explaining the mystical doctrine of\nredemption and the sacramental teaching on the basis of the Jewish\neschatological element?\n\nThe attempt is by no means so hopeless as it might seem in view of the\ngeneral consideration that Judaism knew neither mysticism nor\nsacraments. It is not really a question of Judaism as such, but of\napocalyptic thought, which is a separate and independent phenomenon\narising within Judaism, and has special presuppositions which are\nentirely peculiar to it.\n\nWe saw in analysing the \u201cphysical\u201d element in the doctrine of\nredemption and the sacraments that the conceptions connected therewith\nare conditioned by the underlying eschatology which everywhere shows\nthrough._(_193_)_ It needs no special learning to make this discovery.\nAny one who ventures to read the documents with an open mind and pays\nattention to the primary links of connexion will soon arrive at this\nconclusion. That Paul\u2019s mystical doctrine of redemption and his\ndoctrine of the sacraments belong to eschatology is plain to be seen.\nThe only question is in what way, exactly, they have arisen out of it.\nThe future-hope, raised to the highest degree of intensity, must\nsomehow or other have possessed the power of producing them. If the\nimpulse, the pressing need to which they were the response, is once\nrecognised, then Paulinism is understood, since in its essence it can\nbe nothing else than an eschatological mysticism, expressing itself by\nthe aid of the Greek religious terminology.\n\nTheoretically, too, it is possible to form an approximate idea how the\nintensified expectation of the future might take a mystical form. In\napocalyptic thought sensuous and super-sensuous converge, in such a\nmanner that the former is thought of as passing away into the latter.\nThus [pg 242] there is present in it the most general presupposition\nof all mysticism, since it is the object of the latter to abolish the\nearthly in the super-earthly. The peculiarity of the mysticism which\narises out of Apocalyptic is that it does not bring the two worlds\ninto contact in the mind of the individual man, as Greek and medieval\nmysticism did, but dovetails one into the other, and thus creates for\nthe moment at which the one passes over into the other an objective,\ntemporally conditioned mysticism. This, however, is only available for\nthose who by their destiny belong to both worlds. Eschatological\nmysticism is predestinarian.\n\nThat a mysticism of this kind existed before Paul is not known. It may\nbe conjectured that the conditions under which it could develop were\nnot present until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.\n\nBut sacramental tendencies already make their appearance in the\nfuture-hope which was to lead up to Christianity. The usual view is to\nthe effect that Paul was the first to introduce the mystical element\ninto baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper. There is nothing to prove that.\nHow can we possibly tell that these ceremonies were previously purely\nsymbolic acts? Any one who reads with an open mind the Synoptic\naccounts of John\u2019s baptism must recognise that it was not only a\nsymbol of purification on repentance, but is thought of as in some way\nor other guaranteeing salvation._(_194_)_ A transaction, however,\nwhich itself gives and effects such a result is to be regarded as a\nsacrament.\n\nThe manner in which Paul speaks of early Christian baptism and of the\nLord\u2019s Supper does not make the impression that he is asserting for\nthe first time the effectual working of the ceremony; it is rather as\nif he took it for granted as something given and self-evident. This\nwould agree with the observation noted above that the baptism of John,\nfrom which primitive Christian [pg 243] baptism was derived, was\nalready thought of as a sacrament.\n\nWhether the Lord\u2019s Supper in the intention of Jesus Himself directly\nconveyed something to the partakers, or whether it only became a\nsacrament in primitive Christian times, must be left undecided.\n\nThat the intensified eschatological expectation should go so far as to\nproduce sacramental conceptions is in itself intelligible. Those who\nstood on the threshold of the coming glory must have been eagerly\nanxious to gain an assurance that they themselves would be partakers\ntherein and to obtain tangible guarantees of \u201cdeliverance\u201d from the\ncoming judgment. The conception of \u201cmarking out\u201d and \u201csealing\u201d plays\nin apocalyptic thought a very important part. Similar provisions are a\ncharacteristic product of any intense expectation of the future.\n\nIt is, therefore, highly probable that the Baptist, and primitive\nChristianity, created eschatological sacraments which, as already\nestablished and accredited, Paul had only to take over.\n\nThe bearing of these statements and considerations must be shown from\nthe Epistles. How far it is possible to trace the genesis of the\nmysticism and the sacramental doctrine from the eschatological beliefs\nof the Apostle cannot be determined _a priori_. The one thing certain\nis that no other way of explanation is possible than that which leads\nfrom the circumference of his future-hope to the central idea of his\n\u201ctheology.\u201d All other interpretations hang in the air.\n\nTheology has heretofore found itself rather helpless in presence of\nthe votaries of Comparative Religion. It could not accept their\nresults as correct, but on the other hand it was not in a position to\nexplain Paul\u2019s sacramental views, because it had never taken into\nconsideration the possibility that they might have arisen out of the\nJewish and primitive Christian future-hope. There was thus no course\nopen to it but to engage in an inglorious guerilla warfare with the\nnew science and skirmish with [pg 244] it over particular passages and\nstatements. It is only the acceptance of the fact that the Apostle\u2019s\ndoctrine is integrally, simply and exclusively eschatological, which\nputs it in a position to assume the offensive in a systematic way and\nwith good prospect of success.\n\nThe Apostle\u2019s most general views must be taken as the starting point\nfrom which to explain how he arrives at the paradox that the believer\nis united with Christ, experiences along with Him death and\nresurrection, and becomes a new creature, emancipated from fleshly\ncorporeity. The assertion that these statements are meant in a\n\u201cphysical\u201d sense does not carry us very far. The reason which explains\ntheir \u201creality\u201d must be shown. Simply in and by themselves they are\nnot explicable. What has been advanced regarding the solidarity of\nJesus with the human race is far from sufficing to make it in any\ndegree intelligible, especially as Paul has not in view Christ and\nhumanity, but Christ and the elect.\n\nThe mistake in the attempts at explanation hitherto made consists in\nthe fact that they seek to argue from the facts of the death and\nresurrection of Jesus, simply as such, directly to that which takes\nplace in the believer. In reality, it can only be a question of a\ngeneral event, which in the time immediately preceding the End brings\nabout this dying and rising again in Jesus and believers as together\nforming a single category of mankind, and thus antedates the future\ninto the present. For that which happens both to the Lord and to the\nelect it must be possible to find some kind of common-denominator\nwhich exactly contains the factors, the forces which are at work in\nthe two cases. Since those which produce their effect in Christ are\nthe first to become manifest, Paul can cast his theory into the form\nthat the believers have died and risen again with Him.\n\nThe general fact which comes into question must result from the\ncondition of the world between the death of Jesus and His parousia.\nThe Apostle asserts an overlapping of the still natural, and the\nalready supernatural, [pg 245] condition of the world, which becomes\nreal in the case of Christ and believers in the form of an open or\nhidden working of the forces of death and resurrection\u2014and becomes\nreal in them only. The doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus\nand the mystical doctrine of redemption are alike cosmically\nconditioned.\n\nIt is not sufficient, however, to explain the mystical doctrine and\nthe sacramental doctrine which is bound up with it. To the problem of\nPaulinism belong other distinct questions which have not yet found a\nsolution. The primary questions are the relation of the Apostle to the\nhistorical Jesus, his attitude towards universalism_(_195_)_ and\ntowards the law, and the nature of his compromise between\npredestinarian and sacramental doctrine.\n\nWill his views on these points, which it has hitherto been impossible\nto grasp clearly, similarly admit of explanation on the basis of the\nunique cosmic conditions obtaining between the death of Christ and the\nparousia? It is to be noticed that the Apostle does not advance his\nassertions with reference either to earlier or to subsequent times,\nbut simply and solely for this short intervening period. Their\nexplanation is therefore doubtless to be looked for here.\n\nPaul must have had more knowledge about Jesus than he uses in his\nteachings and polemics. His procedure is deliberate. He does not\nappeal to the Master even where it might seem inevitable to do so, as\nin regard to the ethics and the doctrine of the significance of His\ndeath and resurrection; and in fact declares that as a matter of\nprinciple he desires no longer to \u201cknow Christ after the flesh.\u201d\nPsychological considerations are quite inadequate to explain these\nfacts. It is as though he held that between the present world-period\nand that in which Jesus lived and taught there exists no link of\nconnexion, and was convinced that since the death and resurrection of\nthe Lord conditions were present which [pg 246] were so wholly new\nthat they made His teaching inapplicable, and rendered necessary a new\nbasis for ethics and a deeper knowledge respecting His death and\nresurrection.\n\nThe case lies similarly in regard to the Apostle\u2019s views about\nuniversalism and the law.\n\nIt was not by his experiences among the Gentiles that he was led to\nuniversalism. And the thought is not simply that mission work among\nthe heathen ought to be _permitted._ He maintains the view that there\nis a pressing necessity to carry the Gospel abroad. It is under the\nimpulsion of this thought that he becomes the Apostle of the Greeks.\n\nThe sole and sufficient reason for this view he finds in the peculiar\ncondition of the world between the death and the parousia of Christ.\nTo it are due the conditions in consequence of which a share in the\nprivileges of Israel is open to the Gentiles without their being\nobliged, by taking upon them the law and its sign, to enter into union\nwith Israel. In saying this it is not the Apostle\u2019s meaning that they\nmerely do not _need_ to do so; they _must not_ do so, on pain of\nlosing their salvation.\n\nSince Ritschl, the representatives of the history of dogma have been\nconcerned to obscure the problem of the law in Paul and to turn\ntheology into paths of easiness. They assert that it was a purely\npractical question, which did not touch doctrine in the strict sense.\nThis was the expedient by which they escaped from the difficulty when\nit was raised by Baur. It is time that it should be given up.\n\nWhen Paul proclaims that the Greeks do not need to submit to the law,\nhe is not led to do so by the experience that this was reasonable and\npractical. He declares them free because the logical implications of\nhis doctrine compel him to do so. What Jesus thought about the matter\nis just as indifferent to him as His opinion regarding the legitimacy\nof preaching to the Gentiles. The peculiar conditions of the time\nbetween His death and [pg 247] His parousia forbid any extension of\nthe law to believers outside of Israel. On the other hand, these\nconditions require that believers belonging to the Chosen People must\ncontinue to practise it as before. The assertion of the non-validity\nof the law is never intended by Paul in a sense which would justify\nthe inference of its total abolition for all believers. It has\nreceived its death-blow, but retains its position outwardly up to the\ntime of the parousia. For this limited period the watchword is: he who\nis under the law shall continue to observe it; he who is free from it\nshall on no account place himself under it. From one and the same fact\ntwo diametrically opposite conclusions are drawn; for so the unique\ncharacter of the time demands.\n\nWhat is the relation between predestination and the sacraments? Why do\nthe elect of the final generation need a provision which was not made\nfor those of earlier generations? This too must result from the unique\ncharacter of the time. The only logical assumption is that to this\nspecial provision corresponds a special blessedness, going beyond the\nordinary blessedness involved in election as such, which is reserved\nfor the final generation and cannot be obtained otherwise than through\nbaptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper. But wherein does it consist?\n\nAll these questions are, like the mystical doctrine, to be answered by\nreference to the special conditions of the period between the death of\nJesus and the parousia. It must be possible to refer back the whole of\nthe teachings to one and the same fundamental fact. It follows that\nthere must be no more talking about the \u201cuniqueness of the event at\nDamascus\u201d and psychologising about Paul\u2019s \u201creligious experience,\u201d no\nmore spiritualising and modernising, no making play with the\ndistinction between religion and theology, or with the discovery or\nconcealment of contradictions and antinomies, or other similar\nexercises of ingenuity.\n\nAll explanations which represent the system of doctrine [pg 248] as\nsomething arising subjectively in the Apostle\u2019s mind may be assumed _a\npriori_ to be false. Only those which seek to derive it objectively\nfrom the fundamental facts of the primitive eschatological belief are\nto be taken into consideration. The only kind of interpretation which\ncan be considered historical is one which makes it clear how a man who\nbelieved in the death and resurrection of Jesus and His imminent\nparousia was, in virtue of that belief, in a position to understand\nthe thoughts of the Apostle of the Gentiles and to follow his\narguments, and was logically obliged to accept them.