Footnotes

Footnotes1.Quoted by Dr. Inge in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1910, p. 438 (from“Jesus or Christ,”p. 32).2.“Quest,”p. 4.3.An order founded in 1776 by Professor Adam Weishaupt of Ingolstadt in Bavaria. Its aim was the furtherance of rational religion as opposed to orthodox dogma; its organisation was largely modelled on that of the Jesuits. At its most flourishing period it numbered over 2000 members, including the rulers of several German States.—Translator.4.D. Fr. Strauss,Gespräche von Ulrich von Hutten. Leipzig, 1860.5.W. Wrede,Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. (The Messianic Secret in the Gospels.) Göttingen, 1901, pp. 280-282.6.In the author's usage“the Marcan hypothesis”means the theory that the Gospel of Mark is not only the earliest and most valuable source for the facts, but differs from the other Gospels in embodying a more or less clear and historically intelligible view of the connexion of events. See Chaps.X.andXIV.below.—Translator.7.Dr. Christoph Friedrich von Ammon,Fortbildung des Christentums, Leipzig, 1840, vol. iv. p. 156 ff.8.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 110-162. The second edition, published in 1891, carries the survey no further than the first.9.Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen, 1892, five lectures.10.W. Frantzen,Die“Leben-Jesu”Bewegung seit Strauss, Dorpat, 1898.11.Theol. Rundschau, ii. 59-67 (1899); iii. 9-19 (1900).12.Von Soden's study,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 1904, belongs here only in a very limited sense, since it does not seek to show how the problems have gradually emerged in the various Lives of Jesus.13.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, pp. 112, 113.14.Historia Christi persice conscripta simulque multis modis contaminata a Hieronymo Xavier, lat. reddita et animadd, notata a Ludovico de Dieu.Lugd. 1639.15.Johann Jakob Hess,Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu. (History of the Last Three Years of the Life of Jesus.) 3 vols. 1768 ff.16.D. F. Strauss,Hermann Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes. (Reimarus and his Apology for the Rational Worshippers of God.) 1862.17.The quotations inserted without special introduction are, of course, from Reimarus. It is Dr. Schweitzer's method to lead up by a paragraph of exposition to one of these characteristic phrases.—Translator.18.Otto Schmiedel,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902.19.Döderlein also wrote a defence of Jesus against the Fragmentist:Fragmente und Antifragmente. Nuremberg, 1778.20.This is perhaps the place to mention the account of the life of Jesus which is given in the first part of Plank'sGeschichte des Christentums. Göttingen, 1818.21.Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend, 1st ed., 1780-1781; 2nd ed., 1785-1786;Werke, ed. Suphan, vol. x.22.A Life of Jesus which is completely dependent on the Commentaries of Paulus is that of Greiling, superintendent at Aschersleben,Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth Ein religiöses Handbuch für Geist und Herz der Freunde Jesu unter den Gebildeten.(The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious Handbook for the Minds and Hearts of the Friends of Jesus among the Cultured.) Halle, 1813.23.Paulus prided himself on a very exact acquaintance with the physical and geographical conditions of Palestine. He had a wide knowledge of the literature of Eastern travel.—Translator.24.This interpretation, it ought to be remarked, seems to be implied by the ancient reading.“Few things are needful, or one,”given in the margin of the Revised Version.—Translator.25.Associations of students, at that time of a political character.—Translator.26.The ground of the inference is that, according to this theory, they did not attach much importance to the keeping of the Feasts at Jerusalem. Dr. Schweitzer reminds us in a footnote that a certain want of clearness is due to the fact of this work having been compiled from lecture-notes.27.See Theobald Ziegler,“Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss”(Materials for the Biography of D. F. S.), in theDeutsche Revue, May, June, July 1905. The hitherto unpublished letters to Binder throw some light on the development of Strauss during the formative years before the publication of the Life of Jesus.Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the friend who delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss. This last act of friendship exposed him to enmity and calumny of all kinds. For the text of his short address, see theDeutsche Revue, 1905, p. 107.28.Deutsche Revue, May 1905, p. 199.29.Ibid.p. 201.30.Deutsche Revue, p. 203.31.Assistant lecturer.32.Ibid., June 1905, p. 343 ff.33.See Hase,Leben Jesu, 1876, p. 124. The“text-book”referred to is Hase's first Life of Jesus.34.He to whom my plaint isKnows I shed no tear;She to whom I say thisFeels I have no fear.Time has come for fading,Like a glimmering ray,Or a sense-evadingStrain that floats away.May, though fainter, dimmer,Only, clear and pure,To the last the glimmerAnd the strain endure.The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a physician, attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply attached, and a very old friend to whom the verses were addressed.—Translator.35.2 Kings iv. 42-44.36.Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Ioannis Apostoli indole et origine eruditorum iudiciis modeste subjecit C. Th. Bretschneider.Leipzig, 1820.37.Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher,Über die Schriften des Lukas. Ein kritischer Versuch.(The Writings of Luke. A critical essay.) C. Reimer, Berlin, 1817.38.Koppe,Marcus non epitomator Matthäi, 1782.39.Storr,De Fontibus Evangeliorum Mt. et Lc., 1794.40.Gratz,Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu erklären, 1812.41.V. sup.p. 35 f. For the earlier history of the question see F. C. Baur,Krit. Untersuch. über die kanonischen Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847, pp. 1-76.42.So called because largely based on the reference in Luke i. 1, to the“many”who had“taken in hand to draw up a narrative (δεήγησις).”—Translator.43.We take the translation of this striking image from Sanday's“Survey of the Synoptic Question,”The Expositor, 4th ser. vol. 3, p. 307.44.For general title see above. First part:“Herr Dr. Steudel, or the Self-deception of the Intellectual Supernaturalism of our Time.”182 pp. Second part:“Die Herren Eschenmayer und Menzel.”247 pp. Third part:“Die evangelische Kirchenzeitung,die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche KritikundDie theologischen Studien und Kritikenin ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.”(The attitude taken up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.) 179 pp. In theStudien und Kritikentwo reviews had appeared: a critical review by Dr. Ullmann (vol. for 1836, pp. 770-816) and that of Müller, written from the standpoint of the“common faith”(vol. for 1836, pp. 816-890). In theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungthe articles referred to are the following:Vorwort(Editorial Survey), 1836, pp. 1-6, 9-14, 17-23, 25-31, 33-38, 41-45;“The Future of our Theology”(1836, pp. 281 ff.);“Thoughts suggested by Dr. Strauss's essay on‘The Relation of Theological Criticism and Speculation to the Church’”(1836, pp. 382 ff.); Strauss's essay had appeared in theAllgemeine Kirchenzeitungfor 1836, No. 39.“Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von D. F. Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet”(An Inquiry into the Scientific Value of D. F. Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus.) By Prof. Dr. Harless. Erlangen, 1836.45.“Everything turns to the advantage of the elect, even to the obscurities of scripture, for they treat them with reverence because of its perspicuities; everything turns to the disadvantage of the reprobate, even to the perspicuities of scripture, for they blaspheme them because they cannot understand its obscurities.”For the title of Harless's essay, see end of previous note.46.Das Leben-Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. D. F. Strauss. Geprüft für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen, von Wilhelm Hoffmann. 1836. (Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus examined for the Benefit of Theologians and non-Theologians.)47.Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen.(Defence of the Life of Jesus against the latest attempt to resolve it into myth.) By Joh. Ernst Osiander, Professor at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn.48.Über das Leben-Jesu von Strauss, von Franz Baader, 1836. Here may be mentioned also the lectures which Krabbe (subsequently Professor at Rostock) delivered against Strauss:Vorlesungen über das Leben-Jesu für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen(Lectures on the Life of Jesus for Theologians and non-Theologians), Hamburg, 1839. They are more tolerable to non-theologians than to theologians. The author at a later period distinguished himself by the fanatical zeal with which he urged on the deposition of his colleague, Michael Baumgarten, whoseGeschichte Jesu, published in 1859, though fully accepting the miracles, was weighed in the balance by Krabbe and found light-weight by the Rostock standard.49.For the title, see head of chapter. Tholuck was born in 1799 at Breslau, and became in 1826 Professor at Halle, where he worked until his death in 1877. With the possible exception of Neander, he was the most distinguished representative of the mediating theology. His piety was deep and his learning was wide, but his judgment went astray in the effort to steer his freight of pietism safely between the rocks of rationalism and the shoals of orthodoxy.50.Stud. u. Krit., 1836, p. 777. In his“Open letter to Dr. Ullmann,”Strauss examines this suggestion in a serious and dignified fashion, and shows that nothing would be gained by such expedients.—Streitschriften, 3rd pt., p. 129 ff.51.Das Leben Jesu-Christi.Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was born in 1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being David Mendel. He was baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813 was appointed to a professorship in Berlin, where he displayed a many-sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. He died in 1850. The best-known of his writings is theGeschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel(History of the Propagation and Administration of the Christian Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832-1833, of which a reprint appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep piety, but also of great solidity of character.Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment upon Neander's work:“A book such as in these circumstances Neander's Life of Jesus was bound to be calls forth our sympathy; the author himself acknowledges in his preface that it bears upon it only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain, and distress in which it was produced.”Of the innumerable“positive”Lives of Jesus which appeared about the end of the 'thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2 vols., 1837-1839). Among the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating theology may be mentioned that of Theodore Pressel of Tübingen, which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.). It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention theLeben des Herrn Jesu Christiby Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856), which reflects the ideas of von Hofmann.52.For title see head of chapter.53.Aphorismen zur Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes.Grimma, 1838.54.From theXame Xenien, p. 259 of Goethe's Works, ed. Hempel.55.Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche. Zur Verständigung über die Straussische Angelegenheit.(A contribution to the adjustment of opinion regarding the Strauss affair.) By Daniel Schenkel, Licentiate in Theology and Privat-Docent of the University of Basle, with a dedicatory letter to Herr Dr. Lücke, Konsistorialrat. Basle, 1839.56.Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche. Eine Stimme aus Norddeutschland. Mit einer Vorrede von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.(A voice from North Germany. With an introduction by Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.) Basle, 1839.57.Über theologische Lehrfreiheit und Lehrerwahl für Hochschulen.Zurich, 1839.58.For full title see head of chapter. Reference may also be made to the same author'sFortbildung des Christentums zur Weltreligion. (Development of Christianity into a World-religion.) Leipzig, 1833-1835. 4 vols. Ammon was born in 1766 at Bayreuth; became Professor of theology at Erlangen in 1790; was Professor in Göttingen from 1794 to 1804, and, after being back in Erlangen in the meantime, became in 1813 Senior Court Chaplain and“Oberkonsistorialrat”at Dresden, where he died in 1850. He was the most distinguished representative of historico-critical rationalism.59.He is at one with Strauss in rejecting the explanation of this miracle on the analogy of an expedited natural process, to which Hase had pointed, and which was first suggested by Augustine inTract viii. in Ioann.:“That Christ changed water into wine is nothing wonderful to those who consider the works of God. What was there done in the water-pots, God does yearly in the vine.”[Augustine's words are: Miraculum quidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit (i.e.that He who did it was God). Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die ... in sex hydriis, qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.] Nevertheless the poorest naturalistic explanation is at least better than the resignation of Lücke, who is content to wait“until it please God through the further progress of Christian thought and life to bring about the solution of this riddle in its natural and historical aspects.”Lücke,Johannes-Kommentar, p. 474 ff.60.Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born in 1802 at Fröndenberg in the“county”(Grafschaft) of Mark, became Professor of Theology in Berlin in 1826, and died there in 1869. He founded theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungin 1827.61.Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss' historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu.62.Dr. Strauss' Leben-Jesu aus dem Standpunkt des Catholicismus betrachtet.63.Johann Leonhard Hug was born in 1765 at Constance, and had been since 1791 Professor of New Testament Theology at Freiburg, where he died in 1846. He had a wide knowledge of his own department of theology, and his Introduction to the New Testament Writings won him some reputation among Protestant theologians also.64.Among the Catholic“Leben-Jesu,”of which the authors found their incentive in the desire to oppose Strauss, the first place belongs to that of Kuhn of Tübingen. Unfortunately only the first volume appeared (1838, 488 pp.). Here there is a serious and scholarly attempt to grapple with the problems raised by Strauss. Of less importance is the work of the same title in seven volumes, by the Munich Priest and Professor of History, Nepomuk Sepp (1843-1846; 2nd ed. 1853-1862).65.Über das Leben-Jesu von Doctor Strauss.By Edgar Quinet. Translated from the French by Georg Kleine. Published by J. Erdmann and C. C. Müller, 1839. In 1840 Strauss's book was translated into French by M. Littré. It failed, however, to exercise any influence upon French theology or literature. Strauss is one of those German thinkers who always remain foreign and unintelligible to the French mind. Could Renan have written his Life of Jesus as he did if he had had even a partial understanding of Strauss?66.Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld. Her parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the Augustinian nuns of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the dissolution of the convent, she lived in a single room in Dülmen itself. The“stigmata”showed themselves first in 1812. She died on the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood since 1819.Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi(The Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano himself in 1834. TheLife of Jesuswas published on the basis of notes left by him—he died in 1842—in three volumes, 1858-1860, at Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of Limberg.First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first year after the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May 1, 1821, and October 1, 1822.Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the Baptism in Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem. Communicated between October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823.Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to the Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21, 1823, and January 8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821.Both works have been frequently reissued, the“Bitter Sufferings”as late as 1894.67.Auszüge aus der Schrift“Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet.”(Extracts from a work entitled“A Critical Study of the Life of Luther.”) By Dr. Casuar (“Cassowary”; Strauss = Ostrich). Mexico, 1836. Edited by Julius Ferdinand Wurm.68.Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft.(A Critical Examination of the Life of Napoleon.) From the English, with some pertinent applications to Strauss's Life of Jesus, 1836. [The English original referred to seems to have been Whateley'sHistoric Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, published in 1819, and primarily directed against Hume'sEssay on Miracles.—Translator.]69.La Vie de Strauss. Écrite en l'an 1839.Paris, 1839.70.Ch. G. Wilke,Tradition und Mythe. A contribution to the historical criticism of the Gospels in general, and in particular to the appreciation of the treatment of myth and idealism in Strauss's“Life of Jesus.”Leipzig, 1837.Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz, studied theology and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in 1837 in order to devote himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become conscious of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion to Catholicism by publishing a work entitled“Can a Protestant go over to the Roman Church with a good conscience?”He took the decisive step in August 1846. Later he removed to Würzburg. Subsequently he recast his famousClavis Novi Testamenti Philologica—which had appeared in 1840-1841—in the form of a lexicon for Catholic students of theology. HisHermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, published in 1843-1844, appeared in 1853 asBiblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen Grundsätzen(The Science of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). He was engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854.Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to Emanuel Marius,Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker(The Personality of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies and Mysteries of Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick,Mythus und Evangelium(Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.71.See p.89above.72.Streitschriften.Drittes Heft, pp. 55-126:Die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik: i.Allgemeines Verhältnis der Hegel'schen Philosophie zur theologischen Kritik: ii.Hegels Ansicht über den historischen Wert der evangelischen Geschichte(Hegel's View of the Historical Value of the Gospel History); iii.Verschiedene Richtungen innerhalb der Hegel'schen Schule in Betreff der Christologie(Various Tendencies within the Hegelian School in regard to Christology). 1837.73.Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte.(Scientific Criticism of the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842; 3rd ed., 1868.Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was, first, Professor of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen, afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as“Konsistorialrat,”but was unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and returned in 1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888.A characteristic example of Ebrard's way of treating the subject is his method of meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of money in its jaws could not have taken the hook.“The fish might very well,”he explains,“have thrown up the piece of money from its belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter opened its mouth.”Upon this Strauss remarks:“The inventor of this argument tosses it down before us as who should say,‘I know very well it is bad, but it is good enough for you, at any rate so long as the Church has livings to distribute and we Konsistorialrats have to examine the theological candidates.’”Strauss, therefore, characterises Ebrard's Life of Jesus as“Orthodoxy restored on a basis of impudence.”The pettifogging character of this work made a bad impression even in Conservative quarters.74.Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien.(Chronological Synopsis of the four Gospels.) By Karl Georg Wieseler. Hamburg, 1843. Wieseler was born in 1813 at Altencelle (Hanover), and was Professor successively at Göttingen, Kiel, and Greifswald. He died in 1883.75.Johann Peter Lange, Pastor in Duisburg, afterwards Professor at Zurich in place of Strauss.Das Leben Jesu.5 vols., 1844-1847.76.Georg Heinrich August Ewald,Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (History of the People of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843-1859; 3rd ed., 1864-1870. Fifth vol.,Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857.Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the repeal of the fundamental law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was removed from his office and went to Tübingen, first as Professor of philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the theological faculty. In 1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily retired, and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion, was also deprived of the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose him as its representative in the North German and in the German Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph opposition, in the middle of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His contributions to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is worthless, in spite of the Old Testament and Oriental learning with which it was furnished forth. He lays great stress upon making the genitive of“Christus”not“Christi,”but, according to German inflection,“Christus'.”77.Ammon,Johannem evangelii auctorem ab editore huius libri fuisse diversum, Erlangen, 1811.78.No value whatever can be ascribed to the Life of Jesus by Werner Hahn, Berlin, 1844, 196 pp. The“didactic presentation of the history”which the author offers is not designed to meet the demands of historical criticism. He finds in the Gospels no bare history, but, above all, the inculcation of the principle of love. He casts to the winds all attempt to draw the portrait of Jesus as a true historian, being only concerned with its inner truth and“idealises artistically and scientifically”the actual course of the outward life of Jesus.“It is never the business of a history,”he explains,“to relate only the bare truth. It belongs to a mere planless and aimless chronicle to relate everything that happened in such a way that its words are a mere slavish reflection of the outward course of events.”79.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, p. 128.80.Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums.Leipzig, 1855-1862.81.At the end of his preface he makes the striking remark:“I confess I cannot conceive of any possible way by which Christianity can take on a form which will make it once more the truth for our time, without having recourse to the aid of philosophy; and I rejoice to believe that this opinion is shared by many of the ablest and most respected of present-day theologians.”82.Vol. ii. pp. 438-543.Philosophische Schlussbetrachtung über die religiöse Bedeutung der Persönlichkeit Christi und der evangelischen Überlieferung.(Concluding Philosophical Estimate of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.)83.Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge.Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses der drei ersten Evangelien.(The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The subsequent course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as follows:—In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos Aletheias,Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhältnis zu einander. (The Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, 440 pp. The author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and thinks that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to detecting and weeding out the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke is in his opinion a party-writing, biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul had a share in its preparation, and this is what Paul alludes to when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of“his”Gospel. His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.-iii., vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and xxiv. Mark consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the other three. The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work,Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. (A Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622 pp. According to him Mark is based on Matthew and Luke. At the same time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the refutation of its historical character is carried into detail.The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his workDie Evangelien. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp.Karl Reinhold Köstlin's work,Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien(Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels), is rendered nugatory by obscurities and compromises. Stuttgart, 1853, 400 pp. The priority of Mark is defended by Edward Reuss,Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments(History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament), 1842; H. Ewald,Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1850; A. Ritschl,Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche(Origin of the ancient Catholic Church), 1850; A. Réville,Études critiques sur l'Évangile selon St. Matthieu, 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcan hypothesis were relaid, more firmly than before, by Holtzmann's work,Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863, 514 pp.84.Alexander Schweizer,Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte and seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu kritisch untersucht. 1841. (A Critical Examination of the Intrinsic Value of the Gospel of John and of its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) Alexander Schweizer was born in 1808 at Murten, was appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology at Zurich in 1835, and continued to lecture there until his death in 1888, remaining loyal to the ideas of his teacher Schleiermacher, though handling them with a certain freedom. His best-known work is hisGlaubenslehre(System of Doctrine), 2 vols., 1863-1872; 2nd ed., 1877.85.The German isMirakeln, the usual word beingWunder, which, though constantly used in the sense of actual“miracles,”has, from its obvious derivation, a certain ambiguity.86.“And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days.”87.We subjoin the titles of the divisions of this work, which are of some interest:Vol. i. Book i. The Sources of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book ii. The Legends of the Childhood.Vol. i. Book iii. General Sketch of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book iv. The Incidents and Discourses according to Mark.Vol. ii. Book v. The Incidents and Discourses according to Matthew and Luke.Vol. ii. Book vi. The Incidents and Discourses according to John.Vol. ii. Book vii. The Resurrection and the Ascension.Vol. ii. Book viii. Concluding Philosophical Exposition of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.88.Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit.(History of Christ and His Times.) By Heinrich Ewald, Göttingen, 1855, 450 pp.89.Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung.90.Das entdeckte Christentum.See alsoDie gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit. (The Good Cause of Freedom, in Connexion with my own Case.) Zurich, 1843.91.Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes.92.Here and elsewhere Bauer seems to use“Christologie”in the sense of Messianic doctrine, rather than in the more general sense which is usual in theology.—Translator.93.We retain the German phrase, which has naturalised itself in Synoptic criticism as the designation of an assumed primary gospel lying behind the canonical Mark.94.Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe.(Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, 1850-1852.95.Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.(Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin.) 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851.96.Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen Griechentum.Berlin, 1877.97.Hennell, a London merchant, withdrew himself from his business pursuits for two years in order to make the preparatory studies for this Life of Jesus. [He is best known as a friend of George Eliot, who was greatly interested and influenced by the“Inquiry.”—Translator.] To the same category as Hennell's work belongs theWohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu(An Account of the Life of Jesus based on the closest Examination) of the Heidelberg mathematician, Karl von Langsdorf, Mannheim, 1831. Supplement, with preface to a future second edition, 1833.98.Hase seems not to have recognised that the“Disclosures”were merely a plagiarism from Venturini. He mentions them in connexion with Bruno Bauer and appears to make him responsible for inspiring them; at least that is suggested by his formula of transition when he says:“It was primarily to him that the frivolous apocryphal hypotheses attached themselves.”This is quite inaccurate. The anonymous epitomist of Venturini had nothing to do with Bauer, and had probably not read a line of his work. Venturini, whom he had read, he does not name.99.One of the most ingenious of the followers of Venturini was the French Jew Salvator. In hisJésus-Christ et sa doctrine(Paris, 2 vols., 1838), he seeks to prove that Jesus was the last representative of a mysticism which, drawing its nutriment from the other Oriental religions, was to be traced among the Jews from the time of Solomon onwards. In Jesus this mysticism allied itself with Messianic enthusiasm. After He had lost consciousness upon the cross He was succoured by Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate's wife, contrary to His own expectation and purpose. He ended His days among the Essenes.Salvator looks to a spiritualised mystical Mosaism as destined to be the successful rival of Christianity.100.The reference should be Micah iv. 8.—F. C. B.101.“Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint.”—Mephistopheles inFaust.102.Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha; vier Bücher über das Evangelium und die Evangelien.103.Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen über das Evangelium and die Evangelien.104.For Noack's reconstruction of it see Book iii. pp. 196-225.105.For the reconstruction see Book iii. pp. 326-386.106.Tharraqah und Sunamith.The Song of Solomon in its historical and topographical setting. 1869.107.La Vie de Jésus de D. Fr. Strauss.Traduite par M. Littré, 1840.108.Bruno Bauer inPhilo, Strauss, und Renan.109.Renan does not hesitate to apply this tasteless parallel.110.Charles Émile Freppel (Abbé), Professeur d'éloquence sacrée à la Sorbonne.Examen critique de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.Paris, 1864. 148 pp.Henri Lasserre's pamphlet,L'Évangile selon Renan(The Gospel according to Renan), reached its four-and-twentieth edition in the course of the same year.111.Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l'Archevêque de Paris (Georges Darboy) sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864.112.See, for example, Félix Antoine Philibert Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans,Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours.(Warning to the Young, and to Fathers of Families, concerning some Attacks directed against Religion by some Writers of our Time.) Paris, 1864. 141 pp.113.Amadée Nicolas,Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal, et littéraire. Appel à la raison et la conscience du monde civilisé.Paris-Marseille, 1864.114.Ernest Havet, Professeur au Collège de France,Jésus dans l'histoire.Examen de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan.Extrait de laRevue des deux mondes. Paris, 1863. 71 pp.115.Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben-Jesu, von Edmond Scherer und Athanase Coquerel, d.J. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des französischen Protestantismus.Regensburg, 1864. (Two French utterances in regard to Renan's Life of Jesus, by Edmond Scherer and Athanase Coquerel the younger. A contribution to the understanding of French Protestantism.)116.E. de Pressensé,L'École critique et Jésus-Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.117.E. de Pressensé,Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre. Paris, 1865. 684 pp. In general the plan of this work follows Renan's. He divides the Life of Jesus into three periods: i. The Time of Public Favour; ii. The Period of Conflict; iii. The Great Week. Death and Victory. By way of introduction there is a long essay on the supernatural which sets forth the supernaturalistic views of the author.118.La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique.1864.119.T. Colani, Pasteur,“Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan,”Revue de théologie. Issued separately, Strasbourg-Paris, 1864. 74 pp.120.Lasserre,Das Evangelium nach Renan. Munich, 1864.Freppel,Kritische Beleuchtung der E. Renan'schen Schrift. Translated by Kallmus. Vienna, 1864.See also Lamy, Professor of the Theological Faculty of the Catholic University of Louvain,Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. (Renan's Life of Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Criticism.) Translated by August Rohling, Priest. Münster, 1864.121.Dr. Michelis,Renans Roman vom Leben Jesu.Eine deutsche Antwort auf eine französische Blasphemie.(Renan's Romance on the Life of Jesus. A German answer to a French blasphemy.) Münster, 1864.Dr. Sebastian Brunner,Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium. (The Atheist Renan and his Gospel.) Regensburg, 1864.Albert Wiesinger,Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu. Vienna, 1864.Dr. Martin Deutlinger,Renan und das Wunder. (Renan and Miracle. A contribution to Christian Apologetic.) Munich, 1864. 159 pp.Dr. Daniel Bonifacius Haneberg,Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu. Regensburg, 1864.122.Willibald Beyschlag, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Über das Leben-Jesu von Renan. A Lecture delivered at Halle, January 13, 1864. Berlin.123.Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. (Modern Presentations of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the writings of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.Of the remaining Protestant polemics we may name:—Dr. Hermann Gerlach,Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864. Berlin.Br. Lehmann,Renan wider Renan. (RenanversusRenan.) A Lecture addressed to cultured Germans. Zwickau, 1864.Friedrich Baumer,Schwarz, Strauss, Renan. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.John Cairns, D. D. (of Berwick).Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan.(False Christs and the True, a Defence of the Gospel History against Strauss and Renan.) A Lecture delivered before the Bible Society. Translated from the English. Hamburg, 1864.Bernhard ter Haar, Doctor of Theology and Professor at Utrecht,Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans Leben-Jesu. (Ten Lectures on Renan's Life of Jesus.) Translated by H. Doermer. Gotha, 1864.Paulus Cassel, Professor and Licentiate in Theology,Bericht über Renans Leben-Jesu. (A Report upon Renan's Life of Jesus.)J. J. van Oosterzee, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Utrecht,Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Renan vorläufig beleuchtet.(History or Fiction? A Preliminary Examination of Renan's Life of Jesus.) Hamburg, 1864.124.Strauss's second Life of Jesus appeared in French in 1864.125.“I can now say without incurring the reproach of self-glorification, and almost without needing to fear contradiction, that if my Life of Jesus had not appeared in the year after Schleiermacher's death, his would not have been withheld for so long. Up to that time it would have been hailed by the theological world as a deliverer; but for the wounds which my work inflicted on the theology of the day, it had neither anodyne nor dressing; nay, it displayed the author as in a measure responsible for the disaster, for the waters which he had admitted drop by drop were now, in defiance of his prudent reservations, pouring in like a flood.”—From the Introduction toThe Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, 1865.126.