teachings and polemics. His procedure is deliberate. He does not
appeal to the Master even where it might seem inevitable to do so, as
in regard to the ethics and the doctrine of the significance of His
death and resurrection; and in fact declares that as a matter of
principle he desires no longer to “know Christ after the flesh.”
Psychological considerations are quite inadequate to explain these
facts. It is as though he held that between the present world-period
and that in which Jesus lived and taught there exists no link of
connexion, and was convinced that since the death and resurrection of
the Lord conditions were present which [pg 246] were so wholly new
that they made His teaching inapplicable, and rendered necessary a new
basis for ethics and a deeper knowledge respecting His death and
resurrection.
The case lies similarly in regard to the Apostle’s views about
universalism and the law.
It was not by his experiences among the Gentiles that he was led to
universalism. And the thought is not simply that mission work among
the heathen ought to be _permitted._ He maintains the view that there
is a pressing necessity to carry the Gospel abroad. It is under the
impulsion of this thought that he becomes the Apostle of the Greeks.
The sole and sufficient reason for this view he finds in the peculiar
condition of the world between the death and the parousia of Christ.
To it are due the conditions in consequence of which a share in the
privileges of Israel is open to the Gentiles without their being
obliged, by taking upon them the law and its sign, to enter into union
with Israel. In saying this it is not the Apostle’s meaning that they
merely do not _need_ to do so; they _must not_ do so, on pain of
losing their salvation.
Since Ritschl, the representatives of the history of dogma have been
concerned to obscure the problem of the law in Paul and to turn
theology into paths of easiness. They assert that it was a purely
practical question, which did not touch doctrine in the strict sense.
This was the expedient by which they escaped from the difficulty when
it was raised by Baur. It is time that it should be given up.
When Paul proclaims that the Greeks do not need to submit to the law,
he is not led to do so by the experience that this was reasonable and
practical. He declares them free because the logical implications of
his doctrine compel him to do so. What Jesus thought about the matter
is just as indifferent to him as His opinion regarding the legitimacy
of preaching to the Gentiles. The peculiar conditions of the time
between His death and [pg 247] His parousia forbid any extension of
the law to believers outside of Israel. On the other hand, these
conditions require that believers belonging to the Chosen People must
continue to practise it as before. The assertion of the non-validity
of the law is never intended by Paul in a sense which would justify
the inference of its total abolition for all believers. It has
received its death-blow, but retains its position outwardly up to the
time of the parousia. For this limited period the watchword is: he who
is under the law shall continue to observe it; he who is free from it
shall on no account place himself under it. From one and the same fact
two diametrically opposite conclusions are drawn; for so the unique
character of the time demands.
What is the relation between predestination and the sacraments? Why do
the elect of the final generation need a provision which was not made
for those of earlier generations? This too must result from the unique
character of the time. The only logical assumption is that to this
special provision corresponds a special blessedness, going beyond the
ordinary blessedness involved in election as such, which is reserved
for the final generation and cannot be obtained otherwise than through
baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But wherein does it consist?
All these questions are, like the mystical doctrine, to be answered by
reference to the special conditions of the period between the death of
Jesus and the parousia. It must be possible to refer back the whole of
the teachings to one and the same fundamental fact. It follows that
there must be no more talking about the “uniqueness of the event at
Damascus” and psychologising about Paul’s “religious experience,” no
more spiritualising and modernising, no making play with the
distinction between religion and theology, or with the discovery or
concealment of contradictions and antinomies, or other similar
exercises of ingenuity.
All explanations which represent the system of doctrine [pg 248] as
something arising subjectively in the Apostle’s mind may be assumed _a
priori_ to be false. Only those which seek to derive it objectively
from the fundamental facts of the primitive eschatological belief are
to be taken into consideration. The only kind of interpretation which
can be considered historical is one which makes it clear how a man who
believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus and His imminent
parousia was, in virtue of that belief, in a position to understand
the thoughts of the Apostle of the Gentiles and to follow his
arguments, and was logically obliged to accept them.
And, finally, the solution must explain the enigmatic attitude which
subsequent generations take up in regard to the Apostle of the
Gentiles. They know him, but they owe no allegiance to him. He created
no school. The theology of an Ignatius or a Justin does not attach
itself to him. There is something more in this than a simple
oversight. If these theologians do not turn to him for aid, though he
stands like a giant among them, that must be due to the fact that it
is impossible to do so, and that in the course of the natural
development of things they have been led to follow quite other paths.
For some reason or other, the conditions under which he created his
system must be for them unimaginable. It is true they are still in the
period between the death and the parousia of Jesus, but they can no
longer interpret it in the same way as the Apostle did. Why are they
no longer able to bring into play the forces which he assumes to be in
operation when he refers everything to the dying and rising again of
Christ and the believer? Which of his presuppositions is for them
lacking? May it be that the intensity of the eschatological
expectation has so declined that the mysticism associated therewith
can no longer maintain its ground?
The Ultra-Tübingen critics demanded of theology proof that the
canonical Paul and his Epistles belonged to early Christianity; and
the demand was justified.
The question is not to be decided in the domain of [pg 249] literary
history, since the only thing we have to deal with is the self-witness
of the Epistles, which can neither be strengthened nor shaken by
indications drawn from elsewhere.
Argument and counter-argument must be drawn from the contents. The
theological scholarship which had to meet the attacks of Steck and van
Manen had no solid arguments to oppose to them. Its Paulinism was so
complicated, Hellenised and modernised, that it could at need find a
place in theological text-books, but not in primitive Christianity. On
the other hand, an explanation which shows that the Apostle’s system
is based on the most primitive eschatological premises, and at the
same time makes it intelligible why subsequent generations could not
continue to follow the road on which he started, thereby demonstrates
his primitive Christianity and, to this extent, also the genuineness
of his chief Epistles. The possibility that they might be
primitive-Christian, and yet not written by the historic Apostle of
the Gentiles, hardly calls for serious consideration.
Any one who works out this solution is the true pupil of Baur, however
widely he may diverge from him in his views and results. By
unequivocally determining the date of the writings in question on
internal grounds and excluding all other possibilities he is
exercising “positive criticism” in the sense intended by the Tübingen
master, and justifies him in the face of the adversaries against whom
he can no longer defend himself.
It may no doubt prove to be the case that this “positive” criticism
will appear distressingly negative to those who look for results which
can be immediately coined into dogmatic and homiletic currency.
Their opinion, however, is of small importance.
It is the fate of the “Little-faiths” of truth that they, true
followers of Peter, whether they be of the Roman or the Protestant
observance, cry out and sink in the sea of ideas, where the followers
of Paul, believing in the Spirit, walk secure and undismayed.
[pg 251]
INDEX
Ammon, C. F. von, 3 n.
Anrich, Gustav, 179, 189, 231
Aratus, 94
Aubertin, Charles, 95 n.
Augustine, 95 n.
Aurelian, 181
Baljon, J. M. S., 117, 118, 125, 148 n.
Bauer, Bruno, 24, 28, 117, 120 ff.
Baumgarten, Michael, 96 n.
Baumgarten, S. J., 1, 3
Baur, F. C., 12 ff., 20 f., 25, 33, 81, 118 f.
Baur, F. F., 20 n.
Beyschlag, Willibald, 22, 26, 41
Bousset, W., 48 n., 151, 152, 162
Brandt, W., 24, 60 n.
Brückner, Martin, 152, 171, 179, 193 n.
Brückner, Wilhelm, 118, 134 n.
Bruston, E., 24, 74 n.
Caligula, 184
Calvin, 33
Claudius, 183
Clemen, Karl, 118, 179, 189 n.
Clement of Rome, 119, 128, 135
Cumont, Franz, 179, 181, 183 n., 185 n., 192
Curtius, Ernst, 24, 87, 94 n.
Dähne, A. F., 2, 10 n.
Deissmann, Adolf, 23, 60 n., 153, 172 n., 179, 189 n.
De Jong, H. E., 181
Delitzsch, Franz, 23, 47
De Wette, W. M. L., 2, 10 n.
Dibelius, Martin, 152, 162 n.
Dick, Karl, 151, 155 n.
Dieterich, Albrecht, 179, 186 ff., 190, 193 n., 194, 195, 228 n., 230
Dobschütz, Ernst von, 152, 169
Domitian, 128
Drescher, A., 151, 153, 159 n.
Drews, Arthur, 179, 234 f.
Eichhorn, Albert, 179, 205
Eichhorn, J. G., 1, 8 f., 15
Epictetus, 95
Ernesti, Fr. Th. L., 23, 95 n.
Ernesti, J. A., 1, 3 f.
Evanson, E., 117, 121 n.
Everling, Otto, 23, 55 f.
Feine, Paul, 151, 152, 156 ff., 165
Fleury, Amédée, 95 n.
Friedländer, M., 117, 124 n.
Friedrich (Maehliss), 117, 135 n.
Gass, J. C., 7
Gass, W., 24, 95 n.
Geffken, J., 179, 189 n.
Gennrich, P., 179, 191 n.
Gloël, J., 23, 78 n.
Godet, F., 22, 26 n.
Goguel, M., 152, 159 f.
Grafe, E., 23, 44, 90 f., 111
Gressmann, H., 152, 162 n.
Grotius, Hugo, 1, 2
Gruppe, Otto, 179, 181 n., 193 n.
Gunkel, H., 23, 78 f., 111, 179, 189 n., 232 f., 236
Hadrian, 122
Harnack, Adolf, vi, 25, 63, 69, 81 f., 83, 84, 90, 113, 114 f., 151,
152, 160, 173, 180, 189 n., 231
Hatch, Edwin, 25, 82
Hausrath, Adolf, 22
Haussleiter, J., 152, 172
Havet, E., 23, 54, 63
Hegel, 15, 16, 21
Heinrici, G. F., 24, 45, 63 n., 67, 80 n., 87, 93, 117, 151, 162 n.
Heitmüller, W., 152, 165, 180, 204 ff., 208 n.
Heliogabalus, 181
Hepding, H., 180, 182, 184
Hilgenfeld, A., 129
Hofmann, C. K. von, 22, 41
Hollmann, G., 151, 211 n.
[pg 252]
Holsten, K., 22, 23, 35, 38 f., 63, 66 ff., 105, 113, 114 f.
Holtzmann, H. J., 22, 24, 25 f., 100, 116, 149 f., 153, 163 f., 221 n.
Ignatius, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 127, 135, 200, 248
Jacoby, Adolf, 180, 193 n.
Jakoby, Hermann, 151, 160 f.
Jerome, 95 n.
Josephus, 51
Julian, 181 n.
Jülicher, Adolf, 22, 152, 170 n.
Juncker, Alfred, 152, 160 f.
Justin Martyr, v, vi, vii, 80, 82, 119, 128, 132, 135, 136, 200, 217,
248
Kabisch, R., 23, 58 ff., 74, 76, 108, 111, 168, 174,222
Kalthoff, A., 117, 123 n.
Kant, 112, 118
Karl, W., 81 n., 152
Kautzsch, E. F., 23, 88
Knopf, R., 152, 172 ff.
Kölbing, P., 152, 170 ff.