\n\nAnd, finally, the solution must explain the enigmatic attitude which\nsubsequent generations take up in regard to the Apostle of the\nGentiles. They know him, but they owe no allegiance to him. He created\nno school. The theology of an Ignatius or a Justin does not attach\nitself to him. There is something more in this than a simple\noversight. If these theologians do not turn to him for aid, though he\nstands like a giant among them, that must be due to the fact that it\nis impossible to do so, and that in the course of the natural\ndevelopment of things they have been led to follow quite other paths.\n\nFor some reason or other, the conditions under which he created his\nsystem must be for them unimaginable. It is true they are still in the\nperiod between the death and the parousia of Jesus, but they can no\nlonger interpret it in the same way as the Apostle did. Why are they\nno longer able to bring into play the forces which he assumes to be in\noperation when he refers everything to the dying and rising again of\nChrist and the believer? Which of his presuppositions is for them\nlacking? May it be that the intensity of the eschatological\nexpectation has so declined that the mysticism associated therewith\ncan no longer maintain its ground?\n\nThe Ultra-T\u00fcbingen critics demanded of theology proof that the\ncanonical Paul and his Epistles belonged to early Christianity; and\nthe demand was justified.\n\nThe question is not to be decided in the domain of [pg 249] literary\nhistory, since the only thing we have to deal with is the self-witness\nof the Epistles, which can neither be strengthened nor shaken by\nindications drawn from elsewhere.\n\nArgument and counter-argument must be drawn from the contents. The\ntheological scholarship which had to meet the attacks of Steck and van\nManen had no solid arguments to oppose to them. Its Paulinism was so\ncomplicated, Hellenised and modernised, that it could at need find a\nplace in theological text-books, but not in primitive Christianity. On\nthe other hand, an explanation which shows that the Apostle\u2019s system\nis based on the most primitive eschatological premises, and at the\nsame time makes it intelligible why subsequent generations could not\ncontinue to follow the road on which he started, thereby demonstrates\nhis primitive Christianity and, to this extent, also the genuineness\nof his chief Epistles. The possibility that they might be\nprimitive-Christian, and yet not written by the historic Apostle of\nthe Gentiles, hardly calls for serious consideration.\n\nAny one who works out this solution is the true pupil of Baur, however\nwidely he may diverge from him in his views and results. By\nunequivocally determining the date of the writings in question on\ninternal grounds and excluding all other possibilities he is\nexercising \u201cpositive criticism\u201d in the sense intended by the T\u00fcbingen\nmaster, and justifies him in the face of the adversaries against whom\nhe can no longer defend himself.\n\nIt may no doubt prove to be the case that this \u201cpositive\u201d criticism\nwill appear distressingly negative to those who look for results which\ncan be immediately coined into dogmatic and homiletic currency.\n\nTheir opinion, however, is of small importance.\n\nIt is the fate of the \u201cLittle-faiths\u201d of truth that they, true\nfollowers of Peter, whether they be of the Roman or the Protestant\nobservance, cry out and sink in the sea of ideas, where the followers\nof Paul, believing in the Spirit, walk secure and undismayed.\n\n\n\n\n[pg 251]\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Ammon, C. F. von, 3 n.\n  Anrich, Gustav, 179, 189, 231\n  Aratus, 94\n  Aubertin, Charles, 95 n.\n  Augustine, 95 n.\n  Aurelian, 181\n\n  Baljon, J. M. S., 117, 118, 125, 148 n.\n  Bauer, Bruno, 24, 28, 117, 120 ff.\n  Baumgarten, Michael, 96 n.\n  Baumgarten, S. J., 1, 3\n  Baur, F. C., 12 ff., 20 f., 25, 33, 81, 118 f.\n  Baur, F. F., 20 n.\n  Beyschlag, Willibald, 22, 26, 41\n  Bousset, W., 48 n., 151, 152, 162\n  Brandt, W., 24, 60 n.\n  Br\u00fcckner, Martin, 152, 171, 179, 193 n.\n  Br\u00fcckner, Wilhelm, 118, 134 n.\n  Bruston, E., 24, 74 n.\n\n  Caligula, 184\n  Calvin, 33\n  Claudius, 183\n  Clemen, Karl, 118, 179, 189 n.\n  Clement of Rome, 119, 128, 135\n  Cumont, Franz, 179, 181, 183 n., 185 n., 192\n  Curtius, Ernst, 24, 87, 94 n.\n\n  D\u00e4hne, A. F., 2, 10 n.\n  Deissmann, Adolf, 23, 60 n., 153, 172 n., 179, 189 n.\n  De Jong, H. E., 181\n  Delitzsch, Franz, 23, 47\n  De Wette, W. M. L., 2, 10 n.\n  Dibelius, Martin, 152, 162 n.\n  Dick, Karl, 151, 155 n.\n  Dieterich, Albrecht, 179, 186 ff., 190, 193 n., 194, 195, 228 n., 230\n  Dobsch\u00fctz, Ernst von, 152, 169\n  Domitian, 128\n  Drescher, A., 151, 153, 159 n.\n  Drews, Arthur, 179, 234 f.\n\n  Eichhorn, Albert, 179, 205\n  Eichhorn, J. G., 1, 8 f., 15\n  Epictetus, 95\n  Ernesti, Fr. Th. L., 23, 95 n.\n  Ernesti, J. A., 1, 3 f.\n  Evanson, E., 117, 121 n.\n  Everling, Otto, 23, 55 f.\n\n  Feine, Paul, 151, 152, 156 ff., 165\n  Fleury, Am\u00e9d\u00e9e, 95 n.\n  Friedl\u00e4nder, M., 117, 124 n.\n  Friedrich (Maehliss), 117, 135 n.\n\n  Gass, J. C., 7\n  Gass, W., 24, 95 n.\n  Geffken, J., 179, 189 n.\n  Gennrich, P., 179, 191 n.\n  Glo\u00ebl, J., 23, 78 n.\n  Godet, F., 22, 26 n.\n  Goguel, M., 152, 159 f.\n  Grafe, E., 23, 44, 90 f., 111\n  Gressmann, H., 152, 162 n.\n  Grotius, Hugo, 1, 2\n  Gruppe, Otto, 179, 181 n., 193 n.\n  Gunkel, H., 23, 78 f., 111, 179, 189 n., 232 f., 236\n\n  Hadrian, 122\n  Harnack, Adolf, vi, 25, 63, 69, 81 f., 83, 84, 90, 113, 114 f., 151,\n152, 160, 173, 180, 189 n., 231\n  Hatch, Edwin, 25, 82\n  Hausrath, Adolf, 22\n  Haussleiter, J., 152, 172\n  Havet, E., 23, 54, 63\n  Hegel, 15, 16, 21\n  Heinrici, G. F., 24, 45, 63 n., 67, 80 n., 87, 93, 117, 151, 162 n.\n  Heitm\u00fcller, W., 152, 165, 180, 204 ff., 208 n.\n  Heliogabalus, 181\n  Hepding, H., 180, 182, 184\n  Hilgenfeld, A., 129\n  Hofmann, C. K. von, 22, 41\n  Hollmann, G., 151, 211 n.\n\n[pg 252]\n\n  Holsten, K., 22, 23, 35, 38 f., 63, 66 ff., 105, 113, 114 f.\n  Holtzmann, H. J., 22, 24, 25 f., 100, 116, 149 f., 153, 163 f., 221 n.\n\n  Ignatius, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 127, 135, 200, 248\n\n  Jacoby, Adolf, 180, 193 n.\n  Jakoby, Hermann, 151, 160 f.\n  Jerome, 95 n.\n  Josephus, 51\n  Julian, 181 n.\n  J\u00fclicher, Adolf, 22, 152, 170 n.\n  Juncker, Alfred, 152, 160 f.\n  Justin Martyr, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 128, 132, 135, 136, 200, 217,\n248\n\n  Kabisch, R., 23, 58 ff., 74, 76, 108, 111, 168, 174,222\n  Kalthoff, A., 117, 123 n.\n  Kant, 112, 118\n  Karl, W., 81 n., 152\n  Kautzsch, E. F., 23, 88\n  Knopf, R., 152, 172 ff.\n  K\u00f6lbing, P., 152, 170 ff.\n  Kreyer, J., 95 n.\n\n  Lechler, G. V., 12, 18\n  Lightfoot, John, 48 n.\n  Lipsius, R. A., 12, 19 f., 24, 64 n.\n  Loman, A. D., 117, 124 f., 140, 153\n  Loofs, F., 63 n., 173 n.\n  L\u00fcdemann, H., 23, 28 ff., 34 f., 62 f., 66, 71, 86, 163\n  Luther, 33, 50\n\n  Manen, W. C. van, 117, 125, 129 ff., 140, 153\n  Marcion, 113, 128 f.\n  Marcus Aurelius, 96 n., 98, 122\n  Mau, Georg, 180, 181 n.\n  Maurenbrecher, Max, 180, 232 f.\n  Mehlhorn, Karl, 38 n.\n  M\u00e9n\u00e9goz, L. E., 23, 31, 35\n  Meuschen, J. G., 48 n.\n  Meyer, Arnold, 152, 170 n.\n  Meyer, G. W., 2, 9 n.\n  Michaelis, J. D., 1, 5 n., 7\n  M\u00fcller, Iwan, 181 n.\n  M\u00fcller, J., 153, 172 n.\n  Munzinger, Karl, 152, 154 n.\n\n  Naber, S. A., 123\n  Neander, J. A. W., 2, 10 n.\n  Nork, J., 48 n.\n\n  Olschewski, W., 152, 171 n.\n\n  Paulus, H. E. G., 2, 10 f.\n  Pfleiderer, Otto, 22, 23, 31, 34, 35, 63, 66 ff., 76, 80, 90, 111, 114\nf., 151, 154\n  Philo, 51, 91, 98, 110\n  Pierson, Allard, 117, 123\n  Plato, 211\n  Preuschen, E., 82 n.\n  Ptolemy Soter, 184\n\n  Rambach, J. J., 1, 3\n  Reinach, S., 180, 181 n.\n  Reitzenstein, R., 180, 188 n., 208 n., 212 n., 216 n., 218 ff., 225,\n230\n  Renan, Ernest, 22, 35\n  Resch, A., 23, 42 n.\n  Reuss, E., 22, 24, 31, 35\n  Ritschl, Albrecht, 12, 16 f., 23, 40 f., 43, 83, 84\n  Rohde, E., 180, 181, 185 n.\n  Roscher, H. R., 180\n  Rothe, R., 56\n\n  Sabatier, A., 22, 32, 35\n  Schettler, A., 152, 172 n.\n  Schl\u00e4ger, G., 117\n  Schlatter, A., 152\n  Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 1, 7 f.\n  Schmidt, Ernst, 182 n.\n  Schmiedel, P. W., 24, 63, 88, 103\n  Schnedermann, G., 45 n.\n  Schniewind, J., 153, 172 n.\n  Scholten, J. H., 117, 134 n.\n  Schopenhauer, 118\n  Sch\u00f6ttgen, C., 48 n.\n  Schrader, Karl, 2, 10 n.\n  Sch\u00fcrer, Emil, 24, 45\n  Schwartz, E. E., 180, 219\n  Schwegler, A., 12, 16\n  Schweitzer, A., 170\n  Seeberg, R., 152, 173\n  Semler, J. S., 1, 4 f., 148\n  Seneca, 95 f., 122\n  Siegfried, K., 24, 91 n.\n  Simon, Theodor, 24, 96 n.\n  Smith, W. B., 180, 234 f.\n  Sokolowski, E., 151, 160 n.\n  Soltau, W., 180, 189 n.\n  Spiegelberg, W., 212 n.\n  Spitta, F., 52 n., 118, 149\n  Steck, Rudolf, 117, 125, 128 n., 129 ff., 140, 141, 153\n  Sulze, E., 118, 143\n  Surenhus (Surenhuys), W., 48 n.\n\n  Teichmann, Ernst, 24, 74 ff.\n  Tertullian, v, 95, 128, 129, 200\n  Titius, Arthur, 151, 156 ff., 165\n\n[pg 253]\n\n  Usener, H., 180, 181\n  Usteri, L., 2, 9 f.\n\n  Vischer, E., 152, 153, 172 n.\n  Volck, W., 26 n., 41 n.\n  Volkmar, G., 23\n  Vollmer, H., 24, 48 n., 88, 91\n  V\u00f6lter, Daniel, 118, 143 ff.\n  Volz, Paul, 152, 162 n.\n\n  Walther, W., 152, 170 n.\n  Weber, F., 24, 45\n  Weinel, Heinrich, 151, 154 f., 165 n.\n  Weiss, Bernhard, 22, 27 n., 35, 41, 54, 64, 66, 69\n  Weiss, Johannes, 152, 170 n.\n  Weisse, C. H., 24, 28, 118, 141 f.\n  Weizs\u00e4cker, Karl von, 23, 35, 64, 65 f., 69, 128 n.\n  Wellhausen, J., 46 n., 152, 159 n.\n  Wendland, P., 180, 189 n.\n  Wendt, H. H., 23, 30 n.\n  Wernle, P., 24, 60 n., 151, 154 f., 180, 210 f.\n  Wieseler, K., 12, 15\n  Windisch, H., 152, 161 n.\n  Wobbermin, G., 180\n  Wolf, J. C., 1, 3\n  Wrede, William, 100, 152, 166 ff., 177\n  W\u00fcnsch, R., 187 n.\n\n  Zahn, Theodor, 22, 25, 96 n.\n  Zeller, E., 20 n.\n  Ziegler, Theobald, 24, 95 n.\n  Zwingli, 33\n\nTHE END\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. Clark, Limited, _Edinburgh_.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\nNOTES FOR PREFACE\n\n1 Sub-title: _\u201cEine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung.\u201d_ English\ntranslation \u201cThe Quest of the Historical Jesus.\u201d London, A. & C.\nBlack, 1910, 2nd ed. 1911.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER I\n\n2 In the Amsterdam edition of the whole in 1679, the _Annotationes_ on\nthe Pauline Epistles (1009 pp.), with those on the other Epistles and\nthe Apocalypse, form vol. iii.\n\n3 1723, 822 pp.\n\n4 1st ed. 1742; 2nd, 1745, 232 pp. (For title see head of chapter.)\n\n5 B\u00e2le, 1741. Five vols., covering the whole of the New Testament. The\nPauline Epistles are treated in the 3rd (820 pp.) and 4th (837 pp.).\nThe full title is: Curae philologicae et criticae . . . quibus\nintegritati contextus Graeci consulitur, sensus verborum ex praesidiis\nphilologicis illustratur, diversae Interpretum Sententiae summatim\nenarrantur et modesto examini subjectae vel approbantur vel\nrepelluntur.\n\n6 135 pp. Later editions 1765, 1774, 1792, 1809. The last two were\nbrought out under the care of Ammon.\n\n7 Four parts. Parts i. and ii. form the first volume (424 pp.), part\niii. = vol. ii. (396 pp.), part iv. = vol. iii. (396 pp.). Part i. is\noccupied with the general principles of exegesis, part ii. with the\ntext of the Old Testament, parts iii. and iv. with that of the New\nTestament.\n\n8 Four volumes. The first (in the reprint of 1776, 333 pp.): On the\nnatural conception of Scripture. The second (in the first edition,\n1772, 608 pp.): On Inspiration and the Canon, Answers to criticisms\nand attacks. Third (1st ed., 1773, 567 pp.): On the History of the\nCanon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. The fourth (1775, 460 pp.)\nis wholly occupied by an answer to the work of a certain Dr. Schubert.\n\nThis often mentioned but little read work does not therefore present\nexactly the appearance that might be expected from its title. The\npolemical replies occupy a much larger space than the original\narguments.\n\n9 298 pp. A striking and brilliantly written work.\n\n10 _Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Romanos . . . cum Dissertatione de\nAppendice, capp._ xv. et xvi., 1769, 311 pp. (Dedicated to Johann\nAugust Ernesti.)\n\n_Paraphrasis in Primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam,_ 1770, 540 pp.\n(Dedicated to Johann David Michaelis.)\n\n_Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthios,_ 1776, 388 pp. Each of these\nworks contains a preface of some length on the principles of\nhistorical exegesis. As a specimen of the paraphrase we may quote that\nof Rom. vi. I: Jam si haec est Evangelii tam exoptata hominibusque\ncunctis tam frugifera doctrina, num audebimus statuere, perseverare\nnos tamen posse in ista peccandi consuetudine, ut quasi eo fiat\namplior gratiae divinae locus?\n\n11 Johann David Michaelis, _Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen\nBundes,_ 1st ed., 1750. In its successive editions this work dominates\nthe theology of all the latter half of the eighteenth century; at the\nbeginning of the nineteenth it is superseded by Eichhorn\u2019s\nIntroduction. The third edition (1777) contains 1356 pp. The Pauline\nEpistles occupy pp. 1001-1128.\n\n12 _\u00dcbersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1790, 566 pp. _Anmerkungen f\u00fcr\nUngelehrte zu seiner \u00dcbersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 4 vols.,\n1790-92. The Pauline Epistles are treated in vols. iii. and iv.\n\n13 Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher, _\u00dcber den sogenannten ersten\nBrief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an\nJoachim Christian Gass,_ 1807. In his complete works this is to be\nfound in the second volume of the first division, 1836, pp. 223-320.\n\n14 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, _Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das\nNeue Testament,_ 1st ed., vol. iii., second half (1814), pp. 315-410.\n\nEichhorn points out that he had recognised the spuriousness of the\nthree Pastoral Epistles, and had expressed his conviction in his\nUniversity lectures before Schleiermacher published his criticisms of\nthe First Epistle of Timothy.