“Now that Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus at last lies before us in print, all parties can gather about it in heartfelt rejoicing. The appearance of a work by Schleiermacher is always an enrichment to literature. Any product of a mind like his cannot fail to shed light and life on the minds of others. And of works of this kind our theological literature has certainly in these days no superfluity. Where the living are for the most part as it were dead, it is meet that the dead should arise and bear witness. These lectures of Schleiermacher's, when compared with the work of his pupils, show clearly that the great theologian has let fall upon them only his mantle and not his spirit.”—Ibid.127.The lines of Schleiermacher's work were followed by Bunsen. His Life of Jesus forms vol. ix. of hisBibelwerk. (Edited by Holtzmann, 1865.) He accepts the Fourth Gospel as an historical source and treats the question of miracle as not yet settled. Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen, born in 1791 at Korbach in Waldeck, was Prussian ambassador at Rome, Berne, and London, and settled later in Heidelberg. He was well read in theology and philology, and gradually came, in spite of his friendly relations with Friedrich Wilhelm IV., to entertain more liberal views on religion. The issue of hisBibelwerk für die Gemeindewas begun in 1858. He died in 1860. (Best known in England as the Chevalier Bunsen.)128.Ch. H. Weisse,Die evangelische Geschichte, Leipzig, 1838.Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium.(The Present Position of the Problem of the Gospels.) Leipzig, 1856. He regarded the discourses as historical, the narrative portions as of secondary origin. Alexander Schweizer, again, wished to distinguish a Jerusalem source and a Galilaean source, the latter being unreliable.Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte und seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu, 1841. (The Gospel of John considered in Relation to its Intrinsic Value and its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) See p. 127 f. Renan takes the narrative portions as authentic and the discourses as secondary.129.Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker was born in 1822 at Öhringen in Würtemberg. He qualified as Privat-Docent in 1847 and, after acting in the meantime as Court-Chaplain and Oberkonsistorialrat at Stuttgart, became in 1861 the successor of Baur at Tübingen. He died in 1899.130.The works of a Dutch writer named Stricker,Jesus von Nazareth(1868), and of the Englishman Sir Richard Hanson,The Jesus of History(1869), were based on Mark without any reference to John.131.1, Mark i.; 2, Mark ii. 1-iii. 6; 3, Mark iii. 7-19; 4, Mark iii. 19-iv. 34; 5, Mark iv. 35-vi. 6; 6, Mark vi. 7-vii. 37; 7, Mark viii. 1-ix. 50.132.Holtzmann,Kommentar zu den Synoptikern, 1889, p. 184. The form of the expression (Fluchtwege und Reisen) is derived from Keim.133.“Thus the course of Jesus' life hastened forward to its tragic close, a close which was foreseen and predicted by Jesus Himself with ever-growing clearness as the sole possible close, but also that which alone was worthy of Himself, and which was necessary as being foreseen and predetermined in the counsel of God. The hatred of the Pharisees and the indifference of the people left from the first no other prospect open. That hatred could not but be called forth in the fullest measure by the ruthless severity with which Jesus exposed all that it was and implied—a heart in which there was no room for love, a morality inwardly riddled with decay, an outward show of virtue, a hypocritical arrogance. Between two such unyielding opponents—a man who, to all appearance, aimed at using the Messianic expectations of the people for his own ends, and a hierarchy as tenacious of its claims and as sensitive to their infringement as any that has ever existed—it was certain that the breach must soon become irreparable. It was easy to foresee, too, that even in Galilee only a minority of the people would dare to face with Him the danger of such a breach. There was only one thing that could have averted the death sentence which had been early determined upon—a series of vigorous, unambiguous demonstrations on the part of the people. In order to provoke such demonstrations Jesus would have needed, if only for the moment, to take into His service the popular, powerful, inflammatory Messianic ideas, or rather, would have needed to place Himself at their service. His refusal to enter, by so much as a single step, upon this course, which from any ordinary point of view of human policy would have been legitimate, because the only practicable one, was the sole sufficient and all-explaining cause of His destruction.”—Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 485, 486.134.“Ein innerliches Reich der Sinnesänderung.”“Sinnesänderung”corresponds more exactly than“repentance”to the Greek μετάνοια (change of mind, change of attitude), but thephraseis no less elliptical in German than in English. The meaning is doubtless“kingdom based upon repentance, consisting of those who have fulfilled this condition.”135.Omitted in some of the best texts.—F. C. B.136.Oskar Holtzmann,Das Leben Jesu, 1901.137.Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu.(Modern Presentments of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the works of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the Essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A lecture by Chr. Ernest Luthardt, Leipzig. 1st and 2nd editions, 1864. Luthardt was born in 1823 at Maroldsweisach in Lower Franconia, became Docent at Erlangen in 1851, was called to Marburg as Professor Extraordinary in 1854, and to Leipzig as Ordinary Professor in 1856. He died in 1902.138.Zur Orientierung über meine Schrift“Das Charakterbild Jesu.”(Explanations intended to place my work“A Picture of the Character of Jesus”in the proper light.) 1864.Die protestantische Freiheit in ihrem gegenwärtigen Kampfe mit der kirchlichen Reaktion.(Protestant Freedom in its present Struggle with Ecclesiastical Reaction.) 1865.139.Der Schenkel'sche Handel in Baden.(The Schenkel Controversy in Baden.) (A corrected reprint from number 441 of theNational-Zeitungof September 21, 1864.) An appendix toDer Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. 1865.140.Theodor Keim,Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus of Nazara in Relation to the General Life of His People, freely examined and fully narrated.) 3 vols. Zurich, 1867-1872. Vol. i. The Day of Preparation; vol. ii. The Year of Teaching in Galilee; vol. iii. The Death-Passover (Todesostern) in Jerusalem. A short account in a more popular form appeared in 1872,Geschichte Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus according to the Results of Present-day Criticism, briefly narrated for the General Reader.) 2nd ed., 1875.Karl Theodor Keim was born in 1825 at Stuttgart, was Repetent at Tübingen from 1851 to 1855, and after he had been five years in the ministry, became Professor at Zurich in 1860. In 1873 he accepted a call to Giessen, where he died in 1878.141.Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi.See Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 7-9. This dissertation was followed byDer geschichtliche Christus. 3rd ed., 1866.142.Geschichte Jesu.2nd ed., 1875, pp. 228 and 229.143.The ultimate reason why Keim deliberately gives such prominence to the eschatology is that he holds to Matthew, and is therefore more under the direct impression of the masses of discourse in this Gospel, charged, as they are, with eschatological ideas, than those writers who find their primary authority in Mark, where these discourses are lacking.144.Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen von Dr. Karl Hase.1876. Special mention ought also to be made of the fine sketch of the Life of Jesus in A. Hausrath'sNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte(History of New Testament Times), 1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff.; 3rd ed., 1 vol., 1879, pp. 325-515;Die zeitgeschichtlichen Beziehungen des Lebens Jesu(The Relations of the Life of Jesus to the History of His time).Adolf Hausrath was born at Karlsruhe. He was appointed Professor of Theology at Heidelberg in 1867, and died in 1909.145.Das Leben Jesu, von Willibald Beyschlag: Pt. i. Preliminary Investigations, 1885, 450 pp.; pt. ii. Narrative, 1886, 495 pp. Joh. Heinr. Christoph Willibald Beyschlag was born in 1823 at Frankfort-on-Main, and went to Halle as Professor in 1860. His splendid eloquence made him one of the chief spokesmen of German Protestantism. As a teacher he exercised a remarkable and salutary influence, although his scientific works are too much under the dominance of an apologetic of the heart. He died in 1900.146.Bernhard Weiss,Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. Berlin, 1882. See alsoDas Markusevangelium, 1872;Das Matthäusevangelium, 1876; and theLehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 5th ed., 1888. Bernhard Weiss was born in 1827 at Königsberg, where he qualified as Privat-Docent in 1852. In 1863 he went as Ordinary Professor to Kiel, and was called to Berlin in the same capacity in 1877.Among the distinctly liberal Lives of Jesus of an earlier date, that of W. Krüger-Velthusen (Elberfeld, 1872, 271 pp.) might be mentioned if it were not so entirely uncritical. Although the author does not hold the Fourth Gospel to be apostolic he has no hesitation in making use of it as an historical source.There is more sentiment than science, too, in the work of M. G. Weitbrecht,Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 1881.A weakness in the treatment of the Johannine question and a want of clearness on some other points disfigures the three-volume Life of Jesus of the Paris professor, E. Stapfer, which is otherwise marked by much acumen and real depth of feeling. Vol. i.Jésus-Christ avant son ministère(Fischbacher, Paris, 1896); vol. ii.Jésus-Christ pendant son ministère(1897); vol. iii.La Mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ(1898).F. Godet writes of“The Life of Jesus before His Public Appearance”(German translation by M. Reineck,Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten. Hanover, 1897).G. Längin founds hisDer Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum(The Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897-1898.The EnglishLife of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, D. D. (now Professor of Church History in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen), passed through numberless editions (German, 1898; Tübingen, 4th ed., 1901).Very pithy and interesting is Dr. Percy Gardner'sExploratio Evangelica.A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief.1899; 2nd ed., 1907.A work which is free from all compromise is H. Ziegler'sDer geschichtliche Christus(The Historical Christ). 1891. For this reason the five lectures, delivered in Liegnitz, out of which it is composed, attracted such unfavourable attention that the Ecclesiastical Council took proceedings against the author. (See theChristliche Welt, 1891, pp. 563-568, 874-877.)147.Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Einleitung, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares himself in theTheologische Literaturzeitungfor 1882, No. 23, andDas apostolische Zeitalter, 2nd ed., 1890.Hase and Schenkel accepted this position in principle, but were careful to keep open a line of retreat.Towards the end of the 'seventies the rejection of the Fourth Gospel as an historical source was almost universally recognised in the critical camp. It is taken for granted in the Life of Jesus by Karl Wittichen (Jena, 1876, 397 pp.), which might be reckoned one of the most clearly conceived works of this kind based on the Marcan hypothesis if its arrangement were not so bad. It is partly in the form of a commentary, inasmuch as the presentment of the life takes the form of a discussion of sixty-seven sections. The detail is very interesting. It makes an impression ofnaïvetéwhen we find a series of sections grouped under the title,“The establishment ofChristianityin Galilee.”No stress is laid on the significance of Jesus' journey to the north. Wittichen, also, misled by Luke, asserts, just as Weisse had done, that Jesus had worked in Judaea for some time prior to the triumphal entry.148.H. H. Wendt,Die Lehre Jesu, vol. i.Die evangelischen Quellenberichte über die Lehre Jesu.(The Record of the Teaching of Jesus in the Gospel Sources.) 354 pp. Göttingen, 1886; vol. ii., 1890; Eng. trans., 1892. Second German edition in one vol., 626 pp., 1901. See also the same writer'sDas Johannesevangelium.Untersuchung seiner Entstehung und seines geschichtlichen Wertes, 1900. (The Gospel of John: an Investigation of its Origin and Historical Value.) Hans Heinrich Wendt was born in 1853 at Hamburg, qualified as Privat-Docent in 1877 at Göttingen, was subsequently Extraordinary Professor at Kiel and Heidelberg, and now works at Jena.149.Johannis Lightfooti, Doctoris Angli et Collegii S. Catharinae in Cantabrigiensi Academia Praefecti, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas ... nunc secundum in Germania junctim cum Indicibus locorum Scripturae rerumque ac verborum necessariis editae e Museo Io. Benedicti Carpzovii. Lipsiae. Anno MDCLXXXIV.150.The pioneer works in the study of apocalyptic were Dillmann'sHenoch, 1851; and Hilgenfeld'sJüdische Apokalyptik, 1857.151.Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern, von Gustav Volkmar, Zurich, 1882. To which must be added:Markus und die Synopse der Evangelien, nach dem urkundlichen Text; und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu. (Mark and Synoptic Material in the Gospels, according to the original text; and the historical elements in the Life of Jesus.) Zurich, 1869; 2nd edition, 1876, 738 pp. Volkmar was born in 1809, and was living at Fulda as a Gymnasium (High School) teacher, when in 1852 he was arrested by the Hessian Government on account of his political views, and subsequently deprived of his post. In 1853 he went to Zurich, where a new prospect opened to him as a Docent in theology. He died in 1893.152.Kienlen,“Die eschatologische Rede Jesu Matt. xxiv. cum Parall.”(The Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in Matt. xxiv. with the parallel passages),Jahrbuch für die Theologie, 1869, pp. 706-709. Analysis of other attempts directed to the same end in Weiffenbach,Der Wiederkunftsgedanke, p. 31 ff.153.Wilhelm Weiffenbach, Director of the Seminary for Theological Students at Friedberg, was born in 1842 at Bornheim in Rhenish Hesse.154.The English reader will find a constructive analysis of what is known as the“Little Apocalypse”inEncyclopaedia Biblica, art.“Gospels,”col. 1857. It consists of the verses Matt. xxiv. 6-8, 15-22, 29-31, 34, corresponding to Mark xiii. 7-9a, 14-20, 24-27, 30. According to the theory first sketched by Colani these verses formed an independent Apocalypse which was embedded in the Gospel by the Evangelist.—F. C. B.155.Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, 1864, pp. 121-126.156.“Über die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.”(The Composition of the Eschatological Discourse in Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.),Jahrbuch f. d. Theol.vol. xiii., 1868, pp. 134-149.157.By“Capernaitic”Weiffenbach apparently means literalistic; cf. John vi. 52 f.158.Wilhelm Baldensperger, at present Professor at Giessen, was born in 1856 at Mülhausen in Alsace.159.A new edition appeared in 1891. There is no fundamental alteration, but in consequence of the polemic against opponents who had arisen in the meantime it is fuller. The first part of a third edition appeared in 1903 under the titleDie messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums.See also the interesting use made of Late-Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred Edersheim'sThe Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2nd ed., London, 1884, 2 vols.160.Emil Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ.) 2nd ed., part second, 1886, pp. 417 ff. Here is to be found also a bibliography of the older literature of the subject. 3rd ed., 1889, vol. ii. pp. 498 ff.Emil Schürer was born at Augsburg in 1844, and from 1873 onwards was successively Professor at Leipzig, Giessen, and Kiel, and is now (1909) at Göttingen.The latest presentment of Jewish apocalyptic isDie jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, by Paul Volz, Pastor in Leonberg. Tübingen, 1903. 412 pp. The material is very completely given. Unfortunately the author has chosen the systematic method of treating his subject, instead of tracing the history of its development, the only right way. As a consequence Jesus and Paul occupy far too little space in this survey of Jewish apocalyptic. For a treatment of the origin of Jewish eschatology from the point of view of the history of religion see Hugo Gressmann, now Professor at Berlin,Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie(The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology), Göttingen, 1905. 377 pp.161.Johannes Weiss, now Professor at Marburg, was born at Kiel in 1863.162.It may be mentioned that this work had been preceded (in 1891) by two Leiden prize dissertations,Über die Lehre vom Reich Gottes im Neuen Testament(Concerning the Kingdom of God in the New Testament), one of them by Issel, the other, which lays especially strong emphasis upon the eschatology, by Schmoller.163.Wilhelm Bousset, now Professor in Göttingen, born 1865 at Lübeck164.Theol. Rundschau(1901), 4, pp. 89-103.165.W. Bousset,Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament. (The Origin of Apocalyptic as indicated by Comparative Religion, and its significance for the understanding of the New Testament.) Berlin, 1903. 67 pp. See also W. Bousset,Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 512 pp., 1902. For the assertion of Parsic influences see also Stave,Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum. Haarlem, 1898.166.Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein.Freiburg, 1895, 119 pp. See also his inaugural dissertation of 1896,Le Principe de la morale de Jésus. Paris, 1896.A. K. Rogers,The Life and Teachings of Jesus; a Critical Analysis, etc.(London and New York, 1894), regards Jesus' teaching as purely ethical, refusing to admit any eschatology at all.167.Paris, 2 vols., 500 and 512 pp.168.W. Weiffenbach,Die Frage der Wiederkunst Jesu. (The Question concerning the Second Coming of Jesus.) Friedberg, 1901.169.A. Titius,Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart. I. Teil:Jesu Lehre vom Reich Gottes. (The New Testament Doctrine of Blessedness and its Significance for the Present. Pt. I., Jesus' Doctrine of the Kingdom of God.) Arthur Titius, now Professor at Kiel, was born in 1864 at Sensburg.170.Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien, 167 pp. Erich Haupt, now Professor in Halle, was born in 1841 at Stralsund.171.Cf. the preface to the 2nd ed. of Joh. Weiss'sDie Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen, 1900.172.Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901, 410 pp.; 2nd ed., 1904. Paul Wernle, now Professor of Church History at Basle, was born in Zurich, 1872.173.Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 163-168; 2nd ed., 1895, pp. 198-204; 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901, pp. 380-394. See also hisSkizzen(Sketches), pp. 6, 187 ff.See also J. Wellhausen,Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, 2nd ed., 1909;Das Evangelium Matthäi, 1904;Das Evangelium Lucae, 1904.Julius Wellhausen, now Professor at Göttingen, was born in 1844 at Hameln.174.Emil Schürer,Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi. (The Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 1903, 24 pp.According to J. Meinhold, too, inJesus und das alte Testament(Jesus and the Old Testament), 1896, Jesus did not purpose to be the Messiah of Israel.175.Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu.(The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity considered in the light of a critical investigation of the Reports of the Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus.) By Dr. W. Brandt, Leipzig, 1893, 588 pp.Wilhelm Brandt was born in 1855 of German parents in Amsterdam and became a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1891 he resigned this office and studied in Strassburg and Berlin. In 1893 he was appointed to lecture in General History of Religion as a member of the theological faculty of Amsterdam.176.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Vol. i., 1888. The substance of it had already been published in a different form. Freiburg, 1886.Adolf Jülicher, at present Professor in Marburg, was born in 1857 at Falkenberg.177.W. Bousset,Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Göttingen, 1892.178.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2nd pt. (Exposition of the Parables in the first three Gospels.) Freiburg, 1899, 641 pp.Chr. A. Bugge,Die Hauptparabeln Jesu(The most important Parables of Jesus), German, from the Norwegian, Giessen, 1903, rightly remarks on the obscure and inexplicable character of some of the parables, but makes no attempt to deal with it from the historical point of view.179.Arnold Meyer,Jesu Muttersprache, 1896. P. W. Schmidt, too, in hisGeschichte Jesu(Freiburg, 1899), defends the same interpretation, and seeks to explain this obscure saying by the other about the“strait gate.”180.Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1900, p. 192 ff.181.Stud. Krit., 1836, pp. 90-122.182.See alsoDie Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern. (The Conceptions of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels.) By Ludwig Paul. Bonn, 1895. 130 pp. This comprehensive study discusses all the problems which are referred to below. Matt. xi. 12-14 is discussed under the heading“The Hinderers of the Kingdom of God.”183.A. Hilgenfeld,Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1888, pp. 488-498; 1892, pp. 445-464.184.Orello Cone,“Jesus' Self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels,”The New World, 1893, pp. 492-518.185.H. L. Oort,Die uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament. (The Expression Son of Man in the New Testament.) Leyden, 1893.186.R. H. Charles,“The Son of Man,”Expos. Times, 1893.187.Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament.(Jewish Apocalyptic in its religious-historical origin and in its significance for the New Testament.) 1903.On the eschatology of Jesus see also Schwartzkoppf,Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinen Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung. (The Predictions of Jesus Christ concerning His Death, His Resurrection, and Second Coming, and their Fulfilment.) 1895.P. Wernle,Die Reichgotteshofnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus. (The Hope of the Kingdom of God in the most ancient Christian Documents and as held by Jesus.)188.Arnold Meyer, now Professor of New Testament Theology and Pastoral Theology at Zurich, and formerly at Bonn, was born at Wesel in 1861.189.Giambern. de Rossi,Dissertazione della lingua propria di Christo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da' Tempi de' Maccabei in disamina del sentimento di un recente scrittore Italiano. Parma, 1772.190.Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias.(Matthew's account of Jesus the Messiah.) Altona, 1792. According to Meyer, p. 105 ff., this was a very striking performance.191.The name Chaldee was due to the mistaken belief that the language in which parts of Daniel and Ezra were written was really the vernacular of Babylonia. That vernacular, now known to us from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions, is a Semitic language, but quite different from Aramaic.—F. C. B.192.Emil Friedrich Kautzsch was born in 1841 at Plauen in Saxony, and studied in Leipzig, where he became Privat-Docent in 1869. In 1872 he was called as Professor to Basle, in 1880 to Tübingen, in 1888 to Halle.193.Gustaf Dalman, Professor at Leipzig, was born in 1865 at Niesky. In addition to the works of his named above, see alsoDer leidende und der sterbende Messias(The Suffering and Dying Messiah), 1888; andWas sagt der Talmud über Jesum?(What does the Talmud say about Jesus?), 1891.194.2 Kings xviii. 26 ff.195.Studia BiblicaI.Essays in Biblical Archæology and Criticism and Kindred Subjects by Members of the University of Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1885, pp. 39-74. See Meyer, p. 29 ff.196.Franz Delitzsch,Die Bücher des Neuen Testaments aus dem Griechischen ins Hebräische übersetzt. 1877. (The Books of the N.T. translated from Greek into Hebrew.) This work has been circulated by thousands among Jews throughout the whole world.Delitzsch was born in 1813 at Leipzig and became Privat-Docent there in 1842, went to Rostock as Professor in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and returned in 1867 to Leipzig. By conviction he was a strict Lutheran in theology. He was one of the leading experts in Late-Jewish and Talmudic literature. He died in 1890.197.See Meyer, p. 47 ff.198.See Meyer, p. 61 ff.199.Hans Lietzmann, now Professor in Jena, was born in 1875 at Düsseldorf. Until his call to Jena he worked as a Privat-Docent at Bonn. He has done some very meritorious work in the publication of Early Christian writings.200.See Meyer, p. 141 ff.201.“De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking 'Zoon des Menschen' als evangelische Messiastitel,”Theol. Tijdschr., 1894. (The Origin of the Expression“Son of Man”as a Title of the Messiah in the Gospels.)202.H. Lietzmann,“Zur Menschensohnfrage”(The Son-of-Man Problem),Theol. Arb. des Rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins, 1898.203.N. Schmidt,“Was בן נשא a Messianic title?”Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature, xv., 1896.204.P. Schmiedel,“Der Name Menschensohn und das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu”(The Designation Son of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus), 1898,Prot. Monatsh.2, pp. 252-267.205.H. Gunkel,Z. w. Th., 1899, 42, pp. 581-611.206.For the last phase of the discussion we may name:Wellhausen,Skizzen und Vorarbeiten(Sketches and Studies), 1899, pp. 187-215, where he throws further light on Dalman's philological objections; and goes on to deny Jesus' use of the expression.W. Baldensperger,“Die neueste Forschung über den Menschensohn,”Theol. Rundschau, 1900, 3, pp. 201-210, 243-255.P. Fiebig,Der Menschensohn. Tübingen, 1901.P. W. Schmiedel,“Die neueste Auffassung des Namens Menschensohn,”Prot. Monatsh.5, pp. 333-351, 1901. (The Latest View of the Designation Son of Man.)P. W. Schmidt,Die Geschichte Jesu, ii. (Erläuterungen—Explanations). Tübingen, 1904, p. 157 ff.207.Dalman's reputation as an authority upon Jewish Aramaic is so deservedly high, that it is necessary to point out that his solution did not, as Dr. Schweitzer seems to say, entirely dispose of the linguistic difficulties raised by Lietzmann as to the meaning and use ofbarnâshandbarnâshâin Aramaic. The English reader will find the linguistic facts well put in sections 4 and 32 of N. Schmidt's article“Son of Man”inEncyclopædia Biblica(cols. 4708, 4723), or he may consult Prof. Bevan's review of Dalman'sWorte Jesuin theCritical Reviewfor 1899, p. 148 ff. The main point is that ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are equally legitimate translations ofbarnâshâ. Thus the contrast in the Greek between ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark ii. 27 and 28, or again in Mark viii. 36 and 38, disappears on retranslation into the dialect spoken by Jesus. Whether this linguistic fact makes the sayings in which ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs unhistorical is a further question, upon which scholars can take, and have taken, opposite opinions.—F. C. B.208.SeeWorte Jesu, 1898, p. 191 ff. (= E. T. p. 234 ff.).209.See the classical discussion in J. Weiss,Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes, 1892, 1st ed., p. 52 ff.In the second edition, of 1900, p. 160 ff., he allows himself to be led astray by the“chiefest apostles”of modern theology to indulge in the subtleties of fine-spun psychology, and explain Jesus' way of speaking of Himself in the third person as the Son of Man as due to the“extreme modesty of Jesus,”a modesty which did not forsake Him in the presence of His judges. This recent access of psychologising exegesis has not conduced to clearness of presentation, and the preference for the Lucan narrative does not so much contribute to throw light on the facts as to discover in the thoughts of Jesus subtleties of which the historical Jesus never dreamt. If the Lord always used the term Son of Man when speaking of His Messiahship, the reason was that this was the only way in which He could speak of it at all, since the Messiahship was not yet realised, but was only to be so at the appearing of the Son of Man. For a consistent, purely historical, non-psychological exposition of the Son-of-Man passages see Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. (The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion.) A sketch of the Life of Jesus. Tübingen, 1901.210.See Dalman, p. 60 ff.John Lightfoot,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Edited by J. B. Carpzov. Leipzig, 1684.Christian Schöttgen,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Dresden-Leipzig, 1733.Joh. Gerh. Meuschen,Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum. Leipzig, 1736.J. Jakob. Wettstein,Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amsterdam, 1751 and 1752.F. Nork,Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig, 1839.Franz Delitzsch,“Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,”in theLuth. Zeitsch., 1876-1878.Carl Siegfried,Analecta Rabbinica, 1875;“Rabbin. Analekten,”Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1876.A. Wünsche,Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Contributions to the Exposition of the Gospels from Talmud and Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878.211.Leipzig, 1880; 2nd ed., 1897.212.Cf. for what follows, Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 164 ff.213.Robert Sheringham of Caius College, Cambridge, a royalist divine, published an edition of the Talmudic tractateYoma. London, 1648.—F. C. B.214.T. Tal,Professor Oort und der Talmud, 1880. See upon this Van Manen,Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1884, p. 569. The best collection of Talmudic parables is, according to Jülicher, that of Prof. Guis. Levi, translated by L. Seligman asParabeln, Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch. Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1877.215.The question may be said to have been provisionally settled by Paul Fiebig's work,Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu(Ancient Jewish Parables and the Parables of Jesus), Tübingen, 1904, in which he gives some fifty Late-Jewish parables, and compares them with those of Jesus, the final result being to show more clearly than ever the uniqueness and absoluteness of His creations.216.See the explanation by means of the Aramaic of a selection of the sayings of Jesus in Meyer, pp. 72-90. A Judaism more under Parsee influence is assumed as explaining the origin of Christianity by E. Böklen,Die Verwandschaft der jüdisch-christlichen mit der parsischen Eschatologie(The Relation of Jewish-Christian to Persian Eschatology), 1902, 510 ff.217.The same view is expressed by Wellhausen,Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 3rd ed., p. 381, note 2; and by Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, 1901.218.See the Apocalypse of Baruch, and Fourth Ezra.219.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ, par Nicolas Notowitsch. Paris, 1894.220.See Jülicher,Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 172 ff.221.Max Müller,India, What can it teach us?London, 1883, p. 279.222.Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig,Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relation to the Buddha Legend and the Teaching of Buddha, with constant reference to other religious groups.) Leipzig, 1882, p. 337.Other works by the same author areBuddha und Christus. Deutsche Bücherei No. 33, Breslau, Schottländer, 1884.Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien.2nd ed. Weimar, 1897. (Edited by the son of the late author.) 129 pp.See also on this question Van den Bergh van Eysinga,Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen. Göttingen, 1904. 104 pp.According to J. M. Robertson,Christianity and Mythology(London, 1900), the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition is to be symbolically interpreted.223.Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments, 1905.224.Heinrich Julius Holtzmann,Handkommentar.Die Synoptiker.1st ed., 1889; 3rd ed., 1901.Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1896, vol. i.225.In the Catholic Church the study of the Life of Jesus has remained down to the present day entirely free from scepticism. The reason of that is, that in principle it has remained at a pre-Straussian standpoint, and does not venture upon an unreserved application of historical considerations either to the miracle question or to the Johannine question, and naturally therefore resigns the attempt to take account of and explain the great historical problems.We may name the following Lives of Jesus produced by German Catholic writers:—Joh. Nep. Sepp,Das Leben Jesu Christi. Regensburg, 1843-1846. 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1853-1862.Peter Schegg,Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu. (The Life of Jesus in Six Books.) Freiburg, 1874-1875. c. 1200 pp.Joseph Grimm,Das Leben Jesu. Würzburg, 2nd ed., 1890-1903. 6 vols.Richard von Kralik,Jesu Leben und Werk. Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904. 481 pp.W. Capitaine,Jesus von Nazareth. Regensburg, 1905. 192 pp.How narrow are the limits within which the Catholic study of the life of Jesus moves even when it aims at scientific treatment, is illustrated by Hermann Schell'sChristus(Mainz, 1903. 152 pp.). After reading the forty-two questions with which he introduces his narrative one might suppose that the author was well aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus, and intended to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work proceeds more and more the rôle of an apologist, not facing definitely either the miracle question or the Johannine question, but gliding over the difficulties by the aid of ingenious headings, so that in the end his book almost takes the form of an explanatory text to the eighty-nine illustrations which adorn the book and make it difficult to read.In France, Renan's work gave the incentive to an extensive Catholic“Life-of-Jesus”literature. We may name the following:—Louis Veuillot,La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1864. 509 pp. German by Waldeyer. Köln-Neuss, 1864. 573 pp.H. Wallon,Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1865. 355 pp.A work which met with a particularly favourable reception was that of Père Didon, the Dominican,Jésus-Christ, Paris, 1891, 2 vols., vol. i. 483 pp., vol. ii. 469 pp. The German translation is dated 1895.In the same year there appeared a new edition of the“Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ”(see above, p.109f.) by Katharina Emmerich; the cheap popular edition of the translation of Renan's“Life of Jesus”; and the eighth edition of Strauss's“Life of Jesus for the German People.”We may quote from the ecclesiasticalApprobationprinted at the beginning of Didon's Life of Jesus.“If the author sometimes seems to speak the language of his opponents, it is at once evident that he has aimed at defeating them on their own ground, and he is particularly successful in doing so when he confronts their irreligious a priori theories with the positive arguments of history.”As a matter of fact the work is skilfully written, but without a spark of understanding of the historical questions.All honour to Alfred Loisy! (Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1903, 960 pp.), who takes a clear view on the Johannine question, and denies the existence of a Johannine historical tradition. But what that means for the Catholic camp may be recognised from the excitement produced by the book and its express condemnation. See also the same writer'sL'Évangile et l'Église(German translation, Munich, 1904, 189 pp.), in which Loisy here and there makes good historical points against Harnack's“What is Christianity?”226.Oskar Holtzmann, Professor of Theology at Giessen, was born in 1859 at Stuttgart.227.This suggestion reminds us involuntarily of the old rationalistic Lives of Jesus, which are distressed that Jesus should have injured the good people of the country of the Gesarenes by sacrificing their swine in healing the demoniac. A good deal of old rationalistic material crops up in the very latest Lives of Jesus, as cannot indeed fail to be the case in view of the arbitrary interpretation of detail which is common to both. According to Oskar Holtzmann the barren fig-tree has also a symbolical meaning.“It is a pledge given by God to Jesus that His faith shall not be put to shame in the great work of His life.”228.Isaiah lxii. 11,“Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh.”229.“For Jesus Himself,”Oskar Holtzmann argues,“this discovery”—he means the antinomy which He had discovered in Psalm cx.—“disposed of a doubt which had always haunted him. If He had really known Himself to be descended from the Davidic line, He would certainly not have publicly suggested a doubt as to the Davidic descent of the Messiah.”230.Oskar Holtzmann's work,War Jesus Ekstatiker?