Kreyer, J., 95 n.
Lechler, G. V., 12, 18
Lightfoot, John, 48 n.
Lipsius, R. A., 12, 19 f., 24, 64 n.
Loman, A. D., 117, 124 f., 140, 153
Loofs, F., 63 n., 173 n.
Lüdemann, H., 23, 28 ff., 34 f., 62 f., 66, 71, 86, 163
Luther, 33, 50
Manen, W. C. van, 117, 125, 129 ff., 140, 153
Marcion, 113, 128 f.
Marcus Aurelius, 96 n., 98, 122
Mau, Georg, 180, 181 n.
Maurenbrecher, Max, 180, 232 f.
Mehlhorn, Karl, 38 n.
Ménégoz, L. E., 23, 31, 35
Meuschen, J. G., 48 n.
Meyer, Arnold, 152, 170 n.
Meyer, G. W., 2, 9 n.
Michaelis, J. D., 1, 5 n., 7
Müller, Iwan, 181 n.
Müller, J., 153, 172 n.
Munzinger, Karl, 152, 154 n.
Naber, S. A., 123
Neander, J. A. W., 2, 10 n.
Nork, J., 48 n.
Olschewski, W., 152, 171 n.
Paulus, H. E. G., 2, 10 f.
Pfleiderer, Otto, 22, 23, 31, 34, 35, 63, 66 ff., 76, 80, 90, 111, 114
f., 151, 154
Philo, 51, 91, 98, 110
Pierson, Allard, 117, 123
Plato, 211
Preuschen, E., 82 n.
Ptolemy Soter, 184
Rambach, J. J., 1, 3
Reinach, S., 180, 181 n.
Reitzenstein, R., 180, 188 n., 208 n., 212 n., 216 n., 218 ff., 225,
230
Renan, Ernest, 22, 35
Resch, A., 23, 42 n.
Reuss, E., 22, 24, 31, 35
Ritschl, Albrecht, 12, 16 f., 23, 40 f., 43, 83, 84
Rohde, E., 180, 181, 185 n.
Roscher, H. R., 180
Rothe, R., 56
Sabatier, A., 22, 32, 35
Schettler, A., 152, 172 n.
Schläger, G., 117
Schlatter, A., 152
Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 1, 7 f.
Schmidt, Ernst, 182 n.
Schmiedel, P. W., 24, 63, 88, 103
Schnedermann, G., 45 n.
Schniewind, J., 153, 172 n.
Scholten, J. H., 117, 134 n.
Schopenhauer, 118
Schöttgen, C., 48 n.
Schrader, Karl, 2, 10 n.
Schürer, Emil, 24, 45
Schwartz, E. E., 180, 219
Schwegler, A., 12, 16
Schweitzer, A., 170
Seeberg, R., 152, 173
Semler, J. S., 1, 4 f., 148
Seneca, 95 f., 122
Siegfried, K., 24, 91 n.
Simon, Theodor, 24, 96 n.
Smith, W. B., 180, 234 f.
Sokolowski, E., 151, 160 n.
Soltau, W., 180, 189 n.
Spiegelberg, W., 212 n.
Spitta, F., 52 n., 118, 149
Steck, Rudolf, 117, 125, 128 n., 129 ff., 140, 141, 153
Sulze, E., 118, 143
Surenhus (Surenhuys), W., 48 n.
Teichmann, Ernst, 24, 74 ff.
Tertullian, v, 95, 128, 129, 200
Titius, Arthur, 151, 156 ff., 165
[pg 253]
Usener, H., 180, 181
Usteri, L., 2, 9 f.
Vischer, E., 152, 153, 172 n.
Volck, W., 26 n., 41 n.
Volkmar, G., 23
Vollmer, H., 24, 48 n., 88, 91
Völter, Daniel, 118, 143 ff.
Volz, Paul, 152, 162 n.
Walther, W., 152, 170 n.
Weber, F., 24, 45
Weinel, Heinrich, 151, 154 f., 165 n.
Weiss, Bernhard, 22, 27 n., 35, 41, 54, 64, 66, 69
Weiss, Johannes, 152, 170 n.
Weisse, C. H., 24, 28, 118, 141 f.
Weizsäcker, Karl von, 23, 35, 64, 65 f., 69, 128 n.
Wellhausen, J., 46 n., 152, 159 n.
Wendland, P., 180, 189 n.
Wendt, H. H., 23, 30 n.
Wernle, P., 24, 60 n., 151, 154 f., 180, 210 f.
Wieseler, K., 12, 15
Windisch, H., 152, 161 n.
Wobbermin, G., 180
Wolf, J. C., 1, 3
Wrede, William, 100, 152, 166 ff., 177
Wünsch, R., 187 n.
Zahn, Theodor, 22, 25, 96 n.
Zeller, E., 20 n.
Ziegler, Theobald, 24, 95 n.
Zwingli, 33
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. Clark, Limited, _Edinburgh_.
FOOTNOTES
NOTES FOR PREFACE
1 Sub-title: _“Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung.”_ English
translation “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” London, A. & C.
Black, 1910, 2nd ed. 1911.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER I
2 In the Amsterdam edition of the whole in 1679, the _Annotationes_ on
the Pauline Epistles (1009 pp.), with those on the other Epistles and
the Apocalypse, form vol. iii.
3 1723, 822 pp.
4 1st ed. 1742; 2nd, 1745, 232 pp. (For title see head of chapter.)
5 Bâle, 1741. Five vols., covering the whole of the New Testament. The
Pauline Epistles are treated in the 3rd (820 pp.) and 4th (837 pp.).
The full title is: Curae philologicae et criticae . . . quibus
integritati contextus Graeci consulitur, sensus verborum ex praesidiis
philologicis illustratur, diversae Interpretum Sententiae summatim
enarrantur et modesto examini subjectae vel approbantur vel
repelluntur.
6 135 pp. Later editions 1765, 1774, 1792, 1809. The last two were
brought out under the care of Ammon.
7 Four parts. Parts i. and ii. form the first volume (424 pp.), part
iii. = vol. ii. (396 pp.), part iv. = vol. iii. (396 pp.). Part i. is
occupied with the general principles of exegesis, part ii. with the
text of the Old Testament, parts iii. and iv. with that of the New
Testament.
8 Four volumes. The first (in the reprint of 1776, 333 pp.): On the
natural conception of Scripture. The second (in the first edition,
1772, 608 pp.): On Inspiration and the Canon, Answers to criticisms
and attacks. Third (1st ed., 1773, 567 pp.): On the History of the
Canon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. The fourth (1775, 460 pp.)
is wholly occupied by an answer to the work of a certain Dr. Schubert.
This often mentioned but little read work does not therefore present
exactly the appearance that might be expected from its title. The
polemical replies occupy a much larger space than the original
arguments.
9 298 pp. A striking and brilliantly written work.
10 _Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Romanos . . . cum Dissertatione de
Appendice, capp._ xv. et xvi., 1769, 311 pp. (Dedicated to Johann
August Ernesti.)
_Paraphrasis in Primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam,_ 1770, 540 pp.
(Dedicated to Johann David Michaelis.)
_Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthios,_ 1776, 388 pp. Each of these
works contains a preface of some length on the principles of
historical exegesis. As a specimen of the paraphrase we may quote that
of Rom. vi. I: Jam si haec est Evangelii tam exoptata hominibusque
cunctis tam frugifera doctrina, num audebimus statuere, perseverare
nos tamen posse in ista peccandi consuetudine, ut quasi eo fiat
amplior gratiae divinae locus?
11 Johann David Michaelis, _Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen
Bundes,_ 1st ed., 1750. In its successive editions this work dominates
the theology of all the latter half of the eighteenth century; at the
beginning of the nineteenth it is superseded by Eichhorn’s
Introduction. The third edition (1777) contains 1356 pp. The Pauline
Epistles occupy pp. 1001-1128.
12 _Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1790, 566 pp. _Anmerkungen für
Ungelehrte zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments,_ 4 vols.,
1790-92. The Pauline Epistles are treated in vols. iii. and iv.
13 Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher, _Über den sogenannten ersten
Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an
Joachim Christian Gass,_ 1807. In his complete works this is to be
found in the second volume of the first division, 1836, pp. 223-320.
14 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, _Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das
Neue Testament,_ 1st ed., vol. iii., second half (1814), pp. 315-410.
Eichhorn points out that he had recognised the spuriousness of the
three Pastoral Epistles, and had expressed his conviction in his
University lectures before Schleiermacher published his criticisms of
the First Epistle of Timothy.
15 Leonhard Usteri, _Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_
1824, 191 pp. The editions of 1829, 1830, and 1832 were revised by the
author, who died in 1833. After his death two more appeared (1834,
1851). Reference may be made also to Usteri’s “Commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians,” 1833, 252 pp.
16 The first work which undertook to give an account of the Apostle’s
system of thought as such is Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer’s _Entwicklung des
paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_ 1801, 380 pp. The author has collected the
material well, but does not know in what direction Paul’s peculiarity
lies.
17 Of the works which criticise Usteri and mark an advance in Pauline
study the following may be named:—
Karl Schrader, _Der Apostel Paulus;_ vols. i., 1830 (264 pp.), and
ii., 1832 (373 pp.), deal with the life of the Apostle Paul; vol.
iii., 1833 (331 pp.), with the doctrine; vols. iv., 1835 (490 pp.),
and v., 1836 (574 pp.), contain the exposition of the Epistles.
August Ferdinand Dähne, _Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs,_
1835, 211 pp.
Mention may also be made of the chapter on Paulinism in J. A. W.
Neander’s _Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen
Kirche durch die Apostel,_ 1st ed., 1832; 2nd ed., 1st vol., 1838 (433
pp.). Paul is treated in pp. 102-433; 4th ed., 1847; 5th, 1862. As
typical of the exegesis of the period prior to Baur may be mentioned
the Commentaries of W. M. L. de Wette on Romans (2nd ed.), 1838; 1 and
2 Corinthians, 1841; Galatians and Thessalonians, 1841.
18 H. E. G. Paulus, _Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater-
und Römer-Christen,_ 1831, 368 pp.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER II BAUR AND HIS CRITICS
19 Albert Schwegler, _Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den
Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung_ (“The Post-Apostolic Age in the main
Features of its Development”), 1846, vol. i. 522 pp., vol. ii. 392 pp.
In the writings which mark the course of the development of Paulinism
three groups are distinguished. To the first, the apologetic group,
belongs the First Epistle of Peter; to the second, the conciliatory
writings, are to be reckoned the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the
Apostles, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Epistle to the
Philippians; the third is represented by the catholicising writings,
the Pastorals, the Letter of Polycarp, and the Ignatian Letters.
20 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, eine
kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Monographie,_ 1850, 622 pp.; 2nd
ed., 1857, 605 pp.
21 Gotthard Viktor Lechler, _Das apostolische und das nachapostolische
Zeitalter mit Rücksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und
Leben_ ( . . . with special reference to their difference and unity in
life and doctrine), 1st ed., 1852; 2nd ed., 1857, 536 pp. The portion
dealing with Paul is pp. 33-154; in the 3rd ed., 1885 (635 pp.) Paul
is treated on pp. 269-407.