\n\n15 Leonhard Usteri, _Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_\n1824, 191 pp. The editions of 1829, 1830, and 1832 were revised by the\nauthor, who died in 1833. After his death two more appeared (1834,\n1851). Reference may be made also to Usteri\u2019s \u201cCommentary on the\nEpistle to the Galatians,\u201d 1833, 252 pp.\n\n16 The first work which undertook to give an account of the Apostle\u2019s\nsystem of thought as such is Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer\u2019s _Entwicklung des\npaulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_ 1801, 380 pp. The author has collected the\nmaterial well, but does not know in what direction Paul\u2019s peculiarity\nlies.\n\n17 Of the works which criticise Usteri and mark an advance in Pauline\nstudy the following may be named:\u2014\n\nKarl Schrader, _Der Apostel Paulus;_ vols. i., 1830 (264 pp.), and\nii., 1832 (373 pp.), deal with the life of the Apostle Paul; vol.\niii., 1833 (331 pp.), with the doctrine; vols. iv., 1835 (490 pp.),\nand v., 1836 (574 pp.), contain the exposition of the Epistles.\n\nAugust Ferdinand D\u00e4hne, _Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_\n1835, 211 pp.\n\nMention may also be made of the chapter on Paulinism in J. A. W.\nNeander\u2019s _Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen\nKirche durch die Apostel,_ 1st ed., 1832; 2nd ed., 1st vol., 1838 (433\npp.). Paul is treated in pp. 102-433; 4th ed., 1847; 5th, 1862. As\ntypical of the exegesis of the period prior to Baur may be mentioned\nthe Commentaries of W. M. L. de Wette on Romans (2nd ed.), 1838; 1 and\n2 Corinthians, 1841; Galatians and Thessalonians, 1841.\n\n18 H. E. G. Paulus, _Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater-\nund R\u00f6mer-Christen,_ 1831, 368 pp.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER II BAUR AND HIS CRITICS\n\n19 Albert Schwegler, _Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den\nHauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung_ (\u201cThe Post-Apostolic Age in the main\nFeatures of its Development\u201d), 1846, vol. i. 522 pp., vol. ii. 392 pp.\nIn the writings which mark the course of the development of Paulinism\nthree groups are distinguished. To the first, the apologetic group,\nbelongs the First Epistle of Peter; to the second, the conciliatory\nwritings, are to be reckoned the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the\nApostles, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Epistle to the\nPhilippians; the third is represented by the catholicising writings,\nthe Pastorals, the Letter of Polycarp, and the Ignatian Letters.\n\n20 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, eine\nkirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Monographie,_ 1850, 622 pp.; 2nd\ned., 1857, 605 pp.\n\n21 Gotthard Viktor Lechler, _Das apostolische und das nachapostolische\nZeitalter mit R\u00fccksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und\nLeben_ ( . . . with special reference to their difference and unity in\nlife and doctrine), 1st ed., 1852; 2nd ed., 1857, 536 pp. The portion\ndealing with Paul is pp. 33-154; in the 3rd ed., 1885 (635 pp.) Paul\nis treated on pp. 269-407.\n\nIn the first two editions the whole of the Pauline epistles are\nregarded as genuine; in the third the author no longer ventures to\ntreat the Pastorals as on the same footing with the other Epistles.\nThe very clearly and comprehensively stated problem is printed at the\nbeginning.\n\n22 _Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre,_ 1853, 219 pp.\n\n23 In 1850, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erkl\u00e4rung der Korinthesbriefe,_ pp. 139-185.\nContinued in 1852, pp. 1-40 and 535-574. In 1855, _Die beiden Briefe\nan die Thessalonicher; ihre Achtheit und Bedeutung f\u00fcr die Lehre der\nParusie Christi, pp._ 141-168 ( . . . their genuineness and their\nsignificance for the doctrine of the parousia of Christ). In 1857,\n_\u00dcber Zweck und Gedankengang des R\u00f6merbriefs nebst der Er\u00f6rterung\neiniger paulinischen Begriffe,_ pp. 60-108 and 184-209 (\u201cOn the\nPurpose and the Argument of Romans, with a Discussion of certain\nPauline Conceptions.\u201d)\n\n24 _Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi,_ 2nd ed., edited by Zeller,\n1866-1867, vol. i. 469 pp., revised by Baur; vol. ii. 376 pp. contains\na reprint of the chapter on Paul\u2019s doctrine from the first edition.\n\n25 _Vorlesungen \u00fcber neutestamentliche Theologie._ Published by\nFerdinand Friedrich Baur, 1864, 407 pp. Pages 128-207 deal with the\ndoctrinal system of Paul.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER III FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN\n\n26 _Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt,_ 1880, 504\npp. Adolf Harnack (in _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur\nbis Eusebius,_ vol. i., 1897, 732 pp.\u2014on Paul, 233-239) is disposed to\nregard the personal notices of the Pastorals as genuine with the aid\nof the hypothesis of the second imprisonment.\n\n27 _Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe,_ 1872, 338 pp.\n\n28 _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1885; 2nd ed., 1886; 3rd ed.,\n1892. Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles,\nspurious; Colossians, worked over. A similar critical stand-point is\noccupied by Adolf J\u00fclicher, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1894,\n404 pp. The Pauline Epistles are treated in pp. 19-128.\n\nA mediating position is taken up by E. Reuss, _Geschichte der heiligen\nSchriften Neuen Testaments_ (5th ed., 1874, 352 pp.; 6th ed., 1887).\nAll that can be said in favour of the genuineness of the Pastorals and\n2 Thessalonians is set forth with the greatest completeness, since the\nauthor is very reluctant to give up these writings. See the same\nauthor\u2019s _Histoire de la th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne au si\u00e8cle apostolique_\n(1852; 2nd ed., 1860, 2 vols., i. 489 pp., ii. 629 pp. Paulinism is\ntreated in vol. ii., 3-262; 3rd ed., 1864). Mild polemic against Baur.\nAnother mediating work is Willibald Beyschlag\u2019s _Neutestamentliche\nTheologie,_ 1891; 2nd ed., 1896. Only the Pastorals spurious.\n\nA conservative stand-point is occupied by Bernhard Weiss, _Einleitung\nin das Neue Testament,_ 1886, 652 pp. Paul and his Epistles occupy pp.\n112-332. The Pastoral Epistles are saved by the hypothesis of the\nsecond imprisonment. 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are held to be\ngenuine (3rd ed., 1897, 617 pp.). Conservative also is Theodor Zahn,\n_Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1st ed., 1897, vol. i., 489 pp.\nPauline Epistles, pp. 109-489. Ch. K. v. Hofmann in his _Einleitung_\n(pt. ix. of \u201cDie Heilige Schrift,\u201d edited by Volck, 1881, 411 pp.\nPauline Epistles, 1-200) proposes by means of the hypothesis of a\nliberation of the Apostle from his first imprisonment to make not only\nthe Pastorals, but also the Epistle to the Hebrews genuine. That 2\nThessalonians and Ephesians are genuine is for him self-evident.\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Godet too _(Introduction au Nouveau Testament,_ 1893, 737\npp.) regards all thirteen Epistles as genuine.\n\n29 Typical in this respect is the procedure of Bernhard Weiss in his\n_Neutestamentliche Theologie_ (1868). He treats the doctrine of the\nEpistles of the imprisonment and that of the Pastorals by themselves\nafter he has developed that of the main Epistles, although he regards\nthem all as Pauline.\n\n30 _Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ 3 pts., 1850, 74 pp.; 1851, 76\npp.; 1852, 129 pp.; _Christus und die C\u00e4saren,_ 1877, 387 pp.\n\n31 _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe an die Galater, R\u00f6mer\nPhilipper und Kolosser._ Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp.\n\n32 L\u00fcdemann was opposed by H. H. Wendt in his work _Die Begriffe\nFleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch,_ 1878, 219 pp.\n\nAt the suggestion of Ritschl he undertook to prove that the meaning of\nthese two words confined itself \u201cwithin the boundaries set by Old\nTestament usage,\u201d and that therefore the assumption of Greek influence\nwas unnecessary.\n\n33 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1887.\n\n34 Auguste Sabatier, _L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul, esquisse d\u2019une histoire de sa\npens\u00e9e,_ 1870, 296 pp. (2nd ed., 1881; 3rd ed., 1897).\n\n35 _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ pt. 2 (edited by Mehlhorn), 1898, 172\npp.\n\n36 P. 31.\n\n37 _Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus,_ 1868, 447 pp. In this\nwork the author collects some of his earlier and later essays. The\nfollowing are its component parts, \u201cPaul\u2019s Vision of Christ\u201d (1861),\n\u201cPeter\u2019s Vision of the Messiah\u201d (1868), \u201cContents and Argument of the\nEpistle to the Galatians\u201d (1859), \u201cThe Significance of the word _\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be_\n(flesh) in Paul\u2019s System of Doctrine\u201d (1855). The collection is\ndedicated to F. C. Baur, \u201cwho though dead yet lives.\u201d In the first\npart of the work _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1880, 498 pp., Holsten\ndeals with the Epistle to the Galatians and the First to the\nCorinthians. The second part was intended to give an exposition of\nRomans and 2 Corinthians and to close with a systematic account of the\nPauline theology. At Holsten\u2019s death only the closing section was\nfound to be ready for printing. It was published in 1898 under the\neditorship of Carl Mehlhorn, and bears the title \u201cCarl Holsten, Das\nEvangelium des Paulus, part ii., Paulinische Theologie,\u201d 173 pp. What\nwas thus published is based on a manuscript prepared for his lectures\nin the winter session of 1893-1894, and on students\u2019 notes.\n\n38 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und\nVers\u00f6hnung,_ 1874, vol. ii. 377 pp. On Paul, pp. 215-259 and 300-369.\n\n39 _Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments,_ 1st ed.\n1868, 756 pp. On Paulinism, pp. 216-507; 6th ed. 1895, 677 pp. On\nPaulinism, 201-463.\n\n40 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ 1st ed. 1891; 2nd ed. 1896, vol. ii.\n552 pp. On Paul, pp. 1-285.\n\n41 Ch. K. v. Hofmann, _Biblische Theologie_ (vol. xi. of \u201cDie heilige\nSchrift Neuen Testaments\u201d; edited by Volck), 1886, 328 pp.\n\n42 _Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen\nKirche,_ vol. v., 1888, part iv. Alfred Resch, \u201cAgrapha.\nAusserkanonische Evangelienfragmente gesammelt und untersucht,\u201d 480\npp. The \u201clogia\u201d numbered 13-46 he holds, on the evidence of echoes in\nthe letters, to have been known to Paul. See pp. 152-243.\n\n43 _Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz_ (\u201cThe Pauline Doctrine of the\nLaw\u201d). Based on the four main Epistles, 1884, 26 pp. The second\nedition (1893, 33 pp.) is a revision of the first, but in the results\narrived at both agree.\n\n44 _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte._ In the second edition the work\nbears the title _Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu\nChristi_ (English Translation: \u201cHistory of the Jewish People in the\nTime of Jesus Christ,\u201d Edinburgh, 1885). The second volume deals with\nthe literature and the various currents of thought. There have since\nappeared a third and fourth edition.\n\n45 _System der altsynagogalen pal\u00e4stinensischen Theologie aus Targum,\nMidrasch und Talmud dargestellt,_ 399 pp. (Edited after the author\u2019s\ndeath by Delitzsch and Schnedermann.)\n\nThe second edition (1897, 427 pp.) bears the title _J\u00fcdische Theologie\nauf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften_ (\u201cJewish Theology\ndescribed on the Basis of the Talmud and cognate Writings\u201d).\n\nThe earlier literature is referred to in Hans Vollmer\u2019s _Die\nalttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus_ (1895), 81 pp.\n\n46 A typical utterance is that of J. Wellhausen _(Israelitische und\nj\u00fcdische Geschichte,_ 6th ed. 1907, 386 pp.), \u201cPaul has not been able\nto free himself from the Rabbinic methods of exegesis. He employs it\nin his arguments, especially in connexion with justification by faith.\nBut the inner essence of his religious conviction was not affected by\nit.\u201d\n\n47 _Paulus des Apostels Brief an die R\u00f6mer in das Hebr\u00e4ische\n\u00fcbersetzt, und aus Talmud und Midrasch erl\u00e4utert,_ 1870, 122 pp.\n\nAt the beginning the author gives an interesting review of previous\nHebrew translations of the whole New Testament or of single books. He\nalso refers to the Rabbinic reasoning in the apostle\u2019s arguments. The\nillustrations from the Rabbinic literature, pp. 73-100, follow the\ntranslation.\n\nHe expects as a result of this translation that it will bring into\nprominence the Old Testament, Rabbinic, and Hellenistic elements in\nthe early Christian modes of thought and expression.\n\nEarlier attempts to point out Rabbinic parallels to Pauline ideas were\nmade by Lightfoot, Surenhus, Sch\u00f6ttgen, Meuschen, and Nork.\nInformation about this literature will be found in Hans Vollmer\u2019s work\n_(Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80, 81).\n\n48 A good general idea of the Rabbinic literature as a whole is given\nby Bousset in his work _Die Religion des Judentums im\nneutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_ 1903, 2nd ed., 1906, pp. 45-53.\n\n49 Among the few scholars who stem the tide of conventional stupidity\nFrederick Spitta deserves a foremost place. In his printed works, no\ndoubt\u2014those in question are _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief\ndes Judas_ (1885, 544 pp.) and the studies _Zur Geschichte und\nLiteratur des Urchristentums_ (vol. i. 1893; vol. ii. 1896)\u2014he is\nchiefly engaged in maintaining the general thesis that the earliest\nChristian literature shows much more dependence on the Late-Jewish\nthan is generally admitted. A detailed proof of this kind for the\nPauline letters has only been given in his exegetical lectures, which\nhave not been published. The stimulus which he gave to others is\nclearly apparent in the literature of the nineties. Kabisch\u2019s study of\nthe eschatology of Paul (1893) is partly based on the foundation which\nhe had prepared.\n\n50 _Die paulinische Angelologie und D\u00e4monologie,_ 1888, 126 pp.