(Tübingen, 1903, 139 pp.) is in reality a new reading of the life of Jesus. By emphasising the ecstatic element he breaks with the“natural”conception of the life and teaching of Jesus; and, in so far, approaches the eschatological view. But he gives a very wide significance to the term ecstatic, subsuming under it, it might almost be said, all the eschatological thoughts and utterances of Jesus. He explains, for instance, that“the conviction of the approaching destruction of existing conditions is ecstatic.”At the same time, the only purpose served by the hypothesis of ecstasy is to enable the author to attribute to Jesus“The belief that in His own work the Kingdom of God was already beginning, and the promise of the Kingdom to individuals; this can only be considered ecstatic.”The opposites which Bousset brings together by the conception of paradox are united by Holtzmann by means of the hypothesis of ecstasy. That is, however, to play fast and loose with the meaning of“ecstasy.”An ecstasy is, in the usual understanding of the word, an abnormal, transient condition of excitement in which the subject's natural capacity for thought and feeling, and therewith all impressions from without, are suspended, being superseded by an intense mental excitation and activity. Jesus may possibly have been in an ecstatic state at His baptism and at the transfiguration. What O. Holtzmann represents as a kind of permanent ecstatic state is rather an eschatological fixed idea. With eschatology, ecstasy has no essential connexion. It is possible to be eschatologically minded without being an ecstatic, and vice versa. Philo attributes a great importance to ecstasy in his religious life, but he was scarcely, if at all, interested in eschatology.231.P. W. Schmidt, now Professor in Basle, was born in Berlin in 1845.232.Otto Schmiedel, Professor at the Gymnasium at Eisenach,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. Schmiedel was born in 1858.Hermann Freiherr von Soden,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. Von Soden, Professor in Berlin, and preacher at the Jerusalem Kirche, was born in 1852.We may mention also the following works:—Fritz Barth (born 1856, Professor at Bern),Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu. 1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1903.Friedrich Nippold'sDer Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien(The Course of the Life of Jesus in the Words of the First Three Evangelists) (Hamburg, 1895, 213 pp.) is only an arrangement of the sections.Konrad Furrer'sVorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi(Lectures on the Life of Jesus Christ) have a special charm by reason of the author's knowledge of the country and the locality. Furrer, who was born in 1838, is Professor at Zurich.Another work which should not be forgotten is R. Otto'sLeben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung(Life and Work of Jesus from the Point of View of Historical Criticism). A Lecture. Göttingen, 1902. Rudolf Otto, born in 1869, is Privat-Docent at Göttingen.233.Schmiedel is not altogether right in making“the Heidelberg Professor Paulus”follow the same lines as Reimarus,“except that his works, of 1804 and 1828, are less malignant, but only the more dull for that.”In reality the deistic Life of Jesus by Reimarus, and the rationalistic Life by Paulus have nothing in common. Paulus was perhaps influenced by Venturini, but not by Reimarus. The assertion that Strauss wrote his“Life of Jesus for the German people”because“Renan's fame gave him no peace”is not justified, either by Strauss's character or by the circumstances in which the second Life of Jesus was produced.234.Von Soden gives on pp. 24 ff. the passages of Mark which he supposes to be derived from the Petrine tradition in a different order from that in which they occur in Mark, regrouping them freely. He puts together, for instance, Mark i. 16-20, iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27-ix. 1, ix. 33-40, under the title“The formation and training of the band of disciples.”He supposes Mark, the pupil of Peter, to have grouped in this way by a kind of association of ideas“what he had heard Peter relate in his missionary journeys, when writing it down after Peter's death, not connectedly, but giving as much as he could remember of it”; this would be in accordance with the statement of Papias that Mark wrote“not in order.”Papias's statement, therefore, refers to an“Ur-Markus,”which he found lacking in historical order.But what are we to make of a representative of the early Church thus approaching the Gospels with the demand for historical arrangement? And good, simple old Papias, of all people!But if the Marcan plan was not laid down in“Ur-Markus,”there is nothing for it—since the plan was certainly not given in the collection of Logia—but to ascribe it to the author of our Gospel of Mark, to the man, that is, who wrote down for the first time these“Pauline conceptions,”those reflections of experiences of individual believers and of the community, and inserted them into the Gospel. It is proposed, then, to retain the outline which he has given of the life of Jesus, and reject at the same time what he relates. That is to say, he is to be believed where it is convenient to believe him, and silenced where it is inconvenient. No more complete refutation of the Marcan hypothesis could possibly be given than this analysis, for it destroys its very foundation, the confident acceptance of the historicity of the Marcan plan.If there is to be an analysis of sources in Mark, then the Marcan plan must be ascribed to“Ur-Markus,”otherwise the analysis renders the Markan hypothesis historically useless. But if“Ur-Markus”is to be reconstructed on the basis of assigning to it the Marcan plan, then we cannot separate the natural from the supernatural, for the supernatural scenes, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, are among the main features of the Marcan outline.No hypothetical analysis of“Ur-Markus”has escaped this dilemma; what it can effect by literary methods is historically useless, and what would be historically useful cannot be attained nor“presented”by literary methods.235.Von Soden, for instance, germanises Jesus when he writes,“and this nature is sound to the core. In spite of its inwardness there is no trace of an exaggerated sentimentality. In spite of all the intensity of prayer there is nothing of ecstasy or vision. No apocalyptic dream-pictures find a lodging-place in His soul.”Is a man who teaches a world-renouncing ethic which sometimes soars to the dizzy heights such as that of Matt. xix. 12, according to our conceptions“sound to the core”? And does not the life of Jesus present a number of occasions on which He seems to have been in an ecstasy?Thus, von Soden has not simply read his Jesus out of the texts, but has added something of his own, and that something is Germanic in colouring.236.i.e.the MS. Life of Jesus written by Kai Jans, one of the characters of the novel. The way in which the whole life-experience of this character prepares him for the writing of the Life is strikingly—if not always acceptably—worked out.—Translator.237.Frenssen's Kai Jans professes to have used the“results of the whole range of critical investigation”in writing his work. Among the books which he enumerates and recommends in the after-word, we miss the works of Strauss, Weisse, Keim, Volkmar, and Brandt, and, generally speaking, the names of those who in the past have done something really great and original. Of the moderns, Johannes Weiss is lacking. Wrede is mentioned, but is virtually ignored. Pfleiderer's remarkable and profound presentation of Jesus in theUrchristentum(E. T.“Primitive Christianity,”vol. ii., 1909) is non-existent so far as he is concerned.238.Heimatkunst, the ideal that every production of German art should be racy of the soil. It has its relative justification as a protest against the long subservience of some departments of German art to French taste.—Translator.239.The Jesus of H. S. Chamberlain'sWorte Christi, 1901, 286 pp., is also modern. But the modernity is not so obtrusive, because he describes only the teaching of Jesus, not His life.240.Born in 1839 at Stettin. Studied at Tübingen, was appointed Professor in 1870 at Jena and in 1875 at Berlin. (Died 1908.)241.Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben.2nd ed. Berlin, 1902. Vol. i. (696 pp.), 615 ff.:Die Predigt Jesu und der Glaube der Urgemeinde(English Translation,“Primitive Christianity,”chap. xvi.). Pfleiderer's latest views are set forth in his work, based on academic lectures,Die Entstehung des Urchristentums. (How Christianity arose.) Munich, 1905. 255 pp.242.Albert Kalthoff,Das Christusproblem.Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie.(The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. 87 pp.Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem.(How Christianity arose.) Leipzig, 1904. 155 pp.Albert Kalthoff was born in 1850 at Barmen, and is engaged in pastoral work in Bremen.243.Das Leben Jesu.Lectures delivered before the Protestant Reform Society at Berlin. Berlin, 1880. 173 pp.244.If Kalthoff would only have spoken of the conception of the resurrection instead of the conception of immortality! Then his subjective knowledge would have been more or less tolerable.245.Against Kalthoff: Wilhelm Bousset,Was wissen wir von Jesus?(What do we know about Jesus?) Lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen. Halle, 1904. 73 pp. In reply: Albert Kalthoff,Was wissen wir von Jesus?A settlement of accounts with Professor Bousset. Berlin, 1904. 43 pp.A sound historical position is set forth in the clear and trenchant lecture of W. Kapp,Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthoff. (The problem of the Christ and of Christianity as handled by Kalthoff.) Strassburg, 1905. 23 pp.246.Eduard von Hartmann,Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments. (The Christianity of the N.T.) 2nd, revised and altered, edition of the“Letters on the Christian Religion.”Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905. 311 pp.247.Eduard von Hartmann ought, therefore, to have given his assistance to the others who have made this assertion in proving that there really existed Messianic claimants before and at the time of Jesus.248.“Jesus,”by Jülicher, inDie Kultur der Gegenwart. (An encyclopaedic publication which is appearing in parts.) Teubner, Berlin, 1905, pp. 40-69.See also W. Bousset,“Jesus,”Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher. (A series of religious-historical monographs.) Published by Schiele, Halle, 1904.Here should be mentioned also the thoughtful book, following very much the lines of Jülicher, by Eduard Grimm, entitledDie Ethik Jesu, Hamburg, 1903, 288 pp. The author, born in 1848, is the chief pastor at the Nicolaikirche in Hamburg.Another work which deserves mention is Arno Neumann,Jesu wie er geschichtlich war(Jesus as he historically existed), Freiburg, 1904, 198 pp. (New Paths to the Old God), a Life of Jesus distinguished by a lofty vein of natural poetry and based upon solid theological knowledge. Arno Neumann is headmaster of a school at Apolda.249.Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes.Berlin, 1904, 112 pp. Earlier studies of the Life of Jesus from the Jewish point of view had been less ambitious. Dr. Aug. Wünsche had written in 1872 on“Jesus in His attitude towards women”from the Talmudic standpoint (146 pp.), and had described Him from the same standpoint as a Jesus who rejoiced in life,Der lebensfreudige Jesus der synoptischen Evangelien im Gegensatz zum leidenden Messias der Kirche. Leipzig, 1876, 444 pp. The basis is so far correct, that the eschatological, world-renouncing ethic which we find in Jesus was due to temporary conditions and is therefore transitory, and had nothing whatever to do with Judaism as such. The spirit of the Law is the opposite of world-renouncing. But the Talmud, be its traditions never so trustworthy, could teach us little about Jesus because it has preserved scarcely a trace of that eschatological phase of Jewish religion and ethics.250.Wolfgang Kirchbach,Was lehrte Jesus? Zwei Urevangelien. Berlin, 1897, 248 pp.; second greatly enlarged and improved edition, 1902, 339 pp. By the same author,Das Buch Jesus.Die Urevangelien. Neu nachgewiesen, neu übersetzt, geordnet und aus der Ursprache erklärt. (The Book of Jesus. The Primitive Gospels. Newly traced, translated, arranged, and explained on the basis of the original.) Berlin, 1897.251.Before him, Hugo Delff, in hisHistory of the Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth(Leipzig, 1889, 428 pp.), had confined himself to the Fourth Gospel, and even within that Gospel he drew some critical distinctions. His Jesus at first conceals His Messiahship from the fear of arousing the political expectations of the people, and speaks to them of the Son of Man in the third person. At His second visit to Jerusalem He breaks with the rulers, is subsequently compelled, in consequence of the conflict over the Sabbath, to leave Galilee, and then gives up His own people and turns to the heathen. Delff explains the raising of Lazarus by supposing him to have been buried in a state of trance.252.Albert Dulk,Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu.In geschichtlicher Aufassung dargestellt. Erster Teil: Die historischen Wurzeln und die galiläische Blüte, 1884. 395 pp.Zweiter Teil: Der Messiaseinzug und die Erhebung ans Kreuz, 1885, 302 pp. (The Error of the Life of Jesus. Historically apprehended and set forth. Pt. i., The Historical Roots and the Galilaean Blossom. Pt. ii., The Messianic Entry and the Crucifixion.) The course of Dulk's own life was somewhat erratic. Born in 1819, he came prominently forward in the revolution of 1848, as a political pamphleteer and agitator. Later, though almost without means, he undertook long journeys, even to Sinai and to Lapland. Finally, he worked as a social democratic reformer. He died in 1884.253.A scientific treatment of this subject is supplied by Fr. Nippold,Die psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu(The Psychiatric Side of Jesus' Works of Healing), 1889, in which a luminous review of the medical material is to be found. See also Dr. K. Kunz,Christus medicus, Freiburg in Baden, 1905, 74 pp. The scientific value of this work is, however, very much reduced by the fact that the author has no acquaintance with the preliminary questions belonging to the sphere of history and literature, and regards all the miracles of healing as actual events, believing himself able to explain them from the medical point of view. The tendency of the work is mainly apologetic.254.Jesus von Nazareth. Described from the Scientific, Historical, and Social Point of View.Translated from the French (into German) by A. Just. Leipzig, 1894. The author, whose real name is P. A. Desjardin, is a practising physician. De Régla, too, makes the Fourth Gospel the basis of his narrative.255.Pierre Nahor (Emilie Lerou),Jesus. Translated from the French by Walter Bloch. Berlin, 1905. Its motto is: The figure of Jesus belongs, like all mysterious, heroic, or mythical figures, to legend and poetry. In the introduction we find the statement,“This book is a confession of faith.”The narrative is based on the Fourth Gospel.256.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ.Paris, 1894. 301 pp. German, under the titleDie Lücke im Leben Jesu(The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. See Holtzmann in theTheol. Jahresbericht, xiv. p. 140.In a certain limited sense the work of A. Lillie,The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity(London, 1893), is to be numbered among the fictitious works on the life of Jesus. The fictitious element consists in Jesus being made an Essene by the writer, and Essenism equated with Buddhism.Among“edifying”romances on the life of Jesus intended for family reading, that of the English writer J. H. Ingraham,The Prince of the House of David, has had a very long lease of life. It appeared in a German translation as early as 1858, and was reissued in 1906 (Brunswick).A fictitious life of Jesus of wonderful beauty is Peter Rosegger'sI.N.R.I. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders(The Glad Tidings of a poor Sinner). Leipzig, 6th-10th thousand, 1906. 293 pp.A feminine point of view reveals itself in C. Rauch'sJeschua ben Joseph. Deichert, 1899.257.La Vie ésotérique de Jésu-Christ et les origines orientales du christianisme.Paris, 1902. 445 pp.That Jesus was of Aryan race is argued by A. Müller, who assumes a Gaulish immigration into Galilee.Jesus ein Arier.Leipzig, 1904. 74 pp.258.Did Jesus live 100b.c.?London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903. 440 pp.A scientific discussion of the“Toledoth Jeshu,”with citations from the Talmudic tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss,Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, 1902. 309 pp. According to him theToledoth Jeshuwas committed to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a modified version of the Christian tradition.259.William Wrede, born in 1859 at Bücken in Hanover, was Professor at Breslau. (He died in 1907.)Wrede names as his real predecessors on the same lines Bruno Bauer, Volkmar, and the Dutch writer Hoekstra (“De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien,”Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871).In a certain limited degree the work of Ernest Havet (Le Christianisme et ses origines) has a claim to be classed in the same category. His scepticism refers principally to the entry into Jerusalem and the story of the passion.260.These and the following questions are raised more especially in theSketch of the Life of Jesus.261.It would perhaps be more historical to say“as a prophet.”262.The difficulties which the incident at Caesarea Philippi places in the way of Wrede's construction may be realised by placing two of his statements side by side. P. 101:“From this it is evident that this incident contains no element which cannot be easily understood on the basis of Mark's ideas.”P. 238:“But in another aspect this incident stands in direct contradiction to the Marcan view of the disciples. It is inconsistent with their general‘want of understanding,’and can therefore hardly have been created by Mark himself.”263.The question of the attitude of pre-Origenic theology towards the historical Jesus, and of the influence exercised by dogma upon the evangelical tradition regarding Jesus in the course of the first two centuries, is certainly deserving of a detailed examination.264.Certain of the conceptions with which Wrede operates are simply not in accordance with the text, because he gives them a different significance from that which they have in the narrative. Thus, for example, he always takes the“resurrection,”when it occurs in the mouth of Jesus, as a reference to that resurrection which as an historical fact became a matter of apprehended experience to the apostles. But Jesus speaks without any distinction of His resurrection and of His Parousia. The conception of the resurrection, therefore, if one is to arrive at it inductively from the Marcan text, is most closely bound up with the Parousia. The Evangelist would thus seem to have made Jesus predict a different kind of resurrection from that which actually happened. The resurrection, according to the Marcan text, is an eschatological event, and has no reference whatever to Wrede's“historical resurrection.”Further, if their resurrection experience was the first and fundamental point in the Messianic enlightenment of the disciples, why did they only begin to proclaim it some weeks later? This is a problem which was long ago recognised by Reimarus, and which is not solved by merely assuming that the disciples were afraid.265.P. 33 ff. The prohibitions in Mark i. 43 and 44, v. 43, vii. 36, and viii. 26 are put on the same footing with the really Messianic prohibitions in viii. 30 and ix. 9, with which may be associated also the imposition of silence upon the demoniacs who recognise his Messiahship in Mark i. 34 and iii. 12.266.The narrative in Matt. xiv. 22-33, according to which the disciples, after seeing Jesus walk upon the sea, hail Him on His coming into the boat as the Son of God, and the description of the deeds of Jesus as“deeds of Christ,”in the introduction to the Baptist's question in Matt. xi. 2, do not cancel the old theory even in Matthew, because the Synoptists, differing therein from the fourth Evangelist, do not represent the demand for a sign as a demand for a Messianic sign, nor the cures wrought by Jesus as Messianic proofs of power. The action of the demons in crying out upon Jesus as the Son of God betokens their recognition of Him; it has nothing to do with the miracles of healing as such.267.For further examples of the pressing of the theory to its utmost limits, see Wrede, p. 134 ff.268.It is always assumed as self-evident that Jesus is speaking of the sufferings and persecutions which would take place after His death, or that the Evangelist, in making Him speak in this way, is thinking of these later persecutions. There is no hint of that in the text.269.That the eschatological school showed a certain timidity in drawing the consequences of its recognition of the character of the preaching of Jesus and examining the tradition from the eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes Weiss's work,“The Earliest Gospel”(Das älteste Evangelium), Göttingen, 1903, 414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is surprised to find the author of the“Preaching of Jesus”here endeavouring to distinguish between Mark and“Ur-Markus,”to point to examples of Pauline influence, to exhibit clearly the“tendencies”which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist and the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological view of the preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him a clue to quite a different psychology from that which he actually applies. Against Wrede he brings forward many arguments which are worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have refuted him, because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the exact form in which it was raised by Wrede.270.Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark's version the experience at the baptism is conceived as an open miracle, perceptible to others. The way in which the revelations to the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament does not make in favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in the presence of a multitude without perceiving that in this case the Messianic secret was a secret no longer. If so, the story of the baptism stands on the same footing as the story of the Messianic entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely no results.271.The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared for a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off to the north once more (Mark vii. 31-viii. 27), may here provisionally be left out of account since it stands in relation with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So too the enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii. 34-ix. 30) may here be passed over. These statements make no difference to the fact that Jesus really broke off his work in Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, since they imply at most a quite transient contact with the people.272.On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work of Jesus see the“Sketch,”p. 3 ff.,“The four Pre-suppositions of the Modern Historical Solution.”273.Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion of the people, since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by the Pharisees, not by the people. The abandonment of the Galilaean work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he thought, have been due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the time had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of Jesus' miracle-working power which caused the change in His attitude, since it is remarkable that He performed no further miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.274.The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset's, who proposes to treat the mission and everything connected with it as a“confused and unintelligible”tradition.275.Joel iii. 13,“Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!”In the Apocalypse of John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the heavenly harvest:“Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped”(Rev. xiv. 15 and 16).The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch:“Behold, the days come, when the time of the world shall be ripe, and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil shall come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its inhabitants and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror that makes the heart stand still; and they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war; and the despised shall have power over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of the few ... and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before-mentioned (dangers) ... shall be given into the hands of my servant, the Messiah.”(Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. Following the translation of E. Kautzsch.)The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was therefore one of the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And as the Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the period abouta.d.70, it may be assumed that this association of ideas was also current in the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of sowing and reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of the time. What Jesus did was to make known to those who understood Him that the coming earthly harvest was the last, and was also the token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.276.With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the discourse in Matt. xi. in order to make the“cry of jubilation”into the cry with which Jesus saluted the return of His disciples, and to find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida somewhere else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this apparently disconnected material held together by an inner bond of connexion—the secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently impending over Jesus and the people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach like one who has a thesis to maintain and seeks about for the most logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly connexion belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?277.If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His resurrection, He means by that, not a single isolated act, but a complex occurrence consisting of His metamorphosis, translation to heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with this is associated the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is, therefore, one and the same thing whether He speaks of His resurrection or of His coming on the clouds of heaven.278.The title of Baldensperger's book,The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time, really contains a promise which is impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary“Messianic hopes”can only explain the hopes of Jesus so far as they corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, in which He is absolutely original.279.Even Baldensperger's book,Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums(1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. The coming volume is to deal with the eschatology of Jesus. That is a“theological,”but not an historical division of the material. The second volume should properly come in the middle of the first.280.The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by the ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the rising influence of the ancient prophetic literature. This designation has nothing whatever to do with a political ideal of a kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in their character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural as the Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read into both Daniel and the prophets.281.Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The earliest portion, the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of Daniel and of contemporary origin. The Similitudes (capp. xxxvii.-lxix.), which, with their description of the Judgment of the Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of Jesus, may be placed in 80-70b.c.They do not presuppose the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey.282.The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the Similitudes.283.The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long after the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years later.284.The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology before the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from 60b.c.untila.d.30, we have no information regarding eschatological movements! And do the Psalms of Solomon really point to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in studying the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have no eschatological character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next turning-point in the history of the apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and Fourth Ezra show.285.Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of Man they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It is to their part in the judgment that belong also the authority to bind and to loose which He entrusts to them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards to all the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present decisions will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does the“upon earth”refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last Judgment will be held on earth?“I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be historical? Is it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the“church”which He will found upon the Rock-disciple? But if one has once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre-existing“church”was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is given an uneschatological reference to the Church as we know it, it loses all real meaning and becomes a treasure-trove to the Roman Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.286.That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how short a time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun. He only became known, as the Baptist's question shows, at the time of the mission of the disciples; Herod first heard of Him after the death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of Jesus beforehand, it would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him with the Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry of Jesus.287.That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology lost sight of the fact because it did not know how to make any historical use of it.288.Psal. Sol. xv. 8.289.That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim to something future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of His sufferings and death as a special baptism, and asks the sons of Zebedee whether they are willing, for the sake of gaining the thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. If the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it would be unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.290.The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and lxv. 12 ff. It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6-8, a passage which perhaps dates from the time of Alexander the Great,“and Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things prepared with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall destroy, in this mountain, among all peoples, the veil which has veiled all peoples and the covering which has covered all nations. He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall wipe away the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall disappear from the earth.”(The German follows Kautzsch's translation.)In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is connected with that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits to the elect upon the mountain of the King. Similarly in the Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11.The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the Son of Man, and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved“shall eat with the Son of Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him to all eternity.”Jesus' references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely images, but point to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He prophesies that many shall come from the East and from the West to sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. xxii. 1-14 the Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1-13 as a marriage feast.The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its forms. In Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the tree of life; in ii. 17 it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake-side was a true sacrament.291.Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing with Mark must consist in explaining how such“myths”could be accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as our Mark does.292.It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross,“Eli, Eli,”was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to Elias.293.From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any of them to have“arrived gradually at the knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus.”294.For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been worked into one another, see the“Sketch of the Life of Jesus,”1901, p. 52 ff.,“After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and historical problems.”A theory resting on the same principle was lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss,Das älteste Evangelium(The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.295.It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede also observes:“The transfiguration and Peter's confession are closely connected in content”(p. 123). He also clearly perceives the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow-disciples do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious difficulty for Wrede's reading of the facts, since this assumes Jesus to have been the revealer of it.296.“After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps, awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”297.Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will“go before them”into Galilee. That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He shall returnwiththem, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean appearances.We find it“corrected”by the saying of the“young man”at the grave, who says to the women,“Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.”Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words“he goeth before you,”whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the“correction.”298.Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.299.Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of“many”instead of speaking of“His own”or“the believers.”Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the“for many”in the words of Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any kind of contact with early theology the“many”disappear to give place to the“believers.”In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the“many”as the nation (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the“many”cannot include the disciples, since they“who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.”They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.300.One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to die. Here as in so many other places Weisse's clearness of perception is surprising. Jesus' journey was according to him a pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.301.“That ye enter not into temptation”is the content of the prayer that they are to offer while watching with Him.302.As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial Act) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this technical error was very serious.But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.303.That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been brought up as a charge against Him.304.When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence. But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.