In the first two editions the whole of the Pauline epistles are
regarded as genuine; in the third the author no longer ventures to
treat the Pastorals as on the same footing with the other Epistles.
The very clearly and comprehensively stated problem is printed at the
beginning.
22 _Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre,_ 1853, 219 pp.
23 In 1850, _Beiträge zur Erklärung der Korinthesbriefe,_ pp. 139-185.
Continued in 1852, pp. 1-40 and 535-574. In 1855, _Die beiden Briefe
an die Thessalonicher; ihre Achtheit und Bedeutung für die Lehre der
Parusie Christi, pp._ 141-168 ( . . . their genuineness and their
significance for the doctrine of the parousia of Christ). In 1857,
_Über Zweck und Gedankengang des Römerbriefs nebst der Erörterung
einiger paulinischen Begriffe,_ pp. 60-108 and 184-209 (“On the
Purpose and the Argument of Romans, with a Discussion of certain
Pauline Conceptions.”)
24 _Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi,_ 2nd ed., edited by Zeller,
1866-1867, vol. i. 469 pp., revised by Baur; vol. ii. 376 pp. contains
a reprint of the chapter on Paul’s doctrine from the first edition.
25 _Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie._ Published by
Ferdinand Friedrich Baur, 1864, 407 pp. Pages 128-207 deal with the
doctrinal system of Paul.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER III FROM BAUR TO HOLTZMANN
26 _Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt,_ 1880, 504
pp. Adolf Harnack (in _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur
bis Eusebius,_ vol. i., 1897, 732 pp.—on Paul, 233-239) is disposed to
regard the personal notices of the Pastorals as genuine with the aid
of the hypothesis of the second imprisonment.
27 _Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe,_ 1872, 338 pp.
28 _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1885; 2nd ed., 1886; 3rd ed.,
1892. Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles,
spurious; Colossians, worked over. A similar critical stand-point is
occupied by Adolf Jülicher, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1894,
404 pp. The Pauline Epistles are treated in pp. 19-128.
A mediating position is taken up by E. Reuss, _Geschichte der heiligen
Schriften Neuen Testaments_ (5th ed., 1874, 352 pp.; 6th ed., 1887).
All that can be said in favour of the genuineness of the Pastorals and
2 Thessalonians is set forth with the greatest completeness, since the
author is very reluctant to give up these writings. See the same
author’s _Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique_
(1852; 2nd ed., 1860, 2 vols., i. 489 pp., ii. 629 pp. Paulinism is
treated in vol. ii., 3-262; 3rd ed., 1864). Mild polemic against Baur.
Another mediating work is Willibald Beyschlag’s _Neutestamentliche
Theologie,_ 1891; 2nd ed., 1896. Only the Pastorals spurious.
A conservative stand-point is occupied by Bernhard Weiss, _Einleitung
in das Neue Testament,_ 1886, 652 pp. Paul and his Epistles occupy pp.
112-332. The Pastoral Epistles are saved by the hypothesis of the
second imprisonment. 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are held to be
genuine (3rd ed., 1897, 617 pp.). Conservative also is Theodor Zahn,
_Einleitung in das Neue Testament,_ 1st ed., 1897, vol. i., 489 pp.
Pauline Epistles, pp. 109-489. Ch. K. v. Hofmann in his _Einleitung_
(pt. ix. of “Die Heilige Schrift,” edited by Volck, 1881, 411 pp.
Pauline Epistles, 1-200) proposes by means of the hypothesis of a
liberation of the Apostle from his first imprisonment to make not only
the Pastorals, but also the Epistle to the Hebrews genuine. That 2
Thessalonians and Ephesians are genuine is for him self-evident.
Frédéric Godet too _(Introduction au Nouveau Testament,_ 1893, 737
pp.) regards all thirteen Epistles as genuine.
29 Typical in this respect is the procedure of Bernhard Weiss in his
_Neutestamentliche Theologie_ (1868). He treats the doctrine of the
Epistles of the imprisonment and that of the Pastorals by themselves
after he has developed that of the main Epistles, although he regards
them all as Pauline.
30 _Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ 3 pts., 1850, 74 pp.; 1851, 76
pp.; 1852, 129 pp.; _Christus und die Cäsaren,_ 1877, 387 pp.
31 _Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe an die Galater, Römer
Philipper und Kolosser._ Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp.
32 Lüdemann was opposed by H. H. Wendt in his work _Die Begriffe
Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch,_ 1878, 219 pp.
At the suggestion of Ritschl he undertook to prove that the meaning of
these two words confined itself “within the boundaries set by Old
Testament usage,” and that therefore the assumption of Greek influence
was unnecessary.
33 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1887.
34 Auguste Sabatier, _L’Apôtre Paul, esquisse d’une histoire de sa
pensée,_ 1870, 296 pp. (2nd ed., 1881; 3rd ed., 1897).
35 _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ pt. 2 (edited by Mehlhorn), 1898, 172
pp.
36 P. 31.
37 _Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus,_ 1868, 447 pp. In this
work the author collects some of his earlier and later essays. The
following are its component parts, “Paul’s Vision of Christ” (1861),
“Peter’s Vision of the Messiah” (1868), “Contents and Argument of the
Epistle to the Galatians” (1859), “The Significance of the word _σάρξ_
(flesh) in Paul’s System of Doctrine” (1855). The collection is
dedicated to F. C. Baur, “who though dead yet lives.” In the first
part of the work _Das Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1880, 498 pp., Holsten
deals with the Epistle to the Galatians and the First to the
Corinthians. The second part was intended to give an exposition of
Romans and 2 Corinthians and to close with a systematic account of the
Pauline theology. At Holsten’s death only the closing section was
found to be ready for printing. It was published in 1898 under the
editorship of Carl Mehlhorn, and bears the title “Carl Holsten, Das
Evangelium des Paulus, part ii., Paulinische Theologie,” 173 pp. What
was thus published is based on a manuscript prepared for his lectures
in the winter session of 1893-1894, and on students’ notes.
38 Albrecht Ritschl, _Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und
Versöhnung,_ 1874, vol. ii. 377 pp. On Paul, pp. 215-259 and 300-369.
39 _Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments,_ 1st ed.
1868, 756 pp. On Paulinism, pp. 216-507; 6th ed. 1895, 677 pp. On
Paulinism, 201-463.
40 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ 1st ed. 1891; 2nd ed. 1896, vol. ii.
552 pp. On Paul, pp. 1-285.
41 Ch. K. v. Hofmann, _Biblische Theologie_ (vol. xi. of “Die heilige
Schrift Neuen Testaments”; edited by Volck), 1886, 328 pp.
42 _Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Kirche,_ vol. v., 1888, part iv. Alfred Resch, “Agrapha.
Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente gesammelt und untersucht,” 480
pp. The “logia” numbered 13-46 he holds, on the evidence of echoes in
the letters, to have been known to Paul. See pp. 152-243.
43 _Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz_ (“The Pauline Doctrine of the
Law”). Based on the four main Epistles, 1884, 26 pp. The second
edition (1893, 33 pp.) is a revision of the first, but in the results
arrived at both agree.
44 _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte._ In the second edition the work
bears the title _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi_ (English Translation: “History of the Jewish People in the
Time of Jesus Christ,” Edinburgh, 1885). The second volume deals with
the literature and the various currents of thought. There have since
appeared a third and fourth edition.
45 _System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie aus Targum,
Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt,_ 399 pp. (Edited after the author’s
death by Delitzsch and Schnedermann.)
The second edition (1897, 427 pp.) bears the title _Jüdische Theologie
auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften_ (“Jewish Theology
described on the Basis of the Talmud and cognate Writings”).
The earlier literature is referred to in Hans Vollmer’s _Die
alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus_ (1895), 81 pp.
46 A typical utterance is that of J. Wellhausen _(Israelitische und
jüdische Geschichte,_ 6th ed. 1907, 386 pp.), “Paul has not been able
to free himself from the Rabbinic methods of exegesis. He employs it
in his arguments, especially in connexion with justification by faith.
But the inner essence of his religious conviction was not affected by
it.”
47 _Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer in das Hebräische
übersetzt, und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert,_ 1870, 122 pp.
At the beginning the author gives an interesting review of previous
Hebrew translations of the whole New Testament or of single books. He
also refers to the Rabbinic reasoning in the apostle’s arguments. The
illustrations from the Rabbinic literature, pp. 73-100, follow the
translation.
He expects as a result of this translation that it will bring into
prominence the Old Testament, Rabbinic, and Hellenistic elements in
the early Christian modes of thought and expression.
Earlier attempts to point out Rabbinic parallels to Pauline ideas were
made by Lightfoot, Surenhus, Schöttgen, Meuschen, and Nork.
Information about this literature will be found in Hans Vollmer’s work
_(Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80, 81).
48 A good general idea of the Rabbinic literature as a whole is given
by Bousset in his work _Die Religion des Judentums im
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_ 1903, 2nd ed., 1906, pp. 45-53.
49 Among the few scholars who stem the tide of conventional stupidity
Frederick Spitta deserves a foremost place. In his printed works, no
doubt—those in question are _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief
des Judas_ (1885, 544 pp.) and the studies _Zur Geschichte und
Literatur des Urchristentums_ (vol. i. 1893; vol. ii. 1896)—he is
chiefly engaged in maintaining the general thesis that the earliest
Christian literature shows much more dependence on the Late-Jewish
than is generally admitted. A detailed proof of this kind for the
Pauline letters has only been given in his exegetical lectures, which
have not been published. The stimulus which he gave to others is
clearly apparent in the literature of the nineties. Kabisch’s study of
the eschatology of Paul (1893) is partly based on the foundation which
he had prepared.
50 _Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie,_ 1888, 126 pp.
51 _Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem
Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus_ ( ... in its relations with the general
conception of Paulinism), 1893, 338 pp. The work is dedicated to
Friedrich Spitta. After a historical introduction, the principal
passages which come into question are examined. After that the
eschatology is developed according to its contents and motives, and in
the process its relations with the various doctrines of the Pauline
theology come up for discussion.
52 He did not, unfortunately, follow it up with the work on the
Ethics.
53 The eschatological character of the Pauline mysticism is also
pointed out by Paul Wernle in his suggestive study _Der Christ und die
Sünde bei Paulus_ (1897, 138 pp.), but he does not follow out the idea
in all its consequences.
A certain recognition of the “physical” character of the doctrine of
redemption is also arrived at by Adolf Deissmann. In his study, _Die
neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu”_ (1892, 136 pp.) he comes
to the conviction that Paul had created the formula on the analogy of
a linguistic usage already obtaining in non-biblical Greek, and
intended in using it to indicate the relation to Christ as an
existence within the pneumatic Christ which was to be locally
conceived. He does not, however, think of explaining it from
eschatology.
The old psychologising and spiritualising methods are in no way
departed from by W. Brandt. In his work, _Die evangelische Geschichte
und der Ursprung des Christentums_ (“The Gospel History and the Origin
of Christianity,” 1893, 591 pp.; on Paul, pp. 515-524), he maintains
that it was the visions of the disciples which first made Jesus into
the Messiah. Paul, he thinks, “in his profound reflexion over his
conversion, came to think of this revolution in his life as a dying
and rising again of his inner man.”