\n\n51 _Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenh\u00e4ngen mit dem\nGesamtbegriff des Paulinismus_ ( ... in its relations with the general\nconception of Paulinism), 1893, 338 pp. The work is dedicated to\nFriedrich Spitta. After a historical introduction, the principal\npassages which come into question are examined. After that the\neschatology is developed according to its contents and motives, and in\nthe process its relations with the various doctrines of the Pauline\ntheology come up for discussion.\n\n52 He did not, unfortunately, follow it up with the work on the\nEthics.\n\n53 The eschatological character of the Pauline mysticism is also\npointed out by Paul Wernle in his suggestive study _Der Christ und die\nS\u00fcnde bei Paulus_ (1897, 138 pp.), but he does not follow out the idea\nin all its consequences.\n\nA certain recognition of the \u201cphysical\u201d character of the doctrine of\nredemption is also arrived at by Adolf Deissmann. In his study, _Die\nneutestamentliche Formel \u201cin Christo Jesu\u201d_ (1892, 136 pp.) he comes\nto the conviction that Paul had created the formula on the analogy of\na linguistic usage already obtaining in non-biblical Greek, and\nintended in using it to indicate the relation to Christ as an\nexistence within the pneumatic Christ which was to be locally\nconceived. He does not, however, think of explaining it from\neschatology.\n\nThe old psychologising and spiritualising methods are in no way\ndeparted from by W. Brandt. In his work, _Die evangelische Geschichte\nund der Ursprung des Christentums_ (\u201cThe Gospel History and the Origin\nof Christianity,\u201d 1893, 591 pp.; on Paul, pp. 515-524), he maintains\nthat it was the visions of the disciples which first made Jesus into\nthe Messiah. Paul, he thinks, \u201cin his profound reflexion over his\nconversion, came to think of this revolution in his life as a dying\nand rising again of his inner man.\u201d\n\n54 Georg Heinrici, _Auslegung der Korintherbriefe_ (I Cor., 1880, 574\npp.; 2 Cor., 1887, 606 pp.).\n\n55 P. W. Schmiedel, \u201cAuslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und\nKorinther,\u201d in Holtzmann\u2019s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i.; 1st\ned., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892.\n\n56 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 3rd ed., 1894, vol. i. On Paul, pp. 83-95.\nFriedrich Loofs in his _Dogmengeschichte_ (1890, 443 pp.) takes up no\ndefinite attitude towards the Pauline problem. Reinhold Seeberg, too\n_(Dogmengeschichte,_ first half, 1895, 332 pp.), does not go into the\ndoctrine of the Apostle.\n\n57 R. A. Lipsius, \u201cAuslegung der Briefe an die Galater, R\u00f6mer und\nPhilipper,\u201d in Holtzmann\u2019s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i. 1st\ned., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892. This commentator\u2019s position is indicated by\nthe following remarks: \u201cThe great antithesis between flesh and spirit\ngradually forces out the Jewish conceptions one after another, though\nit is not right to say that Hebrew ideas are driven out by Hellenic\nones. When Paul goes outside the circle of Old Testament views he does\nso in consequence of a deeper ethical grasp of the originally Hebrew\nantithesis between flesh and spirit, not by a borrowing of Greek\nideas.\u201d\n\n58 _Das apostolische Zeitalter,_ 1886, pp. 105-151.\n\n59 It is most clearly developed by Holsten on pp. 37 and 38 of the\nsecond part of his _Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1896.\n\n60 Vol. i., 1880; vol. ii., 1887. See especially the Introduction and\nthe Epilogue to vol. ii.\n\n61 In Phil. i. 21 f. the reference is to an inner struggle which the\nApostle experiences. He desires to depart and be with Christ, which,\nindeed, would be much better, but he knows that to remain in the flesh\nis more needful for the sake of his churches. From this conviction he\ndraws the confident conclusion that he will remain with them for their\nprogress and joy in the faith.\n\nIn Phil. iii. 8 he declares that he has counted all things but loss in\norder to win Christ and be found in Him, to know Him and the power of\nHis resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, to be conformed\nunto His death, if so be that he might attain (?) to the resurrection\nof the dead.\n\nBoth passages are certainly obscure, and do not to a literal\ninterpretation yield any satisfactory meaning. One feels that the\nlogic of these close-packed assertions is not self-evident, but must\nsomehow depend on presuppositions of which the basis is not here\ngiven. It cannot, however, be maintained that the assumption of a\nspiritualising hope regarding the future makes all clear.\n\n62 An allusion to the passage in _Faust,_ \u201cZwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in\nmeiner Brust.\u201d\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\n63 Ernst Teichmann, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung\nund Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur j\u00fcdischen Apokalyptik_ (\u201cThe\nPauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment and their relation to\nJewish Apocalyptic\u201d), 1896, 125 pp. Akin to Teichmann\u2019s study is that\nof C. Bruston, \u201cLa Vie future d\u2019apr\u00e8s St Paul\u201d in the _Revue de\nTh\u00e9ologie et de Philosophie_ (Lausanne), 1894, pp. 506-530. The author\nmaintains that Paul had never really held the conceptions connected\nwith the resurrection of the dead at the parousia, but had always\nthought \u201cspiritually\u201d and assumed a passing into glory immediately\nafter death. But while in his earlier writings he still used certain\nexpressions borrowed from the \u201cRabbinic eschatology,\u201d later he quite\nabandoned these.\n\n64 Hermann Gunkel, _Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der\npopul\u00e4ren Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des\nApostels Paulus_ (\u201cThe Manifestations of the Holy Spirit according to\nthe Popular View of the Apostolic Age and according to the Doctrine of\nthe Apostle Paul\u201d), 1888, 110 pp. Shortly before that appeared the\npurely biblico-theological treatment of it by Johannes Glo\u00ebl, _Der\nHeilige Geist in der Heilsverk\u00fcndigung des Paulus_ (\u201cThe Holy Spirit\nin Paul\u2019s Preaching of Salvation\u201d), 1888, 402 pp. It keeps entirely to\ndescription and does not enter into the question regarding the origin\nand innermost essence of the Pauline doctrine. Pfleiderer\u2019s view is,\nhowever, called in question.\n\n65 _Urchristentum,_ 1887. Similarly Heinrici in his commentary on 2\nCorinthians.\n\n66 F. C. Baur, _Vorlesungen \u00fcber die christliche Dogmengeschichte_\n(\u201cLectures on the History of Dogma\u201d), vol. i. From the apostolic\nperiod to the synod of Nicaea, 1865 (edited by Ferdinand Friedrich\nBaur).\n\n67 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 1885, vol. i.; 3rd ed., 1894; 4th ed., 1909.\nWilhelm Karl, too, in his _Beitr\u00e4ge zum Verst\u00e4ndnis der\nsoteriologischen Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus_\n(\u201cContributions to the Understanding of the Soteriological Experiences\nand Speculations of the Apostle Paul,\u201d 1899, 116 pp.), does not feel\nobliged to have recourse to Greek thought in order to explain the\nApostle\u2019s doctrine. He offers a thorough and independent analysis of\nthe system which in many points is much superior to the ordinary view.\n\n68 Edwin Hatch, Hibbert Lectures on \u201cThe Influence of Greek Ideas and\nUsages upon the Christian Church.\u201d The work was translated into German\nby Erwin Preuschen in 1892. Its divisions are: (i.) Introductory,\n(ii.) Greek culture, (iii.) Greek and Christian Exegesis, (iv.)\nRhetoric, (v.) Philosophy, (vi.) Ethics, (vii.-ix.) Theology, (x.)\nMysteries, (xi.) Corpus doctrinae, (xii.) The Transformation of the\nbasis of Christian Unity: Doctrine in the Place of Conduct.\n\n69 _i.e._ as used in this connexion, here and later, the belief in the\nuniversal destination of the Gospel, not in universal salvation.\n\n70 _Paulus in Athen._ Collected Essays, vol. ii., 1894, pp. 527-543 In\nthis essay the author seeks to exhibit with some fulness the view,\nwhich seems to him self-evident, that the Apostle was filled with the\nHellenic spirit.\n\n71 Preface to his Exposition of 2 Corinthians, 1887.\n\n72 Holtzmann\u2019s _Handkommentar,_ 2nd ed. The Epistles to the\nCorinthians, p. 92.\n\n73 Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, _De veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo\nApostolo allegatis,_ 1869, 110 pp.\n\n74 Hans Vollmer, _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus . . . nebst\neinem Anhang \u00fcber das Verh\u00e4ltnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ 1895, 103 pp.\n(\u201cThe Old Testament quotations in Paul . . . with an Appendix on the\nApostle\u2019s relation to Philo\u201d).\n\n75 The author has had occasion to observe this in Alsatian theologians\nand in himself. One who is equally familiar with French and German\nwill never, either in preaching or in conversation, give his own\nversion of Biblical passages, but will without exception keep to the\ntraditional form in the language which he is using, and this even\nwhere he would be capable of giving a more exact rendering. And in\npreaching he will turn to account the peculiarities of the wording of\nthe version, if it lends itself to his thought, and will even perhaps\nuse an argument which goes against the sense of the original, which he\nis supposed to be acquainted with\u2014exactly as Paul does.\n\n76 Eduard Grafe, _Das Verh\u00e4ltnis der paulinischen Schriften zur\nSapientia Salamonis_ (\u201cThe Relation of the Pauline Writings to the\nBook of Wisdom\u201d), in the Theological Essays dedicated to Carl von\nWeizs\u00e4cker on his seventieth birthday, 1892, pp. 251-286.\n\n77 _\u00dcber das Verh\u00e4ltnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ an appendix to his\nwork on _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80-98.\nSee also Carl Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten\nTestaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss\nbetrachtet_ (\u201cPhilo of Alexandria as an Expositor of Scripture,\nconsidered both in Himself and in Regard to his Historical\nInfluence\u201d), 1875, 418 pp. In pp. 304-10 thoughts and passages are\ncited from Paul which are supposed to show affinity with Philo. The\nresemblance is, however, so general and colourless that it cannot be\nconsidered as proving anything. The author quotes the passages without\ndrawing any conclusion.\n\n78 Ernst Curtius in the essay cited above defends the historicity of\nActs xvii.\n\n79 W. Gass, _Geschichte der christlichen Ethik,_ 1881, vol. i. 457 pp.\nOn Paul, pp. 34-38. Theobald Ziegler, _Geschichte der christlichen\nEthik,_ 1886, 593 pp. On Paul, pp. 72-90.\n\n80 Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ 1868, 155 pp.;\n3rd ed., 1880.\n\n81 The Christian character of Seneca\u2019s thought was remarked as early\nas Tertullian, who in _de Anima,_ xx., when he quotes a phrase from\nhim, describes him as \u201csaepe noster.\u201d Augustine and Jerome know of a\ncorrespondence between Seneca and the Apostle. From the literature we\nmay mention the following works: Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Fleury, _Saint Paul et\nS\u00e9n\u00e8que. Recherches sur les rapports du philosophe avec l\u2019ap\u00f4tre et\nsur l\u2019infiltration du Christianisme naissant \u00e0 travers le paganisme,_\n2 vols., 1853, 404 and 383 pp. Seneca is supposed to have drawn on\nPaul. At the end of the second part the correspondence between them is\nprinted. The work is uncritical in character. Johann Kreyher, L.\n_Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zur Urchristentum_ ( . . . and\nhis relations with early Christianity), 1887, 198 pp. Seneca is\nsupposed to have had some relations with Christianity in Rome even\nbefore the Apostle\u2019s coming, and thenceforward to have entered into a\nclose relationship with him. Charles Aubertin, _\u00c9tude critique sur les\nrapports suppos\u00e9s entre S\u00e9n\u00e8que et St Paul,_ 1857, 442 pp. All\nconnexion between Seneca and Christianity is denied. In the work of\nMichael Baumgarten, _Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christentum_ (1895,\n368 pp.) no connexion between Seneca and Paul is admitted.\n\n82 See Theodor Zahn, _Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zum\nChristentum._ A Rectorial address at Erlangen, 1894, 27 pp. The\nlecture offers proof that in spite of many resemblances of expression\nand in spite of his acquaintance with Christianity, the teaching of\nEpictetus contains nothing which really connects it with the new\nreligion.\n\nInconceivable as it may appear, even the _Meditations_ of Marcus\nAurelius\u2014of the second half of the second century\u2014have been sometimes\ncited to prove the Greek character of Paul\u2019s religious thought.\n\n83 Theodor Simon, _Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus,_ 1897, 118 pp.\nA leisurely analysis of the material.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV H. J. HOLTZMANN\n\n84 In connexion with the following remarks on questions of principle,\nsee also W. Wrede, _\u00dcber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten\nNeutestamentlichen Theologie,_ 1897, 80 pp.\n\nThe essay discusses the plan and arrangement of Holtzmann\u2019s work. On\np. 32 Wrede remarks: \u201cThe treatment is far too much influenced by the\ndesire to include all kinds of opinions from other writers. To a large\nextent my objections have to do with these methodological questions.\u201d\n\n85 Holtzmann, p. 111.\n\n86 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 6, where Paul speaks of himself as \u201cinexpert in\nspeech, but not in knowledge\u201d (_\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9_). See also I Cor. i. 5,\nviii. I; Phil. i. 9, etc. \u201cGnostic\u201d is used above in the general sense\nof one who lays stress on theoretic religious knowledge.\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER V CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES\n\n87 _Die Apostelgeschichte,_ 1850, 143 pp. Acts, it is argued, is a\nwork of \u201cfree reflexion\u201d in which various hands have had a part.