Footnotes1.Quoted by Dr. Inge in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1910, p. 438 (from“Jesus or Christ,”p. 32).2.“Quest,”p. 4.3.An order founded in 1776 by Professor Adam Weishaupt of Ingolstadt in Bavaria. Its aim was the furtherance of rational religion as opposed to orthodox dogma; its organisation was largely modelled on that of the Jesuits. At its most flourishing period it numbered over 2000 members, including the rulers of several German States.—Translator.4.D. Fr. Strauss,Gespräche von Ulrich von Hutten. Leipzig, 1860.5.W. Wrede,Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. (The Messianic Secret in the Gospels.) Göttingen, 1901, pp. 280-282.6.In the author's usage“the Marcan hypothesis”means the theory that the Gospel of Mark is not only the earliest and most valuable source for the facts, but differs from the other Gospels in embodying a more or less clear and historically intelligible view of the connexion of events. See Chaps.X.andXIV.below.—Translator.7.Dr. Christoph Friedrich von Ammon,Fortbildung des Christentums, Leipzig, 1840, vol. iv. p. 156 ff.8.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 110-162. The second edition, published in 1891, carries the survey no further than the first.9.Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen, 1892, five lectures.10.W. Frantzen,Die“Leben-Jesu”Bewegung seit Strauss, Dorpat, 1898.11.Theol. Rundschau, ii. 59-67 (1899); iii. 9-19 (1900).12.Von Soden's study,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 1904, belongs here only in a very limited sense, since it does not seek to show how the problems have gradually emerged in the various Lives of Jesus.13.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, pp. 112, 113.14.Historia Christi persice conscripta simulque multis modis contaminata a Hieronymo Xavier, lat. reddita et animadd, notata a Ludovico de Dieu.Lugd. 1639.15.Johann Jakob Hess,Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu. (History of the Last Three Years of the Life of Jesus.) 3 vols. 1768 ff.16.D. F. Strauss,Hermann Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes. (Reimarus and his Apology for the Rational Worshippers of God.) 1862.17.The quotations inserted without special introduction are, of course, from Reimarus. It is Dr. Schweitzer's method to lead up by a paragraph of exposition to one of these characteristic phrases.—Translator.18.Otto Schmiedel,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902.19.Döderlein also wrote a defence of Jesus against the Fragmentist:Fragmente und Antifragmente. Nuremberg, 1778.20.This is perhaps the place to mention the account of the life of Jesus which is given in the first part of Plank'sGeschichte des Christentums. Göttingen, 1818.21.Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend, 1st ed., 1780-1781; 2nd ed., 1785-1786;Werke, ed. Suphan, vol. x.22.A Life of Jesus which is completely dependent on the Commentaries of Paulus is that of Greiling, superintendent at Aschersleben,Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth Ein religiöses Handbuch für Geist und Herz der Freunde Jesu unter den Gebildeten.(The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious Handbook for the Minds and Hearts of the Friends of Jesus among the Cultured.) Halle, 1813.23.Paulus prided himself on a very exact acquaintance with the physical and geographical conditions of Palestine. He had a wide knowledge of the literature of Eastern travel.—Translator.24.This interpretation, it ought to be remarked, seems to be implied by the ancient reading.“Few things are needful, or one,”given in the margin of the Revised Version.—Translator.25.Associations of students, at that time of a political character.—Translator.26.The ground of the inference is that, according to this theory, they did not attach much importance to the keeping of the Feasts at Jerusalem. Dr. Schweitzer reminds us in a footnote that a certain want of clearness is due to the fact of this work having been compiled from lecture-notes.27.See Theobald Ziegler,“Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss”(Materials for the Biography of D. F. S.), in theDeutsche Revue, May, June, July 1905. The hitherto unpublished letters to Binder throw some light on the development of Strauss during the formative years before the publication of the Life of Jesus.Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the friend who delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss. This last act of friendship exposed him to enmity and calumny of all kinds. For the text of his short address, see theDeutsche Revue, 1905, p. 107.28.Deutsche Revue, May 1905, p. 199.29.Ibid.p. 201.30.Deutsche Revue, p. 203.31.Assistant lecturer.32.Ibid., June 1905, p. 343 ff.33.See Hase,Leben Jesu, 1876, p. 124. The“text-book”referred to is Hase's first Life of Jesus.34.He to whom my plaint isKnows I shed no tear;She to whom I say thisFeels I have no fear.Time has come for fading,Like a glimmering ray,Or a sense-evadingStrain that floats away.May, though fainter, dimmer,Only, clear and pure,To the last the glimmerAnd the strain endure.The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a physician, attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply attached, and a very old friend to whom the verses were addressed.—Translator.35.2 Kings iv. 42-44.36.Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Ioannis Apostoli indole et origine eruditorum iudiciis modeste subjecit C. Th. Bretschneider.Leipzig, 1820.37.Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher,Über die Schriften des Lukas. Ein kritischer Versuch.(The Writings of Luke. A critical essay.) C. Reimer, Berlin, 1817.38.Koppe,Marcus non epitomator Matthäi, 1782.39.Storr,De Fontibus Evangeliorum Mt. et Lc., 1794.40.Gratz,Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu erklären, 1812.41.V. sup.p. 35 f. For the earlier history of the question see F. C. Baur,Krit. Untersuch. über die kanonischen Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847, pp. 1-76.42.So called because largely based on the reference in Luke i. 1, to the“many”who had“taken in hand to draw up a narrative (δεήγησις).”—Translator.43.We take the translation of this striking image from Sanday's“Survey of the Synoptic Question,”The Expositor, 4th ser. vol. 3, p. 307.44.For general title see above. First part:“Herr Dr. Steudel, or the Self-deception of the Intellectual Supernaturalism of our Time.”182 pp. Second part:“Die Herren Eschenmayer und Menzel.”247 pp. Third part:“Die evangelische Kirchenzeitung,die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche KritikundDie theologischen Studien und Kritikenin ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.”(The attitude taken up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.) 179 pp. In theStudien und Kritikentwo reviews had appeared: a critical review by Dr. Ullmann (vol. for 1836, pp. 770-816) and that of Müller, written from the standpoint of the“common faith”(vol. for 1836, pp. 816-890). In theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungthe articles referred to are the following:Vorwort(Editorial Survey), 1836, pp. 1-6, 9-14, 17-23, 25-31, 33-38, 41-45;“The Future of our Theology”(1836, pp. 281 ff.);“Thoughts suggested by Dr. Strauss's essay on‘The Relation of Theological Criticism and Speculation to the Church’”(1836, pp. 382 ff.); Strauss's essay had appeared in theAllgemeine Kirchenzeitungfor 1836, No. 39.“Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von D. F. Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet”(An Inquiry into the Scientific Value of D. F. Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus.) By Prof. Dr. Harless. Erlangen, 1836.45.“Everything turns to the advantage of the elect, even to the obscurities of scripture, for they treat them with reverence because of its perspicuities; everything turns to the disadvantage of the reprobate, even to the perspicuities of scripture, for they blaspheme them because they cannot understand its obscurities.”For the title of Harless's essay, see end of previous note.46.Das Leben-Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. D. F. Strauss. Geprüft für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen, von Wilhelm Hoffmann. 1836. (Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus examined for the Benefit of Theologians and non-Theologians.)47.Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen.(Defence of the Life of Jesus against the latest attempt to resolve it into myth.) By Joh. Ernst Osiander, Professor at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn.48.Über das Leben-Jesu von Strauss, von Franz Baader, 1836. Here may be mentioned also the lectures which Krabbe (subsequently Professor at Rostock) delivered against Strauss:Vorlesungen über das Leben-Jesu für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen(Lectures on the Life of Jesus for Theologians and non-Theologians), Hamburg, 1839. They are more tolerable to non-theologians than to theologians. The author at a later period distinguished himself by the fanatical zeal with which he urged on the deposition of his colleague, Michael Baumgarten, whoseGeschichte Jesu, published in 1859, though fully accepting the miracles, was weighed in the balance by Krabbe and found light-weight by the Rostock standard.49.For the title, see head of chapter. Tholuck was born in 1799 at Breslau, and became in 1826 Professor at Halle, where he worked until his death in 1877. With the possible exception of Neander, he was the most distinguished representative of the mediating theology. His piety was deep and his learning was wide, but his judgment went astray in the effort to steer his freight of pietism safely between the rocks of rationalism and the shoals of orthodoxy.50.Stud. u. Krit., 1836, p. 777. In his“Open letter to Dr. Ullmann,”Strauss examines this suggestion in a serious and dignified fashion, and shows that nothing would be gained by such expedients.—Streitschriften, 3rd pt., p. 129 ff.51.Das Leben Jesu-Christi.Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was born in 1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being David Mendel. He was baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813 was appointed to a professorship in Berlin, where he displayed a many-sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. He died in 1850. The best-known of his writings is theGeschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel(History of the Propagation and Administration of the Christian Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832-1833, of which a reprint appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep piety, but also of great solidity of character.Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment upon Neander's work:“A book such as in these circumstances Neander's Life of Jesus was bound to be calls forth our sympathy; the author himself acknowledges in his preface that it bears upon it only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain, and distress in which it was produced.”Of the innumerable“positive”Lives of Jesus which appeared about the end of the 'thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2 vols., 1837-1839). Among the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating theology may be mentioned that of Theodore Pressel of Tübingen, which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.). It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention theLeben des Herrn Jesu Christiby Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856), which reflects the ideas of von Hofmann.52.For title see head of chapter.53.Aphorismen zur Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes.Grimma, 1838.54.From theXame Xenien, p. 259 of Goethe's Works, ed. Hempel.55.Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche. Zur Verständigung über die Straussische Angelegenheit.(A contribution to the adjustment of opinion regarding the Strauss affair.) By Daniel Schenkel, Licentiate in Theology and Privat-Docent of the University of Basle, with a dedicatory letter to Herr Dr. Lücke, Konsistorialrat. Basle, 1839.56.Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche. Eine Stimme aus Norddeutschland. Mit einer Vorrede von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.(A voice from North Germany. With an introduction by Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.) Basle, 1839.57.Über theologische Lehrfreiheit und Lehrerwahl für Hochschulen.Zurich, 1839.58.For full title see head of chapter. Reference may also be made to the same author'sFortbildung des Christentums zur Weltreligion. (Development of Christianity into a World-religion.) Leipzig, 1833-1835. 4 vols. Ammon was born in 1766 at Bayreuth; became Professor of theology at Erlangen in 1790; was Professor in Göttingen from 1794 to 1804, and, after being back in Erlangen in the meantime, became in 1813 Senior Court Chaplain and“Oberkonsistorialrat”at Dresden, where he died in 1850. He was the most distinguished representative of historico-critical rationalism.59.He is at one with Strauss in rejecting the explanation of this miracle on the analogy of an expedited natural process, to which Hase had pointed, and which was first suggested by Augustine inTract viii. in Ioann.:“That Christ changed water into wine is nothing wonderful to those who consider the works of God. What was there done in the water-pots, God does yearly in the vine.”[Augustine's words are: Miraculum quidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit (i.e.that He who did it was God). Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die ... in sex hydriis, qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.] Nevertheless the poorest naturalistic explanation is at least better than the resignation of Lücke, who is content to wait“until it please God through the further progress of Christian thought and life to bring about the solution of this riddle in its natural and historical aspects.”Lücke,Johannes-Kommentar, p. 474 ff.60.Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born in 1802 at Fröndenberg in the“county”(Grafschaft) of Mark, became Professor of Theology in Berlin in 1826, and died there in 1869. He founded theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungin 1827.61.Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss' historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu.62.Dr. Strauss' Leben-Jesu aus dem Standpunkt des Catholicismus betrachtet.63.Johann Leonhard Hug was born in 1765 at Constance, and had been since 1791 Professor of New Testament Theology at Freiburg, where he died in 1846. He had a wide knowledge of his own department of theology, and his Introduction to the New Testament Writings won him some reputation among Protestant theologians also.64.Among the Catholic“Leben-Jesu,”of which the authors found their incentive in the desire to oppose Strauss, the first place belongs to that of Kuhn of Tübingen. Unfortunately only the first volume appeared (1838, 488 pp.). Here there is a serious and scholarly attempt to grapple with the problems raised by Strauss. Of less importance is the work of the same title in seven volumes, by the Munich Priest and Professor of History, Nepomuk Sepp (1843-1846; 2nd ed. 1853-1862).65.Über das Leben-Jesu von Doctor Strauss.By Edgar Quinet. Translated from the French by Georg Kleine. Published by J. Erdmann and C. C. Müller, 1839. In 1840 Strauss's book was translated into French by M. Littré. It failed, however, to exercise any influence upon French theology or literature. Strauss is one of those German thinkers who always remain foreign and unintelligible to the French mind. Could Renan have written his Life of Jesus as he did if he had had even a partial understanding of Strauss?66.Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld. Her parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the Augustinian nuns of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the dissolution of the convent, she lived in a single room in Dülmen itself. The“stigmata”showed themselves first in 1812. She died on the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood since 1819.Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi(The Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano himself in 1834. TheLife of Jesuswas published on the basis of notes left by him—he died in 1842—in three volumes, 1858-1860, at Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of Limberg.First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first year after the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May 1, 1821, and October 1, 1822.Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the Baptism in Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem. Communicated between October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823.Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to the Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21, 1823, and January 8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821.Both works have been frequently reissued, the“Bitter Sufferings”as late as 1894.67.Auszüge aus der Schrift“Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet.”(Extracts from a work entitled“A Critical Study of the Life of Luther.”) By Dr. Casuar (“Cassowary”; Strauss = Ostrich). Mexico, 1836. Edited by Julius Ferdinand Wurm.68.Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft.(A Critical Examination of the Life of Napoleon.) From the English, with some pertinent applications to Strauss's Life of Jesus, 1836. [The English original referred to seems to have been Whateley'sHistoric Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, published in 1819, and primarily directed against Hume'sEssay on Miracles.—Translator.]69.La Vie de Strauss. Écrite en l'an 1839.Paris, 1839.70.Ch. G. Wilke,Tradition und Mythe. A contribution to the historical criticism of the Gospels in general, and in particular to the appreciation of the treatment of myth and idealism in Strauss's“Life of Jesus.”Leipzig, 1837.Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz, studied theology and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in 1837 in order to devote himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become conscious of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion to Catholicism by publishing a work entitled“Can a Protestant go over to the Roman Church with a good conscience?”He took the decisive step in August 1846. Later he removed to Würzburg. Subsequently he recast his famousClavis Novi Testamenti Philologica—which had appeared in 1840-1841—in the form of a lexicon for Catholic students of theology. HisHermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, published in 1843-1844, appeared in 1853 asBiblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen Grundsätzen(The Science of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). He was engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854.Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to Emanuel Marius,Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker(The Personality of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies and Mysteries of Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick,Mythus und Evangelium(Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.71.See p.89above.72.Streitschriften.Drittes Heft, pp. 55-126:Die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik: i.Allgemeines Verhältnis der Hegel'schen Philosophie zur theologischen Kritik: ii.Hegels Ansicht über den historischen Wert der evangelischen Geschichte(Hegel's View of the Historical Value of the Gospel History); iii.Verschiedene Richtungen innerhalb der Hegel'schen Schule in Betreff der Christologie(Various Tendencies within the Hegelian School in regard to Christology). 1837.73.Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte.(Scientific Criticism of the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842; 3rd ed., 1868.Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was, first, Professor of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen, afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as“Konsistorialrat,”but was unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and returned in 1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888.A characteristic example of Ebrard's way of treating the subject is his method of meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of money in its jaws could not have taken the hook.“The fish might very well,”he explains,“have thrown up the piece of money from its belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter opened its mouth.”Upon this Strauss remarks:“The inventor of this argument tosses it down before us as who should say,‘I know very well it is bad, but it is good enough for you, at any rate so long as the Church has livings to distribute and we Konsistorialrats have to examine the theological candidates.’”Strauss, therefore, characterises Ebrard's Life of Jesus as“Orthodoxy restored on a basis of impudence.”The pettifogging character of this work made a bad impression even in Conservative quarters.74.Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien.(Chronological Synopsis of the four Gospels.) By Karl Georg Wieseler. Hamburg, 1843. Wieseler was born in 1813 at Altencelle (Hanover), and was Professor successively at Göttingen, Kiel, and Greifswald. He died in 1883.75.Johann Peter Lange, Pastor in Duisburg, afterwards Professor at Zurich in place of Strauss.Das Leben Jesu.5 vols., 1844-1847.76.Georg Heinrich August Ewald,Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (History of the People of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843-1859; 3rd ed., 1864-1870. Fifth vol.,Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857.Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the repeal of the fundamental law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was removed from his office and went to Tübingen, first as Professor of philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the theological faculty. In 1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily retired, and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion, was also deprived of the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose him as its representative in the North German and in the German Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph opposition, in the middle of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His contributions to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is worthless, in spite of the Old Testament and Oriental learning with which it was furnished forth. He lays great stress upon making the genitive of“Christus”not“Christi,”but, according to German inflection,“Christus'.”77.Ammon,Johannem evangelii auctorem ab editore huius libri fuisse diversum, Erlangen, 1811.78.No value whatever can be ascribed to the Life of Jesus by Werner Hahn, Berlin, 1844, 196 pp. The“didactic presentation of the history”which the author offers is not designed to meet the demands of historical criticism. He finds in the Gospels no bare history, but, above all, the inculcation of the principle of love. He casts to the winds all attempt to draw the portrait of Jesus as a true historian, being only concerned with its inner truth and“idealises artistically and scientifically”the actual course of the outward life of Jesus.“It is never the business of a history,”he explains,“to relate only the bare truth. It belongs to a mere planless and aimless chronicle to relate everything that happened in such a way that its words are a mere slavish reflection of the outward course of events.”79.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, p. 128.80.Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums.Leipzig, 1855-1862.81.At the end of his preface he makes the striking remark:“I confess I cannot conceive of any possible way by which Christianity can take on a form which will make it once more the truth for our time, without having recourse to the aid of philosophy; and I rejoice to believe that this opinion is shared by many of the ablest and most respected of present-day theologians.”82.Vol. ii. pp. 438-543.Philosophische Schlussbetrachtung über die religiöse Bedeutung der Persönlichkeit Christi und der evangelischen Überlieferung.(Concluding Philosophical Estimate of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.)83.Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge.Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses der drei ersten Evangelien.(The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The subsequent course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as follows:—In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos Aletheias,Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhältnis zu einander. (The Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, 440 pp. The author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and thinks that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to detecting and weeding out the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke is in his opinion a party-writing, biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul had a share in its preparation, and this is what Paul alludes to when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of“his”Gospel. His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.-iii., vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and xxiv. Mark consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the other three. The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work,Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. (A Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622 pp. According to him Mark is based on Matthew and Luke. At the same time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the refutation of its historical character is carried into detail.The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his workDie Evangelien. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp.Karl Reinhold Köstlin's work,Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien(Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels), is rendered nugatory by obscurities and compromises. Stuttgart, 1853, 400 pp. The priority of Mark is defended by Edward Reuss,Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments(History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament), 1842; H. Ewald,Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1850; A. Ritschl,Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche(Origin of the ancient Catholic Church), 1850; A. Réville,Études critiques sur l'Évangile selon St. Matthieu, 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcan hypothesis were relaid, more firmly than before, by Holtzmann's work,Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863, 514 pp.84.Alexander Schweizer,Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte and seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu kritisch untersucht. 1841. (A Critical Examination of the Intrinsic Value of the Gospel of John and of its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) Alexander Schweizer was born in 1808 at Murten, was appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology at Zurich in 1835, and continued to lecture there until his death in 1888, remaining loyal to the ideas of his teacher Schleiermacher, though handling them with a certain freedom. His best-known work is hisGlaubenslehre(System of Doctrine), 2 vols., 1863-1872; 2nd ed., 1877.85.The German isMirakeln, the usual word beingWunder, which, though constantly used in the sense of actual“miracles,”has, from its obvious derivation, a certain ambiguity.86.“And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days.”87.We subjoin the titles of the divisions of this work, which are of some interest:Vol. i. Book i. The Sources of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book ii. The Legends of the Childhood.Vol. i. Book iii. General Sketch of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book iv. The Incidents and Discourses according to Mark.Vol. ii. Book v. The Incidents and Discourses according to Matthew and Luke.Vol. ii. Book vi. The Incidents and Discourses according to John.Vol. ii. Book vii. The Resurrection and the Ascension.Vol. ii. Book viii. Concluding Philosophical Exposition of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.88.Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit.(History of Christ and His Times.) By Heinrich Ewald, Göttingen, 1855, 450 pp.89.Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung.90.Das entdeckte Christentum.See alsoDie gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit. (The Good Cause of Freedom, in Connexion with my own Case.) Zurich, 1843.91.Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes.92.Here and elsewhere Bauer seems to use“Christologie”in the sense of Messianic doctrine, rather than in the more general sense which is usual in theology.—Translator.93.We retain the German phrase, which has naturalised itself in Synoptic criticism as the designation of an assumed primary gospel lying behind the canonical Mark.94.Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe.(Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, 1850-1852.95.Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.(Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin.) 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851.96.Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen Griechentum.Berlin, 1877.97.Hennell, a London merchant, withdrew himself from his business pursuits for two years in order to make the preparatory studies for this Life of Jesus. [He is best known as a friend of George Eliot, who was greatly interested and influenced by the“Inquiry.”—Translator.] To the same category as Hennell's work belongs theWohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu(An Account of the Life of Jesus based on the closest Examination) of the Heidelberg mathematician, Karl von Langsdorf, Mannheim, 1831. Supplement, with preface to a future second edition, 1833.98.Hase seems not to have recognised that the“Disclosures”were merely a plagiarism from Venturini. He mentions them in connexion with Bruno Bauer and appears to make him responsible for inspiring them; at least that is suggested by his formula of transition when he says:“It was primarily to him that the frivolous apocryphal hypotheses attached themselves.”This is quite inaccurate. The anonymous epitomist of Venturini had nothing to do with Bauer, and had probably not read a line of his work. Venturini, whom he had read, he does not name.99.One of the most ingenious of the followers of Venturini was the French Jew Salvator. In hisJésus-Christ et sa doctrine(Paris, 2 vols., 1838), he seeks to prove that Jesus was the last representative of a mysticism which, drawing its nutriment from the other Oriental religions, was to be traced among the Jews from the time of Solomon onwards. In Jesus this mysticism allied itself with Messianic enthusiasm. After He had lost consciousness upon the cross He was succoured by Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate's wife, contrary to His own expectation and purpose. He ended His days among the Essenes.Salvator looks to a spiritualised mystical Mosaism as destined to be the successful rival of Christianity.100.The reference should be Micah iv. 8.—F. C. B.101.“Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint.”—Mephistopheles inFaust.102.Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha; vier Bücher über das Evangelium und die Evangelien.103.Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen über das Evangelium and die Evangelien.104.For Noack's reconstruction of it see Book iii. pp. 196-225.105.For the reconstruction see Book iii. pp. 326-386.106.Tharraqah und Sunamith.The Song of Solomon in its historical and topographical setting. 1869.107.La Vie de Jésus de D. Fr. Strauss.Traduite par M. Littré, 1840.108.Bruno Bauer inPhilo, Strauss, und Renan.109.Renan does not hesitate to apply this tasteless parallel.110.Charles Émile Freppel (Abbé), Professeur d'éloquence sacrée à la Sorbonne.Examen critique de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.Paris, 1864. 148 pp.Henri Lasserre's pamphlet,L'Évangile selon Renan(The Gospel according to Renan), reached its four-and-twentieth edition in the course of the same year.111.Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l'Archevêque de Paris (Georges Darboy) sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864.112.See, for example, Félix Antoine Philibert Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans,Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours.(Warning to the Young, and to Fathers of Families, concerning some Attacks directed against Religion by some Writers of our Time.) Paris, 1864. 141 pp.113.Amadée Nicolas,Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal, et littéraire. Appel à la raison et la conscience du monde civilisé.Paris-Marseille, 1864.114.Ernest Havet, Professeur au Collège de France,Jésus dans l'histoire.Examen de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan.Extrait de laRevue des deux mondes. Paris, 1863. 71 pp.115.Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben-Jesu, von Edmond Scherer und Athanase Coquerel, d.J. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des französischen Protestantismus.Regensburg, 1864. (Two French utterances in regard to Renan's Life of Jesus, by Edmond Scherer and Athanase Coquerel the younger. A contribution to the understanding of French Protestantism.)116.E. de Pressensé,L'École critique et Jésus-Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.117.E. de Pressensé,Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre. Paris, 1865. 684 pp. In general the plan of this work follows Renan's. He divides the Life of Jesus into three periods: i. The Time of Public Favour; ii. The Period of Conflict; iii. The Great Week. Death and Victory. By way of introduction there is a long essay on the supernatural which sets forth the supernaturalistic views of the author.118.La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique.1864.119.T. Colani, Pasteur,“Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan,”Revue de théologie. Issued separately, Strasbourg-Paris, 1864. 74 pp.120.Lasserre,Das Evangelium nach Renan. Munich, 1864.Freppel,Kritische Beleuchtung der E. Renan'schen Schrift. Translated by Kallmus. Vienna, 1864.See also Lamy, Professor of the Theological Faculty of the Catholic University of Louvain,Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. (Renan's Life of Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Criticism.) Translated by August Rohling, Priest. Münster, 1864.121.Dr. Michelis,Renans Roman vom Leben Jesu.Eine deutsche Antwort auf eine französische Blasphemie.(Renan's Romance on the Life of Jesus. A German answer to a French blasphemy.) Münster, 1864.Dr. Sebastian Brunner,Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium. (The Atheist Renan and his Gospel.) Regensburg, 1864.Albert Wiesinger,Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu. Vienna, 1864.Dr. Martin Deutlinger,Renan und das Wunder. (Renan and Miracle. A contribution to Christian Apologetic.) Munich, 1864. 159 pp.Dr. Daniel Bonifacius Haneberg,Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu. Regensburg, 1864.122.Willibald Beyschlag, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Über das Leben-Jesu von Renan. A Lecture delivered at Halle, January 13, 1864. Berlin.123.Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. (Modern Presentations of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the writings of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.Of the remaining Protestant polemics we may name:—Dr. Hermann Gerlach,Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864. Berlin.Br. Lehmann,Renan wider Renan. (RenanversusRenan.) A Lecture addressed to cultured Germans. Zwickau, 1864.Friedrich Baumer,Schwarz, Strauss, Renan. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.John Cairns, D. D. (of Berwick).Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan.(False Christs and the True, a Defence of the Gospel History against Strauss and Renan.) A Lecture delivered before the Bible Society. Translated from the English. Hamburg, 1864.Bernhard ter Haar, Doctor of Theology and Professor at Utrecht,Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans Leben-Jesu. (Ten Lectures on Renan's Life of Jesus.) Translated by H. Doermer. Gotha, 1864.Paulus Cassel, Professor and Licentiate in Theology,Bericht über Renans Leben-Jesu. (A Report upon Renan's Life of Jesus.)J. J. van Oosterzee, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Utrecht,Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Renan vorläufig beleuchtet.(History or Fiction? A Preliminary Examination of Renan's Life of Jesus.) Hamburg, 1864.124.Strauss's second Life of Jesus appeared in French in 1864.125.“I can now say without incurring the reproach of self-glorification, and almost without needing to fear contradiction, that if my Life of Jesus had not appeared in the year after Schleiermacher's death, his would not have been withheld for so long. Up to that time it would have been hailed by the theological world as a deliverer; but for the wounds which my work inflicted on the theology of the day, it had neither anodyne nor dressing; nay, it displayed the author as in a measure responsible for the disaster, for the waters which he had admitted drop by drop were now, in defiance of his prudent reservations, pouring in like a flood.”—From the Introduction toThe Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, 1865.126.“Now that Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus at last lies before us in print, all parties can gather about it in heartfelt rejoicing. The appearance of a work by Schleiermacher is always an enrichment to literature. Any product of a mind like his cannot fail to shed light and life on the minds of others. And of works of this kind our theological literature has certainly in these days no superfluity. Where the living are for the most part as it were dead, it is meet that the dead should arise and bear witness. These lectures of Schleiermacher's, when compared with the work of his pupils, show clearly that the great theologian has let fall upon them only his mantle and not his spirit.”