54 Georg Heinrici, _Auslegung der Korintherbriefe_ (I Cor., 1880, 574
pp.; 2 Cor., 1887, 606 pp.).
55 P. W. Schmiedel, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Thessalonicher und
Korinther,” in Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i.; 1st
ed., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892.
56 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 3rd ed., 1894, vol. i. On Paul, pp. 83-95.
Friedrich Loofs in his _Dogmengeschichte_ (1890, 443 pp.) takes up no
definite attitude towards the Pauline problem. Reinhold Seeberg, too
_(Dogmengeschichte,_ first half, 1895, 332 pp.), does not go into the
doctrine of the Apostle.
57 R. A. Lipsius, “Auslegung der Briefe an die Galater, Römer und
Philipper,” in Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ vol. ii. section i. 1st
ed., 1891; 2nd ed., 1892. This commentator’s position is indicated by
the following remarks: “The great antithesis between flesh and spirit
gradually forces out the Jewish conceptions one after another, though
it is not right to say that Hebrew ideas are driven out by Hellenic
ones. When Paul goes outside the circle of Old Testament views he does
so in consequence of a deeper ethical grasp of the originally Hebrew
antithesis between flesh and spirit, not by a borrowing of Greek
ideas.”
58 _Das apostolische Zeitalter,_ 1886, pp. 105-151.
59 It is most clearly developed by Holsten on pp. 37 and 38 of the
second part of his _Evangelium des Paulus,_ 1896.
60 Vol. i., 1880; vol. ii., 1887. See especially the Introduction and
the Epilogue to vol. ii.
61 In Phil. i. 21 f. the reference is to an inner struggle which the
Apostle experiences. He desires to depart and be with Christ, which,
indeed, would be much better, but he knows that to remain in the flesh
is more needful for the sake of his churches. From this conviction he
draws the confident conclusion that he will remain with them for their
progress and joy in the faith.
In Phil. iii. 8 he declares that he has counted all things but loss in
order to win Christ and be found in Him, to know Him and the power of
His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, to be conformed
unto His death, if so be that he might attain (?) to the resurrection
of the dead.
Both passages are certainly obscure, and do not to a literal
interpretation yield any satisfactory meaning. One feels that the
logic of these close-packed assertions is not self-evident, but must
somehow depend on presuppositions of which the basis is not here
given. It cannot, however, be maintained that the assumption of a
spiritualising hope regarding the future makes all clear.
62 An allusion to the passage in _Faust,_ “Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in
meiner Brust.”—TRANSLATOR.
63 Ernst Teichmann, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung
und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik_ (“The
Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment and their relation to
Jewish Apocalyptic”), 1896, 125 pp. Akin to Teichmann’s study is that
of C. Bruston, “La Vie future d’après St Paul” in the _Revue de
Théologie et de Philosophie_ (Lausanne), 1894, pp. 506-530. The author
maintains that Paul had never really held the conceptions connected
with the resurrection of the dead at the parousia, but had always
thought “spiritually” and assumed a passing into glory immediately
after death. But while in his earlier writings he still used certain
expressions borrowed from the “Rabbinic eschatology,” later he quite
abandoned these.
64 Hermann Gunkel, _Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes nach der
populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des
Apostels Paulus_ (“The Manifestations of the Holy Spirit according to
the Popular View of the Apostolic Age and according to the Doctrine of
the Apostle Paul”), 1888, 110 pp. Shortly before that appeared the
purely biblico-theological treatment of it by Johannes Gloël, _Der
Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus_ (“The Holy Spirit
in Paul’s Preaching of Salvation”), 1888, 402 pp. It keeps entirely to
description and does not enter into the question regarding the origin
and innermost essence of the Pauline doctrine. Pfleiderer’s view is,
however, called in question.
65 _Urchristentum,_ 1887. Similarly Heinrici in his commentary on 2
Corinthians.
66 F. C. Baur, _Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte_
(“Lectures on the History of Dogma”), vol. i. From the apostolic
period to the synod of Nicaea, 1865 (edited by Ferdinand Friedrich
Baur).
67 _Dogmengeschichte,_ 1885, vol. i.; 3rd ed., 1894; 4th ed., 1909.
Wilhelm Karl, too, in his _Beiträge zum Verständnis der
soteriologischen Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus_
(“Contributions to the Understanding of the Soteriological Experiences
and Speculations of the Apostle Paul,” 1899, 116 pp.), does not feel
obliged to have recourse to Greek thought in order to explain the
Apostle’s doctrine. He offers a thorough and independent analysis of
the system which in many points is much superior to the ordinary view.
68 Edwin Hatch, Hibbert Lectures on “The Influence of Greek Ideas and
Usages upon the Christian Church.” The work was translated into German
by Erwin Preuschen in 1892. Its divisions are: (i.) Introductory,
(ii.) Greek culture, (iii.) Greek and Christian Exegesis, (iv.)
Rhetoric, (v.) Philosophy, (vi.) Ethics, (vii.-ix.) Theology, (x.)
Mysteries, (xi.) Corpus doctrinae, (xii.) The Transformation of the
basis of Christian Unity: Doctrine in the Place of Conduct.
69 _i.e._ as used in this connexion, here and later, the belief in the
universal destination of the Gospel, not in universal salvation.
70 _Paulus in Athen._ Collected Essays, vol. ii., 1894, pp. 527-543 In
this essay the author seeks to exhibit with some fulness the view,
which seems to him self-evident, that the Apostle was filled with the
Hellenic spirit.
71 Preface to his Exposition of 2 Corinthians, 1887.
72 Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar,_ 2nd ed. The Epistles to the
Corinthians, p. 92.
73 Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, _De veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo
Apostolo allegatis,_ 1869, 110 pp.
74 Hans Vollmer, _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus . . . nebst
einem Anhang über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ 1895, 103 pp.
(“The Old Testament quotations in Paul . . . with an Appendix on the
Apostle’s relation to Philo”).
75 The author has had occasion to observe this in Alsatian theologians
and in himself. One who is equally familiar with French and German
will never, either in preaching or in conversation, give his own
version of Biblical passages, but will without exception keep to the
traditional form in the language which he is using, and this even
where he would be capable of giving a more exact rendering. And in
preaching he will turn to account the peculiarities of the wording of
the version, if it lends itself to his thought, and will even perhaps
use an argument which goes against the sense of the original, which he
is supposed to be acquainted with—exactly as Paul does.
76 Eduard Grafe, _Das Verhältnis der paulinischen Schriften zur
Sapientia Salamonis_ (“The Relation of the Pauline Writings to the
Book of Wisdom”), in the Theological Essays dedicated to Carl von
Weizsäcker on his seventieth birthday, 1892, pp. 251-286.
77 _Über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo,_ an appendix to his
work on _Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus,_ 1895, pp. 80-98.
See also Carl Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten
Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss
betrachtet_ (“Philo of Alexandria as an Expositor of Scripture,
considered both in Himself and in Regard to his Historical
Influence”), 1875, 418 pp. In pp. 304-10 thoughts and passages are
cited from Paul which are supposed to show affinity with Philo. The
resemblance is, however, so general and colourless that it cannot be
considered as proving anything. The author quotes the passages without
drawing any conclusion.
78 Ernst Curtius in the essay cited above defends the historicity of
Acts xvii.
79 W. Gass, _Geschichte der christlichen Ethik,_ 1881, vol. i. 457 pp.
On Paul, pp. 34-38. Theobald Ziegler, _Geschichte der christlichen
Ethik,_ 1886, 593 pp. On Paul, pp. 72-90.
80 Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ 1868, 155 pp.;
3rd ed., 1880.
81 The Christian character of Seneca’s thought was remarked as early
as Tertullian, who in _de Anima,_ xx., when he quotes a phrase from
him, describes him as “saepe noster.” Augustine and Jerome know of a
correspondence between Seneca and the Apostle. From the literature we
may mention the following works: Amédée Fleury, _Saint Paul et
Sénèque. Recherches sur les rapports du philosophe avec l’apôtre et
sur l’infiltration du Christianisme naissant à travers le paganisme,_
2 vols., 1853, 404 and 383 pp. Seneca is supposed to have drawn on
Paul. At the end of the second part the correspondence between them is
printed. The work is uncritical in character. Johann Kreyher, L.
_Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zur Urchristentum_ ( . . . and
his relations with early Christianity), 1887, 198 pp. Seneca is
supposed to have had some relations with Christianity in Rome even
before the Apostle’s coming, and thenceforward to have entered into a
close relationship with him. Charles Aubertin, _Étude critique sur les
rapports supposés entre Sénèque et St Paul,_ 1857, 442 pp. All
connexion between Seneca and Christianity is denied. In the work of
Michael Baumgarten, _Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christentum_ (1895,
368 pp.) no connexion between Seneca and Paul is admitted.
82 See Theodor Zahn, _Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum
Christentum._ A Rectorial address at Erlangen, 1894, 27 pp. The
lecture offers proof that in spite of many resemblances of expression
and in spite of his acquaintance with Christianity, the teaching of
Epictetus contains nothing which really connects it with the new
religion.
Inconceivable as it may appear, even the _Meditations_ of Marcus
Aurelius—of the second half of the second century—have been sometimes
cited to prove the Greek character of Paul’s religious thought.
83 Theodor Simon, _Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus,_ 1897, 118 pp.
A leisurely analysis of the material.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER IV H. J. HOLTZMANN
84 In connexion with the following remarks on questions of principle,
see also W. Wrede, _Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten
Neutestamentlichen Theologie,_ 1897, 80 pp.
The essay discusses the plan and arrangement of Holtzmann’s work. On
p. 32 Wrede remarks: “The treatment is far too much influenced by the
desire to include all kinds of opinions from other writers. To a large
extent my objections have to do with these methodological questions.”
85 Holtzmann, p. 111.
86 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 6, where Paul speaks of himself as “inexpert in
speech, but not in knowledge” (_τῇ γνώσει_). See also I Cor. i. 5,
viii. I; Phil. i. 9, etc. “Gnostic” is used above in the general sense
of one who lays stress on theoretic religious knowledge.—TRANSLATOR.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER V CRITICAL QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
87 _Die Apostelgeschichte,_ 1850, 143 pp. Acts, it is argued, is a
work of “free reflexion” in which various hands have had a part.
_Kritik der paulinischen Briefe,_ part i., The Origin of Galatians
(1850, 74 pp.); part ii., The Origin of I Corinthians (1851, 76 pp.);
part iii., 2 Corinthians, Romans, the Pastoral Epistles,
Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians (1852, 129 pp.).
The greater part of the epistles were not written until after Acts.
Certainly Galatians is later. I Corinthians is earlier than Acts, and
is doubtless drawn from common sources.
The first to venture an attack on one of the main Epistles was Edward
Evanson, _The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists,
and the evidence of their respective authenticity examined_
(translated into Dutch, 1796), who holds Romans, as well as Hebrews,
Colossians, and Ephesians, to be spurious. Further information
regarding this, as it seems, rather rare book would be desirable.