\n\n_Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ part i., The Origin of Galatians\n(1850, 74 pp.); part ii., The Origin of I Corinthians (1851, 76 pp.);\npart iii., 2 Corinthians, Romans, the Pastoral Epistles,\nThessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians (1852, 129 pp.).\nThe greater part of the epistles were not written until after Acts.\nCertainly Galatians is later. I Corinthians is earlier than Acts, and\nis doubtless drawn from common sources.\n\nThe first to venture an attack on one of the main Epistles was Edward\nEvanson, _The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists,\nand the evidence of their respective authenticity examined_\n(translated into Dutch, 1796), who holds Romans, as well as Hebrews,\nColossians, and Ephesians, to be spurious. Further information\nregarding this, as it seems, rather rare book would be desirable.\nWhether any great critical importance is to be attached to it remains\nquestionable. [Evanson (1731-1805), a Cambridge graduate, vicar of\nTewkesbury, adopted Unitarian views, and resigned his living in 1778.\nHis grounds for rejecting Romans are, the difficulty about the\nexistence of a church at Rome prior to Paul\u2019s visit, the number of\ngreetings in chapter xvi., and supposed references to the destruction\nof Jerusalem in xi. 12, 15, 21, 22. The treatment of the Epistles is\nmuch slighter than that of the Gospels, where he shows some insight\ninto the difficulties of what is now known as the Synoptic problem.\nThe _Dissonance_ made some stir, and was answered by Joseph Priestley\nin _Letters to a Young Man,_ 1792-93, and by T. Falconer, Bampton\nLecture, 1810.\u2014TRANSLATOR.]\n\n88 See A. Schweitzer, _Von Reimarus zu Wrede,_ pp. 137-159 (Eng.\ntrans., _The Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ pp. 137-160).\n\n89 _Christus und die C\u00e4saren,_ 1877, 387 pp. What the diffusely told\nstory of the Roman court has to do with the origin of Christianity has\ncertainly never been quite clear to any reader. In attempting to\ndescribe its contents one is never quite certain whether the author\u2019s\nmeaning has been rightly represented.\n\n90 A spiritual descendant of Bauer\u2019s who writes on popular lines is\nAlbert Kalthoff _(Die Entstehung des Christentums,_ 1904, 155 pp.).\nBut neither as regards the problem nor its solution has he contributed\nanything to Pauline scholarship.\n\n91 Allard Pierson, _De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten,_\n1878, 260 pp.; on Paul, 98-112. With his doubt of the Epistles the\nauthor associates a doubt of the Gospels, and asks whether\nChristianity as they represent it can have been founded by a\nhistorical Jesus.\n\n92 A. Pierson and S. A. Naber, _Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi\nTestamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt,_ 1886, 295\npp. The work gives a running analysis of the letters in the course of\nwhich very interesting questions are thrown out. Why is nothing said\nabout the earthly life of Jesus? Why is no trace of the influence of\nthis Paul\u2019s thought to be found in history? Do the various\ncharacteristics and actions of his which are recorded show us a\ncharacter which is at all intelligible?\n\nThe authors assume that the Jewish movement which led up to\n\u201cChristianity\u201d at first had only to do with the Messianic belief in\ngeneral. Only later, through the blending of Greek myths with Isaiah\nliii., did the belief arise that the expected Messiah had already come\nand had passed through death and resurrection.\n\nThe analysis of the Pauline Epistles is followed by essays upon the\nPaul of Acts and some chapters on the Fourth Gospel. The close is\nformed by an essay on the gradual origin of the conception of Christ\nin the New Testament.\n\nThe theory that Christianity developed out of an already existing\nJewish movement is maintained also by M. Friedl\u00e4nder in his popular\nand unimportant work, _Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen\ngriechischen Welt,_ a contribution towards explaining the origin of\nChristianity (1897, 74 pp.). The opposition between a conservative and\na freer tendency as regards the law, which appear in the primitive\nChurch, are here held to have appeared previously in the Judaism from\nwhich Christianity originated.\n\n93 A. D. Loman, \u201cQuaestiones Paulinae,\u201d _Theol. Tijdschrift,_ 1882,\npp. 141-185, 302-328, 452-487; 1883, pp. 14-51. 1886, 42-113 (Dutch).\nIn the prologue he tells us about the first impression which Bauer\u2019s\ncriticism of the Pauline epistles made upon him: \u201cWith an _Apage\nSatana!_ I took leave of this antipathetic critic, firmly resolved to\ntake no further notice of him.\u201d The order followed is to treat first\nthe relation of Acts to Galatians, then to discuss the \u201cnecessary\nproofs\u201d of the genuineness of this work, while the witnesses from the\nliterature, and the history of the Canon, are examined later, in the\nsecond part, 1886.\n\n94 Rudolf Steck, _Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht\nnebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen_ (\u201cThe\nEpistle to the Galatians examined with Reference to its Genuineness,\nwith critical Remarks on the main Pauline Epistles\u201d), 1888, 386 pp.\nThe examination of Galatians goes only as far as p. 151; the remaining\nchapters deal with the order of the main Epistles, the relation of\nPaul to the Gospels, the quotations from the Old Testament found in\nthe Epistles, the affinities with Philo and Seneca, the marks of later\nauthorship, the external evidences from the New Testament and from\nearly Christian literature. In conclusion, a hypothesis of the origin\nand development of Paulinism is sketched. The author tells in the\npreface the story of his conversion to the Dutch heresy. At first he\ndissented from Loman, but in the course of repeatedly treating the\nEpistle to the Galatians in his lectures he found to his dismay that\nhe was gradually arriving at the theory of its spuriousness.\n\nThe views of Pierson, Loman, and Steck are critically examined by J.\nM. S. Baljon in his _Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief\nvan Paulus an de Galati\u00ebrs,_ 1899, 424 pp.\n\n95 W. C. van Manen, _Paulus,_ 3 vols. (see head of chapter for\nparticulars). The author describes on pp. 9-11 how he came to reject\nthe Pauline Epistles.\n\n96 The first epistle of Clement mentions (xlvii. I) \u201cthe letter of the\nblessed Paul\u201d to the Corinthians, has a direct borrowing from Romans\n(xxxv. 5 = the catalogue of vices in Rom. i. 29-32), and in other\nrespects also frequently shows dependence on the main epistles. For\nthe detailed attempt to place it at a later date see Steck, 294-310.\n\n97 2 Peter iii. 15-17, \u201cAnd count the long-suffering of the Lord as\nsalvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom\ngiven to him, wrote to you, as in all his Epistles when he mentions\nthese things, in which no doubt occur some things which are difficult\nto understand, which the unlearned and unstedfast wrest, as they do\nalso the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.\u201d (The German\nfollows Weizs\u00e4cker\u2019s rendering.)\n\n98 As in the present context this phrase might possibly be misleading,\nit may be worth pointing out that it is simply an allusion to the\nfamous \u201ctimeo Danaos et dona ferentes,\u201d _Aen._ ii. 49.\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\n99 The puzzle in the case of Justin is that he uses Pauline phrases,\nand therefore seems to know the Epistles, but never mentions their\nauthor. According to Steck the explanation of this silence lies in the\nfact that the Epistles are, for the author of the _Apology_ and the\n_Dialogue,_ mere literary works and not as yet Church books. The\n_Didache,_ the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the _Epistle of Barnabas_\nshow no certain evidence of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles.\n\n100 _Tertullian adversus Marcionem,_ bk. v., goes through the Epistles\nof Paul as used by Marcion in those \u201cAntitheses\u201d which are now lost to\nus.\n\n101 _Theologisch Tijdschrift,_ 1887, pp. 382-533. \u201cMarcions Brief van\nPaulus aan de Galati\u00ebrs.\u201d The text thus arrived at is given on pp.\n528-533.\n\nVan Manen is also inclined to hold that early Church witnesses may be\nfound for a shorter recension of Romans. See _Die Unechtheit des\nR\u00f6merbriefs,_ 94-100.\n\nA reconstruction of the Marcionite text of Galatians had already been\nundertaken by Adolf Hilgenfeld, _Der Galaterbrief,_ 1852, 239 pp., pp.\n218-234. He holds that it was not the original but a mutilated form.\n\n102 Even the letter consisting of chapters i.-viii. is not, according\nto van Manen, all of a piece, as is evident, he thinks, from the\ncomplicated opening salutation, the vacillating use of \u201cJesus Christ\u201d\nand \u201cChrist Jesus,\u201d and other peculiarities of detail. One or more\ntreatises\u2014on justification by faith, on the equal importance of the\nGospel for Jews and Gentiles, on the significance of the law, on the\nsense in which believers are entitled to call Abraham their father\neven if they are not by birth of his posterity\u2014may have formed the\nbasis of the longer writing. Its close was probably formed by Rom. xv.\n14-33. Later on, the essays which we have in chapters ix.-xi.,\nxii.-xiv. and xv.-xvi. were worked in. The Epistle is supposed to have\nundergone several successive redactions.\n\n103 Steck in the introduction to his work gives references to the\narticles which had appeared up to 1888. The chronicles of the\nfollowing years appear in van Manen. At the head of the\ncounter-movement among critics in Holland stood J. H. Scholten. His\nwork, _Historisch-critische Bijdragen naar Aanleiding van de nieuweste\nHypothese aangaande Jesus en den Paulus der vier Hoofdbrieven_\n(\u201cContributions to Historical Criticism with Reference to the latest\nHypotheses regarding Jesus and the Paul of the four main Epistles\u201d),\n1882, 118 pp., is directed against Loman\u2019s arguments.\n\nFrom the German literature we may cite G. Heinrici, _Die Forschungen\n\u00fcber die paulinischen Briefe: ihr gegenw\u00e4rtiger Stand und ihre\nAufgaben_ (\u201cThe Study of the Pauline Letters; its present Position,\nand Task\u201d). Lectures given before the theological conference at\nGiessen, 1886, pp. 69-120. Wilhelm Br\u00fcckner, _Die chronologische\nReihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind_\n(\u201cThe Chronological Order in which the Epistles of the New Testament\nwere written\u201d), 1890, 306 pp. (An essay which received the prize\noffered for the treatment of this question by the Teylerian Society of\nHaarlem.) \u201cOn the Chronological Order of the Four main Epistles, pp.\n174-203. Carl Clemen, _Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe,_ 1893,\n292 pp. By the same writer, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen\nBriefe_ (\u201cThe Integrity of the Pauline Epistles\u201d), 1894, 183 pp.\n\nIn these writings Clemen makes some concessions to the Ultra-T\u00fcbingen\ncritics. Thus, for example, he is prepared to put Galatians after\nRomans and Corinthians. The mediating views here offered, though\nsometimes interesting, need nevertheless no longer occupy us, as\nClemen has in the meantime completely recovered his confidence and has\ncontradicted himself. In the first volume of his _Paulus_ (1904, 416\npp., examination of the sources) he pronounces that the four main\nepistles are to be regarded as entirely genuine, if only we may divide\nthe second Epistle to the Corinthians into four. In addition to I\nThessalonians and Philippians, even Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are\nto be regarded as from the Apostle\u2019s pen.\n\nIn the preface the author begs that he may not be held accountable for\nhis views prior to his Damascus.\n\nThe second volume of the work, _Paulus. Sein Leben und Werken,_ 1904,\n339 pp., is in biographical form, and does not enter further into the\nproblems of the doctrine.\n\nA writer who takes the \u201cUltra-T\u00fcbingen\u201d side is J. Friedrich\n(Maehliss). In his work entitled _Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs_\n(\u201cThe Spuriousness of Galatians\u201d), 1891, 67 pp., he defends both the\nrights of radical criticism and of a \u201csimplified orthography.\u201d\n\n104 See p. 128, _sup_.\n\n105 See p. 128, _sup_.\n\n106 See p. 129, _sup_.\n\n107 See pp. 114 and 115 of the work cited above, p. 134.\n\n108 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Philosophische Dogmatik oder\nPhilosophie des Christentums,_ 3 vols., 1855, 60, 62; vol. i., 712 pp.\nOn the Pauline Epistles, pp. 144-147.\n\n109 On Romans see also vol. iii. of the _Philosophische Dogmatik_\n(1862, 736 pp.), pp. 263, 264.\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians, the Second to the Corinthians, and the\nFirst to Timothy, Weisse holds to be \u201centirely unapostolic\u201d; in the\nEpistle to Titus and the Second to Timothy he is prepared to recognise\nas a possibility the genuineness of the personal notices.\n\n110 In 2 Corinthians, which shows no evidence of interpolation, three\ndifferent letters to this church are worked up together.\n\n111 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik der paulinischen\nBriefe an die Galater, R\u00f6mer, Philipper und Kolosser_ (\u201cContributions\nto the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles to the Galatians, Romans,\nPhilippians, and Colossians\u201d). Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp. By way\nof introduction the pupil prefixes an essay on the principles of his\nmaster\u2019s \u201cstylistic criticism.\u201d\n\nIn the reconstructed texts it is apparent that the author had spent on\nthem, as he says in his Dogmatic, the \u201cdiligent work of many years.\u201d\nIt is a piece of really skilled workmanship.\n\n112 Daniel V\u00f6lter, _Die Entstehung der Apokalypse,_ 1882, 72 pp. _Die\nKomposition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe,_ 1890, 174 pp. The Epistles\nexamined are those to the Romans and Galatians. _Paulus und seine\nBriefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der\npaulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie,_ 1905, 331 pp. Here\nhe deals with Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. The\nresults arrived at in the previous book are, as a rule, taken over.\nV\u00f6lter rejects the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians, and sees in the\nletters to the Colossians and Ephesians, and in the Pastorals, new\n\u201cphases in the development\u201d of Paulinism.