—Ibid.127.The lines of Schleiermacher's work were followed by Bunsen. His Life of Jesus forms vol. ix. of hisBibelwerk. (Edited by Holtzmann, 1865.) He accepts the Fourth Gospel as an historical source and treats the question of miracle as not yet settled. Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen, born in 1791 at Korbach in Waldeck, was Prussian ambassador at Rome, Berne, and London, and settled later in Heidelberg. He was well read in theology and philology, and gradually came, in spite of his friendly relations with Friedrich Wilhelm IV., to entertain more liberal views on religion. The issue of hisBibelwerk für die Gemeindewas begun in 1858. He died in 1860. (Best known in England as the Chevalier Bunsen.)128.Ch. H. Weisse,Die evangelische Geschichte, Leipzig, 1838.Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium.(The Present Position of the Problem of the Gospels.) Leipzig, 1856. He regarded the discourses as historical, the narrative portions as of secondary origin. Alexander Schweizer, again, wished to distinguish a Jerusalem source and a Galilaean source, the latter being unreliable.Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte und seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu, 1841. (The Gospel of John considered in Relation to its Intrinsic Value and its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) See p. 127 f. Renan takes the narrative portions as authentic and the discourses as secondary.129.Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker was born in 1822 at Öhringen in Würtemberg. He qualified as Privat-Docent in 1847 and, after acting in the meantime as Court-Chaplain and Oberkonsistorialrat at Stuttgart, became in 1861 the successor of Baur at Tübingen. He died in 1899.130.The works of a Dutch writer named Stricker,Jesus von Nazareth(1868), and of the Englishman Sir Richard Hanson,The Jesus of History(1869), were based on Mark without any reference to John.131.1, Mark i.; 2, Mark ii. 1-iii. 6; 3, Mark iii. 7-19; 4, Mark iii. 19-iv. 34; 5, Mark iv. 35-vi. 6; 6, Mark vi. 7-vii. 37; 7, Mark viii. 1-ix. 50.132.Holtzmann,Kommentar zu den Synoptikern, 1889, p. 184. The form of the expression (Fluchtwege und Reisen) is derived from Keim.133.“Thus the course of Jesus' life hastened forward to its tragic close, a close which was foreseen and predicted by Jesus Himself with ever-growing clearness as the sole possible close, but also that which alone was worthy of Himself, and which was necessary as being foreseen and predetermined in the counsel of God. The hatred of the Pharisees and the indifference of the people left from the first no other prospect open. That hatred could not but be called forth in the fullest measure by the ruthless severity with which Jesus exposed all that it was and implied—a heart in which there was no room for love, a morality inwardly riddled with decay, an outward show of virtue, a hypocritical arrogance. Between two such unyielding opponents—a man who, to all appearance, aimed at using the Messianic expectations of the people for his own ends, and a hierarchy as tenacious of its claims and as sensitive to their infringement as any that has ever existed—it was certain that the breach must soon become irreparable. It was easy to foresee, too, that even in Galilee only a minority of the people would dare to face with Him the danger of such a breach. There was only one thing that could have averted the death sentence which had been early determined upon—a series of vigorous, unambiguous demonstrations on the part of the people. In order to provoke such demonstrations Jesus would have needed, if only for the moment, to take into His service the popular, powerful, inflammatory Messianic ideas, or rather, would have needed to place Himself at their service. His refusal to enter, by so much as a single step, upon this course, which from any ordinary point of view of human policy would have been legitimate, because the only practicable one, was the sole sufficient and all-explaining cause of His destruction.”—Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 485, 486.134.“Ein innerliches Reich der Sinnesänderung.”“Sinnesänderung”corresponds more exactly than“repentance”to the Greek μετάνοια (change of mind, change of attitude), but thephraseis no less elliptical in German than in English. The meaning is doubtless“kingdom based upon repentance, consisting of those who have fulfilled this condition.”135.Omitted in some of the best texts.—F. C. B.136.Oskar Holtzmann,Das Leben Jesu, 1901.137.Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu.(Modern Presentments of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the works of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the Essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A lecture by Chr. Ernest Luthardt, Leipzig. 1st and 2nd editions, 1864. Luthardt was born in 1823 at Maroldsweisach in Lower Franconia, became Docent at Erlangen in 1851, was called to Marburg as Professor Extraordinary in 1854, and to Leipzig as Ordinary Professor in 1856. He died in 1902.138.Zur Orientierung über meine Schrift“Das Charakterbild Jesu.”(Explanations intended to place my work“A Picture of the Character of Jesus”in the proper light.) 1864.Die protestantische Freiheit in ihrem gegenwärtigen Kampfe mit der kirchlichen Reaktion.(Protestant Freedom in its present Struggle with Ecclesiastical Reaction.) 1865.139.Der Schenkel'sche Handel in Baden.(The Schenkel Controversy in Baden.) (A corrected reprint from number 441 of theNational-Zeitungof September 21, 1864.) An appendix toDer Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. 1865.140.Theodor Keim,Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus of Nazara in Relation to the General Life of His People, freely examined and fully narrated.) 3 vols. Zurich, 1867-1872. Vol. i. The Day of Preparation; vol. ii. The Year of Teaching in Galilee; vol. iii. The Death-Passover (Todesostern) in Jerusalem. A short account in a more popular form appeared in 1872,Geschichte Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus according to the Results of Present-day Criticism, briefly narrated for the General Reader.) 2nd ed., 1875.Karl Theodor Keim was born in 1825 at Stuttgart, was Repetent at Tübingen from 1851 to 1855, and after he had been five years in the ministry, became Professor at Zurich in 1860. In 1873 he accepted a call to Giessen, where he died in 1878.141.Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi.See Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 7-9. This dissertation was followed byDer geschichtliche Christus. 3rd ed., 1866.142.Geschichte Jesu.2nd ed., 1875, pp. 228 and 229.143.The ultimate reason why Keim deliberately gives such prominence to the eschatology is that he holds to Matthew, and is therefore more under the direct impression of the masses of discourse in this Gospel, charged, as they are, with eschatological ideas, than those writers who find their primary authority in Mark, where these discourses are lacking.144.Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen von Dr. Karl Hase.1876. Special mention ought also to be made of the fine sketch of the Life of Jesus in A. Hausrath'sNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte(History of New Testament Times), 1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff.; 3rd ed., 1 vol., 1879, pp. 325-515;Die zeitgeschichtlichen Beziehungen des Lebens Jesu(The Relations of the Life of Jesus to the History of His time).Adolf Hausrath was born at Karlsruhe. He was appointed Professor of Theology at Heidelberg in 1867, and died in 1909.145.Das Leben Jesu, von Willibald Beyschlag: Pt. i. Preliminary Investigations, 1885, 450 pp.; pt. ii. Narrative, 1886, 495 pp. Joh. Heinr. Christoph Willibald Beyschlag was born in 1823 at Frankfort-on-Main, and went to Halle as Professor in 1860. His splendid eloquence made him one of the chief spokesmen of German Protestantism. As a teacher he exercised a remarkable and salutary influence, although his scientific works are too much under the dominance of an apologetic of the heart. He died in 1900.146.Bernhard Weiss,Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. Berlin, 1882. See alsoDas Markusevangelium, 1872;Das Matthäusevangelium, 1876; and theLehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 5th ed., 1888. Bernhard Weiss was born in 1827 at Königsberg, where he qualified as Privat-Docent in 1852. In 1863 he went as Ordinary Professor to Kiel, and was called to Berlin in the same capacity in 1877.Among the distinctly liberal Lives of Jesus of an earlier date, that of W. Krüger-Velthusen (Elberfeld, 1872, 271 pp.) might be mentioned if it were not so entirely uncritical. Although the author does not hold the Fourth Gospel to be apostolic he has no hesitation in making use of it as an historical source.There is more sentiment than science, too, in the work of M. G. Weitbrecht,Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 1881.A weakness in the treatment of the Johannine question and a want of clearness on some other points disfigures the three-volume Life of Jesus of the Paris professor, E. Stapfer, which is otherwise marked by much acumen and real depth of feeling. Vol. i.Jésus-Christ avant son ministère(Fischbacher, Paris, 1896); vol. ii.Jésus-Christ pendant son ministère(1897); vol. iii.La Mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ(1898).F. Godet writes of“The Life of Jesus before His Public Appearance”(German translation by M. Reineck,Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten. Hanover, 1897).G. Längin founds hisDer Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum(The Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897-1898.The EnglishLife of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, D. D. (now Professor of Church History in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen), passed through numberless editions (German, 1898; Tübingen, 4th ed., 1901).Very pithy and interesting is Dr. Percy Gardner'sExploratio Evangelica.A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief.1899; 2nd ed., 1907.A work which is free from all compromise is H. Ziegler'sDer geschichtliche Christus(The Historical Christ). 1891. For this reason the five lectures, delivered in Liegnitz, out of which it is composed, attracted such unfavourable attention that the Ecclesiastical Council took proceedings against the author. (See theChristliche Welt, 1891, pp. 563-568, 874-877.)147.Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Einleitung, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares himself in theTheologische Literaturzeitungfor 1882, No. 23, andDas apostolische Zeitalter, 2nd ed., 1890.Hase and Schenkel accepted this position in principle, but were careful to keep open a line of retreat.Towards the end of the 'seventies the rejection of the Fourth Gospel as an historical source was almost universally recognised in the critical camp. It is taken for granted in the Life of Jesus by Karl Wittichen (Jena, 1876, 397 pp.), which might be reckoned one of the most clearly conceived works of this kind based on the Marcan hypothesis if its arrangement were not so bad. It is partly in the form of a commentary, inasmuch as the presentment of the life takes the form of a discussion of sixty-seven sections. The detail is very interesting. It makes an impression ofnaïvetéwhen we find a series of sections grouped under the title,“The establishment ofChristianityin Galilee.”No stress is laid on the significance of Jesus' journey to the north. Wittichen, also, misled by Luke, asserts, just as Weisse had done, that Jesus had worked in Judaea for some time prior to the triumphal entry.148.H. H. Wendt,Die Lehre Jesu, vol. i.Die evangelischen Quellenberichte über die Lehre Jesu.(The Record of the Teaching of Jesus in the Gospel Sources.) 354 pp. Göttingen, 1886; vol. ii., 1890; Eng. trans., 1892. Second German edition in one vol., 626 pp., 1901. See also the same writer'sDas Johannesevangelium.Untersuchung seiner Entstehung und seines geschichtlichen Wertes, 1900. (The Gospel of John: an Investigation of its Origin and Historical Value.) Hans Heinrich Wendt was born in 1853 at Hamburg, qualified as Privat-Docent in 1877 at Göttingen, was subsequently Extraordinary Professor at Kiel and Heidelberg, and now works at Jena.149.Johannis Lightfooti, Doctoris Angli et Collegii S. Catharinae in Cantabrigiensi Academia Praefecti, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas ... nunc secundum in Germania junctim cum Indicibus locorum Scripturae rerumque ac verborum necessariis editae e Museo Io. Benedicti Carpzovii. Lipsiae. Anno MDCLXXXIV.150.The pioneer works in the study of apocalyptic were Dillmann'sHenoch, 1851; and Hilgenfeld'sJüdische Apokalyptik, 1857.151.Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern, von Gustav Volkmar, Zurich, 1882. To which must be added:Markus und die Synopse der Evangelien, nach dem urkundlichen Text; und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu. (Mark and Synoptic Material in the Gospels, according to the original text; and the historical elements in the Life of Jesus.) Zurich, 1869; 2nd edition, 1876, 738 pp. Volkmar was born in 1809, and was living at Fulda as a Gymnasium (High School) teacher, when in 1852 he was arrested by the Hessian Government on account of his political views, and subsequently deprived of his post. In 1853 he went to Zurich, where a new prospect opened to him as a Docent in theology. He died in 1893.152.Kienlen,“Die eschatologische Rede Jesu Matt. xxiv. cum Parall.”(The Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in Matt. xxiv. with the parallel passages),Jahrbuch für die Theologie, 1869, pp. 706-709. Analysis of other attempts directed to the same end in Weiffenbach,Der Wiederkunftsgedanke, p. 31 ff.153.Wilhelm Weiffenbach, Director of the Seminary for Theological Students at Friedberg, was born in 1842 at Bornheim in Rhenish Hesse.154.The English reader will find a constructive analysis of what is known as the“Little Apocalypse”inEncyclopaedia Biblica, art.“Gospels,”col. 1857. It consists of the verses Matt. xxiv. 6-8, 15-22, 29-31, 34, corresponding to Mark xiii. 7-9a, 14-20, 24-27, 30. According to the theory first sketched by Colani these verses formed an independent Apocalypse which was embedded in the Gospel by the Evangelist.—F. C. B.155.Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, 1864, pp. 121-126.156.“Über die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.”(The Composition of the Eschatological Discourse in Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.),Jahrbuch f. d. Theol.vol. xiii., 1868, pp. 134-149.157.By“Capernaitic”Weiffenbach apparently means literalistic; cf. John vi. 52 f.158.Wilhelm Baldensperger, at present Professor at Giessen, was born in 1856 at Mülhausen in Alsace.159.A new edition appeared in 1891. There is no fundamental alteration, but in consequence of the polemic against opponents who had arisen in the meantime it is fuller. The first part of a third edition appeared in 1903 under the titleDie messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums.See also the interesting use made of Late-Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred Edersheim'sThe Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2nd ed., London, 1884, 2 vols.160.Emil Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ.) 2nd ed., part second, 1886, pp. 417 ff. Here is to be found also a bibliography of the older literature of the subject. 3rd ed., 1889, vol. ii. pp. 498 ff.Emil Schürer was born at Augsburg in 1844, and from 1873 onwards was successively Professor at Leipzig, Giessen, and Kiel, and is now (1909) at Göttingen.The latest presentment of Jewish apocalyptic isDie jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, by Paul Volz, Pastor in Leonberg. Tübingen, 1903. 412 pp. The material is very completely given. Unfortunately the author has chosen the systematic method of treating his subject, instead of tracing the history of its development, the only right way. As a consequence Jesus and Paul occupy far too little space in this survey of Jewish apocalyptic. For a treatment of the origin of Jewish eschatology from the point of view of the history of religion see Hugo Gressmann, now Professor at Berlin,Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie(The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology), Göttingen, 1905. 377 pp.161.Johannes Weiss, now Professor at Marburg, was born at Kiel in 1863.162.It may be mentioned that this work had been preceded (in 1891) by two Leiden prize dissertations,Über die Lehre vom Reich Gottes im Neuen Testament(Concerning the Kingdom of God in the New Testament), one of them by Issel, the other, which lays especially strong emphasis upon the eschatology, by Schmoller.163.Wilhelm Bousset, now Professor in Göttingen, born 1865 at Lübeck164.Theol. Rundschau(1901), 4, pp. 89-103.165.W. Bousset,Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament. (The Origin of Apocalyptic as indicated by Comparative Religion, and its significance for the understanding of the New Testament.) Berlin, 1903. 67 pp. See also W. Bousset,Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 512 pp., 1902. For the assertion of Parsic influences see also Stave,Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum. Haarlem, 1898.166.Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein.Freiburg, 1895, 119 pp. See also his inaugural dissertation of 1896,Le Principe de la morale de Jésus. Paris, 1896.A. K. Rogers,The Life and Teachings of Jesus; a Critical Analysis, etc.(London and New York, 1894), regards Jesus' teaching as purely ethical, refusing to admit any eschatology at all.167.Paris, 2 vols., 500 and 512 pp.168.W. Weiffenbach,Die Frage der Wiederkunst Jesu. (The Question concerning the Second Coming of Jesus.) Friedberg, 1901.169.A. Titius,Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart. I. Teil:Jesu Lehre vom Reich Gottes. (The New Testament Doctrine of Blessedness and its Significance for the Present. Pt. I., Jesus' Doctrine of the Kingdom of God.) Arthur Titius, now Professor at Kiel, was born in 1864 at Sensburg.170.Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien, 167 pp. Erich Haupt, now Professor in Halle, was born in 1841 at Stralsund.171.Cf. the preface to the 2nd ed. of Joh. Weiss'sDie Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen, 1900.172.Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901, 410 pp.; 2nd ed., 1904. Paul Wernle, now Professor of Church History at Basle, was born in Zurich, 1872.173.Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 163-168; 2nd ed., 1895, pp. 198-204; 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901, pp. 380-394. See also hisSkizzen(Sketches), pp. 6, 187 ff.See also J. Wellhausen,Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, 2nd ed., 1909;Das Evangelium Matthäi, 1904;Das Evangelium Lucae, 1904.Julius Wellhausen, now Professor at Göttingen, was born in 1844 at Hameln.174.Emil Schürer,Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi. (The Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 1903, 24 pp.According to J. Meinhold, too, inJesus und das alte Testament(Jesus and the Old Testament), 1896, Jesus did not purpose to be the Messiah of Israel.175.Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu.(The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity considered in the light of a critical investigation of the Reports of the Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus.) By Dr. W. Brandt, Leipzig, 1893, 588 pp.Wilhelm Brandt was born in 1855 of German parents in Amsterdam and became a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1891 he resigned this office and studied in Strassburg and Berlin. In 1893 he was appointed to lecture in General History of Religion as a member of the theological faculty of Amsterdam.176.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Vol. i., 1888. The substance of it had already been published in a different form. Freiburg, 1886.Adolf Jülicher, at present Professor in Marburg, was born in 1857 at Falkenberg.177.W. Bousset,Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Göttingen, 1892.178.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2nd pt. (Exposition of the Parables in the first three Gospels.) Freiburg, 1899, 641 pp.Chr. A. Bugge,Die Hauptparabeln Jesu(The most important Parables of Jesus), German, from the Norwegian, Giessen, 1903, rightly remarks on the obscure and inexplicable character of some of the parables, but makes no attempt to deal with it from the historical point of view.179.Arnold Meyer,Jesu Muttersprache, 1896. P. W. Schmidt, too, in hisGeschichte Jesu(Freiburg, 1899), defends the same interpretation, and seeks to explain this obscure saying by the other about the“strait gate.”180.Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1900, p. 192 ff.181.Stud. Krit., 1836, pp. 90-122.182.See alsoDie Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern. (The Conceptions of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels.) By Ludwig Paul. Bonn, 1895. 130 pp. This comprehensive study discusses all the problems which are referred to below. Matt. xi. 12-14 is discussed under the heading“The Hinderers of the Kingdom of God.”183.A. Hilgenfeld,Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1888, pp. 488-498; 1892, pp. 445-464.184.Orello Cone,“Jesus' Self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels,”The New World, 1893, pp. 492-518.185.H. L. Oort,Die uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament. (The Expression Son of Man in the New Testament.) Leyden, 1893.186.R. H. Charles,“The Son of Man,”Expos. Times, 1893.187.Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament.(Jewish Apocalyptic in its religious-historical origin and in its significance for the New Testament.) 1903.On the eschatology of Jesus see also Schwartzkoppf,Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinen Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung. (The Predictions of Jesus Christ concerning His Death, His Resurrection, and Second Coming, and their Fulfilment.) 1895.P. Wernle,Die Reichgotteshofnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus. (The Hope of the Kingdom of God in the most ancient Christian Documents and as held by Jesus.)188.Arnold Meyer, now Professor of New Testament Theology and Pastoral Theology at Zurich, and formerly at Bonn, was born at Wesel in 1861.189.Giambern. de Rossi,Dissertazione della lingua propria di Christo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da' Tempi de' Maccabei in disamina del sentimento di un recente scrittore Italiano. Parma, 1772.190.Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias.(Matthew's account of Jesus the Messiah.) Altona, 1792. According to Meyer, p. 105 ff., this was a very striking performance.191.The name Chaldee was due to the mistaken belief that the language in which parts of Daniel and Ezra were written was really the vernacular of Babylonia. That vernacular, now known to us from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions, is a Semitic language, but quite different from Aramaic.—F. C. B.192.Emil Friedrich Kautzsch was born in 1841 at Plauen in Saxony, and studied in Leipzig, where he became Privat-Docent in 1869. In 1872 he was called as Professor to Basle, in 1880 to Tübingen, in 1888 to Halle.193.Gustaf Dalman, Professor at Leipzig, was born in 1865 at Niesky. In addition to the works of his named above, see alsoDer leidende und der sterbende Messias(The Suffering and Dying Messiah), 1888; andWas sagt der Talmud über Jesum?(What does the Talmud say about Jesus?), 1891.194.2 Kings xviii. 26 ff.195.Studia BiblicaI.Essays in Biblical Archæology and Criticism and Kindred Subjects by Members of the University of Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1885, pp. 39-74. See Meyer, p. 29 ff.196.Franz Delitzsch,Die Bücher des Neuen Testaments aus dem Griechischen ins Hebräische übersetzt. 1877. (The Books of the N.T. translated from Greek into Hebrew.) This work has been circulated by thousands among Jews throughout the whole world.Delitzsch was born in 1813 at Leipzig and became Privat-Docent there in 1842, went to Rostock as Professor in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and returned in 1867 to Leipzig. By conviction he was a strict Lutheran in theology. He was one of the leading experts in Late-Jewish and Talmudic literature. He died in 1890.197.See Meyer, p. 47 ff.198.See Meyer, p. 61 ff.199.Hans Lietzmann, now Professor in Jena, was born in 1875 at Düsseldorf. Until his call to Jena he worked as a Privat-Docent at Bonn. He has done some very meritorious work in the publication of Early Christian writings.200.See Meyer, p. 141 ff.201.“De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking 'Zoon des Menschen' als evangelische Messiastitel,”Theol. Tijdschr., 1894. (The Origin of the Expression“Son of Man”as a Title of the Messiah in the Gospels.)202.H. Lietzmann,“Zur Menschensohnfrage”(The Son-of-Man Problem),Theol. Arb. des Rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins, 1898.203.N. Schmidt,“Was בן נשא a Messianic title?”Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature, xv., 1896.204.P. Schmiedel,“Der Name Menschensohn und das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu”(The Designation Son of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus), 1898,Prot. Monatsh.2, pp. 252-267.205.H. Gunkel,Z. w. Th., 1899, 42, pp. 581-611.206.For the last phase of the discussion we may name:Wellhausen,Skizzen und Vorarbeiten(Sketches and Studies), 1899, pp. 187-215, where he throws further light on Dalman's philological objections; and goes on to deny Jesus' use of the expression.W. Baldensperger,“Die neueste Forschung über den Menschensohn,”Theol. Rundschau, 1900, 3, pp. 201-210, 243-255.P. Fiebig,Der Menschensohn. Tübingen, 1901.P. W. Schmiedel,“Die neueste Auffassung des Namens Menschensohn,”Prot. Monatsh.5, pp. 333-351, 1901. (The Latest View of the Designation Son of Man.)P. W. Schmidt,Die Geschichte Jesu, ii. (Erläuterungen—Explanations). Tübingen, 1904, p. 157 ff.207.Dalman's reputation as an authority upon Jewish Aramaic is so deservedly high, that it is necessary to point out that his solution did not, as Dr. Schweitzer seems to say, entirely dispose of the linguistic difficulties raised by Lietzmann as to the meaning and use ofbarnâshandbarnâshâin Aramaic. The English reader will find the linguistic facts well put in sections 4 and 32 of N. Schmidt's article“Son of Man”inEncyclopædia Biblica(cols. 4708, 4723), or he may consult Prof. Bevan's review of Dalman'sWorte Jesuin theCritical Reviewfor 1899, p. 148 ff. The main point is that ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are equally legitimate translations ofbarnâshâ. Thus the contrast in the Greek between ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark ii. 27 and 28, or again in Mark viii. 36 and 38, disappears on retranslation into the dialect spoken by Jesus. Whether this linguistic fact makes the sayings in which ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs unhistorical is a further question, upon which scholars can take, and have taken, opposite opinions.—F. C. B.208.SeeWorte Jesu, 1898, p. 191 ff. (= E. T. p. 234 ff.).209.See the classical discussion in J. Weiss,Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes, 1892, 1st ed., p. 52 ff.In the second edition, of 1900, p. 160 ff., he allows himself to be led astray by the“chiefest apostles”of modern theology to indulge in the subtleties of fine-spun psychology, and explain Jesus' way of speaking of Himself in the third person as the Son of Man as due to the“extreme modesty of Jesus,”a modesty which did not forsake Him in the presence of His judges. This recent access of psychologising exegesis has not conduced to clearness of presentation, and the preference for the Lucan narrative does not so much contribute to throw light on the facts as to discover in the thoughts of Jesus subtleties of which the historical Jesus never dreamt. If the Lord always used the term Son of Man when speaking of His Messiahship, the reason was that this was the only way in which He could speak of it at all, since the Messiahship was not yet realised, but was only to be so at the appearing of the Son of Man. For a consistent, purely historical, non-psychological exposition of the Son-of-Man passages see Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. (The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion.) A sketch of the Life of Jesus. Tübingen, 1901.210.See Dalman, p. 60 ff.John Lightfoot,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Edited by J. B. Carpzov. Leipzig, 1684.Christian Schöttgen,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Dresden-Leipzig, 1733.Joh. Gerh. Meuschen,Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum. Leipzig, 1736.J. Jakob. Wettstein,Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amsterdam, 1751 and 1752.F. Nork,Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig, 1839.Franz Delitzsch,“Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,”in theLuth. Zeitsch., 1876-1878.Carl Siegfried,Analecta Rabbinica, 1875;“Rabbin. Analekten,”Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1876.A. Wünsche,Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Contributions to the Exposition of the Gospels from Talmud and Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878.211.Leipzig, 1880; 2nd ed., 1897.212.Cf. for what follows, Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 164 ff.213.Robert Sheringham of Caius College, Cambridge, a royalist divine, published an edition of the Talmudic tractateYoma. London, 1648.—F. C. B.214.T. Tal,Professor Oort und der Talmud, 1880. See upon this Van Manen,Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1884, p. 569. The best collection of Talmudic parables is, according to Jülicher, that of Prof. Guis. Levi, translated by L. Seligman asParabeln, Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch. Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1877.215.The question may be said to have been provisionally settled by Paul Fiebig's work,Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu(Ancient Jewish Parables and the Parables of Jesus), Tübingen, 1904, in which he gives some fifty Late-Jewish parables, and compares them with those of Jesus, the final result being to show more clearly than ever the uniqueness and absoluteness of His creations.216.See the explanation by means of the Aramaic of a selection of the sayings of Jesus in Meyer, pp. 72-90. A Judaism more under Parsee influence is assumed as explaining the origin of Christianity by E. Böklen,Die Verwandschaft der jüdisch-christlichen mit der parsischen Eschatologie(The Relation of Jewish-Christian to Persian Eschatology), 1902, 510 ff.217.The same view is expressed by Wellhausen,Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 3rd ed., p. 381, note 2; and by Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, 1901.218.See the Apocalypse of Baruch, and Fourth Ezra.219.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ, par Nicolas Notowitsch. Paris, 1894.220.See Jülicher,Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 172 ff.221.Max Müller,India, What can it teach us?London, 1883, p. 279.222.Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig,Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relation to the Buddha Legend and the Teaching of Buddha, with constant reference to other religious groups.) Leipzig, 1882, p. 337.Other works by the same author areBuddha und Christus. Deutsche Bücherei No. 33, Breslau, Schottländer, 1884.Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien.2nd ed. Weimar, 1897. (Edited by the son of the late author.) 129 pp.See also on this question Van den Bergh van Eysinga,Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen. Göttingen, 1904. 104 pp.According to J. M. Robertson,Christianity and Mythology(London, 1900), the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition is to be symbolically interpreted.223.Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments, 1905.224.Heinrich Julius Holtzmann,Handkommentar.Die Synoptiker.1st ed., 1889; 3rd ed., 1901.Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1896, vol. i.225.In the Catholic Church the study of the Life of Jesus has remained down to the present day entirely free from scepticism. The reason of that is, that in principle it has remained at a pre-Straussian standpoint, and does not venture upon an unreserved application of historical considerations either to the miracle question or to the Johannine question, and naturally therefore resigns the attempt to take account of and explain the great historical problems.We may name the following Lives of Jesus produced by German Catholic writers:—Joh. Nep. Sepp,Das Leben Jesu Christi. Regensburg, 1843-1846. 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1853-1862.Peter Schegg,Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu. (The Life of Jesus in Six Books.) Freiburg, 1874-1875. c. 1200 pp.Joseph Grimm,Das Leben Jesu. Würzburg, 2nd ed., 1890-1903. 6 vols.Richard von Kralik,Jesu Leben und Werk. Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904. 481 pp.W. Capitaine,Jesus von Nazareth. Regensburg, 1905. 192 pp.How narrow are the limits within which the Catholic study of the life of Jesus moves even when it aims at scientific treatment, is illustrated by Hermann Schell'sChristus(Mainz, 1903. 152 pp.). After reading the forty-two questions with which he introduces his narrative one might suppose that the author was well aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus, and intended to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work proceeds more and more the rôle of an apologist, not facing definitely either the miracle question or the Johannine question, but gliding over the difficulties by the aid of ingenious headings, so that in the end his book almost takes the form of an explanatory text to the eighty-nine illustrations which adorn the book and make it difficult to read.In France, Renan's work gave the incentive to an extensive Catholic“Life-of-Jesus”literature. We may name the following:—Louis Veuillot,La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1864. 509 pp. German by Waldeyer. Köln-Neuss, 1864. 573 pp.H. Wallon,Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1865. 355 pp.A work which met with a particularly favourable reception was that of Père Didon, the Dominican,Jésus-Christ, Paris, 1891, 2 vols., vol. i. 483 pp., vol. ii. 469 pp. The German translation is dated 1895.In the same year there appeared a new edition of the“Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ”(see above, p.109f.) by Katharina Emmerich; the cheap popular edition of the translation of Renan's“Life of Jesus”; and the eighth edition of Strauss's“Life of Jesus for the German People.”We may quote from the ecclesiasticalApprobationprinted at the beginning of Didon's Life of Jesus.“If the author sometimes seems to speak the language of his opponents, it is at once evident that he has aimed at defeating them on their own ground, and he is particularly successful in doing so when he confronts their irreligious a priori theories with the positive arguments of history.”As a matter of fact the work is skilfully written, but without a spark of understanding of the historical questions.All honour to Alfred Loisy! (Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1903, 960 pp.), who takes a clear view on the Johannine question, and denies the existence of a Johannine historical tradition. But what that means for the Catholic camp may be recognised from the excitement produced by the book and its express condemnation. See also the same writer'sL'Évangile et l'Église(German translation, Munich, 1904, 189 pp.), in which Loisy here and there makes good historical points against Harnack's“What is Christianity?”226.Oskar Holtzmann, Professor of Theology at Giessen, was born in 1859 at Stuttgart.227.This suggestion reminds us involuntarily of the old rationalistic Lives of Jesus, which are distressed that Jesus should have injured the good people of the country of the Gesarenes by sacrificing their swine in healing the demoniac. A good deal of old rationalistic material crops up in the very latest Lives of Jesus, as cannot indeed fail to be the case in view of the arbitrary interpretation of detail which is common to both. According to Oskar Holtzmann the barren fig-tree has also a symbolical meaning.“It is a pledge given by God to Jesus that His faith shall not be put to shame in the great work of His life.”228.Isaiah lxii. 11,“Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh.”229.“For Jesus Himself,”Oskar Holtzmann argues,“this discovery”—he means the antinomy which He had discovered in Psalm cx.—“disposed of a doubt which had always haunted him. If He had really known Himself to be descended from the Davidic line, He would certainly not have publicly suggested a doubt as to the Davidic descent of the Messiah.”230.Oskar Holtzmann's work,War Jesus Ekstatiker?