Whether any great critical importance is to be attached to it remains
questionable. [Evanson (1731-1805), a Cambridge graduate, vicar of
Tewkesbury, adopted Unitarian views, and resigned his living in 1778.
His grounds for rejecting Romans are, the difficulty about the
existence of a church at Rome prior to Paul’s visit, the number of
greetings in chapter xvi., and supposed references to the destruction
of Jerusalem in xi. 12, 15, 21, 22. The treatment of the Epistles is
much slighter than that of the Gospels, where he shows some insight
into the difficulties of what is now known as the Synoptic problem.
The _Dissonance_ made some stir, and was answered by Joseph Priestley
in _Letters to a Young Man,_ 1792-93, and by T. Falconer, Bampton
Lecture, 1810.—TRANSLATOR.]
88 See A. Schweitzer, _Von Reimarus zu Wrede,_ pp. 137-159 (Eng.
trans., _The Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ pp. 137-160).
89 _Christus und die Cäsaren,_ 1877, 387 pp. What the diffusely told
story of the Roman court has to do with the origin of Christianity has
certainly never been quite clear to any reader. In attempting to
describe its contents one is never quite certain whether the author’s
meaning has been rightly represented.
90 A spiritual descendant of Bauer’s who writes on popular lines is
Albert Kalthoff _(Die Entstehung des Christentums,_ 1904, 155 pp.).
But neither as regards the problem nor its solution has he contributed
anything to Pauline scholarship.
91 Allard Pierson, _De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten,_
1878, 260 pp.; on Paul, 98-112. With his doubt of the Epistles the
author associates a doubt of the Gospels, and asks whether
Christianity as they represent it can have been founded by a
historical Jesus.
92 A. Pierson and S. A. Naber, _Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi
Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt,_ 1886, 295
pp. The work gives a running analysis of the letters in the course of
which very interesting questions are thrown out. Why is nothing said
about the earthly life of Jesus? Why is no trace of the influence of
this Paul’s thought to be found in history? Do the various
characteristics and actions of his which are recorded show us a
character which is at all intelligible?
The authors assume that the Jewish movement which led up to
“Christianity” at first had only to do with the Messianic belief in
general. Only later, through the blending of Greek myths with Isaiah
liii., did the belief arise that the expected Messiah had already come
and had passed through death and resurrection.
The analysis of the Pauline Epistles is followed by essays upon the
Paul of Acts and some chapters on the Fourth Gospel. The close is
formed by an essay on the gradual origin of the conception of Christ
in the New Testament.
The theory that Christianity developed out of an already existing
Jewish movement is maintained also by M. Friedländer in his popular
and unimportant work, _Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen
griechischen Welt,_ a contribution towards explaining the origin of
Christianity (1897, 74 pp.). The opposition between a conservative and
a freer tendency as regards the law, which appear in the primitive
Church, are here held to have appeared previously in the Judaism from
which Christianity originated.
93 A. D. Loman, “Quaestiones Paulinae,” _Theol. Tijdschrift,_ 1882,
pp. 141-185, 302-328, 452-487; 1883, pp. 14-51. 1886, 42-113 (Dutch).
In the prologue he tells us about the first impression which Bauer’s
criticism of the Pauline epistles made upon him: “With an _Apage
Satana!_ I took leave of this antipathetic critic, firmly resolved to
take no further notice of him.” The order followed is to treat first
the relation of Acts to Galatians, then to discuss the “necessary
proofs” of the genuineness of this work, while the witnesses from the
literature, and the history of the Canon, are examined later, in the
second part, 1886.
94 Rudolf Steck, _Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht
nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen_ (“The
Epistle to the Galatians examined with Reference to its Genuineness,
with critical Remarks on the main Pauline Epistles”), 1888, 386 pp.
The examination of Galatians goes only as far as p. 151; the remaining
chapters deal with the order of the main Epistles, the relation of
Paul to the Gospels, the quotations from the Old Testament found in
the Epistles, the affinities with Philo and Seneca, the marks of later
authorship, the external evidences from the New Testament and from
early Christian literature. In conclusion, a hypothesis of the origin
and development of Paulinism is sketched. The author tells in the
preface the story of his conversion to the Dutch heresy. At first he
dissented from Loman, but in the course of repeatedly treating the
Epistle to the Galatians in his lectures he found to his dismay that
he was gradually arriving at the theory of its spuriousness.
The views of Pierson, Loman, and Steck are critically examined by J.
M. S. Baljon in his _Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief
van Paulus an de Galatiërs,_ 1899, 424 pp.
95 W. C. van Manen, _Paulus,_ 3 vols. (see head of chapter for
particulars). The author describes on pp. 9-11 how he came to reject
the Pauline Epistles.
96 The first epistle of Clement mentions (xlvii. I) “the letter of the
blessed Paul” to the Corinthians, has a direct borrowing from Romans
(xxxv. 5 = the catalogue of vices in Rom. i. 29-32), and in other
respects also frequently shows dependence on the main epistles. For
the detailed attempt to place it at a later date see Steck, 294-310.
97 2 Peter iii. 15-17, “And count the long-suffering of the Lord as
salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
given to him, wrote to you, as in all his Epistles when he mentions
these things, in which no doubt occur some things which are difficult
to understand, which the unlearned and unstedfast wrest, as they do
also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (The German
follows Weizsäcker’s rendering.)
98 As in the present context this phrase might possibly be misleading,
it may be worth pointing out that it is simply an allusion to the
famous “timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,” _Aen._ ii. 49.—TRANSLATOR.
99 The puzzle in the case of Justin is that he uses Pauline phrases,
and therefore seems to know the Epistles, but never mentions their
author. According to Steck the explanation of this silence lies in the
fact that the Epistles are, for the author of the _Apology_ and the
_Dialogue,_ mere literary works and not as yet Church books. The
_Didache,_ the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the _Epistle of Barnabas_
show no certain evidence of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles.
100 _Tertullian adversus Marcionem,_ bk. v., goes through the Epistles
of Paul as used by Marcion in those “Antitheses” which are now lost to
us.
101 _Theologisch Tijdschrift,_ 1887, pp. 382-533. “Marcions Brief van
Paulus aan de Galatiërs.” The text thus arrived at is given on pp.
528-533.
Van Manen is also inclined to hold that early Church witnesses may be
found for a shorter recension of Romans. See _Die Unechtheit des
Römerbriefs,_ 94-100.
A reconstruction of the Marcionite text of Galatians had already been
undertaken by Adolf Hilgenfeld, _Der Galaterbrief,_ 1852, 239 pp., pp.
218-234. He holds that it was not the original but a mutilated form.
102 Even the letter consisting of chapters i.-viii. is not, according
to van Manen, all of a piece, as is evident, he thinks, from the
complicated opening salutation, the vacillating use of “Jesus Christ”
and “Christ Jesus,” and other peculiarities of detail. One or more
treatises—on justification by faith, on the equal importance of the
Gospel for Jews and Gentiles, on the significance of the law, on the
sense in which believers are entitled to call Abraham their father
even if they are not by birth of his posterity—may have formed the
basis of the longer writing. Its close was probably formed by Rom. xv.
14-33. Later on, the essays which we have in chapters ix.-xi.,
xii.-xiv. and xv.-xvi. were worked in. The Epistle is supposed to have
undergone several successive redactions.
103 Steck in the introduction to his work gives references to the
articles which had appeared up to 1888. The chronicles of the
following years appear in van Manen. At the head of the
counter-movement among critics in Holland stood J. H. Scholten. His
work, _Historisch-critische Bijdragen naar Aanleiding van de nieuweste
Hypothese aangaande Jesus en den Paulus der vier Hoofdbrieven_
(“Contributions to Historical Criticism with Reference to the latest
Hypotheses regarding Jesus and the Paul of the four main Epistles”),
1882, 118 pp., is directed against Loman’s arguments.
From the German literature we may cite G. Heinrici, _Die Forschungen
über die paulinischen Briefe: ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre
Aufgaben_ (“The Study of the Pauline Letters; its present Position,
and Task”). Lectures given before the theological conference at
Giessen, 1886, pp. 69-120. Wilhelm Brückner, _Die chronologische
Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind_
(“The Chronological Order in which the Epistles of the New Testament
were written”), 1890, 306 pp. (An essay which received the prize
offered for the treatment of this question by the Teylerian Society of
Haarlem.) “On the Chronological Order of the Four main Epistles, pp.
174-203. Carl Clemen, _Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe,_ 1893,
292 pp. By the same writer, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen
Briefe_ (“The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles”), 1894, 183 pp.
In these writings Clemen makes some concessions to the Ultra-Tübingen
critics. Thus, for example, he is prepared to put Galatians after
Romans and Corinthians. The mediating views here offered, though
sometimes interesting, need nevertheless no longer occupy us, as
Clemen has in the meantime completely recovered his confidence and has
contradicted himself. In the first volume of his _Paulus_ (1904, 416
pp., examination of the sources) he pronounces that the four main
epistles are to be regarded as entirely genuine, if only we may divide
the second Epistle to the Corinthians into four. In addition to I
Thessalonians and Philippians, even Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are
to be regarded as from the Apostle’s pen.
In the preface the author begs that he may not be held accountable for
his views prior to his Damascus.
The second volume of the work, _Paulus. Sein Leben und Werken,_ 1904,
339 pp., is in biographical form, and does not enter further into the
problems of the doctrine.
A writer who takes the “Ultra-Tübingen” side is J. Friedrich
(Maehliss). In his work entitled _Die Unechtheit des Galaterbriefs_
(“The Spuriousness of Galatians”), 1891, 67 pp., he defends both the
rights of radical criticism and of a “simplified orthography.”
104 See p. 128, _sup_.
105 See p. 128, _sup_.
106 See p. 129, _sup_.
107 See pp. 114 and 115 of the work cited above, p. 134.
108 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Philosophische Dogmatik oder
Philosophie des Christentums,_ 3 vols., 1855, 60, 62; vol. i., 712 pp.
On the Pauline Epistles, pp. 144-147.
109 On Romans see also vol. iii. of the _Philosophische Dogmatik_
(1862, 736 pp.), pp. 263, 264.
The Epistle to the Ephesians, the Second to the Corinthians, and the
First to Timothy, Weisse holds to be “entirely unapostolic”; in the
Epistle to Titus and the Second to Timothy he is prepared to recognise
as a possibility the genuineness of the personal notices.
110 In 2 Corinthians, which shows no evidence of interpolation, three
different letters to this church are worked up together.
111 Christian Hermann Weisse, _Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen
Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper und Kolosser_ (“Contributions
to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles to the Galatians, Romans,
Philippians, and Colossians”). Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp. By way
of introduction the pupil prefixes an essay on the principles of his
master’s “stylistic criticism.”
In the reconstructed texts it is apparent that the author had spent on
them, as he says in his Dogmatic, the “diligent work of many years.”
It is a piece of really skilled workmanship.
112 Daniel Völter, _Die Entstehung der Apokalypse,_ 1882, 72 pp. _Die
Komposition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe,_ 1890, 174 pp. The Epistles
examined are those to the Romans and Galatians. _Paulus und seine
Briefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der
paulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie,_ 1905, 331 pp. Here
he deals with Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. The
results arrived at in the previous book are, as a rule, taken over.