\n\n113 In its original form it consisted, V\u00f6lter thinks, of the following\nsections: i. I, 5b-7, 8-17; v. I-12, 15-19, 21; vi. I-13, 6:16-23;\nchapters xii. and xiii.; xiv. I-xv. 6; xv. 14-16, 23b-33, xvi 21-24.\n\n114 V\u00f6lter is also able to indicate additions which have taken place\nsubsequently to this redaction.\n\nThe interpolations in Philippians relate, according to him, chiefly to\nChristology and eschatology. The author of these additions had before\nhim Romans and Corinthians in their interpolated form, and was also\ndoubtless acquainted with Galatians.\n\n115 The well-known German religious journal.\n\n116 The labour of making an inventory of what has been done in this\nkind of criticism up to the year 1894 was undertaken by C. Clemen in\nhis work, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der\nbisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und\nKompilationshypothesen_ (\u201cThe Integrity of the Pauline Epistles, with\nReference to the Hypotheses of Interpolation or Compilation which have\nbeen applied to them\u201d), 1894, 183 pp. He takes account also of all\ncontributions to the journals. This gives a special value to this\nlaborious and unselfish work.\n\nA survey of previous work in conjectural criticism is given by J. M.\nS. Baljon in _De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de\nCorinthi\u00ebrs en de Galati\u00ebrs,_ 1884, 189 pp.\n\n117 Friedrich Spitta, _Untersuchungen \u00fcber den Brief des Paulus an die\nR\u00f6mer_ (\u201cA Study of the Epistle to the Romans\u201d), 1901, 193 pp. In the\nwork _Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums,_ vol. iii. part\ni.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER VI THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH\nCENTURY\n\n118 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren,_\n2nd ed., 1902, vol. i. 696 pp. On Paul, pp. 24-335. (Eng. trans.\n\u201cPrimitive Christianity,\u201d vol. i. pp. 33-471.)\n\n119 On this point Pfleiderer follows suggestions given by Teichmann in\nhis work, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und\nGericht_ (\u201cThe Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment\u201d),\n1896, 125 pp. As a matter of fact he cannot any more than his\npredecessors give any proof of this evolution.\n\n120 Paul Wernle, _Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion,_ 1st ed., 1901, 410\npp. On Paul, pp. 95-220. By the same author, _Paulus als\nHeidenmissionar_ (\u201cPaul as a Missionary to the Gentiles\u201d), Lecture,\n1899, 36 pp. Heinrich Weinel, _Paulus,_ 1904, 316 pp. The book grew\nout of essays which the author published in the _Christliche Welt._ By\nthe same author, _Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator._ (Inaugural\nLecture.) 1899, 30 pp.\n\nOther works from this popular literature are: Adolf Harnack, _Das\nWesen des Christentums,_ 1900, 189 pp. On Paul, pp. 110-118. Georg\nHollmann, _Urchristentum in Corinth,_ 1903, 32 pp. Paul Feine, _Paulus\nals Theologe,_ 1906, 80 pp. Carl Munzinger, _Paulus in Corinth. Neue\nWege zum Verst\u00e4ndnis des Urchristentums_ (\u201cPaul in Corinth. New Ways\nof arriving at an Understanding of Early Christianity.\u201d) 1908, 208 pp.\nThe author pictures the work of the Apostle in the Greek city in the\nlight of analogies offered by modern missionary practice. Whether the\nnew way really leads to a better understanding of primitive\nChristianity remains open to question.\n\nAs a special investigation of a point of detail at this date we may\nmention Karl Dick\u2019s work, _Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus_\n(\u201cThe Author\u2019s \u2018We\u2019 in Paul\u2019s Writings.\u201d) 1900, 169 pp. There are not\nmany of these studies at this period since the tendency among\ntheologians has been more to popularisation than to scientific\nresearch.\n\n121 _Paulus als Heidenmissionar,_ p. 36. Ernst von Dobsch\u00fctz calls\nattention to the dangers of this method, which easily becomes\nunscientific in _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters._ (Five\nLectures, 1904, 138 pp. See p. 61.) Paul Feine, _Das gesetzesfreie\nEvangelium des Paulus nach seinem Werdegange dargestellt,_ 1899, 232\npp. _Jesus Christus und Paulus,_ 1902, 309 pp. Arthur Titius, _Der\nPaulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit_ (2nd Part of the\nwork _Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung\nf\u00fcr die Gegenwart_\u2014\u201cThe New Testament Doctrine of Final Blessedness\nand its Significance for the present Time\u201d), 1900, 290 pp. A.\nSchlatter, in his _NTle. Theologie_ (Pt. ii. The doctrine of the\nApostles, 1910, 592 pp. On Paul, 199-407), follows a conservative\nbiblico-theological method like that of B. Weiss.\n\n122 R. Drescher, too \u201cDas Leben Jesu bei Paulus\u201d in _Festgruss an\nStade,_ 1900, pp. 101-161, is of opinion that the letters, rightly\nunderstood, offer us \u201can imposing amount of material\u201d on the life of\nJesus. The author thinks that wherever possible Paul referred to the\nteaching of Jesus; and he fought his battle for freedom from the law\nwith such confidence \u201cbecause he knew that he had Jesus on his side.\u201d\n\nIt should be mentioned that J. Wellhausen takes up a similar\nstand-point. He gives it as his opinion, _Israelitische und j\u00fcdische\nGeschichte_ (6th ed., 1907, 386 pp.), that Paul \u201cwas really the man\nwho best understood the Master and carried on His work.\u201d\n\n123 _L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul et J\u00e9sus-Christ,_ 1904, 393 pp.\n\n124 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., 1909,\nvol. i., 826 pp. See p. 107. To the same effect, Adolf J\u00fclicher,\n_Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. See p. 34.\n\n125 Hermann Jakoby. _Neutestamentliche Ethik,_ 1899, 480 pp. On Paul,\npp. 243-406. Alfred Juncker, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ part i.,\n1904, 288 pp.\n\nAmong other monographs we have to notice Emil Sokolowski\u2019s _Die\nBegriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehung zu einander,_\n1903, 284 pp. The author ascribes little importance to Greek influence\nin comparison with Jewish, and tries to explain what is peculiar and\nvital in the Apostle\u2019s views as due to his individual experience,\nespecially the vision on the Damascus road.\n\nHans Windisch, _Die Ents\u00fcndigung des Christen nach Paulus,_ 1908, 132\npp. The difficulties raised for Paul by his mysticism are pointed out.\nIt is shown that this, strictly speaking, makes it impossible for him\nto admit sin in the case of baptized persons. The eschatological\ncharacter of the sacramental-mystical theory of deliverance from sin\nis strongly brought out. The author continues the investigation which\nPaul Wernle, in his work _Der Christ und die S\u00fcnde bei Paulus_ (1897,\n138 pp.), was the first to undertake. See p. 60 of the present work.\n\n126 Wilhelm Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen\nZeitalter,_ 1903, 512 pp. Simultaneously appeared the same writer\u2019s\nwork, _Die j\u00fcdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft\nund ihre Bedeutung f\u00fcr das neue Testament_ (\u201cJewish Apocalyptic, its\nOrigin in the Light of Comparative Religion and its Significance for\nthe New Testament.\u201d A Lecture, 1903.)\n\nEschatology receives special attention in the fine work of Hugo\nGressmann, _Der Ursprung der israelitisch j\u00fcdischen Eschatologie_\n(\u201cThe Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology\u201d), 1905, 378\npp. The author takes up an attitude of some reserve in regard to the\n\u201creligious-historical method,\u201d and seeks to determine in the case of\nevery statement whether it can have arisen in Israel or must be\nregarded as having been introduced from without.\n\nPaul Volz, _J\u00fcdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba,_ 1903, 412\npp., endeavours, somewhat unconvincingly, to give a sketch of Jewish\nconceptions of the future age.\n\nEverling\u2019s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study\nof Martin Dibelius, _Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,_ 1909, 249\npp. (\u201cThe World of Spirits as conceived in Paul\u2019s Belief\u201d). In\naddition to the Late Jewish passages the author cites also the\nRabbinical and those suggested by the Comparative Study of Religion.\nThe excursuses on the linguistic history of the subject are very\ninstructive (pp. 209-232). On Everling, see pp. 55-57 of the present\nwork.\n\n127 G. F. Heinrici\u2019s work, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1902, 142 pp., still\noccupies the old stand-point. On Paul, pp. 71-101. For what he has to\nsay against the \u201cphysical\u201d in the doctrine of redemption, see pp. 95,\n96.\n\nW. Bousset, _Der Apostel Paulus,_ 1906, holds that we shall never\ncompletely understand the Apostle\u2019s doctrine. We must make up our\nminds to the fact . . that in his letters we have before us only\nfragments of his spiritual life, the full wealth of which we can only\nvaguely imagine. The individual arguments of Paul look to us like\nerratic boulders; only toilsomely and partially can we reconstruct the\nconnexion of thought.\n\n128 Rendering _naturhaft._ Dr. Schweitzer has favoured me with the\nfollowing note on this difficult concept, which from this point\nbecomes prominent in the discussions. After consultation with him, the\nword has been rendered \u201cphysical,\u201d but placed in quotation marks to\nindicate the special use.\u2014TRANSLATOR. \u201cIn the special sense in which\nit is here used _naturhaft_ is intended to convey that it is not a\nquestion of a purely spiritual redemption, but that the whole physical\nand hyperphysical being of the man is thereby translated into a new\ncondition. Body and soul are redeemed together; and in such a way that\nnot only the elect portion of mankind, but the whole world is\ncompletely transformed in a great catastrophic event.\u201d\n\n129 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187.\n\n130 W. Heitm\u00fcller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus,_ 1903, 56 pp.\n\n131 How unwilling theology was to draw this inevitable inference is to\nbe seen from the works of Weinel and Heitm\u00fcller. They refuse to go\nbeyond the statement that the sacraments stand in sharp opposition to\nthe real \u201creligion\u201d of Paul, and think that they have solved the\nproblem by asserting that the Apostle of the Gentiles did not notice\nthe contradiction. Weinel remarks, \u201cPaul himself is quite unconscious\nof the problem raised by the collision of the \u2018physical\u2019 doctrine of\nredemption of the Mysteries with the ethical doctrine of\nChristianity.\u201d Heitm\u00fcller says, \u201cThese views of baptism and the Lord\u2019s\nSupper stand in unreconciled and unreconcilable opposition with the\ncentral significance of faith for Pauline Christianity, that is to\nsay, with the purely spiritual, personal view of the religious\nrelation which stands in the foreground of Pauline religious life and\nreligious thought.\u201d\n\n132 William Wrede, _Paulus,_ 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled\n\u201cReligionsgeschichtliche Volksb\u00fccher.\u201d)\n\n133 In the sense of the Messiah.\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\n134 How far Wrede was consciously influenced by Kabisch, and how far\nhe has the sense of creating something new, is not quite evident. He\nreckons the book among the \u201cvery important studies on special points,\u201d\nto which he refers in the bibliography, but he does not quote it.\n\n135 C. von Dobsch\u00fctz, _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_\n(\u201cProblems of the Apostolic Age,\u201d 1904, 138 pp.), does not enter in\ndetail into the question regarding the genesis of the Pauline view of\nthe law, although he treats Jewish Christianity and Gentile\nChristianity with some fulness.\n\n136 See the present writer\u2019s _Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte\nder Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (1906, 418 pp.). On Wrede, pp. 327-347.\n(English translation, \u201cThe Quest of the Historical Jesus.\u201d A. and C.\nBlack, London, 2nd ed., 1911. On Wrede, pp. 328-348.)\n\n137 This thesis of Wrede\u2019s called into being a new literature upon\nPaul and Jesus which attacked Wrede chiefly on the score of his\none-sidedness.\n\nP. K\u00f6lbing, _Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,_ 1906\n(\u201cThe Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul\u201d). Adolf\nJ\u00fclicher, _Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer, _Wer hat das\nChristentum begr\u00fcndet, Jesus oder Paulus?_ 1907, 104 pp. (\u201cWho founded\nChristianity, Jesus or Paul?\u201d) Wilhelm Walther, _Pauli Christentum,\nJesu Evangelium,_ 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, _Paulus und Jesus,_\n1909, 72 pp. _Christus: Die Anf\u00e4nge des Dogmas,_ 1909, 88 pp.\n(\u201cChrist: The Beginnings of Dogma\u201d).\n\n138 Martin Br\u00fcckner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,_\n1903, 237 pp.\n\nThe work appeared some months before Wrede\u2019s _Paulus,_ but the author,\nwho had the opportunity of personal intercourse and the interchange of\nideas with him, was acquainted with his method and fundamental views.\nAs he is also an independent thinker, his work represents not only a\nsupplement but a real advance.\n\n139 Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\n140 William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Br\u00fcckner in his thoughtful\nbut obscure and heavily written dissertation, _Die Wurzeln der\npaulinischen Christologie_ (1909, 170 pp.) (\u201cThe Roots of the Pauline\nEschatology\u201d). He thinks that the origin of Christianity which they\nsuggest does not explain the \u201ccharacteristic and peculiar connexion of\nChristology with Pneumatology,\u201d and insists that in the Damascus\nvision is to be found the sufficient reason for \u201cthe intimately\norganic fusion\u201d of the conception of Christ with that of the Spirit\nwhich operates through Him. In any case he holds it to be \u201cfalse in\nprinciple and method to try to derive the roots of the Pauline\nChristology from the Jewish Apocalyptic Christology.\u201d\n\n141 From the literature we may mention A. Schettler, _Die paulinische\nFormel \u201cDurch Christus\u201d_ (\u201cThe Pauline Formula Through Christ\u201d), 1907,\n82 pp. J. Haussleiter, _Paulus,_ 1909, 96 pp. (Lectures, popular.) R.