(Tübingen, 1903, 139 pp.) is in reality a new reading of the life of Jesus. By emphasising the ecstatic element he breaks with the“natural”conception of the life and teaching of Jesus; and, in so far, approaches the eschatological view. But he gives a very wide significance to the term ecstatic, subsuming under it, it might almost be said, all the eschatological thoughts and utterances of Jesus. He explains, for instance, that“the conviction of the approaching destruction of existing conditions is ecstatic.”At the same time, the only purpose served by the hypothesis of ecstasy is to enable the author to attribute to Jesus“The belief that in His own work the Kingdom of God was already beginning, and the promise of the Kingdom to individuals; this can only be considered ecstatic.”The opposites which Bousset brings together by the conception of paradox are united by Holtzmann by means of the hypothesis of ecstasy. That is, however, to play fast and loose with the meaning of“ecstasy.”An ecstasy is, in the usual understanding of the word, an abnormal, transient condition of excitement in which the subject's natural capacity for thought and feeling, and therewith all impressions from without, are suspended, being superseded by an intense mental excitation and activity. Jesus may possibly have been in an ecstatic state at His baptism and at the transfiguration. What O. Holtzmann represents as a kind of permanent ecstatic state is rather an eschatological fixed idea. With eschatology, ecstasy has no essential connexion. It is possible to be eschatologically minded without being an ecstatic, and vice versa. Philo attributes a great importance to ecstasy in his religious life, but he was scarcely, if at all, interested in eschatology.231.P. W. Schmidt, now Professor in Basle, was born in Berlin in 1845.232.Otto Schmiedel, Professor at the Gymnasium at Eisenach,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. Schmiedel was born in 1858.Hermann Freiherr von Soden,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. Von Soden, Professor in Berlin, and preacher at the Jerusalem Kirche, was born in 1852.We may mention also the following works:—Fritz Barth (born 1856, Professor at Bern),Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu. 1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1903.Friedrich Nippold'sDer Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien(The Course of the Life of Jesus in the Words of the First Three Evangelists) (Hamburg, 1895, 213 pp.) is only an arrangement of the sections.Konrad Furrer'sVorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi(Lectures on the Life of Jesus Christ) have a special charm by reason of the author's knowledge of the country and the locality. Furrer, who was born in 1838, is Professor at Zurich.Another work which should not be forgotten is R. Otto'sLeben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung(Life and Work of Jesus from the Point of View of Historical Criticism). A Lecture. Göttingen, 1902. Rudolf Otto, born in 1869, is Privat-Docent at Göttingen.233.Schmiedel is not altogether right in making“the Heidelberg Professor Paulus”follow the same lines as Reimarus,“except that his works, of 1804 and 1828, are less malignant, but only the more dull for that.”In reality the deistic Life of Jesus by Reimarus, and the rationalistic Life by Paulus have nothing in common. Paulus was perhaps influenced by Venturini, but not by Reimarus. The assertion that Strauss wrote his“Life of Jesus for the German people”because“Renan's fame gave him no peace”is not justified, either by Strauss's character or by the circumstances in which the second Life of Jesus was produced.234.Von Soden gives on pp. 24 ff. the passages of Mark which he supposes to be derived from the Petrine tradition in a different order from that in which they occur in Mark, regrouping them freely. He puts together, for instance, Mark i. 16-20, iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27-ix. 1, ix. 33-40, under the title“The formation and training of the band of disciples.”He supposes Mark, the pupil of Peter, to have grouped in this way by a kind of association of ideas“what he had heard Peter relate in his missionary journeys, when writing it down after Peter's death, not connectedly, but giving as much as he could remember of it”; this would be in accordance with the statement of Papias that Mark wrote“not in order.”Papias's statement, therefore, refers to an“Ur-Markus,”which he found lacking in historical order.But what are we to make of a representative of the early Church thus approaching the Gospels with the demand for historical arrangement? And good, simple old Papias, of all people!But if the Marcan plan was not laid down in“Ur-Markus,”there is nothing for it—since the plan was certainly not given in the collection of Logia—but to ascribe it to the author of our Gospel of Mark, to the man, that is, who wrote down for the first time these“Pauline conceptions,”those reflections of experiences of individual believers and of the community, and inserted them into the Gospel. It is proposed, then, to retain the outline which he has given of the life of Jesus, and reject at the same time what he relates. That is to say, he is to be believed where it is convenient to believe him, and silenced where it is inconvenient. No more complete refutation of the Marcan hypothesis could possibly be given than this analysis, for it destroys its very foundation, the confident acceptance of the historicity of the Marcan plan.If there is to be an analysis of sources in Mark, then the Marcan plan must be ascribed to“Ur-Markus,”otherwise the analysis renders the Markan hypothesis historically useless. But if“Ur-Markus”is to be reconstructed on the basis of assigning to it the Marcan plan, then we cannot separate the natural from the supernatural, for the supernatural scenes, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, are among the main features of the Marcan outline.No hypothetical analysis of“Ur-Markus”has escaped this dilemma; what it can effect by literary methods is historically useless, and what would be historically useful cannot be attained nor“presented”by literary methods.235.Von Soden, for instance, germanises Jesus when he writes,“and this nature is sound to the core. In spite of its inwardness there is no trace of an exaggerated sentimentality. In spite of all the intensity of prayer there is nothing of ecstasy or vision. No apocalyptic dream-pictures find a lodging-place in His soul.”Is a man who teaches a world-renouncing ethic which sometimes soars to the dizzy heights such as that of Matt. xix. 12, according to our conceptions“sound to the core”? And does not the life of Jesus present a number of occasions on which He seems to have been in an ecstasy?Thus, von Soden has not simply read his Jesus out of the texts, but has added something of his own, and that something is Germanic in colouring.236.i.e.the MS. Life of Jesus written by Kai Jans, one of the characters of the novel. The way in which the whole life-experience of this character prepares him for the writing of the Life is strikingly—if not always acceptably—worked out.—Translator.237.Frenssen's Kai Jans professes to have used the“results of the whole range of critical investigation”in writing his work. Among the books which he enumerates and recommends in the after-word, we miss the works of Strauss, Weisse, Keim, Volkmar, and Brandt, and, generally speaking, the names of those who in the past have done something really great and original. Of the moderns, Johannes Weiss is lacking. Wrede is mentioned, but is virtually ignored. Pfleiderer's remarkable and profound presentation of Jesus in theUrchristentum(E. T.“Primitive Christianity,”vol. ii., 1909) is non-existent so far as he is concerned.238.Heimatkunst, the ideal that every production of German art should be racy of the soil. It has its relative justification as a protest against the long subservience of some departments of German art to French taste.—Translator.239.The Jesus of H. S. Chamberlain'sWorte Christi, 1901, 286 pp., is also modern. But the modernity is not so obtrusive, because he describes only the teaching of Jesus, not His life.240.Born in 1839 at Stettin. Studied at Tübingen, was appointed Professor in 1870 at Jena and in 1875 at Berlin. (Died 1908.)241.Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben.2nd ed. Berlin, 1902. Vol. i. (696 pp.), 615 ff.:Die Predigt Jesu und der Glaube der Urgemeinde(English Translation,“Primitive Christianity,”chap. xvi.). Pfleiderer's latest views are set forth in his work, based on academic lectures,Die Entstehung des Urchristentums. (How Christianity arose.) Munich, 1905. 255 pp.242.Albert Kalthoff,Das Christusproblem.Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie.(The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. 87 pp.Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem.(How Christianity arose.) Leipzig, 1904. 155 pp.Albert Kalthoff was born in 1850 at Barmen, and is engaged in pastoral work in Bremen.243.Das Leben Jesu.Lectures delivered before the Protestant Reform Society at Berlin. Berlin, 1880. 173 pp.244.If Kalthoff would only have spoken of the conception of the resurrection instead of the conception of immortality! Then his subjective knowledge would have been more or less tolerable.245.Against Kalthoff: Wilhelm Bousset,Was wissen wir von Jesus?(What do we know about Jesus?) Lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen. Halle, 1904. 73 pp. In reply: Albert Kalthoff,Was wissen wir von Jesus?A settlement of accounts with Professor Bousset. Berlin, 1904. 43 pp.A sound historical position is set forth in the clear and trenchant lecture of W. Kapp,Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthoff. (The problem of the Christ and of Christianity as handled by Kalthoff.) Strassburg, 1905. 23 pp.246.Eduard von Hartmann,Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments. (The Christianity of the N.T.) 2nd, revised and altered, edition of the“Letters on the Christian Religion.”Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905. 311 pp.247.Eduard von Hartmann ought, therefore, to have given his assistance to the others who have made this assertion in proving that there really existed Messianic claimants before and at the time of Jesus.248.“Jesus,”by Jülicher, inDie Kultur der Gegenwart. (An encyclopaedic publication which is appearing in parts.) Teubner, Berlin, 1905, pp. 40-69.See also W. Bousset,“Jesus,”Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher. (A series of religious-historical monographs.) Published by Schiele, Halle, 1904.Here should be mentioned also the thoughtful book, following very much the lines of Jülicher, by Eduard Grimm, entitledDie Ethik Jesu, Hamburg, 1903, 288 pp. The author, born in 1848, is the chief pastor at the Nicolaikirche in Hamburg.Another work which deserves mention is Arno Neumann,Jesu wie er geschichtlich war(Jesus as he historically existed), Freiburg, 1904, 198 pp. (New Paths to the Old God), a Life of Jesus distinguished by a lofty vein of natural poetry and based upon solid theological knowledge. Arno Neumann is headmaster of a school at Apolda.249.Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes.Berlin, 1904, 112 pp. Earlier studies of the Life of Jesus from the Jewish point of view had been less ambitious. Dr. Aug. Wünsche had written in 1872 on“Jesus in His attitude towards women”from the Talmudic standpoint (146 pp.), and had described Him from the same standpoint as a Jesus who rejoiced in life,Der lebensfreudige Jesus der synoptischen Evangelien im Gegensatz zum leidenden Messias der Kirche. Leipzig, 1876, 444 pp. The basis is so far correct, that the eschatological, world-renouncing ethic which we find in Jesus was due to temporary conditions and is therefore transitory, and had nothing whatever to do with Judaism as such. The spirit of the Law is the opposite of world-renouncing. But the Talmud, be its traditions never so trustworthy, could teach us little about Jesus because it has preserved scarcely a trace of that eschatological phase of Jewish religion and ethics.250.Wolfgang Kirchbach,Was lehrte Jesus? Zwei Urevangelien. Berlin, 1897, 248 pp.; second greatly enlarged and improved edition, 1902, 339 pp. By the same author,Das Buch Jesus.Die Urevangelien. Neu nachgewiesen, neu übersetzt, geordnet und aus der Ursprache erklärt. (The Book of Jesus. The Primitive Gospels. Newly traced, translated, arranged, and explained on the basis of the original.) Berlin, 1897.251.Before him, Hugo Delff, in hisHistory of the Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth(Leipzig, 1889, 428 pp.), had confined himself to the Fourth Gospel, and even within that Gospel he drew some critical distinctions. His Jesus at first conceals His Messiahship from the fear of arousing the political expectations of the people, and speaks to them of the Son of Man in the third person. At His second visit to Jerusalem He breaks with the rulers, is subsequently compelled, in consequence of the conflict over the Sabbath, to leave Galilee, and then gives up His own people and turns to the heathen. Delff explains the raising of Lazarus by supposing him to have been buried in a state of trance.252.Albert Dulk,Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu.In geschichtlicher Aufassung dargestellt. Erster Teil: Die historischen Wurzeln und die galiläische Blüte, 1884. 395 pp.Zweiter Teil: Der Messiaseinzug und die Erhebung ans Kreuz, 1885, 302 pp. (The Error of the Life of Jesus. Historically apprehended and set forth. Pt. i., The Historical Roots and the Galilaean Blossom. Pt. ii., The Messianic Entry and the Crucifixion.) The course of Dulk's own life was somewhat erratic. Born in 1819, he came prominently forward in the revolution of 1848, as a political pamphleteer and agitator. Later, though almost without means, he undertook long journeys, even to Sinai and to Lapland. Finally, he worked as a social democratic reformer. He died in 1884.253.A scientific treatment of this subject is supplied by Fr. Nippold,Die psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu(The Psychiatric Side of Jesus' Works of Healing), 1889, in which a luminous review of the medical material is to be found. See also Dr. K. Kunz,Christus medicus, Freiburg in Baden, 1905, 74 pp. The scientific value of this work is, however, very much reduced by the fact that the author has no acquaintance with the preliminary questions belonging to the sphere of history and literature, and regards all the miracles of healing as actual events, believing himself able to explain them from the medical point of view. The tendency of the work is mainly apologetic.254.Jesus von Nazareth. Described from the Scientific, Historical, and Social Point of View.Translated from the French (into German) by A. Just. Leipzig, 1894. The author, whose real name is P. A. Desjardin, is a practising physician. De Régla, too, makes the Fourth Gospel the basis of his narrative.255.Pierre Nahor (Emilie Lerou),Jesus. Translated from the French by Walter Bloch. Berlin, 1905. Its motto is: The figure of Jesus belongs, like all mysterious, heroic, or mythical figures, to legend and poetry. In the introduction we find the statement,“This book is a confession of faith.”The narrative is based on the Fourth Gospel.256.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ.Paris, 1894. 301 pp. German, under the titleDie Lücke im Leben Jesu(The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. See Holtzmann in theTheol. Jahresbericht, xiv. p. 140.In a certain limited sense the work of A. Lillie,The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity(London, 1893), is to be numbered among the fictitious works on the life of Jesus. The fictitious element consists in Jesus being made an Essene by the writer, and Essenism equated with Buddhism.Among“edifying”romances on the life of Jesus intended for family reading, that of the English writer J. H. Ingraham,The Prince of the House of David, has had a very long lease of life. It appeared in a German translation as early as 1858, and was reissued in 1906 (Brunswick).A fictitious life of Jesus of wonderful beauty is Peter Rosegger'sI.N.R.I. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders(The Glad Tidings of a poor Sinner). Leipzig, 6th-10th thousand, 1906. 293 pp.A feminine point of view reveals itself in C. Rauch'sJeschua ben Joseph. Deichert, 1899.257.La Vie ésotérique de Jésu-Christ et les origines orientales du christianisme.Paris, 1902. 445 pp.That Jesus was of Aryan race is argued by A. Müller, who assumes a Gaulish immigration into Galilee.Jesus ein Arier.Leipzig, 1904. 74 pp.258.Did Jesus live 100b.c.?London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903. 440 pp.A scientific discussion of the“Toledoth Jeshu,”with citations from the Talmudic tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss,Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, 1902. 309 pp. According to him theToledoth Jeshuwas committed to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a modified version of the Christian tradition.259.William Wrede, born in 1859 at Bücken in Hanover, was Professor at Breslau. (He died in 1907.)Wrede names as his real predecessors on the same lines Bruno Bauer, Volkmar, and the Dutch writer Hoekstra (“De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien,”Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871).In a certain limited degree the work of Ernest Havet (Le Christianisme et ses origines) has a claim to be classed in the same category. His scepticism refers principally to the entry into Jerusalem and the story of the passion.260.These and the following questions are raised more especially in theSketch of the Life of Jesus.261.It would perhaps be more historical to say“as a prophet.”262.The difficulties which the incident at Caesarea Philippi places in the way of Wrede's construction may be realised by placing two of his statements side by side. P. 101:“From this it is evident that this incident contains no element which cannot be easily understood on the basis of Mark's ideas.”P. 238:“But in another aspect this incident stands in direct contradiction to the Marcan view of the disciples. It is inconsistent with their general‘want of understanding,’and can therefore hardly have been created by Mark himself.”263.The question of the attitude of pre-Origenic theology towards the historical Jesus, and of the influence exercised by dogma upon the evangelical tradition regarding Jesus in the course of the first two centuries, is certainly deserving of a detailed examination.264.Certain of the conceptions with which Wrede operates are simply not in accordance with the text, because he gives them a different significance from that which they have in the narrative. Thus, for example, he always takes the“resurrection,”when it occurs in the mouth of Jesus, as a reference to that resurrection which as an historical fact became a matter of apprehended experience to the apostles. But Jesus speaks without any distinction of His resurrection and of His Parousia. The conception of the resurrection, therefore, if one is to arrive at it inductively from the Marcan text, is most closely bound up with the Parousia. The Evangelist would thus seem to have made Jesus predict a different kind of resurrection from that which actually happened. The resurrection, according to the Marcan text, is an eschatological event, and has no reference whatever to Wrede's“historical resurrection.”Further, if their resurrection experience was the first and fundamental point in the Messianic enlightenment of the disciples, why did they only begin to proclaim it some weeks later? This is a problem which was long ago recognised by Reimarus, and which is not solved by merely assuming that the disciples were afraid.265.P. 33 ff. The prohibitions in Mark i. 43 and 44, v. 43, vii. 36, and viii. 26 are put on the same footing with the really Messianic prohibitions in viii. 30 and ix. 9, with which may be associated also the imposition of silence upon the demoniacs who recognise his Messiahship in Mark i. 34 and iii. 12.266.The narrative in Matt. xiv. 22-33, according to which the disciples, after seeing Jesus walk upon the sea, hail Him on His coming into the boat as the Son of God, and the description of the deeds of Jesus as“deeds of Christ,”in the introduction to the Baptist's question in Matt. xi. 2, do not cancel the old theory even in Matthew, because the Synoptists, differing therein from the fourth Evangelist, do not represent the demand for a sign as a demand for a Messianic sign, nor the cures wrought by Jesus as Messianic proofs of power. The action of the demons in crying out upon Jesus as the Son of God betokens their recognition of Him; it has nothing to do with the miracles of healing as such.267.For further examples of the pressing of the theory to its utmost limits, see Wrede, p. 134 ff.268.It is always assumed as self-evident that Jesus is speaking of the sufferings and persecutions which would take place after His death, or that the Evangelist, in making Him speak in this way, is thinking of these later persecutions. There is no hint of that in the text.269.That the eschatological school showed a certain timidity in drawing the consequences of its recognition of the character of the preaching of Jesus and examining the tradition from the eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes Weiss's work,“The Earliest Gospel”(Das älteste Evangelium), Göttingen, 1903, 414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is surprised to find the author of the“Preaching of Jesus”here endeavouring to distinguish between Mark and“Ur-Markus,”to point to examples of Pauline influence, to exhibit clearly the“tendencies”which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist and the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological view of the preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him a clue to quite a different psychology from that which he actually applies. Against Wrede he brings forward many arguments which are worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have refuted him, because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the exact form in which it was raised by Wrede.270.Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark's version the experience at the baptism is conceived as an open miracle, perceptible to others. The way in which the revelations to the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament does not make in favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in the presence of a multitude without perceiving that in this case the Messianic secret was a secret no longer. If so, the story of the baptism stands on the same footing as the story of the Messianic entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely no results.271.The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared for a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off to the north once more (Mark vii. 31-viii. 27), may here provisionally be left out of account since it stands in relation with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So too the enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii. 34-ix. 30) may here be passed over. These statements make no difference to the fact that Jesus really broke off his work in Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, since they imply at most a quite transient contact with the people.272.On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work of Jesus see the“Sketch,”p. 3 ff.,“The four Pre-suppositions of the Modern Historical Solution.”273.Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion of the people, since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by the Pharisees, not by the people. The abandonment of the Galilaean work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he thought, have been due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the time had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of Jesus' miracle-working power which caused the change in His attitude, since it is remarkable that He performed no further miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.274.The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset's, who proposes to treat the mission and everything connected with it as a“confused and unintelligible”tradition.275.Joel iii. 13,“Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!”In the Apocalypse of John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the heavenly harvest:“Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped”(Rev. xiv. 15 and 16).The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch:“Behold, the days come, when the time of the world shall be ripe, and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil shall come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its inhabitants and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror that makes the heart stand still; and they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war; and the despised shall have power over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of the few ... and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before-mentioned (dangers) ... shall be given into the hands of my servant, the Messiah.”(Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. Following the translation of E. Kautzsch.)The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was therefore one of the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And as the Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the period abouta.d.70, it may be assumed that this association of ideas was also current in the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of sowing and reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of the time. What Jesus did was to make known to those who understood Him that the coming earthly harvest was the last, and was also the token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.276.With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the discourse in Matt. xi. in order to make the“cry of jubilation”into the cry with which Jesus saluted the return of His disciples, and to find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida somewhere else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this apparently disconnected material held together by an inner bond of connexion—the secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently impending over Jesus and the people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach like one who has a thesis to maintain and seeks about for the most logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly connexion belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?277.If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His resurrection, He means by that, not a single isolated act, but a complex occurrence consisting of His metamorphosis, translation to heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with this is associated the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is, therefore, one and the same thing whether He speaks of His resurrection or of His coming on the clouds of heaven.278.The title of Baldensperger's book,The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time, really contains a promise which is impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary“Messianic hopes”can only explain the hopes of Jesus so far as they corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, in which He is absolutely original.279.Even Baldensperger's book,Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums(1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. The coming volume is to deal with the eschatology of Jesus. That is a“theological,”but not an historical division of the material. The second volume should properly come in the middle of the first.280.The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by the ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the rising influence of the ancient prophetic literature. This designation has nothing whatever to do with a political ideal of a kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in their character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural as the Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read into both Daniel and the prophets.281.Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The earliest portion, the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of Daniel and of contemporary origin. The Similitudes (capp. xxxvii.-lxix.), which, with their description of the Judgment of the Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of Jesus, may be placed in 80-70b.c.They do not presuppose the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey.282.The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the Similitudes.283.The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long after the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years later.284.The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology before the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from 60b.c.untila.d.30, we have no information regarding eschatological movements! And do the Psalms of Solomon really point to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in studying the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have no eschatological character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next turning-point in the history of the apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and Fourth Ezra show.285.Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of Man they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It is to their part in the judgment that belong also the authority to bind and to loose which He entrusts to them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards to all the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present decisions will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does the“upon earth”refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last Judgment will be held on earth?“I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be historical? Is it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the“church”which He will found upon the Rock-disciple? But if one has once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre-existing“church”was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is given an uneschatological reference to the Church as we know it, it loses all real meaning and becomes a treasure-trove to the Roman Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.286.That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how short a time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun. He only became known, as the Baptist's question shows, at the time of the mission of the disciples; Herod first heard of Him after the death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of Jesus beforehand, it would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him with the Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry of Jesus.287.That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology lost sight of the fact because it did not know how to make any historical use of it.288.Psal. Sol. xv. 8.289.That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim to something future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of His sufferings and death as a special baptism, and asks the sons of Zebedee whether they are willing, for the sake of gaining the thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. If the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it would be unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.290.The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and lxv. 12 ff. It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6-8, a passage which perhaps dates from the time of Alexander the Great,“and Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things prepared with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall destroy, in this mountain, among all peoples, the veil which has veiled all peoples and the covering which has covered all nations. He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall wipe away the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall disappear from the earth.”(The German follows Kautzsch's translation.)In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is connected with that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits to the elect upon the mountain of the King. Similarly in the Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11.The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the Son of Man, and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved“shall eat with the Son of Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him to all eternity.”Jesus' references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely images, but point to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He prophesies that many shall come from the East and from the West to sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. xxii. 1-14 the Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1-13 as a marriage feast.The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its forms. In Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the tree of life; in ii. 17 it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake-side was a true sacrament.291.Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing with Mark must consist in explaining how such“myths”could be accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as our Mark does.292.It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross,“Eli, Eli,”was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to Elias.293.From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any of them to have“arrived gradually at the knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus.”294.For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been worked into one another, see the“Sketch of the Life of Jesus,”1901, p. 52 ff.,“After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and historical problems.”A theory resting on the same principle was lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss,Das älteste Evangelium(The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.295.It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede also observes:“The transfiguration and Peter's confession are closely connected in content”(p. 123). He also clearly perceives the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow-disciples do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious difficulty for Wrede's reading of the facts, since this assumes Jesus to have been the revealer of it.296.“After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps, awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”297.Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will“go before them”into Galilee. That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He shall returnwiththem, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean appearances.We find it“corrected”by the saying of the“young man”at the grave, who says to the women,“Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.”Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words“he goeth before you,”whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the“correction.”298.Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.299.Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of“many”instead of speaking of“His own”or“the believers.”Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the“for many”in the words of Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any kind of contact with early theology the“many”disappear to give place to the“believers.”In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the“many”as the nation (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the“many”cannot include the disciples, since they“who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.”They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.300.One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to die. Here as in so many other places Weisse's clearness of perception is surprising. Jesus' journey was according to him a pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.301.“That ye enter not into temptation”is the content of the prayer that they are to offer while watching with Him.302.As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial Act) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this technical error was very serious.But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.303.That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been brought up as a charge against Him.304.When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence. But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.