Völter rejects the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians, and sees in the
letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, and in the Pastorals, new
“phases in the development” of Paulinism.
113 In its original form it consisted, Völter thinks, of the following
sections: i. I, 5b-7, 8-17; v. I-12, 15-19, 21; vi. I-13, 6:16-23;
chapters xii. and xiii.; xiv. I-xv. 6; xv. 14-16, 23b-33, xvi 21-24.
114 Völter is also able to indicate additions which have taken place
subsequently to this redaction.
The interpolations in Philippians relate, according to him, chiefly to
Christology and eschatology. The author of these additions had before
him Romans and Corinthians in their interpolated form, and was also
doubtless acquainted with Galatians.
115 The well-known German religious journal.
116 The labour of making an inventory of what has been done in this
kind of criticism up to the year 1894 was undertaken by C. Clemen in
his work, _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der
bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und
Kompilationshypothesen_ (“The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles, with
Reference to the Hypotheses of Interpolation or Compilation which have
been applied to them”), 1894, 183 pp. He takes account also of all
contributions to the journals. This gives a special value to this
laborious and unselfish work.
A survey of previous work in conjectural criticism is given by J. M.
S. Baljon in _De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de
Corinthiërs en de Galatiërs,_ 1884, 189 pp.
117 Friedrich Spitta, _Untersuchungen über den Brief des Paulus an die
Römer_ (“A Study of the Epistle to the Romans”), 1901, 193 pp. In the
work _Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums,_ vol. iii. part
i.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VI THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY
118 Otto Pfleiderer, _Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren,_
2nd ed., 1902, vol. i. 696 pp. On Paul, pp. 24-335. (Eng. trans.
“Primitive Christianity,” vol. i. pp. 33-471.)
119 On this point Pfleiderer follows suggestions given by Teichmann in
his work, _Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und
Gericht_ (“The Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment”),
1896, 125 pp. As a matter of fact he cannot any more than his
predecessors give any proof of this evolution.
120 Paul Wernle, _Die Anfänge unserer Religion,_ 1st ed., 1901, 410
pp. On Paul, pp. 95-220. By the same author, _Paulus als
Heidenmissionar_ (“Paul as a Missionary to the Gentiles”), Lecture,
1899, 36 pp. Heinrich Weinel, _Paulus,_ 1904, 316 pp. The book grew
out of essays which the author published in the _Christliche Welt._ By
the same author, _Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator._ (Inaugural
Lecture.) 1899, 30 pp.
Other works from this popular literature are: Adolf Harnack, _Das
Wesen des Christentums,_ 1900, 189 pp. On Paul, pp. 110-118. Georg
Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Corinth,_ 1903, 32 pp. Paul Feine, _Paulus
als Theologe,_ 1906, 80 pp. Carl Munzinger, _Paulus in Corinth. Neue
Wege zum Verständnis des Urchristentums_ (“Paul in Corinth. New Ways
of arriving at an Understanding of Early Christianity.”) 1908, 208 pp.
The author pictures the work of the Apostle in the Greek city in the
light of analogies offered by modern missionary practice. Whether the
new way really leads to a better understanding of primitive
Christianity remains open to question.
As a special investigation of a point of detail at this date we may
mention Karl Dick’s work, _Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus_
(“The Author’s ‘We’ in Paul’s Writings.”) 1900, 169 pp. There are not
many of these studies at this period since the tendency among
theologians has been more to popularisation than to scientific
research.
121 _Paulus als Heidenmissionar,_ p. 36. Ernst von Dobschütz calls
attention to the dangers of this method, which easily becomes
unscientific in _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters._ (Five
Lectures, 1904, 138 pp. See p. 61.) Paul Feine, _Das gesetzesfreie
Evangelium des Paulus nach seinem Werdegange dargestellt,_ 1899, 232
pp. _Jesus Christus und Paulus,_ 1902, 309 pp. Arthur Titius, _Der
Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit_ (2nd Part of the
work _Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung
für die Gegenwart_—“The New Testament Doctrine of Final Blessedness
and its Significance for the present Time”), 1900, 290 pp. A.
Schlatter, in his _NTle. Theologie_ (Pt. ii. The doctrine of the
Apostles, 1910, 592 pp. On Paul, 199-407), follows a conservative
biblico-theological method like that of B. Weiss.
122 R. Drescher, too “Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus” in _Festgruss an
Stade,_ 1900, pp. 101-161, is of opinion that the letters, rightly
understood, offer us “an imposing amount of material” on the life of
Jesus. The author thinks that wherever possible Paul referred to the
teaching of Jesus; and he fought his battle for freedom from the law
with such confidence “because he knew that he had Jesus on his side.”
It should be mentioned that J. Wellhausen takes up a similar
stand-point. He gives it as his opinion, _Israelitische und jüdische
Geschichte_ (6th ed., 1907, 386 pp.), that Paul “was really the man
who best understood the Master and carried on His work.”
123 _L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ,_ 1904, 393 pp.
124 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., 1909,
vol. i., 826 pp. See p. 107. To the same effect, Adolf Jülicher,
_Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. See p. 34.
125 Hermann Jakoby. _Neutestamentliche Ethik,_ 1899, 480 pp. On Paul,
pp. 243-406. Alfred Juncker, _Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,_ part i.,
1904, 288 pp.
Among other monographs we have to notice Emil Sokolowski’s _Die
Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehung zu einander,_
1903, 284 pp. The author ascribes little importance to Greek influence
in comparison with Jewish, and tries to explain what is peculiar and
vital in the Apostle’s views as due to his individual experience,
especially the vision on the Damascus road.
Hans Windisch, _Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus,_ 1908, 132
pp. The difficulties raised for Paul by his mysticism are pointed out.
It is shown that this, strictly speaking, makes it impossible for him
to admit sin in the case of baptized persons. The eschatological
character of the sacramental-mystical theory of deliverance from sin
is strongly brought out. The author continues the investigation which
Paul Wernle, in his work _Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus_ (1897,
138 pp.), was the first to undertake. See p. 60 of the present work.
126 Wilhelm Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter,_ 1903, 512 pp. Simultaneously appeared the same writer’s
work, _Die jüdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft
und ihre Bedeutung für das neue Testament_ (“Jewish Apocalyptic, its
Origin in the Light of Comparative Religion and its Significance for
the New Testament.” A Lecture, 1903.)
Eschatology receives special attention in the fine work of Hugo
Gressmann, _Der Ursprung der israelitisch jüdischen Eschatologie_
(“The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology”), 1905, 378
pp. The author takes up an attitude of some reserve in regard to the
“religious-historical method,” and seeks to determine in the case of
every statement whether it can have arisen in Israel or must be
regarded as having been introduced from without.
Paul Volz, _Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba,_ 1903, 412
pp., endeavours, somewhat unconvincingly, to give a sketch of Jewish
conceptions of the future age.
Everling’s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study
of Martin Dibelius, _Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,_ 1909, 249
pp. (“The World of Spirits as conceived in Paul’s Belief”). In
addition to the Late Jewish passages the author cites also the
Rabbinical and those suggested by the Comparative Study of Religion.
The excursuses on the linguistic history of the subject are very
instructive (pp. 209-232). On Everling, see pp. 55-57 of the present
work.
127 G. F. Heinrici’s work, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1902, 142 pp., still
occupies the old stand-point. On Paul, pp. 71-101. For what he has to
say against the “physical” in the doctrine of redemption, see pp. 95,
96.
W. Bousset, _Der Apostel Paulus,_ 1906, holds that we shall never
completely understand the Apostle’s doctrine. We must make up our
minds to the fact . . that in his letters we have before us only
fragments of his spiritual life, the full wealth of which we can only
vaguely imagine. The individual arguments of Paul look to us like
erratic boulders; only toilsomely and partially can we reconstruct the
connexion of thought.
128 Rendering _naturhaft._ Dr. Schweitzer has favoured me with the
following note on this difficult concept, which from this point
becomes prominent in the discussions. After consultation with him, the
word has been rendered “physical,” but placed in quotation marks to
indicate the special use.—TRANSLATOR. “In the special sense in which
it is here used _naturhaft_ is intended to convey that it is not a
question of a purely spiritual redemption, but that the whole physical
and hyperphysical being of the man is thereby translated into a new
condition. Body and soul are redeemed together; and in such a way that
not only the elect portion of mankind, but the whole world is
completely transformed in a great catastrophic event.”
129 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187.
130 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus,_ 1903, 56 pp.
131 How unwilling theology was to draw this inevitable inference is to
be seen from the works of Weinel and Heitmüller. They refuse to go
beyond the statement that the sacraments stand in sharp opposition to
the real “religion” of Paul, and think that they have solved the
problem by asserting that the Apostle of the Gentiles did not notice
the contradiction. Weinel remarks, “Paul himself is quite unconscious
of the problem raised by the collision of the ‘physical’ doctrine of
redemption of the Mysteries with the ethical doctrine of
Christianity.” Heitmüller says, “These views of baptism and the Lord’s
Supper stand in unreconciled and unreconcilable opposition with the
central significance of faith for Pauline Christianity, that is to
say, with the purely spiritual, personal view of the religious
relation which stands in the foreground of Pauline religious life and
religious thought.”
132 William Wrede, _Paulus,_ 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled
“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.”)
133 In the sense of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
134 How far Wrede was consciously influenced by Kabisch, and how far
he has the sense of creating something new, is not quite evident. He
reckons the book among the “very important studies on special points,”
to which he refers in the bibliography, but he does not quote it.
135 C. von Dobschütz, _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_
(“Problems of the Apostolic Age,” 1904, 138 pp.), does not enter in
detail into the question regarding the genesis of the Pauline view of
the law, although he treats Jewish Christianity and Gentile
Christianity with some fulness.
136 See the present writer’s _Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte
der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (1906, 418 pp.). On Wrede, pp. 327-347.
(English translation, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” A. and C.
Black, London, 2nd ed., 1911. On Wrede, pp. 328-348.)
137 This thesis of Wrede’s called into being a new literature upon
Paul and Jesus which attacked Wrede chiefly on the score of his
one-sidedness.
P. Kölbing, _Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,_ 1906
(“The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul”). Adolf
Jülicher, _Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer, _Wer hat das
Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus?_ 1907, 104 pp. (“Who founded
Christianity, Jesus or Paul?”) Wilhelm Walther, _Pauli Christentum,
Jesu Evangelium,_ 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, _Paulus und Jesus,_
1909, 72 pp. _Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas,_ 1909, 88 pp.
(“Christ: The Beginnings of Dogma”).
138 Martin Brückner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,_
1903, 237 pp.
The work appeared some months before Wrede’s _Paulus,_ but the author,
who had the opportunity of personal intercourse and the interchange of
ideas with him, was acquainted with his method and fundamental views.
As he is also an independent thinker, his work represents not only a
supplement but a real advance.