\nKnopf, Paulus, 1909, 123 pp. Eberhard Vischer, _Der Apostel Paulus und\nsein Werk,_ 1910, 143 pp. By the same author, _Die Paulusbriefe,_\n1906, 80 pp. A remarkably good, clearly and simply written guide to\nquestions of \u201cIntroduction.\u201d Julius Schniewind, _Die Begriffe Wort und\nEvangelium bei Paulus_ (\u201cThe Meaning of the Terms \u2018Word\u2019 and \u2018Gospel\u2019\nin Paul\u2019s Writings\u201d), 1910, 120 pp.\n\nJohannes M\u00fcller, _Die Entstehung des pers\u00f6nlichen Christentums der\npaulinischen Gemeinden,_ 1911, 306 pp. A good analysis of the general\ncontents of Paul\u2019s gospel. The theological system and the mysticism of\nthe Apostle are not explained. The book is the second edition of a\nstudy which appeared in 1898 under the title _Das pers\u00f6nliche\nChristentum der paulinischen Gemeinden nach seiner Entstehung\nuntersucht_ (\u201cAn Investigation of the Origin of the Personal\nChristianity of the Pauline Churches\u201d).\n\nAdolf Deissmann, _Paulus,_ 1911, 202 pp. The book grew out of\nlectures. The author is opposed to the method of investigation which\naims at understanding the \u201cSystem of Pauline Theology,\u201d and thinks\nthat in following these \u201cdoctrinaire interests\u201d it would go further\nand further astray. For him Paul is primarily \u201ca hero of the religious\nlife\u201d for whom \u201ctheology is a secondary matter.\u201d He holds that the\nApostle was more a man of prayer and testimony, a confessor and a\nprophet, than a learned exegete and laborious dogmatist.\n\nHis aim is, with the aid of reminiscences of two journeys to the East,\nto \u201cplace the man of Tarsus in the sunlight of his Anatolian home, and\nin the clear air of the ancient Mediterranean lands,\u201d and he believes\nthat when this is done \u201cwhat previously tired our eyes, like a set of\nfaded and rubbed pencil sketches, becomes at once plastic and living\nin its light and shadow.\u201d This hope is by no means realised in his\nwork. It appears here, as was also noticeable in the writer\u2019s earlier\n_Licht vom Osten_ (\u201cLight from the East\u201d), that he has a high\nappreciation of local colour and the memorials of ancient\ncivilisation, but when it comes really to explaining the ideas he is\nnot able to draw nearly so much profit from them as he expected. And\nhis contempt for \u201cdoctrinaire interests\u201d revenges itself upon his\ntreatment. It is obscure and confused, and does not get at the essence\nof the thoughts. In regard to Paul\u2019s mysticism Deissmann has applied\nnew catchwords to old psychological considerations, but in nowise\ncontributes to the explanation of it. After Wrede\u2019s _Paulus,_ his book\nseems a kind of anachronism. It is, besides, not fitting that what\nprofesses to be a new view should be presented in the inadequate form\nof a collection of lectures.\n\n142 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., vol. i.,\n1909, 826 pp. On Paul, pp. 96-107 (3rd ed., 1893).\n\n143 Reinhold Seeberg, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 2nd ed., vol\ni., 1908, 570 pp. On Paul, 68-78. The first circle of ideas embraces\nthe thoughts regarding flesh and spirit, the power of grace and the\nstrength of sin, Christ and the new creation; the second consists of\nthe formulas which were created in opposition to Jewish Christianity;\nthe third has to do with the mystical body of Christ, in which the\nnatural distinctions between men are abolished. On points of detail\nthere are many discriminating observations. The first edition, of\n1895, did not even contain any section on Paul.\n\nThe 4th ed. of Loofs\u2019 _Dogmengeschichte_ (1906, vol. i., 576 pp.) does\nnot deal with the Apostle of the Gentiles, any more than the preceding\neditions.\n\n144 On Kabisch see above, pp. 58-63.\n\n145 A sifting and a survey of results is offered in the closing\nchapter, \u201cDas religionsgeschichtliche Problem\u201d (448-493) in Bousset\u2019s\nbook, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_\n1903 (\u201cThe Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times\u201d).\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER VII PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION\n\n146 Hermann Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: \u201cDas\nWeihnachtsfest\u201d_ (1889, 337 pp.); _\u201cDie Sintflutsagen\u201d_ (1899, 276\npp.) (\u201cStudies in Comparative Religion, \u2018Christmas,\u2019 1889. \u2018The\nFlood-legends,\u2019 1899\u201d). Other works which played an important part in\ncreating the new horizon were Albrecht Dieterich\u2019s works on\nComparative Religion, _Abraxas_ (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth\nof the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and _Nekyia,_\ncontributions to the explanation of the \u201cApocalypse of Peter\u201d (1893,\n238 pp.). The description of the torments of hell in the Akhmim\nfragment is based, he thinks, not on Jewish eschatology, but on\nconceptions which are found in the Orphic literature.\n\n147 _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,_ 1st ed.,\n1906; 2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year\n1905 in the Coll\u00e8ge de France.\n\nWe may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach\u2019s _Cultes,\nmythes et religions,_ 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).\n\nOtto Gruppe, _Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu\nden orientalischen Religionen_ (\u201cGreek cults and Myths in their\nrelation to the Oriental Religions\u201d), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and\n_Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (\u201cGreek Mythology and\nthe History of Greek Religions\u201d). In Iwan M\u00fcller\u2019s _Handbuch der\nklassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (\u201cHandbook of Classical\nAntiquities\u201d), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.\n\nGeorg Mau. _Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden\nauf K\u00f6nig Helios und die G\u00f6ttermutter_ (\u201cThe Emperor Julian\u2019s\nPhilosophy of Religion in his Orations on King Helios and the Dea\nMater\u201d), 1908, 169 pp. In the appendix there is a German translation\nof both discourses.\n\nOf a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong\u2019s _Das antike\nMysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und\npsychologischer Beleuchtung_ (\u201cThe Ancient Mystery-religions in the\nLight of Comparative Religion, Ethnology, and Psychology\u201d), 1909. 362\npp. The author is disposed to cite the modern occult \u201cmanifestations\u201d\nin relation to the astral body in order to explain certain\n\u201cappearances\u201d in the ceremonies of initiation to the mysteries.\n\n148 On what follows see Hugo Hepding, _Attis, seine Mythen und sein\nKult,_ 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of\n\u201cReligionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,\u201d edited by Dieterich\nand W\u00fcnsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, _Kult\u00fcbertragungen_\n(Cultus-Transferences: \u201cMagna Mater,\u201d \u201cAsklepios,\u201d \u201cSarapis\u201d). In the\nsame series vol. viii., 1909.\n\n149 On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, _Les\nReligions orientales,_ pp. 101-103.\n\n150 Note the admission of Hugo Hepding at the close of his chapter on\nthe Mysteries (p. 199):\u2014\u201cI am well aware that this account of the\nPhrygian Mysteries is in its details mainly hypothetical. In view of\nthe paucity of the information which has come down to us, nothing else\nis possible. In particular the association of the blood baptism with\nthe March festival cannot be shown from our documentary material.....\u201d\nHe wants to distinguish between an earlier and a later form of the\ntaurobolium. The earlier form is not a ceremony of initiation but a\nsacrifice. It was only the later which had in view the initiation of\nthe individual. \u201cThe first person whom we know by literary evidence to\nhave undergone the ceremony of the taurobolium is Heliogabalus.\u201d\n\n151 On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1909)\npp. 278-300. From his account it clearly appears how little we know\nabout these ceremonies of initiation. In any case they were quite\ndifferent from those of the later Mystery-religions. They belong to\nearly Greek religion.\n\n152 Franz Cumont, _Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_ (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed.,\n1902).\n\n153 Albrecht Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie,_ 1st ed., 1903; 2nd\ned., 1910 (edited after the author\u2019s death by Richard W\u00fcnsch), 248 pp.\nThe excursuses, pp. 92-212, really give a sketch of the fundamental\nideas of the Mystery-religions in general. Cumont refuses to regard\nthe document as a fragment belonging to a Mithras-liturgy because he\ncannot find in it the specific characteristics of the Persian\neschatology and conception of heaven. On this controversy see the 2nd\nedition of the Mithras-liturgy, pp. 225-228. It would certainly have\nbeen better if Dieterich had not given the book the unnecessary and\ncontentious title.\n\n154 From Dieterich, p. 15.\n\n155 Richard Reitzenstein, _Poimandres._ Studies in Graeco-Egyptian and\nEarly Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres \u201ccommunity\u201d\n[_Gemeinde,_ the word is in quotation marks in the German, perhaps to\nrecall its frequent use in speaking of the Early Christian Church] is\nsupposed to have been founded in Egypt about the time of the birth of\nChrist. Its main characteristic is the mystical basis of the doctrine.\nLater on, in the course of the third century (?) the Poimandres\ncommunity was gradually merged in the general Hermetic communities.\n\n156 From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, _Zum\nreligionsgeschichtlichen Verst\u00e4ndnis des Neuen Testaments_\n(\u201cContributions to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis\nof Comparative Religion\u201d), 1903, 96 pp.\n\nPaul Wendland, _Die hellenistisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen\nzu Judentum und Christentum_ (\u201cThe Hellenistic-Roman Civilisation in\nRelation to Judaism and Christianity\u201d), 1907, 190 pp.\n\nAdolf Deissmann, _Licht vom Osten_ (\u201cLight from the Ancient East\u201d),\n1908, 364 pp. This book, which is rather rhetorically written, treats\nmainly the general literary side of the matter without entering\nspecially into the religious problems and the ideas of the\nMystery-religions. The same author has published a lecture, _Die\nUrgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung_ (\u201cThe\nHistory of Primitive Christianity in the Light of Linguistic\nResearch\u201d), 1910, 48 pp.\n\nKarl Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erkl\u00e4rung des Neuen Testaments_\n(\u201cInterpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative\nReligion\u201d), 1909, 301 pp.\n\nWorks which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject are:\nWilhelm Soltau, _Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen\nKirche_ (\u201cThe Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian\nChurch\u201d), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des\nChristentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_ (\u201cMission and Expansion\nof Christianity in the first three Centuries\u201d), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp.\n\n157 Gustav Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf\ndas Christentum,_ 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in some\nrespects supplementing Anrich\u2019s work, is Georg Wobbermin\u2019s\n_Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des\nUrchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen_ (\u201cStudies from the\nPoint of View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence\nof the ancient Mysteries upon Christianity\u201d), 1896, 190 pp.\n\nJohannes Geffken in his popular work, _Aus der Werdezeit des\nChristentums,_ 2nd ed., 1909, 126 pp. (\u201cFrom the Formative Period of\nChristianity\u201d), does not hold that any very deep influence was\nexercised by the Graeco-Roman Syncretism on early Christianity. He is,\nhowever, of opinion that Paul \u201cadopted all kinds of oriental views.\u201d\n\n158 See _e.g._ Dieterich, _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed., p. 110. Typical\nalso are pp. 176, 177, where he continually speaks of the \u201cdeath and\nre-birth\u201d of believers as taught by Paul.\n\n[_Wiedergeburt_ has been translated \u201cre-birth\u201d when the general sense\nimplied in the comparison with other religions is in view;\n\u201cregeneration\u201d when the reference is primarily to the specific\nChristian doctrine as such.]\n\n159 P. Gennrich in his book, _Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in\ndogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung_ (\u201cThe\nDoctrine of Regeneration ... in the Light of the History of Dogma, and\nof Comparative Religion\u201d), 1907, 363 pp., notes that Paul speaks only\nof the \u201cnew creature\u201d and not of regeneration; but he does not\ninvestigate the cause of this peculiarity, but hastens to give a\npsychological explanation of his utterances as a \u201cprecipitate from his\npersonal experience.\u201d\n\n160 See the introduction to _Les Religions orientales dans le\npaganisme romain,_ 2nd ed., 1909.\n\n161 Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Br\u00fcckner, _Der\nsterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen\nReligionen und ihr Verh\u00e4ltnis zum Christentum_ (\u201cThe divine Saviour\nwho dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation\nto Christianity\u201d). In the series of _Religionsgeschichtliche\nVolksb\u00fccher,_ 1908, 48 pp. \u201cAs in Christianity, so in many Oriental\nreligions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God,\nwho was subordinated to the Supreme God (sometimes as His Son)\noccupied a central place in the worship and cultus.\u201d What manipulation\nthe myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone\nbefore this general statement could become possible! Where is there\nanything about dying and resurrection in Mithra? It is instructive to\nsee how the author on p. 30 argues away the effect of this admission!\n\nA popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf Jacoby\u2019s\nwork, _Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum_ (\u201cThe\nancient Mystery-religions and Christianity\u201d), 1910, 44 pp., in the\nseries of _Religionsgeschichtliche Volksb\u00fccher._ The author deserves\nspecial credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they\ncan form their own impression.\n\nDieterich remarks with great justice in the _Mithrasliturgie_ (2nd\ned., 207) how necessary it is to get beyond the catchword\n\u201cSyncretistic,\u201d and point out in every case the source of particular\nmythological statements and ideas.\n\n162 O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious\nthought never really had the conception of a \u201cworld-redeemer\u201d\n_(Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte),_ vol. ii., pp.\n1488-1489. It cannot, in fact, be otherwise. The \u201cworld-redeemer\u201d of\nJewish and Christian apocalyptic thought corresponds to the \u201cnew\nworld\u201d which he is in some supernatural fashion to bring in, in order\nto reign in it along with the elect. Graeco-oriental religions did not\nlook for a kingdom of that kind, and therefore the idea of the ruler\nof such a kingdom was also undiscoverable and unattainable for them.\nThe Messiah is the World-redeemer or Lord of the coming age. He does\nnot make atonement for the guilt of mankind nor for that of\nindividuals, but suffers and dies vicariously for the elect, and in\norder to set the events of the End in motion. His earthly fate is\nnothing in itself, but falls wholly under the conception of the\n\u201cMessianic woes\u201d which are thought of as the tribulation of the Times\nof the End. How can it be proposed to find an analogue to a figure of\nthis kind in myths, the scene of which is laid in the dawn of the\nworld, and which have no sort of relation to its ultimate fate.\n\n163 P. 102 ff. He has at this point a detailed discussion of the\nrelations between the cultus-meal in Paul and that of the\nMystery-religions.\n\nOn the sacraments see also K. Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche\nErkl\u00e4rung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the Supper,\n165-207.\n\n164 _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108.\n\n165 Therefore the statement that Jesus baptized in the Judaean country\n(Jn iii. 22) is corrected to the effect that He Himself did not\nbaptize, but only the disciples (Jn iv. 2).\n\n166 _Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein._\n\n167 W. Heitm\u00fcller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus_ (\u201cBaptism and the\nLord\u2019s Supper in Paul\u2019s teaching\u201d). A description and an investigation\nin the light of Comparative Religion, 1903, 56 pp. These journeyings\non pp. 40-42.\n\n168 _i.e._ Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears\nlater, with Reitzenstein, who is described as the \u201cPneumatic\u201d of the\nscience.\n\n169 Albert Eichhorn, _Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament_ (\u201cThe Lord\u2019s\nSupper in the New Testament,\u201d 1898, 31 pp.), similarly holds that in\nPaul we have before us a sacramental eating and drinking of the body\nand blood of Christ which can only be explained as based on Oriental\nGnostic presuppositions. He is, however, constrained to admit that we\nhave no knowledge of a \u201csacramental meal which could have served as\nthe model for the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u201d But this does not shake his faith in\nhis theory. He thinks that proof is only wanting because there is here\na gap in our historical knowledge. He has calculated out the position\nof the planet; the mere fact that it cannot be discovered with the\ntelescope is wholly due to the inadequacy of the instrument.\n\n170 See on this R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen\nMysterienreligionen_ (\u201cThe Hellenistic Mystery Religions\u201d), p. 38.\n\n171 Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. _marg._: laver of regeneration).\n\n172 Wilhelm Heitm\u00fcller, _Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und\nreligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur\naltchristlichen Taufe_ (\u201cIn the Name of Jesus. A New Testament Study\nbased on Linguistics and Comparative Religion, with special Reference\nto Early Christian baptism\u201d), 1903, 347 pp. In this thorough and\nextremely interesting study the author arrives at the result that in\nthe employment of the name of Jesus it is taken for granted that the\nname in some way or other represents a power. The Christian \u201cbelief in\nthe name,\u201d he holds, stands on the same footing as Jewish and heathen\nbeliefs. \u201cThe solemn pronouncement of the name of Jesus at baptism is\nnot a merely symbolic form, having to do, for example, with the\nconfession of the Messiahship of Jesus, but is thought of as\nassociated with real mystical, mysterious effects; the effects must,\nhowever, be similar, _mutatis mutandis,_ to those which are ascribed\nto the use of the name in other cases: a being actually taken\npossession of by the power which is designated by the \u2018name\u2019 of Jesus,\nthe expulsion of all hostile powers, consecration and inspiration.\u201d\n\u201cBaptism in the name of Jesus represents, therefore, the combination\nof two sacramental factors\u2014water and the name.\u201d\n\nUnfortunately, Heitm\u00fcller has not emphasised the fact that the\nMystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.\n\nIt is also open to question whether the power of the name and of water\nsuffice, as he thinks, to explain the Pauline view of baptism.\n\n173 Paul Wernle, _Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion,_ 1901, p. 129.\n\n174 In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted\nhere in full:\u2014\n\n_\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f03\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f33 \u03c4\u1ff6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f74\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9_.\n\n. . . \u201cAnd they persuade, not only individuals, but whole cities that\nsacrifices and pleasureable amusements afford absolution and\npurification from crimes committed, both for the living and also for\nthe dead; these they call Mysteries (initiations), and they free us\nfrom the torments of the other world, whereas terrible things await\nthose who neglect to offer sacrifice.\u201d On expiation see Rohde,\n_Psyche,_ i. (1903), 259 ff.\n\n175 Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the\nquestion, see Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Korinth_ (\u201cPrimitive\nChristianity in Corinth\u201d), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24.\n\n176 R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,_ p. 84.\nThe dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing\nbetween two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head.\n\n177 In I Cor. vi. 11, after saying that thieves, adulterers,\nslanderers, and robbers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the Apostle\nproceeds, \u201cAnd such were some of you. But ye were cleansed, ye were\nconsecrated, ye were justified.\u201d The passage is no doubt intended\nsarcastically, ironically, with reference to the fact that, in spite\nof their baptism, according to present appearances they have not\nchanged much. In regard to self-delusion on the ground of baptism see\nalso I Cor. x.\n\n178 I Cor. i. 14-16.\n\n179 See Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_\n(1910), pp. 99, 100.\n\n180 See above, p. 162, note 3.\n\n181 In contrast with Heitm\u00fcller, who was described above as the\n\u201chylic,\u201d materialist (see p. 205).\n\nR. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre\nGrundgedanken und Wirkungen_ (\u201cThe Hellenistic Mystery-religions.\nTheir fundamental Ideas and Influence\u201d), 1910, 217 pp. The work is\ncomposed out of a lecture delivered in the Clerical Theological\nSociety of Alsace-Lorraine (pp. 1-60), along with extensive notes and\nexcursuses (pp. 63-214).\n\n182 Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the\n_pneuma._ Reitzenstein believes himself to be able to show that all\nthe passages in Paul\u2019s writings which refer to this subject \u201care\nexplicable from Hellenistic usage,\u201d and leaves open the question\nwhether they \u201care all equally easy to understand on the basis of the\nHebraic use of _ruach_ or _nephesh,_ or the LXX. use of _\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1_.\u201d\n\nA detailed discussion is given of the following passages, Rom. vi.\n1-14, xii. I ff.; I Cor. ii., xiii., xv. 34 ff.; 2 Cor. iii. 18, v.1\nff., v. 6 ff., x.-xiii., and some interesting light is thrown on the\nEpistle to Philemon (pp. 81, 82).\n\nIt may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay \u201cPaulus\u201d\n_(Charakterk\u00f6pfe aus der antiken Literatur,_ 1910, 136 pp. pp.\n107-136) estimates very highly the indirect influence of the\nHellenistic surroundings and language. In the second edition (1911,\n142 pp.) he goes a little more fully into the individual problems of\nthe doctrine.\n\n183 Even Holtzmann shares this confusion. \u201cThe Pauline doctrine,\u201d he\npronounces in his New Testament Theology (ii. p. 56), \u201cis not exactly\nPhilonian, but doubtless, like the closely allied Philonian doctrines\nand the more widely divergent later views, grew out of the same stock\nof Jewish reflection on the Creation-narratives. . . .\u201d\n\n184 _Poimandres,_ p. 81 ff.\n\n185 Reitzenstein takes much pains to render intelligible, by a series\nof examples from ancient and modern times, the \u201cdual personality\u201d\nwhich often seems to manifest itself in Paul (pp. 53-57. 207, 208). He\noverlooks the fact that in the form in which it occurs in Paul it is\ntaken for granted by eschatology, and appears in Jesus and the\ndisciples. It is much more primitive than anything found in\nHellenistic mysticism or in any form of romanticism, since the\ndistinction of outer appearance and inner being which occurs in Paul,\ndepends upon the contrast of the two worlds which are struggling\ntogether for existence. The dual self-consciousness of Paul is, in\ncontradistinction to all other cases, not subjectively but objectively\nconditioned. Besides, it depends on the temporal opposition of \u201cthen\u201d\nand \u201cnow,\u201d as naturally results from the ardent eschatological\nexpectation. On the \u201cdoubling\u201d of one\u2019s own personality, such as is\npossible for Greek sensibility, see Rohde, _Psyche,_ vol. ii. (1909),\npp. 413, 414.\n\n186 See pp. 57, 58.\n\n187 See _e.g._ Reitzenstein, p. 209.\n\n188 That Greek \u201ceschatology\u201d and early Christian are mutually\nexclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich\u2019s _Nekyia_ (1893, 238\npp.). The fantastic torments of hell as portrayed in the Apocalypse of\nPeter have nothing to do with the Jewish and primitive Christian\neschatology, since the latter are concerned with the in-coming of the\nnew world, and not with the special punishment of individuals.\nDieterich is quite right when he explains this detailed description of\ntorment as due to influences from the Orphic literature. Greek\nreligious feeling was concerned with the fate of individuals after\ndeath. The thought of a coming world which dominates Jewish and\nprimitive Christian eschatology is alien to it, because its\n\u201ceschatology\u201d was not created, like the former, by the\nhistorico-ethical conceptions and aspirations of successive\ngenerations of prophets.\n\n189 Hermann Gunkel, _Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst\u00e4ndnis des\nNeuen Testaments,_ 1903, 96 pp.\n\n190 Max Maurenbrecher, _Von Jerusalem nach Rom,_ 1910, 288 pp. This\nwork is the continuation of _Von Nazareth nach Golgatha,_ 1909, 274\npp.\n\n191 W. B. Smith, _Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien\nzur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums,_ 243 pp. It was issued\nin German in 1906 with a preface by P. W. Schmiedel. The author is\nProfessor of Mathematics in Tulane University, New Orleans. The book\nconsists of five somewhat disconnected essays: i. \u201cThe Pre-Christian\nJesus\u201d; ii. \u201cThe Significance of the Nick-name, The Nazarene\u201d; iii.\n\u201cAnastasis\u201d; iv. \u201cThe Sower sows the Logos\u201d; v. \u201cSaeculi silentium.\u201d\n(Behind this title masquerades a study of the external arguments for\nthe historicity of the Pauline Epistles, in which Smith stammers out\nconfusedly what Steck and van Manen had clearly expressed before him.)\n\n192 Arthur Drews, _Die Christusmythe,_ 1909, 190 pp.\n\nNOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM\n\n193 See above, p. 173 f.\n\n194 Hence John\u2019s indignation at seeing the \u201cviper\u2019s brood\u201d approaching\nto take advantage of it?\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\n195 For the sense of the term here, see above, p. 83, note.\n\u2014TRANSLATOR.\n\nTRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\nThis book is the first edition of the translation. No second edition\nwas published until 1948 which contained only a few minor changes\nanyway. Consequently there are a lot of errors/inconsistencies in the\nspelling and hyphenation. I have left almost all of these as is,\nexcept for a few cases where line-end hyphens needed to be corrected\n(line 2496 on p. 65: thoroughgoing/thorough-going; line 7492 on p.\n217: Rebirth/Re-Birth). The special case of \u2018primitive-Christian\u2019 \u276c-\u276d\n\u2018primitive Christian\u2019 was examined in detail. In only six cases does\nit seem that \u2018primitive-Christian\u2019 is used as a compound word. All the\nothers seem to be legitimate as separate words. The inconsistent uses\nof naive (1), na\u00efve (3), naively (1), na\u00efvely (1), na\u00efvet\u00e9 (3) were\nleft as is. So was a priori (7), \u00e0 priori (2) and L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre (4),\nL\u2019Apotre (1). Two un-paired quotation marks were also left as is:\nup-paired \" p. 34 line 1528 (wrong but left in)\nun-paired \" n. 103 p. 134 line 9638 (wrong but left in)\n\nBecause of the use of English, German, Dutch, and Latin there were\nmany different spellings of words flagged as errors which were due to\nthe same word being spelled differently in different languages.","title":"Paul and his interpreters : $b A critical history","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":90832}