139 Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
140 William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Brückner in his thoughtful
but obscure and heavily written dissertation, _Die Wurzeln der
paulinischen Christologie_ (1909, 170 pp.) (“The Roots of the Pauline
Eschatology”). He thinks that the origin of Christianity which they
suggest does not explain the “characteristic and peculiar connexion of
Christology with Pneumatology,” and insists that in the Damascus
vision is to be found the sufficient reason for “the intimately
organic fusion” of the conception of Christ with that of the Spirit
which operates through Him. In any case he holds it to be “false in
principle and method to try to derive the roots of the Pauline
Christology from the Jewish Apocalyptic Christology.”
141 From the literature we may mention A. Schettler, _Die paulinische
Formel “Durch Christus”_ (“The Pauline Formula Through Christ”), 1907,
82 pp. J. Haussleiter, _Paulus,_ 1909, 96 pp. (Lectures, popular.) R.
Knopf, Paulus, 1909, 123 pp. Eberhard Vischer, _Der Apostel Paulus und
sein Werk,_ 1910, 143 pp. By the same author, _Die Paulusbriefe,_
1906, 80 pp. A remarkably good, clearly and simply written guide to
questions of “Introduction.” Julius Schniewind, _Die Begriffe Wort und
Evangelium bei Paulus_ (“The Meaning of the Terms ‘Word’ and ‘Gospel’
in Paul’s Writings”), 1910, 120 pp.
Johannes Müller, _Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums der
paulinischen Gemeinden,_ 1911, 306 pp. A good analysis of the general
contents of Paul’s gospel. The theological system and the mysticism of
the Apostle are not explained. The book is the second edition of a
study which appeared in 1898 under the title _Das persönliche
Christentum der paulinischen Gemeinden nach seiner Entstehung
untersucht_ (“An Investigation of the Origin of the Personal
Christianity of the Pauline Churches”).
Adolf Deissmann, _Paulus,_ 1911, 202 pp. The book grew out of
lectures. The author is opposed to the method of investigation which
aims at understanding the “System of Pauline Theology,” and thinks
that in following these “doctrinaire interests” it would go further
and further astray. For him Paul is primarily “a hero of the religious
life” for whom “theology is a secondary matter.” He holds that the
Apostle was more a man of prayer and testimony, a confessor and a
prophet, than a learned exegete and laborious dogmatist.
His aim is, with the aid of reminiscences of two journeys to the East,
to “place the man of Tarsus in the sunlight of his Anatolian home, and
in the clear air of the ancient Mediterranean lands,” and he believes
that when this is done “what previously tired our eyes, like a set of
faded and rubbed pencil sketches, becomes at once plastic and living
in its light and shadow.” This hope is by no means realised in his
work. It appears here, as was also noticeable in the writer’s earlier
_Licht vom Osten_ (“Light from the East”), that he has a high
appreciation of local colour and the memorials of ancient
civilisation, but when it comes really to explaining the ideas he is
not able to draw nearly so much profit from them as he expected. And
his contempt for “doctrinaire interests” revenges itself upon his
treatment. It is obscure and confused, and does not get at the essence
of the thoughts. In regard to Paul’s mysticism Deissmann has applied
new catchwords to old psychological considerations, but in nowise
contributes to the explanation of it. After Wrede’s _Paulus,_ his book
seems a kind of anachronism. It is, besides, not fitting that what
professes to be a new view should be presented in the inadequate form
of a collection of lectures.
142 Adolf Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 4th ed., vol. i.,
1909, 826 pp. On Paul, pp. 96-107 (3rd ed., 1893).
143 Reinhold Seeberg, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,_ 2nd ed., vol
i., 1908, 570 pp. On Paul, 68-78. The first circle of ideas embraces
the thoughts regarding flesh and spirit, the power of grace and the
strength of sin, Christ and the new creation; the second consists of
the formulas which were created in opposition to Jewish Christianity;
the third has to do with the mystical body of Christ, in which the
natural distinctions between men are abolished. On points of detail
there are many discriminating observations. The first edition, of
1895, did not even contain any section on Paul.
The 4th ed. of Loofs’ _Dogmengeschichte_ (1906, vol. i., 576 pp.) does
not deal with the Apostle of the Gentiles, any more than the preceding
editions.
144 On Kabisch see above, pp. 58-63.
145 A sifting and a survey of results is offered in the closing
chapter, “Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem” (448-493) in Bousset’s
book, _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter,_
1903 (“The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times”).
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION
146 Hermann Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: “Das
Weihnachtsfest”_ (1889, 337 pp.); _“Die Sintflutsagen”_ (1899, 276
pp.) (“Studies in Comparative Religion, ‘Christmas,’ 1889. ‘The
Flood-legends,’ 1899”). Other works which played an important part in
creating the new horizon were Albrecht Dieterich’s works on
Comparative Religion, _Abraxas_ (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth
of the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and _Nekyia,_
contributions to the explanation of the “Apocalypse of Peter” (1893,
238 pp.). The description of the torments of hell in the Akhmim
fragment is based, he thinks, not on Jewish eschatology, but on
conceptions which are found in the Orphic literature.
147 _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,_ 1st ed.,
1906; 2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year
1905 in the Collège de France.
We may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach’s _Cultes,
mythes et religions,_ 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).
Otto Gruppe, _Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu
den orientalischen Religionen_ (“Greek cults and Myths in their
relation to the Oriental Religions”), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and
_Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (“Greek Mythology and
the History of Greek Religions”). In Iwan Müller’s _Handbuch der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (“Handbook of Classical
Antiquities”), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.
Georg Mau. _Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden
auf König Helios und die Göttermutter_ (“The Emperor Julian’s
Philosophy of Religion in his Orations on King Helios and the Dea
Mater”), 1908, 169 pp. In the appendix there is a German translation
of both discourses.
Of a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong’s _Das antike
Mysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und
psychologischer Beleuchtung_ (“The Ancient Mystery-religions in the
Light of Comparative Religion, Ethnology, and Psychology”), 1909. 362
pp. The author is disposed to cite the modern occult “manifestations”
in relation to the astral body in order to explain certain
“appearances” in the ceremonies of initiation to the mysteries.
148 On what follows see Hugo Hepding, _Attis, seine Mythen und sein
Kult,_ 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of
“Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,” edited by Dieterich
and Wünsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, _Kultübertragungen_
(Cultus-Transferences: “Magna Mater,” “Asklepios,” “Sarapis”). In the
same series vol. viii., 1909.
149 On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, _Les
Religions orientales,_ pp. 101-103.
150 Note the admission of Hugo Hepding at the close of his chapter on
the Mysteries (p. 199):—“I am well aware that this account of the
Phrygian Mysteries is in its details mainly hypothetical. In view of
the paucity of the information which has come down to us, nothing else
is possible. In particular the association of the blood baptism with
the March festival cannot be shown from our documentary material.....”
He wants to distinguish between an earlier and a later form of the
taurobolium. The earlier form is not a ceremony of initiation but a
sacrifice. It was only the later which had in view the initiation of
the individual. “The first person whom we know by literary evidence to
have undergone the ceremony of the taurobolium is Heliogabalus.”
151 On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1909)
pp. 278-300. From his account it clearly appears how little we know
about these ceremonies of initiation. In any case they were quite
different from those of the later Mystery-religions. They belong to
early Greek religion.
152 Franz Cumont, _Les Mystères de Mithra_ (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed.,
1902).
153 Albrecht Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie,_ 1st ed., 1903; 2nd
ed., 1910 (edited after the author’s death by Richard Wünsch), 248 pp.
The excursuses, pp. 92-212, really give a sketch of the fundamental
ideas of the Mystery-religions in general. Cumont refuses to regard
the document as a fragment belonging to a Mithras-liturgy because he
cannot find in it the specific characteristics of the Persian
eschatology and conception of heaven. On this controversy see the 2nd
edition of the Mithras-liturgy, pp. 225-228. It would certainly have
been better if Dieterich had not given the book the unnecessary and
contentious title.
154 From Dieterich, p. 15.
155 Richard Reitzenstein, _Poimandres._ Studies in Graeco-Egyptian and
Early Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres “community”
[_Gemeinde,_ the word is in quotation marks in the German, perhaps to
recall its frequent use in speaking of the Early Christian Church] is
supposed to have been founded in Egypt about the time of the birth of
Christ. Its main characteristic is the mystical basis of the doctrine.
Later on, in the course of the third century (?) the Poimandres
community was gradually merged in the general Hermetic communities.
156 From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, _Zum
religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments_
(“Contributions to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis
of Comparative Religion”), 1903, 96 pp.
Paul Wendland, _Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen
zu Judentum und Christentum_ (“The Hellenistic-Roman Civilisation in
Relation to Judaism and Christianity”), 1907, 190 pp.
Adolf Deissmann, _Licht vom Osten_ (“Light from the Ancient East”),
1908, 364 pp. This book, which is rather rhetorically written, treats
mainly the general literary side of the matter without entering
specially into the religious problems and the ideas of the
Mystery-religions. The same author has published a lecture, _Die
Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung_ (“The
History of Primitive Christianity in the Light of Linguistic
Research”), 1910, 48 pp.
Karl Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments_
(“Interpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative
Religion”), 1909, 301 pp.
Works which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject are:
Wilhelm Soltau, _Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen
Kirche_ (“The Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian
Church”), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des
Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_ (“Mission and Expansion
of Christianity in the first three Centuries”), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp.
157 Gustav Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf
das Christentum,_ 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in some
respects supplementing Anrich’s work, is Georg Wobbermin’s
_Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des
Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen_ (“Studies from the
Point of View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence
of the ancient Mysteries upon Christianity”), 1896, 190 pp.
Johannes Geffken in his popular work, _Aus der Werdezeit des
Christentums,_ 2nd ed., 1909, 126 pp. (“From the Formative Period of
Christianity”), does not hold that any very deep influence was
exercised by the Graeco-Roman Syncretism on early Christianity. He is,
however, of opinion that Paul “adopted all kinds of oriental views.”
158 See _e.g._ Dieterich, _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed., p. 110. Typical
also are pp. 176, 177, where he continually speaks of the “death and
re-birth” of believers as taught by Paul.
[_Wiedergeburt_ has been translated “re-birth” when the general sense
implied in the comparison with other religions is in view;
“regeneration” when the reference is primarily to the specific
Christian doctrine as such.]
159 P. Gennrich in his book, _Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in
dogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung_ (“The
Doctrine of Regeneration ... in the Light of the History of Dogma, and
of Comparative Religion”), 1907, 363 pp., notes that Paul speaks only
of the “new creature” and not of regeneration; but he does not
investigate the cause of this peculiarity, but hastens to give a
psychological explanation of his utterances as a “precipitate from his
personal experience.”
160 See the introduction to _Les Religions orientales dans le
paganisme romain,_ 2nd ed., 1909.
161 Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Brückner, _Der
sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen
Religionen und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum_ (“The divine Saviour
who dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation
to Christianity”). In the series of _Religionsgeschichtliche
Volksbücher,_ 1908, 48 pp. “As in Christianity, so in many Oriental
religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God,
who was subordinated to the Supreme God (sometimes as His Son)
occupied a central place in the worship and cultus.” What manipulation
the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone
before this general statement could become possible! Where is there
anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra? It is instructive to
see how the author on p. 30 argues away the effect of this admission!
A popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf Jacoby’s
work, _Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum_ (“The
ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity”), 1910, 44 pp., in the
series of _Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher._ The author deserves
special credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they
can form their own impression.
Dieterich remarks with great justice in the _Mithrasliturgie_ (2nd
ed., 207) how necessary it is to get beyond the catchword
“Syncretistic,” and point out in every case the source of particular
mythological statements and ideas.
162 O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious
thought never really had the conception of a “world-redeemer”
_(Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte),_ vol. ii., pp.
1488-1489. It cannot, in fact, be otherwise. The “world-redeemer” of
Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought corresponds to the “new
world” which he is in some supernatural fashion to bring in, in order
to reign in it along with the elect. Graeco-oriental religions did not
look for a kingdom of that kind, and therefore the idea of the ruler
of such a kingdom was also undiscoverable and unattainable for them.
The Messiah is the World-redeemer or Lord of the coming age. He does
not make atonement for the guilt of mankind nor for that of
individuals, but suffers and dies vicariously for the elect, and in
order to set the events of the End in motion. His earthly fate is
nothing in itself, but falls wholly under the conception of the
“Messianic woes” which are thought of as the tribulation of the Times
of the End. How can it be proposed to find an analogue to a figure of
this kind in myths, the scene of which is laid in the dawn of the
world, and which have no sort of relation to its ultimate fate.
163 P. 102 ff. He has at this point a detailed discussion of the
relations between the cultus-meal in Paul and that of the
Mystery-religions.
On the sacraments see also K. Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche
Erklärung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the Supper,
165-207.
164 _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108.
165 Therefore the statement that Jesus baptized in the Judaean country
(Jn iii. 22) is corrected to the effect that He Himself did not
baptize, but only the disciples (Jn iv. 2).
166 _Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein._
167 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus_ (“Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper in Paul’s teaching”). A description and an investigation
in the light of Comparative Religion, 1903, 56 pp. These journeyings
on pp. 40-42.
168 _i.e._ Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears
later, with Reitzenstein, who is described as the “Pneumatic” of the
science.
169 Albert Eichhorn, _Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament_ (“The Lord’s
Supper in the New Testament,” 1898, 31 pp.), similarly holds that in
Paul we have before us a sacramental eating and drinking of the body
and blood of Christ which can only be explained as based on Oriental
Gnostic presuppositions. He is, however, constrained to admit that we
have no knowledge of a “sacramental meal which could have served as
the model for the Lord’s Supper.” But this does not shake his faith in
his theory. He thinks that proof is only wanting because there is here
a gap in our historical knowledge. He has calculated out the position
of the planet; the mere fact that it cannot be discovered with the
telescope is wholly due to the inadequacy of the instrument.
170 See on this R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen
Mysterienreligionen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery Religions”), p. 38.
171 Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. _marg._: laver of regeneration).
172 Wilhelm Heitmüller, _Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur
altchristlichen Taufe_ (“In the Name of Jesus. A New Testament Study
based on Linguistics and Comparative Religion, with special Reference
to Early Christian baptism”), 1903, 347 pp. In this thorough and
extremely interesting study the author arrives at the result that in
the employment of the name of Jesus it is taken for granted that the
name in some way or other represents a power. The Christian “belief in
the name,” he holds, stands on the same footing as Jewish and heathen
beliefs. “The solemn pronouncement of the name of Jesus at baptism is
not a merely symbolic form, having to do, for example, with the
confession of the Messiahship of Jesus, but is thought of as
associated with real mystical, mysterious effects; the effects must,
however, be similar, _mutatis mutandis,_ to those which are ascribed
to the use of the name in other cases: a being actually taken
possession of by the power which is designated by the ‘name’ of Jesus,
the expulsion of all hostile powers, consecration and inspiration.”
“Baptism in the name of Jesus represents, therefore, the combination
of two sacramental factors—water and the name.”
Unfortunately, Heitmüller has not emphasised the fact that the
Mystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.
It is also open to question whether the power of the name and of water
suffice, as he thinks, to explain the Pauline view of baptism.
173 Paul Wernle, _Die Anfänge unserer Religion,_ 1901, p. 129.
174 In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted
here in full:—
_πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ίδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ
καθαρμοὶ άδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσὶ μέν ἔτι ζῶσιν,
εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τετελευτήκασιν, ἃς δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶ ἐκεῖ κακῶν
ἀπολύουσιν ὴμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει_.
. . . “And they persuade, not only individuals, but whole cities that
sacrifices and pleasureable amusements afford absolution and
purification from crimes committed, both for the living and also for
the dead; these they call Mysteries (initiations), and they free us
from the torments of the other world, whereas terrible things await
those who neglect to offer sacrifice.” On expiation see Rohde,
_Psyche,_ i. (1903), 259 ff.
175 Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the
question, see Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Korinth_ (“Primitive
Christianity in Corinth”), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24.
176 R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,_ p. 84.
The dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing
between two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head.
177 In I Cor. vi. 11, after saying that thieves, adulterers,
slanderers, and robbers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the Apostle
proceeds, “And such were some of you. But ye were cleansed, ye were
consecrated, ye were justified.” The passage is no doubt intended
sarcastically, ironically, with reference to the fact that, in spite
of their baptism, according to present appearances they have not
changed much. In regard to self-delusion on the ground of baptism see
also I Cor. x.
178 I Cor. i. 14-16.
179 See Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_
(1910), pp. 99, 100.
180 See above, p. 162, note 3.
181 In contrast with Heitmüller, who was described above as the
“hylic,” materialist (see p. 205).
R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre
Grundgedanken und Wirkungen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery-religions.
Their fundamental Ideas and Influence”), 1910, 217 pp. The work is
composed out of a lecture delivered in the Clerical Theological
Society of Alsace-Lorraine (pp. 1-60), along with extensive notes and
excursuses (pp. 63-214).
182 Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the
_pneuma._ Reitzenstein believes himself to be able to show that all
the passages in Paul’s writings which refer to this subject “are
explicable from Hellenistic usage,” and leaves open the question
whether they “are all equally easy to understand on the basis of the
Hebraic use of _ruach_ or _nephesh,_ or the LXX. use of _πνεῦμα_.”
A detailed discussion is given of the following passages, Rom. vi.
1-14, xii. I ff.; I Cor. ii., xiii., xv. 34 ff.; 2 Cor. iii. 18, v.1
ff., v. 6 ff., x.-xiii., and some interesting light is thrown on the
Epistle to Philemon (pp. 81, 82).
It may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay “Paulus”
_(Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur,_ 1910, 136 pp. pp.
107-136) estimates very highly the indirect influence of the
Hellenistic surroundings and language. In the second edition (1911,
142 pp.) he goes a little more fully into the individual problems of
the doctrine.
183 Even Holtzmann shares this confusion. “The Pauline doctrine,” he
pronounces in his New Testament Theology (ii. p. 56), “is not exactly
Philonian, but doubtless, like the closely allied Philonian doctrines
and the more widely divergent later views, grew out of the same stock
of Jewish reflection on the Creation-narratives. . . .”
184 _Poimandres,_ p. 81 ff.
185 Reitzenstein takes much pains to render intelligible, by a series
of examples from ancient and modern times, the “dual personality”
which often seems to manifest itself in Paul (pp. 53-57. 207, 208). He
overlooks the fact that in the form in which it occurs in Paul it is
taken for granted by eschatology, and appears in Jesus and the
disciples. It is much more primitive than anything found in
Hellenistic mysticism or in any form of romanticism, since the
distinction of outer appearance and inner being which occurs in Paul,
depends upon the contrast of the two worlds which are struggling
together for existence. The dual self-consciousness of Paul is, in
contradistinction to all other cases, not subjectively but objectively
conditioned. Besides, it depends on the temporal opposition of “then”
and “now,” as naturally results from the ardent eschatological
expectation. On the “doubling” of one’s own personality, such as is
possible for Greek sensibility, see Rohde, _Psyche,_ vol. ii. (1909),
pp. 413, 414.
186 See pp. 57, 58.
187 See _e.g._ Reitzenstein, p. 209.
188 That Greek “eschatology” and early Christian are mutually
exclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich’s _Nekyia_ (1893, 238
pp.). The fantastic torments of hell as portrayed in the Apocalypse of
Peter have nothing to do with the Jewish and primitive Christian
eschatology, since the latter are concerned with the in-coming of the
new world, and not with the special punishment of individuals.
Dieterich is quite right when he explains this detailed description of
torment as due to influences from the Orphic literature. Greek
religious feeling was concerned with the fate of individuals after
death. The thought of a coming world which dominates Jewish and
primitive Christian eschatology is alien to it, because its
“eschatology” was not created, like the former, by the
historico-ethical conceptions and aspirations of successive
generations of prophets.
189 Hermann Gunkel, _Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des
Neuen Testaments,_ 1903, 96 pp.
190 Max Maurenbrecher, _Von Jerusalem nach Rom,_ 1910, 288 pp. This
work is the continuation of _Von Nazareth nach Golgatha,_ 1909, 274
pp.
191 W. B. Smith, _Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien
zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums,_ 243 pp. It was issued
in German in 1906 with a preface by P. W. Schmiedel. The author is
Professor of Mathematics in Tulane University, New Orleans. The book
consists of five somewhat disconnected essays: i. “The Pre-Christian
Jesus”; ii. “The Significance of the Nick-name, The Nazarene”; iii.
“Anastasis”; iv. “The Sower sows the Logos”; v. “Saeculi silentium.”
(Behind this title masquerades a study of the external arguments for
the historicity of the Pauline Epistles, in which Smith stammers out
confusedly what Steck and van Manen had clearly expressed before him.)
192 Arthur Drews, _Die Christusmythe,_ 1909, 190 pp.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
193 See above, p. 173 f.
194 Hence John’s indignation at seeing the “viper’s brood” approaching
to take advantage of it?—TRANSLATOR.
195 For the sense of the term here, see above, p. 83, note.
—TRANSLATOR.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
This book is the first edition of the translation. No second edition
was published until 1948 which contained only a few minor changes
anyway. Consequently there are a lot of errors/inconsistencies in the
spelling and hyphenation. I have left almost all of these as is,
except for a few cases where line-end hyphens needed to be corrected
(line 2496 on p. 65: thoroughgoing/thorough-going; line 7492 on p.
217: Rebirth/Re-Birth). The special case of ‘primitive-Christian’ ❬-❭
‘primitive Christian’ was examined in detail. In only six cases does
it seem that ‘primitive-Christian’ is used as a compound word. All the
others seem to be legitimate as separate words. The inconsistent uses
of naive (1), naïve (3), naively (1), naïvely (1), naïveté (3) were
left as is. So was a priori (7), à priori (2) and L’Apôtre (4),
L’Apotre (1). Two un-paired quotation marks were also left as is:
up-paired " p. 34 line 1528 (wrong but left in)
un-paired " n. 103 p. 134 line 9638 (wrong but left in)
Because of the use of English, German, Dutch, and Latin there were
many different spellings of words flagged as errors which were due to
the same word being spelled differently in different languages.