Footnotes1.Quoted by Dr. Inge in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1910, p. 438 (from“Jesus or Christ,”p. 32).2.“Quest,”p. 4.3.An order founded in 1776 by Professor Adam Weishaupt of Ingolstadt in Bavaria. Its aim was the furtherance of rational religion as opposed to orthodox dogma; its organisation was largely modelled on that of the Jesuits. At its most flourishing period it numbered over 2000 members, including the rulers of several German States.—Translator.4.D. Fr. Strauss,Gespräche von Ulrich von Hutten. Leipzig, 1860.5.W. Wrede,Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. (The Messianic Secret in the Gospels.) Göttingen, 1901, pp. 280-282.6.In the author's usage“the Marcan hypothesis”means the theory that the Gospel of Mark is not only the earliest and most valuable source for the facts, but differs from the other Gospels in embodying a more or less clear and historically intelligible view of the connexion of events. See Chaps.X.andXIV.below.—Translator.7.Dr. Christoph Friedrich von Ammon,Fortbildung des Christentums, Leipzig, 1840, vol. iv. p. 156 ff.8.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 110-162. The second edition, published in 1891, carries the survey no further than the first.9.Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen, 1892, five lectures.10.W. Frantzen,Die“Leben-Jesu”Bewegung seit Strauss, Dorpat, 1898.11.Theol. Rundschau, ii. 59-67 (1899); iii. 9-19 (1900).12.Von Soden's study,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 1904, belongs here only in a very limited sense, since it does not seek to show how the problems have gradually emerged in the various Lives of Jesus.13.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, pp. 112, 113.14.Historia Christi persice conscripta simulque multis modis contaminata a Hieronymo Xavier, lat. reddita et animadd, notata a Ludovico de Dieu.Lugd. 1639.15.Johann Jakob Hess,Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu. (History of the Last Three Years of the Life of Jesus.) 3 vols. 1768 ff.16.D. F. Strauss,Hermann Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes. (Reimarus and his Apology for the Rational Worshippers of God.) 1862.17.The quotations inserted without special introduction are, of course, from Reimarus. It is Dr. Schweitzer's method to lead up by a paragraph of exposition to one of these characteristic phrases.—Translator.18.Otto Schmiedel,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902.19.Döderlein also wrote a defence of Jesus against the Fragmentist:Fragmente und Antifragmente. Nuremberg, 1778.20.This is perhaps the place to mention the account of the life of Jesus which is given in the first part of Plank'sGeschichte des Christentums. Göttingen, 1818.21.Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend, 1st ed., 1780-1781; 2nd ed., 1785-1786;Werke, ed. Suphan, vol. x.22.A Life of Jesus which is completely dependent on the Commentaries of Paulus is that of Greiling, superintendent at Aschersleben,Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth Ein religiöses Handbuch für Geist und Herz der Freunde Jesu unter den Gebildeten.(The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious Handbook for the Minds and Hearts of the Friends of Jesus among the Cultured.) Halle, 1813.23.Paulus prided himself on a very exact acquaintance with the physical and geographical conditions of Palestine. He had a wide knowledge of the literature of Eastern travel.—Translator.24.This interpretation, it ought to be remarked, seems to be implied by the ancient reading.“Few things are needful, or one,”given in the margin of the Revised Version.—Translator.25.Associations of students, at that time of a political character.—Translator.26.The ground of the inference is that, according to this theory, they did not attach much importance to the keeping of the Feasts at Jerusalem. Dr. Schweitzer reminds us in a footnote that a certain want of clearness is due to the fact of this work having been compiled from lecture-notes.27.See Theobald Ziegler,“Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss”(Materials for the Biography of D. F. S.), in theDeutsche Revue, May, June, July 1905. The hitherto unpublished letters to Binder throw some light on the development of Strauss during the formative years before the publication of the Life of Jesus.Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the friend who delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss. This last act of friendship exposed him to enmity and calumny of all kinds. For the text of his short address, see theDeutsche Revue, 1905, p. 107.28.Deutsche Revue, May 1905, p. 199.29.Ibid.p. 201.30.Deutsche Revue, p. 203.31.Assistant lecturer.32.Ibid., June 1905, p. 343 ff.33.See Hase,Leben Jesu, 1876, p. 124. The“text-book”referred to is Hase's first Life of Jesus.34.He to whom my plaint isKnows I shed no tear;She to whom I say thisFeels I have no fear.Time has come for fading,Like a glimmering ray,Or a sense-evadingStrain that floats away.May, though fainter, dimmer,Only, clear and pure,To the last the glimmerAnd the strain endure.The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a physician, attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply attached, and a very old friend to whom the verses were addressed.—Translator.35.2 Kings iv. 42-44.36.Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Ioannis Apostoli indole et origine eruditorum iudiciis modeste subjecit C. Th. Bretschneider.Leipzig, 1820.37.Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher,Über die Schriften des Lukas. Ein kritischer Versuch.(The Writings of Luke. A critical essay.) C. Reimer, Berlin, 1817.38.Koppe,Marcus non epitomator Matthäi, 1782.39.Storr,De Fontibus Evangeliorum Mt. et Lc., 1794.40.Gratz,Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu erklären, 1812.41.V. sup.p. 35 f. For the earlier history of the question see F. C. Baur,Krit. Untersuch. über die kanonischen Evangelien, Tübingen, 1847, pp. 1-76.42.So called because largely based on the reference in Luke i. 1, to the“many”who had“taken in hand to draw up a narrative (δεήγησις).”—Translator.43.We take the translation of this striking image from Sanday's“Survey of the Synoptic Question,”The Expositor, 4th ser. vol. 3, p. 307.44.For general title see above. First part:“Herr Dr. Steudel, or the Self-deception of the Intellectual Supernaturalism of our Time.”182 pp. Second part:“Die Herren Eschenmayer und Menzel.”247 pp. Third part:“Die evangelische Kirchenzeitung,die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche KritikundDie theologischen Studien und Kritikenin ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.”(The attitude taken up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.) 179 pp. In theStudien und Kritikentwo reviews had appeared: a critical review by Dr. Ullmann (vol. for 1836, pp. 770-816) and that of Müller, written from the standpoint of the“common faith”(vol. for 1836, pp. 816-890). In theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungthe articles referred to are the following:Vorwort(Editorial Survey), 1836, pp. 1-6, 9-14, 17-23, 25-31, 33-38, 41-45;“The Future of our Theology”(1836, pp. 281 ff.);“Thoughts suggested by Dr. Strauss's essay on‘The Relation of Theological Criticism and Speculation to the Church’”(1836, pp. 382 ff.); Strauss's essay had appeared in theAllgemeine Kirchenzeitungfor 1836, No. 39.“Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von D. F. Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet”(An Inquiry into the Scientific Value of D. F. Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus.) By Prof. Dr. Harless. Erlangen, 1836.45.“Everything turns to the advantage of the elect, even to the obscurities of scripture, for they treat them with reverence because of its perspicuities; everything turns to the disadvantage of the reprobate, even to the perspicuities of scripture, for they blaspheme them because they cannot understand its obscurities.”For the title of Harless's essay, see end of previous note.46.Das Leben-Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. D. F. Strauss. Geprüft für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen, von Wilhelm Hoffmann. 1836. (Strauss's Critical Study of the Life of Jesus examined for the Benefit of Theologians and non-Theologians.)47.Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen.(Defence of the Life of Jesus against the latest attempt to resolve it into myth.) By Joh. Ernst Osiander, Professor at the Evangelical Seminary at Maulbronn.48.Über das Leben-Jesu von Strauss, von Franz Baader, 1836. Here may be mentioned also the lectures which Krabbe (subsequently Professor at Rostock) delivered against Strauss:Vorlesungen über das Leben-Jesu für Theologen und Nicht-Theologen(Lectures on the Life of Jesus for Theologians and non-Theologians), Hamburg, 1839. They are more tolerable to non-theologians than to theologians. The author at a later period distinguished himself by the fanatical zeal with which he urged on the deposition of his colleague, Michael Baumgarten, whoseGeschichte Jesu, published in 1859, though fully accepting the miracles, was weighed in the balance by Krabbe and found light-weight by the Rostock standard.49.For the title, see head of chapter. Tholuck was born in 1799 at Breslau, and became in 1826 Professor at Halle, where he worked until his death in 1877. With the possible exception of Neander, he was the most distinguished representative of the mediating theology. His piety was deep and his learning was wide, but his judgment went astray in the effort to steer his freight of pietism safely between the rocks of rationalism and the shoals of orthodoxy.50.Stud. u. Krit., 1836, p. 777. In his“Open letter to Dr. Ullmann,”Strauss examines this suggestion in a serious and dignified fashion, and shows that nothing would be gained by such expedients.—Streitschriften, 3rd pt., p. 129 ff.51.Das Leben Jesu-Christi.Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was born in 1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being David Mendel. He was baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813 was appointed to a professorship in Berlin, where he displayed a many-sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. He died in 1850. The best-known of his writings is theGeschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel(History of the Propagation and Administration of the Christian Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832-1833, of which a reprint appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep piety, but also of great solidity of character.Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment upon Neander's work:“A book such as in these circumstances Neander's Life of Jesus was bound to be calls forth our sympathy; the author himself acknowledges in his preface that it bears upon it only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain, and distress in which it was produced.”Of the innumerable“positive”Lives of Jesus which appeared about the end of the 'thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2 vols., 1837-1839). Among the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating theology may be mentioned that of Theodore Pressel of Tübingen, which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.). It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention theLeben des Herrn Jesu Christiby Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856), which reflects the ideas of von Hofmann.52.For title see head of chapter.53.Aphorismen zur Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes.Grimma, 1838.54.From theXame Xenien, p. 259 of Goethe's Works, ed. Hempel.55.Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche. Zur Verständigung über die Straussische Angelegenheit.(A contribution to the adjustment of opinion regarding the Strauss affair.) By Daniel Schenkel, Licentiate in Theology and Privat-Docent of the University of Basle, with a dedicatory letter to Herr Dr. Lücke, Konsistorialrat. Basle, 1839.56.Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche. Eine Stimme aus Norddeutschland. Mit einer Vorrede von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.(A voice from North Germany. With an introduction by Dr. W. M. L. de Wette.) Basle, 1839.57.Über theologische Lehrfreiheit und Lehrerwahl für Hochschulen.Zurich, 1839.58.For full title see head of chapter. Reference may also be made to the same author'sFortbildung des Christentums zur Weltreligion. (Development of Christianity into a World-religion.) Leipzig, 1833-1835. 4 vols. Ammon was born in 1766 at Bayreuth; became Professor of theology at Erlangen in 1790; was Professor in Göttingen from 1794 to 1804, and, after being back in Erlangen in the meantime, became in 1813 Senior Court Chaplain and“Oberkonsistorialrat”at Dresden, where he died in 1850. He was the most distinguished representative of historico-critical rationalism.59.He is at one with Strauss in rejecting the explanation of this miracle on the analogy of an expedited natural process, to which Hase had pointed, and which was first suggested by Augustine inTract viii. in Ioann.:“That Christ changed water into wine is nothing wonderful to those who consider the works of God. What was there done in the water-pots, God does yearly in the vine.”[Augustine's words are: Miraculum quidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit (i.e.that He who did it was God). Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die ... in sex hydriis, qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.] Nevertheless the poorest naturalistic explanation is at least better than the resignation of Lücke, who is content to wait“until it please God through the further progress of Christian thought and life to bring about the solution of this riddle in its natural and historical aspects.”Lücke,Johannes-Kommentar, p. 474 ff.60.Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg was born in 1802 at Fröndenberg in the“county”(Grafschaft) of Mark, became Professor of Theology in Berlin in 1826, and died there in 1869. He founded theEvangelische Kirchenzeitungin 1827.61.Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss' historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu.62.Dr. Strauss' Leben-Jesu aus dem Standpunkt des Catholicismus betrachtet.63.Johann Leonhard Hug was born in 1765 at Constance, and had been since 1791 Professor of New Testament Theology at Freiburg, where he died in 1846. He had a wide knowledge of his own department of theology, and his Introduction to the New Testament Writings won him some reputation among Protestant theologians also.64.Among the Catholic“Leben-Jesu,”of which the authors found their incentive in the desire to oppose Strauss, the first place belongs to that of Kuhn of Tübingen. Unfortunately only the first volume appeared (1838, 488 pp.). Here there is a serious and scholarly attempt to grapple with the problems raised by Strauss. Of less importance is the work of the same title in seven volumes, by the Munich Priest and Professor of History, Nepomuk Sepp (1843-1846; 2nd ed. 1853-1862).65.Über das Leben-Jesu von Doctor Strauss.By Edgar Quinet. Translated from the French by Georg Kleine. Published by J. Erdmann and C. C. Müller, 1839. In 1840 Strauss's book was translated into French by M. Littré. It failed, however, to exercise any influence upon French theology or literature. Strauss is one of those German thinkers who always remain foreign and unintelligible to the French mind. Could Renan have written his Life of Jesus as he did if he had had even a partial understanding of Strauss?66.Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld. Her parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the Augustinian nuns of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the dissolution of the convent, she lived in a single room in Dülmen itself. The“stigmata”showed themselves first in 1812. She died on the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood since 1819.Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi(The Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano himself in 1834. TheLife of Jesuswas published on the basis of notes left by him—he died in 1842—in three volumes, 1858-1860, at Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of Limberg.First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first year after the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May 1, 1821, and October 1, 1822.Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the Baptism in Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem. Communicated between October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823.Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to the Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21, 1823, and January 8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821.Both works have been frequently reissued, the“Bitter Sufferings”as late as 1894.67.Auszüge aus der Schrift“Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet.”(Extracts from a work entitled“A Critical Study of the Life of Luther.”) By Dr. Casuar (“Cassowary”; Strauss = Ostrich). Mexico, 1836. Edited by Julius Ferdinand Wurm.68.Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft.(A Critical Examination of the Life of Napoleon.) From the English, with some pertinent applications to Strauss's Life of Jesus, 1836. [The English original referred to seems to have been Whateley'sHistoric Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, published in 1819, and primarily directed against Hume'sEssay on Miracles.—Translator.]69.La Vie de Strauss. Écrite en l'an 1839.Paris, 1839.70.Ch. G. Wilke,Tradition und Mythe. A contribution to the historical criticism of the Gospels in general, and in particular to the appreciation of the treatment of myth and idealism in Strauss's“Life of Jesus.”Leipzig, 1837.Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz, studied theology and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in 1837 in order to devote himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become conscious of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion to Catholicism by publishing a work entitled“Can a Protestant go over to the Roman Church with a good conscience?”He took the decisive step in August 1846. Later he removed to Würzburg. Subsequently he recast his famousClavis Novi Testamenti Philologica—which had appeared in 1840-1841—in the form of a lexicon for Catholic students of theology. HisHermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, published in 1843-1844, appeared in 1853 asBiblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen Grundsätzen(The Science of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). He was engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854.Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to Emanuel Marius,Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker(The Personality of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies and Mysteries of Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick,Mythus und Evangelium(Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.71.See p.89above.72.Streitschriften.Drittes Heft, pp. 55-126:Die Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik: i.Allgemeines Verhältnis der Hegel'schen Philosophie zur theologischen Kritik: ii.Hegels Ansicht über den historischen Wert der evangelischen Geschichte(Hegel's View of the Historical Value of the Gospel History); iii.Verschiedene Richtungen innerhalb der Hegel'schen Schule in Betreff der Christologie(Various Tendencies within the Hegelian School in regard to Christology). 1837.73.Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte.(Scientific Criticism of the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842; 3rd ed., 1868.Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was, first, Professor of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen, afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as“Konsistorialrat,”but was unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and returned in 1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888.A characteristic example of Ebrard's way of treating the subject is his method of meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of money in its jaws could not have taken the hook.“The fish might very well,”he explains,“have thrown up the piece of money from its belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter opened its mouth.”Upon this Strauss remarks:“The inventor of this argument tosses it down before us as who should say,‘I know very well it is bad, but it is good enough for you, at any rate so long as the Church has livings to distribute and we Konsistorialrats have to examine the theological candidates.’”Strauss, therefore, characterises Ebrard's Life of Jesus as“Orthodoxy restored on a basis of impudence.”The pettifogging character of this work made a bad impression even in Conservative quarters.74.Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien.(Chronological Synopsis of the four Gospels.) By Karl Georg Wieseler. Hamburg, 1843. Wieseler was born in 1813 at Altencelle (Hanover), and was Professor successively at Göttingen, Kiel, and Greifswald. He died in 1883.75.Johann Peter Lange, Pastor in Duisburg, afterwards Professor at Zurich in place of Strauss.Das Leben Jesu.5 vols., 1844-1847.76.Georg Heinrich August Ewald,Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (History of the People of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843-1859; 3rd ed., 1864-1870. Fifth vol.,Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857.Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the repeal of the fundamental law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was removed from his office and went to Tübingen, first as Professor of philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the theological faculty. In 1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily retired, and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion, was also deprived of the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose him as its representative in the North German and in the German Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph opposition, in the middle of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His contributions to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is worthless, in spite of the Old Testament and Oriental learning with which it was furnished forth. He lays great stress upon making the genitive of“Christus”not“Christi,”but, according to German inflection,“Christus'.”77.Ammon,Johannem evangelii auctorem ab editore huius libri fuisse diversum, Erlangen, 1811.78.No value whatever can be ascribed to the Life of Jesus by Werner Hahn, Berlin, 1844, 196 pp. The“didactic presentation of the history”which the author offers is not designed to meet the demands of historical criticism. He finds in the Gospels no bare history, but, above all, the inculcation of the principle of love. He casts to the winds all attempt to draw the portrait of Jesus as a true historian, being only concerned with its inner truth and“idealises artistically and scientifically”the actual course of the outward life of Jesus.“It is never the business of a history,”he explains,“to relate only the bare truth. It belongs to a mere planless and aimless chronicle to relate everything that happened in such a way that its words are a mere slavish reflection of the outward course of events.”79.Hase,Geschichte Jesu, 1876, p. 128.80.Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums.Leipzig, 1855-1862.81.At the end of his preface he makes the striking remark:“I confess I cannot conceive of any possible way by which Christianity can take on a form which will make it once more the truth for our time, without having recourse to the aid of philosophy; and I rejoice to believe that this opinion is shared by many of the ablest and most respected of present-day theologians.”82.Vol. ii. pp. 438-543.Philosophische Schlussbetrachtung über die religiöse Bedeutung der Persönlichkeit Christi und der evangelischen Überlieferung.(Concluding Philosophical Estimate of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.)83.Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge.Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses der drei ersten Evangelien.(The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The subsequent course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as follows:—In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos Aletheias,Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhältnis zu einander. (The Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, 440 pp. The author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and thinks that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to detecting and weeding out the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke is in his opinion a party-writing, biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul had a share in its preparation, and this is what Paul alludes to when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of“his”Gospel. His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.-iii., vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and xxiv. Mark consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the other three. The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work,Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. (A Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622 pp. According to him Mark is based on Matthew and Luke. At the same time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the refutation of its historical character is carried into detail.The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his workDie Evangelien. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp.Karl Reinhold Köstlin's work,Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien(Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels), is rendered nugatory by obscurities and compromises. Stuttgart, 1853, 400 pp. The priority of Mark is defended by Edward Reuss,Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments(History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament), 1842; H. Ewald,Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1850; A. Ritschl,Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche(Origin of the ancient Catholic Church), 1850; A. Réville,Études critiques sur l'Évangile selon St. Matthieu, 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcan hypothesis were relaid, more firmly than before, by Holtzmann's work,Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863, 514 pp.84.Alexander Schweizer,Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte and seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu kritisch untersucht. 1841. (A Critical Examination of the Intrinsic Value of the Gospel of John and of its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) Alexander Schweizer was born in 1808 at Murten, was appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology at Zurich in 1835, and continued to lecture there until his death in 1888, remaining loyal to the ideas of his teacher Schleiermacher, though handling them with a certain freedom. His best-known work is hisGlaubenslehre(System of Doctrine), 2 vols., 1863-1872; 2nd ed., 1877.85.The German isMirakeln, the usual word beingWunder, which, though constantly used in the sense of actual“miracles,”has, from its obvious derivation, a certain ambiguity.86.“And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days.”87.We subjoin the titles of the divisions of this work, which are of some interest:Vol. i. Book i. The Sources of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book ii. The Legends of the Childhood.Vol. i. Book iii. General Sketch of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book iv. The Incidents and Discourses according to Mark.Vol. ii. Book v. The Incidents and Discourses according to Matthew and Luke.Vol. ii. Book vi. The Incidents and Discourses according to John.Vol. ii. Book vii. The Resurrection and the Ascension.Vol. ii. Book viii. Concluding Philosophical Exposition of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.88.Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit.(History of Christ and His Times.) By Heinrich Ewald, Göttingen, 1855, 450 pp.89.Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung.90.Das entdeckte Christentum.See alsoDie gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit. (The Good Cause of Freedom, in Connexion with my own Case.) Zurich, 1843.91.Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes.92.Here and elsewhere Bauer seems to use“Christologie”in the sense of Messianic doctrine, rather than in the more general sense which is usual in theology.—Translator.93.We retain the German phrase, which has naturalised itself in Synoptic criticism as the designation of an assumed primary gospel lying behind the canonical Mark.94.Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe.(Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, 1850-1852.95.Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.(Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin.) 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851.96.Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen Griechentum.Berlin, 1877.97.Hennell, a London merchant, withdrew himself from his business pursuits for two years in order to make the preparatory studies for this Life of Jesus. [He is best known as a friend of George Eliot, who was greatly interested and influenced by the“Inquiry.”—Translator.] To the same category as Hennell's work belongs theWohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu(An Account of the Life of Jesus based on the closest Examination) of the Heidelberg mathematician, Karl von Langsdorf, Mannheim, 1831. Supplement, with preface to a future second edition, 1833.98.Hase seems not to have recognised that the“Disclosures”were merely a plagiarism from Venturini. He mentions them in connexion with Bruno Bauer and appears to make him responsible for inspiring them; at least that is suggested by his formula of transition when he says:“It was primarily to him that the frivolous apocryphal hypotheses attached themselves.”This is quite inaccurate. The anonymous epitomist of Venturini had nothing to do with Bauer, and had probably not read a line of his work. Venturini, whom he had read, he does not name.99.One of the most ingenious of the followers of Venturini was the French Jew Salvator. In hisJésus-Christ et sa doctrine(Paris, 2 vols., 1838), he seeks to prove that Jesus was the last representative of a mysticism which, drawing its nutriment from the other Oriental religions, was to be traced among the Jews from the time of Solomon onwards. In Jesus this mysticism allied itself with Messianic enthusiasm. After He had lost consciousness upon the cross He was succoured by Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate's wife, contrary to His own expectation and purpose. He ended His days among the Essenes.Salvator looks to a spiritualised mystical Mosaism as destined to be the successful rival of Christianity.100.The reference should be Micah iv. 8.—F. C. B.101.“Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint.”—Mephistopheles inFaust.102.Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha; vier Bücher über das Evangelium und die Evangelien.103.Die Geschichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen über das Evangelium and die Evangelien.104.For Noack's reconstruction of it see Book iii. pp. 196-225.105.For the reconstruction see Book iii. pp. 326-386.106.Tharraqah und Sunamith.The Song of Solomon in its historical and topographical setting. 1869.107.La Vie de Jésus de D. Fr. Strauss.Traduite par M. Littré, 1840.108.Bruno Bauer inPhilo, Strauss, und Renan.109.Renan does not hesitate to apply this tasteless parallel.110.Charles Émile Freppel (Abbé), Professeur d'éloquence sacrée à la Sorbonne.Examen critique de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.Paris, 1864. 148 pp.Henri Lasserre's pamphlet,L'Évangile selon Renan(The Gospel according to Renan), reached its four-and-twentieth edition in the course of the same year.111.Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l'Archevêque de Paris (Georges Darboy) sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864.112.See, for example, Félix Antoine Philibert Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans,Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours.(Warning to the Young, and to Fathers of Families, concerning some Attacks directed against Religion by some Writers of our Time.) Paris, 1864. 141 pp.113.Amadée Nicolas,Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal, et littéraire. Appel à la raison et la conscience du monde civilisé.Paris-Marseille, 1864.114.Ernest Havet, Professeur au Collège de France,Jésus dans l'histoire.Examen de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan.Extrait de laRevue des deux mondes. Paris, 1863. 71 pp.115.Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben-Jesu, von Edmond Scherer und Athanase Coquerel, d.J. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des französischen Protestantismus.Regensburg, 1864. (Two French utterances in regard to Renan's Life of Jesus, by Edmond Scherer and Athanase Coquerel the younger. A contribution to the understanding of French Protestantism.)116.E. de Pressensé,L'École critique et Jésus-Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.117.E. de Pressensé,Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre. Paris, 1865. 684 pp. In general the plan of this work follows Renan's. He divides the Life of Jesus into three periods: i. The Time of Public Favour; ii. The Period of Conflict; iii. The Great Week. Death and Victory. By way of introduction there is a long essay on the supernatural which sets forth the supernaturalistic views of the author.118.La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique.1864.119.T. Colani, Pasteur,“Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan,”Revue de théologie. Issued separately, Strasbourg-Paris, 1864. 74 pp.120.Lasserre,Das Evangelium nach Renan. Munich, 1864.Freppel,Kritische Beleuchtung der E. Renan'schen Schrift. Translated by Kallmus. Vienna, 1864.See also Lamy, Professor of the Theological Faculty of the Catholic University of Louvain,Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. (Renan's Life of Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Criticism.) Translated by August Rohling, Priest. Münster, 1864.121.Dr. Michelis,Renans Roman vom Leben Jesu.Eine deutsche Antwort auf eine französische Blasphemie.(Renan's Romance on the Life of Jesus. A German answer to a French blasphemy.) Münster, 1864.Dr. Sebastian Brunner,Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium. (The Atheist Renan and his Gospel.) Regensburg, 1864.Albert Wiesinger,Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu. Vienna, 1864.Dr. Martin Deutlinger,Renan und das Wunder. (Renan and Miracle. A contribution to Christian Apologetic.) Munich, 1864. 159 pp.Dr. Daniel Bonifacius Haneberg,Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu. Regensburg, 1864.122.Willibald Beyschlag, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Über das Leben-Jesu von Renan. A Lecture delivered at Halle, January 13, 1864. Berlin.123.Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. (Modern Presentations of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the writings of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.Of the remaining Protestant polemics we may name:—Dr. Hermann Gerlach,Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864. Berlin.Br. Lehmann,Renan wider Renan. (RenanversusRenan.) A Lecture addressed to cultured Germans. Zwickau, 1864.Friedrich Baumer,Schwarz, Strauss, Renan. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.John Cairns, D. D. (of Berwick).Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan.(False Christs and the True, a Defence of the Gospel History against Strauss and Renan.) A Lecture delivered before the Bible Society. Translated from the English. Hamburg, 1864.Bernhard ter Haar, Doctor of Theology and Professor at Utrecht,Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans Leben-Jesu. (Ten Lectures on Renan's Life of Jesus.) Translated by H. Doermer. Gotha, 1864.Paulus Cassel, Professor and Licentiate in Theology,Bericht über Renans Leben-Jesu. (A Report upon Renan's Life of Jesus.)J. J. van Oosterzee, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Utrecht,Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Renan vorläufig beleuchtet.(History or Fiction? A Preliminary Examination of Renan's Life of Jesus.) Hamburg, 1864.124.Strauss's second Life of Jesus appeared in French in 1864.125.“I can now say without incurring the reproach of self-glorification, and almost without needing to fear contradiction, that if my Life of Jesus had not appeared in the year after Schleiermacher's death, his would not have been withheld for so long. Up to that time it would have been hailed by the theological world as a deliverer; but for the wounds which my work inflicted on the theology of the day, it had neither anodyne nor dressing; nay, it displayed the author as in a measure responsible for the disaster, for the waters which he had admitted drop by drop were now, in defiance of his prudent reservations, pouring in like a flood.”—From the Introduction toThe Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, 1865.126.“Now that Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus at last lies before us in print, all parties can gather about it in heartfelt rejoicing. The appearance of a work by Schleiermacher is always an enrichment to literature. Any product of a mind like his cannot fail to shed light and life on the minds of others. And of works of this kind our theological literature has certainly in these days no superfluity. Where the living are for the most part as it were dead, it is meet that the dead should arise and bear witness. These lectures of Schleiermacher's, when compared with the work of his pupils, show clearly that the great theologian has let fall upon them only his mantle and not his spirit.”—Ibid.127.The lines of Schleiermacher's work were followed by Bunsen. His Life of Jesus forms vol. ix. of hisBibelwerk. (Edited by Holtzmann, 1865.) He accepts the Fourth Gospel as an historical source and treats the question of miracle as not yet settled. Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen, born in 1791 at Korbach in Waldeck, was Prussian ambassador at Rome, Berne, and London, and settled later in Heidelberg. He was well read in theology and philology, and gradually came, in spite of his friendly relations with Friedrich Wilhelm IV., to entertain more liberal views on religion. The issue of hisBibelwerk für die Gemeindewas begun in 1858. He died in 1860. (Best known in England as the Chevalier Bunsen.)128.Ch. H. Weisse,Die evangelische Geschichte, Leipzig, 1838.Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium.(The Present Position of the Problem of the Gospels.) Leipzig, 1856. He regarded the discourses as historical, the narrative portions as of secondary origin. Alexander Schweizer, again, wished to distinguish a Jerusalem source and a Galilaean source, the latter being unreliable.Das Evangelium Johannis nach seinem inneren Werte und seiner Bedeutung für das Leben Jesu, 1841. (The Gospel of John considered in Relation to its Intrinsic Value and its Importance as a Source for the Life of Jesus.) See p. 127 f. Renan takes the narrative portions as authentic and the discourses as secondary.129.Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker was born in 1822 at Öhringen in Würtemberg. He qualified as Privat-Docent in 1847 and, after acting in the meantime as Court-Chaplain and Oberkonsistorialrat at Stuttgart, became in 1861 the successor of Baur at Tübingen. He died in 1899.130.The works of a Dutch writer named Stricker,Jesus von Nazareth(1868), and of the Englishman Sir Richard Hanson,The Jesus of History(1869), were based on Mark without any reference to John.131.1, Mark i.; 2, Mark ii. 1-iii. 6; 3, Mark iii. 7-19; 4, Mark iii. 19-iv. 34; 5, Mark iv. 35-vi. 6; 6, Mark vi. 7-vii. 37; 7, Mark viii. 1-ix. 50.132.Holtzmann,Kommentar zu den Synoptikern, 1889, p. 184. The form of the expression (Fluchtwege und Reisen) is derived from Keim.133.“Thus the course of Jesus' life hastened forward to its tragic close, a close which was foreseen and predicted by Jesus Himself with ever-growing clearness as the sole possible close, but also that which alone was worthy of Himself, and which was necessary as being foreseen and predetermined in the counsel of God. The hatred of the Pharisees and the indifference of the people left from the first no other prospect open. That hatred could not but be called forth in the fullest measure by the ruthless severity with which Jesus exposed all that it was and implied—a heart in which there was no room for love, a morality inwardly riddled with decay, an outward show of virtue, a hypocritical arrogance. Between two such unyielding opponents—a man who, to all appearance, aimed at using the Messianic expectations of the people for his own ends, and a hierarchy as tenacious of its claims and as sensitive to their infringement as any that has ever existed—it was certain that the breach must soon become irreparable. It was easy to foresee, too, that even in Galilee only a minority of the people would dare to face with Him the danger of such a breach. There was only one thing that could have averted the death sentence which had been early determined upon—a series of vigorous, unambiguous demonstrations on the part of the people. In order to provoke such demonstrations Jesus would have needed, if only for the moment, to take into His service the popular, powerful, inflammatory Messianic ideas, or rather, would have needed to place Himself at their service. His refusal to enter, by so much as a single step, upon this course, which from any ordinary point of view of human policy would have been legitimate, because the only practicable one, was the sole sufficient and all-explaining cause of His destruction.”—Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 485, 486.134.“Ein innerliches Reich der Sinnesänderung.”“Sinnesänderung”corresponds more exactly than“repentance”to the Greek μετάνοια (change of mind, change of attitude), but thephraseis no less elliptical in German than in English. The meaning is doubtless“kingdom based upon repentance, consisting of those who have fulfilled this condition.”135.Omitted in some of the best texts.—F. C. B.136.Oskar Holtzmann,Das Leben Jesu, 1901.137.Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu.(Modern Presentments of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the works of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the Essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A lecture by Chr. Ernest Luthardt, Leipzig. 1st and 2nd editions, 1864. Luthardt was born in 1823 at Maroldsweisach in Lower Franconia, became Docent at Erlangen in 1851, was called to Marburg as Professor Extraordinary in 1854, and to Leipzig as Ordinary Professor in 1856. He died in 1902.138.Zur Orientierung über meine Schrift“Das Charakterbild Jesu.”(Explanations intended to place my work“A Picture of the Character of Jesus”in the proper light.) 1864.Die protestantische Freiheit in ihrem gegenwärtigen Kampfe mit der kirchlichen Reaktion.(Protestant Freedom in its present Struggle with Ecclesiastical Reaction.) 1865.139.Der Schenkel'sche Handel in Baden.(The Schenkel Controversy in Baden.) (A corrected reprint from number 441 of theNational-Zeitungof September 21, 1864.) An appendix toDer Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. 1865.140.Theodor Keim,Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus of Nazara in Relation to the General Life of His People, freely examined and fully narrated.) 3 vols. Zurich, 1867-1872. Vol. i. The Day of Preparation; vol. ii. The Year of Teaching in Galilee; vol. iii. The Death-Passover (Todesostern) in Jerusalem. A short account in a more popular form appeared in 1872,Geschichte Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus according to the Results of Present-day Criticism, briefly narrated for the General Reader.) 2nd ed., 1875.Karl Theodor Keim was born in 1825 at Stuttgart, was Repetent at Tübingen from 1851 to 1855, and after he had been five years in the ministry, became Professor at Zurich in 1860. In 1873 he accepted a call to Giessen, where he died in 1878.141.Die menschliche Entwicklung Jesu Christi.See Holtzmann,Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 7-9. This dissertation was followed byDer geschichtliche Christus. 3rd ed., 1866.142.Geschichte Jesu.2nd ed., 1875, pp. 228 and 229.143.The ultimate reason why Keim deliberately gives such prominence to the eschatology is that he holds to Matthew, and is therefore more under the direct impression of the masses of discourse in this Gospel, charged, as they are, with eschatological ideas, than those writers who find their primary authority in Mark, where these discourses are lacking.144.Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen von Dr. Karl Hase.1876. Special mention ought also to be made of the fine sketch of the Life of Jesus in A. Hausrath'sNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte(History of New Testament Times), 1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff.; 3rd ed., 1 vol., 1879, pp. 325-515;Die zeitgeschichtlichen Beziehungen des Lebens Jesu(The Relations of the Life of Jesus to the History of His time).Adolf Hausrath was born at Karlsruhe. He was appointed Professor of Theology at Heidelberg in 1867, and died in 1909.145.Das Leben Jesu, von Willibald Beyschlag: Pt. i. Preliminary Investigations, 1885, 450 pp.; pt. ii. Narrative, 1886, 495 pp. Joh. Heinr. Christoph Willibald Beyschlag was born in 1823 at Frankfort-on-Main, and went to Halle as Professor in 1860. His splendid eloquence made him one of the chief spokesmen of German Protestantism. As a teacher he exercised a remarkable and salutary influence, although his scientific works are too much under the dominance of an apologetic of the heart. He died in 1900.146.Bernhard Weiss,Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. Berlin, 1882. See alsoDas Markusevangelium, 1872;Das Matthäusevangelium, 1876; and theLehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 5th ed., 1888. Bernhard Weiss was born in 1827 at Königsberg, where he qualified as Privat-Docent in 1852. In 1863 he went as Ordinary Professor to Kiel, and was called to Berlin in the same capacity in 1877.Among the distinctly liberal Lives of Jesus of an earlier date, that of W. Krüger-Velthusen (Elberfeld, 1872, 271 pp.) might be mentioned if it were not so entirely uncritical. Although the author does not hold the Fourth Gospel to be apostolic he has no hesitation in making use of it as an historical source.There is more sentiment than science, too, in the work of M. G. Weitbrecht,Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 1881.A weakness in the treatment of the Johannine question and a want of clearness on some other points disfigures the three-volume Life of Jesus of the Paris professor, E. Stapfer, which is otherwise marked by much acumen and real depth of feeling. Vol. i.Jésus-Christ avant son ministère(Fischbacher, Paris, 1896); vol. ii.Jésus-Christ pendant son ministère(1897); vol. iii.La Mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ(1898).F. Godet writes of“The Life of Jesus before His Public Appearance”(German translation by M. Reineck,Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten. Hanover, 1897).G. Längin founds hisDer Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum(The Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897-1898.The EnglishLife of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, D. D. (now Professor of Church History in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen), passed through numberless editions (German, 1898; Tübingen, 4th ed., 1901).Very pithy and interesting is Dr. Percy Gardner'sExploratio Evangelica.A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief.1899; 2nd ed., 1907.A work which is free from all compromise is H. Ziegler'sDer geschichtliche Christus(The Historical Christ). 1891. For this reason the five lectures, delivered in Liegnitz, out of which it is composed, attracted such unfavourable attention that the Ecclesiastical Council took proceedings against the author. (See theChristliche Welt, 1891, pp. 563-568, 874-877.)147.Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Einleitung, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares himself in theTheologische Literaturzeitungfor 1882, No. 23, andDas apostolische Zeitalter, 2nd ed., 1890.Hase and Schenkel accepted this position in principle, but were careful to keep open a line of retreat.Towards the end of the 'seventies the rejection of the Fourth Gospel as an historical source was almost universally recognised in the critical camp. It is taken for granted in the Life of Jesus by Karl Wittichen (Jena, 1876, 397 pp.), which might be reckoned one of the most clearly conceived works of this kind based on the Marcan hypothesis if its arrangement were not so bad. It is partly in the form of a commentary, inasmuch as the presentment of the life takes the form of a discussion of sixty-seven sections. The detail is very interesting. It makes an impression ofnaïvetéwhen we find a series of sections grouped under the title,“The establishment ofChristianityin Galilee.”No stress is laid on the significance of Jesus' journey to the north. Wittichen, also, misled by Luke, asserts, just as Weisse had done, that Jesus had worked in Judaea for some time prior to the triumphal entry.148.H. H. Wendt,Die Lehre Jesu, vol. i.Die evangelischen Quellenberichte über die Lehre Jesu.(The Record of the Teaching of Jesus in the Gospel Sources.) 354 pp. Göttingen, 1886; vol. ii., 1890; Eng. trans., 1892. Second German edition in one vol., 626 pp., 1901. See also the same writer'sDas Johannesevangelium.Untersuchung seiner Entstehung und seines geschichtlichen Wertes, 1900. (The Gospel of John: an Investigation of its Origin and Historical Value.) Hans Heinrich Wendt was born in 1853 at Hamburg, qualified as Privat-Docent in 1877 at Göttingen, was subsequently Extraordinary Professor at Kiel and Heidelberg, and now works at Jena.149.Johannis Lightfooti, Doctoris Angli et Collegii S. Catharinae in Cantabrigiensi Academia Praefecti, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas ... nunc secundum in Germania junctim cum Indicibus locorum Scripturae rerumque ac verborum necessariis editae e Museo Io. Benedicti Carpzovii. Lipsiae. Anno MDCLXXXIV.150.The pioneer works in the study of apocalyptic were Dillmann'sHenoch, 1851; and Hilgenfeld'sJüdische Apokalyptik, 1857.151.Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern, von Gustav Volkmar, Zurich, 1882. To which must be added:Markus und die Synopse der Evangelien, nach dem urkundlichen Text; und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu. (Mark and Synoptic Material in the Gospels, according to the original text; and the historical elements in the Life of Jesus.) Zurich, 1869; 2nd edition, 1876, 738 pp. Volkmar was born in 1809, and was living at Fulda as a Gymnasium (High School) teacher, when in 1852 he was arrested by the Hessian Government on account of his political views, and subsequently deprived of his post. In 1853 he went to Zurich, where a new prospect opened to him as a Docent in theology. He died in 1893.152.Kienlen,“Die eschatologische Rede Jesu Matt. xxiv. cum Parall.”(The Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in Matt. xxiv. with the parallel passages),Jahrbuch für die Theologie, 1869, pp. 706-709. Analysis of other attempts directed to the same end in Weiffenbach,Der Wiederkunftsgedanke, p. 31 ff.153.Wilhelm Weiffenbach, Director of the Seminary for Theological Students at Friedberg, was born in 1842 at Bornheim in Rhenish Hesse.154.The English reader will find a constructive analysis of what is known as the“Little Apocalypse”inEncyclopaedia Biblica, art.“Gospels,”col. 1857. It consists of the verses Matt. xxiv. 6-8, 15-22, 29-31, 34, corresponding to Mark xiii. 7-9a, 14-20, 24-27, 30. According to the theory first sketched by Colani these verses formed an independent Apocalypse which was embedded in the Gospel by the Evangelist.—F. C. B.155.Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, 1864, pp. 121-126.156.“Über die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.”(The Composition of the Eschatological Discourse in Matt. xxiv. 4 ff.),Jahrbuch f. d. Theol.vol. xiii., 1868, pp. 134-149.157.By“Capernaitic”Weiffenbach apparently means literalistic; cf. John vi. 52 f.158.Wilhelm Baldensperger, at present Professor at Giessen, was born in 1856 at Mülhausen in Alsace.159.A new edition appeared in 1891. There is no fundamental alteration, but in consequence of the polemic against opponents who had arisen in the meantime it is fuller. The first part of a third edition appeared in 1903 under the titleDie messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums.See also the interesting use made of Late-Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred Edersheim'sThe Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2nd ed., London, 1884, 2 vols.160.Emil Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ.) 2nd ed., part second, 1886, pp. 417 ff. Here is to be found also a bibliography of the older literature of the subject. 3rd ed., 1889, vol. ii. pp. 498 ff.Emil Schürer was born at Augsburg in 1844, and from 1873 onwards was successively Professor at Leipzig, Giessen, and Kiel, and is now (1909) at Göttingen.The latest presentment of Jewish apocalyptic isDie jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, by Paul Volz, Pastor in Leonberg. Tübingen, 1903. 412 pp. The material is very completely given. Unfortunately the author has chosen the systematic method of treating his subject, instead of tracing the history of its development, the only right way. As a consequence Jesus and Paul occupy far too little space in this survey of Jewish apocalyptic. For a treatment of the origin of Jewish eschatology from the point of view of the history of religion see Hugo Gressmann, now Professor at Berlin,Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie(The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology), Göttingen, 1905. 377 pp.161.Johannes Weiss, now Professor at Marburg, was born at Kiel in 1863.162.It may be mentioned that this work had been preceded (in 1891) by two Leiden prize dissertations,Über die Lehre vom Reich Gottes im Neuen Testament(Concerning the Kingdom of God in the New Testament), one of them by Issel, the other, which lays especially strong emphasis upon the eschatology, by Schmoller.163.Wilhelm Bousset, now Professor in Göttingen, born 1865 at Lübeck164.Theol. Rundschau(1901), 4, pp. 89-103.165.W. Bousset,Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament. (The Origin of Apocalyptic as indicated by Comparative Religion, and its significance for the understanding of the New Testament.) Berlin, 1903. 67 pp. See also W. Bousset,Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 512 pp., 1902. For the assertion of Parsic influences see also Stave,Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum. Haarlem, 1898.166.Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein.Freiburg, 1895, 119 pp. See also his inaugural dissertation of 1896,Le Principe de la morale de Jésus. Paris, 1896.A. K. Rogers,The Life and Teachings of Jesus; a Critical Analysis, etc.(London and New York, 1894), regards Jesus' teaching as purely ethical, refusing to admit any eschatology at all.167.Paris, 2 vols., 500 and 512 pp.168.W. Weiffenbach,Die Frage der Wiederkunst Jesu. (The Question concerning the Second Coming of Jesus.) Friedberg, 1901.169.A. Titius,Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart. I. Teil:Jesu Lehre vom Reich Gottes. (The New Testament Doctrine of Blessedness and its Significance for the Present. Pt. I., Jesus' Doctrine of the Kingdom of God.) Arthur Titius, now Professor at Kiel, was born in 1864 at Sensburg.170.Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien, 167 pp. Erich Haupt, now Professor in Halle, was born in 1841 at Stralsund.171.Cf. the preface to the 2nd ed. of Joh. Weiss'sDie Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen, 1900.172.Tübingen-Leipzig, 1901, 410 pp.; 2nd ed., 1904. Paul Wernle, now Professor of Church History at Basle, was born in Zurich, 1872.173.Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 163-168; 2nd ed., 1895, pp. 198-204; 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901, pp. 380-394. See also hisSkizzen(Sketches), pp. 6, 187 ff.See also J. Wellhausen,Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, 2nd ed., 1909;Das Evangelium Matthäi, 1904;Das Evangelium Lucae, 1904.Julius Wellhausen, now Professor at Göttingen, was born in 1844 at Hameln.174.Emil Schürer,Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi. (The Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 1903, 24 pp.According to J. Meinhold, too, inJesus und das alte Testament(Jesus and the Old Testament), 1896, Jesus did not purpose to be the Messiah of Israel.175.Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu.(The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity considered in the light of a critical investigation of the Reports of the Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus.) By Dr. W. Brandt, Leipzig, 1893, 588 pp.Wilhelm Brandt was born in 1855 of German parents in Amsterdam and became a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1891 he resigned this office and studied in Strassburg and Berlin. In 1893 he was appointed to lecture in General History of Religion as a member of the theological faculty of Amsterdam.176.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Vol. i., 1888. The substance of it had already been published in a different form. Freiburg, 1886.Adolf Jülicher, at present Professor in Marburg, was born in 1857 at Falkenberg.177.W. Bousset,Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Göttingen, 1892.178.Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2nd pt. (Exposition of the Parables in the first three Gospels.) Freiburg, 1899, 641 pp.Chr. A. Bugge,Die Hauptparabeln Jesu(The most important Parables of Jesus), German, from the Norwegian, Giessen, 1903, rightly remarks on the obscure and inexplicable character of some of the parables, but makes no attempt to deal with it from the historical point of view.179.Arnold Meyer,Jesu Muttersprache, 1896. P. W. Schmidt, too, in hisGeschichte Jesu(Freiburg, 1899), defends the same interpretation, and seeks to explain this obscure saying by the other about the“strait gate.”180.Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1900, p. 192 ff.181.Stud. Krit., 1836, pp. 90-122.182.See alsoDie Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern. (The Conceptions of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels.) By Ludwig Paul. Bonn, 1895. 130 pp. This comprehensive study discusses all the problems which are referred to below. Matt. xi. 12-14 is discussed under the heading“The Hinderers of the Kingdom of God.”183.A. Hilgenfeld,Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1888, pp. 488-498; 1892, pp. 445-464.184.Orello Cone,“Jesus' Self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels,”The New World, 1893, pp. 492-518.185.H. L. Oort,Die uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament. (The Expression Son of Man in the New Testament.) Leyden, 1893.186.R. H. Charles,“The Son of Man,”Expos. Times, 1893.187.Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament.(Jewish Apocalyptic in its religious-historical origin and in its significance for the New Testament.) 1903.On the eschatology of Jesus see also Schwartzkoppf,Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinen Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung. (The Predictions of Jesus Christ concerning His Death, His Resurrection, and Second Coming, and their Fulfilment.) 1895.P. Wernle,Die Reichgotteshofnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus. (The Hope of the Kingdom of God in the most ancient Christian Documents and as held by Jesus.)188.Arnold Meyer, now Professor of New Testament Theology and Pastoral Theology at Zurich, and formerly at Bonn, was born at Wesel in 1861.189.Giambern. de Rossi,Dissertazione della lingua propria di Christo e degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da' Tempi de' Maccabei in disamina del sentimento di un recente scrittore Italiano. Parma, 1772.190.Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias.(Matthew's account of Jesus the Messiah.) Altona, 1792. According to Meyer, p. 105 ff., this was a very striking performance.191.The name Chaldee was due to the mistaken belief that the language in which parts of Daniel and Ezra were written was really the vernacular of Babylonia. That vernacular, now known to us from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions, is a Semitic language, but quite different from Aramaic.—F. C. B.192.Emil Friedrich Kautzsch was born in 1841 at Plauen in Saxony, and studied in Leipzig, where he became Privat-Docent in 1869. In 1872 he was called as Professor to Basle, in 1880 to Tübingen, in 1888 to Halle.193.Gustaf Dalman, Professor at Leipzig, was born in 1865 at Niesky. In addition to the works of his named above, see alsoDer leidende und der sterbende Messias(The Suffering and Dying Messiah), 1888; andWas sagt der Talmud über Jesum?(What does the Talmud say about Jesus?), 1891.194.2 Kings xviii. 26 ff.195.Studia BiblicaI.Essays in Biblical Archæology and Criticism and Kindred Subjects by Members of the University of Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1885, pp. 39-74. See Meyer, p. 29 ff.196.Franz Delitzsch,Die Bücher des Neuen Testaments aus dem Griechischen ins Hebräische übersetzt. 1877. (The Books of the N.T. translated from Greek into Hebrew.) This work has been circulated by thousands among Jews throughout the whole world.Delitzsch was born in 1813 at Leipzig and became Privat-Docent there in 1842, went to Rostock as Professor in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and returned in 1867 to Leipzig. By conviction he was a strict Lutheran in theology. He was one of the leading experts in Late-Jewish and Talmudic literature. He died in 1890.197.See Meyer, p. 47 ff.198.See Meyer, p. 61 ff.199.Hans Lietzmann, now Professor in Jena, was born in 1875 at Düsseldorf. Until his call to Jena he worked as a Privat-Docent at Bonn. He has done some very meritorious work in the publication of Early Christian writings.200.See Meyer, p. 141 ff.201.“De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking 'Zoon des Menschen' als evangelische Messiastitel,”Theol. Tijdschr., 1894. (The Origin of the Expression“Son of Man”as a Title of the Messiah in the Gospels.)202.H. Lietzmann,“Zur Menschensohnfrage”(The Son-of-Man Problem),Theol. Arb. des Rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins, 1898.203.N. Schmidt,“Was בן נשא a Messianic title?”Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature, xv., 1896.204.P. Schmiedel,“Der Name Menschensohn und das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu”(The Designation Son of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus), 1898,Prot. Monatsh.2, pp. 252-267.205.H. Gunkel,Z. w. Th., 1899, 42, pp. 581-611.206.For the last phase of the discussion we may name:Wellhausen,Skizzen und Vorarbeiten(Sketches and Studies), 1899, pp. 187-215, where he throws further light on Dalman's philological objections; and goes on to deny Jesus' use of the expression.W. Baldensperger,“Die neueste Forschung über den Menschensohn,”Theol. Rundschau, 1900, 3, pp. 201-210, 243-255.P. Fiebig,Der Menschensohn. Tübingen, 1901.P. W. Schmiedel,“Die neueste Auffassung des Namens Menschensohn,”Prot. Monatsh.5, pp. 333-351, 1901. (The Latest View of the Designation Son of Man.)P. W. Schmidt,Die Geschichte Jesu, ii. (Erläuterungen—Explanations). Tübingen, 1904, p. 157 ff.207.Dalman's reputation as an authority upon Jewish Aramaic is so deservedly high, that it is necessary to point out that his solution did not, as Dr. Schweitzer seems to say, entirely dispose of the linguistic difficulties raised by Lietzmann as to the meaning and use ofbarnâshandbarnâshâin Aramaic. The English reader will find the linguistic facts well put in sections 4 and 32 of N. Schmidt's article“Son of Man”inEncyclopædia Biblica(cols. 4708, 4723), or he may consult Prof. Bevan's review of Dalman'sWorte Jesuin theCritical Reviewfor 1899, p. 148 ff. The main point is that ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are equally legitimate translations ofbarnâshâ. Thus the contrast in the Greek between ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark ii. 27 and 28, or again in Mark viii. 36 and 38, disappears on retranslation into the dialect spoken by Jesus. Whether this linguistic fact makes the sayings in which ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs unhistorical is a further question, upon which scholars can take, and have taken, opposite opinions.—F. C. B.208.SeeWorte Jesu, 1898, p. 191 ff. (= E. T. p. 234 ff.).209.See the classical discussion in J. Weiss,Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes, 1892, 1st ed., p. 52 ff.In the second edition, of 1900, p. 160 ff., he allows himself to be led astray by the“chiefest apostles”of modern theology to indulge in the subtleties of fine-spun psychology, and explain Jesus' way of speaking of Himself in the third person as the Son of Man as due to the“extreme modesty of Jesus,”a modesty which did not forsake Him in the presence of His judges. This recent access of psychologising exegesis has not conduced to clearness of presentation, and the preference for the Lucan narrative does not so much contribute to throw light on the facts as to discover in the thoughts of Jesus subtleties of which the historical Jesus never dreamt. If the Lord always used the term Son of Man when speaking of His Messiahship, the reason was that this was the only way in which He could speak of it at all, since the Messiahship was not yet realised, but was only to be so at the appearing of the Son of Man. For a consistent, purely historical, non-psychological exposition of the Son-of-Man passages see Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. (The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion.) A sketch of the Life of Jesus. Tübingen, 1901.210.See Dalman, p. 60 ff.John Lightfoot,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Edited by J. B. Carpzov. Leipzig, 1684.Christian Schöttgen,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Dresden-Leipzig, 1733.Joh. Gerh. Meuschen,Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum. Leipzig, 1736.J. Jakob. Wettstein,Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amsterdam, 1751 and 1752.F. Nork,Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig, 1839.Franz Delitzsch,“Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,”in theLuth. Zeitsch., 1876-1878.Carl Siegfried,Analecta Rabbinica, 1875;“Rabbin. Analekten,”Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1876.A. Wünsche,Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Contributions to the Exposition of the Gospels from Talmud and Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878.211.Leipzig, 1880; 2nd ed., 1897.212.Cf. for what follows, Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 164 ff.213.Robert Sheringham of Caius College, Cambridge, a royalist divine, published an edition of the Talmudic tractateYoma. London, 1648.—F. C. B.214.T. Tal,Professor Oort und der Talmud, 1880. See upon this Van Manen,Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1884, p. 569. The best collection of Talmudic parables is, according to Jülicher, that of Prof. Guis. Levi, translated by L. Seligman asParabeln, Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch. Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1877.215.The question may be said to have been provisionally settled by Paul Fiebig's work,Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu(Ancient Jewish Parables and the Parables of Jesus), Tübingen, 1904, in which he gives some fifty Late-Jewish parables, and compares them with those of Jesus, the final result being to show more clearly than ever the uniqueness and absoluteness of His creations.216.See the explanation by means of the Aramaic of a selection of the sayings of Jesus in Meyer, pp. 72-90. A Judaism more under Parsee influence is assumed as explaining the origin of Christianity by E. Böklen,Die Verwandschaft der jüdisch-christlichen mit der parsischen Eschatologie(The Relation of Jewish-Christian to Persian Eschatology), 1902, 510 ff.217.The same view is expressed by Wellhausen,Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 3rd ed., p. 381, note 2; and by Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, 1901.218.See the Apocalypse of Baruch, and Fourth Ezra.219.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ, par Nicolas Notowitsch. Paris, 1894.220.See Jülicher,Gleichnisreden Jesu, i., 1888, p. 172 ff.221.Max Müller,India, What can it teach us?London, 1883, p. 279.222.Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig,Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relation to the Buddha Legend and the Teaching of Buddha, with constant reference to other religious groups.) Leipzig, 1882, p. 337.Other works by the same author areBuddha und Christus. Deutsche Bücherei No. 33, Breslau, Schottländer, 1884.Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien.2nd ed. Weimar, 1897. (Edited by the son of the late author.) 129 pp.See also on this question Van den Bergh van Eysinga,Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen. Göttingen, 1904. 104 pp.According to J. M. Robertson,Christianity and Mythology(London, 1900), the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition is to be symbolically interpreted.223.Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments, 1905.224.Heinrich Julius Holtzmann,Handkommentar.Die Synoptiker.1st ed., 1889; 3rd ed., 1901.Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1896, vol. i.225.In the Catholic Church the study of the Life of Jesus has remained down to the present day entirely free from scepticism. The reason of that is, that in principle it has remained at a pre-Straussian standpoint, and does not venture upon an unreserved application of historical considerations either to the miracle question or to the Johannine question, and naturally therefore resigns the attempt to take account of and explain the great historical problems.We may name the following Lives of Jesus produced by German Catholic writers:—Joh. Nep. Sepp,Das Leben Jesu Christi. Regensburg, 1843-1846. 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1853-1862.Peter Schegg,Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu. (The Life of Jesus in Six Books.) Freiburg, 1874-1875. c. 1200 pp.Joseph Grimm,Das Leben Jesu. Würzburg, 2nd ed., 1890-1903. 6 vols.Richard von Kralik,Jesu Leben und Werk. Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904. 481 pp.W. Capitaine,Jesus von Nazareth. Regensburg, 1905. 192 pp.How narrow are the limits within which the Catholic study of the life of Jesus moves even when it aims at scientific treatment, is illustrated by Hermann Schell'sChristus(Mainz, 1903. 152 pp.). After reading the forty-two questions with which he introduces his narrative one might suppose that the author was well aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus, and intended to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work proceeds more and more the rôle of an apologist, not facing definitely either the miracle question or the Johannine question, but gliding over the difficulties by the aid of ingenious headings, so that in the end his book almost takes the form of an explanatory text to the eighty-nine illustrations which adorn the book and make it difficult to read.In France, Renan's work gave the incentive to an extensive Catholic“Life-of-Jesus”literature. We may name the following:—Louis Veuillot,La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1864. 509 pp. German by Waldeyer. Köln-Neuss, 1864. 573 pp.H. Wallon,Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1865. 355 pp.A work which met with a particularly favourable reception was that of Père Didon, the Dominican,Jésus-Christ, Paris, 1891, 2 vols., vol. i. 483 pp., vol. ii. 469 pp. The German translation is dated 1895.In the same year there appeared a new edition of the“Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ”(see above, p.109f.) by Katharina Emmerich; the cheap popular edition of the translation of Renan's“Life of Jesus”; and the eighth edition of Strauss's“Life of Jesus for the German People.”We may quote from the ecclesiasticalApprobationprinted at the beginning of Didon's Life of Jesus.“If the author sometimes seems to speak the language of his opponents, it is at once evident that he has aimed at defeating them on their own ground, and he is particularly successful in doing so when he confronts their irreligious a priori theories with the positive arguments of history.”As a matter of fact the work is skilfully written, but without a spark of understanding of the historical questions.All honour to Alfred Loisy! (Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1903, 960 pp.), who takes a clear view on the Johannine question, and denies the existence of a Johannine historical tradition. But what that means for the Catholic camp may be recognised from the excitement produced by the book and its express condemnation. See also the same writer'sL'Évangile et l'Église(German translation, Munich, 1904, 189 pp.), in which Loisy here and there makes good historical points against Harnack's“What is Christianity?”226.Oskar Holtzmann, Professor of Theology at Giessen, was born in 1859 at Stuttgart.227.This suggestion reminds us involuntarily of the old rationalistic Lives of Jesus, which are distressed that Jesus should have injured the good people of the country of the Gesarenes by sacrificing their swine in healing the demoniac. A good deal of old rationalistic material crops up in the very latest Lives of Jesus, as cannot indeed fail to be the case in view of the arbitrary interpretation of detail which is common to both. According to Oskar Holtzmann the barren fig-tree has also a symbolical meaning.“It is a pledge given by God to Jesus that His faith shall not be put to shame in the great work of His life.”228.Isaiah lxii. 11,“Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh.”229.“For Jesus Himself,”Oskar Holtzmann argues,“this discovery”—he means the antinomy which He had discovered in Psalm cx.—“disposed of a doubt which had always haunted him. If He had really known Himself to be descended from the Davidic line, He would certainly not have publicly suggested a doubt as to the Davidic descent of the Messiah.”230.Oskar Holtzmann's work,War Jesus Ekstatiker?(Tübingen, 1903, 139 pp.) is in reality a new reading of the life of Jesus. By emphasising the ecstatic element he breaks with the“natural”conception of the life and teaching of Jesus; and, in so far, approaches the eschatological view. But he gives a very wide significance to the term ecstatic, subsuming under it, it might almost be said, all the eschatological thoughts and utterances of Jesus. He explains, for instance, that“the conviction of the approaching destruction of existing conditions is ecstatic.”At the same time, the only purpose served by the hypothesis of ecstasy is to enable the author to attribute to Jesus“The belief that in His own work the Kingdom of God was already beginning, and the promise of the Kingdom to individuals; this can only be considered ecstatic.”The opposites which Bousset brings together by the conception of paradox are united by Holtzmann by means of the hypothesis of ecstasy. That is, however, to play fast and loose with the meaning of“ecstasy.”An ecstasy is, in the usual understanding of the word, an abnormal, transient condition of excitement in which the subject's natural capacity for thought and feeling, and therewith all impressions from without, are suspended, being superseded by an intense mental excitation and activity. Jesus may possibly have been in an ecstatic state at His baptism and at the transfiguration. What O. Holtzmann represents as a kind of permanent ecstatic state is rather an eschatological fixed idea. With eschatology, ecstasy has no essential connexion. It is possible to be eschatologically minded without being an ecstatic, and vice versa. Philo attributes a great importance to ecstasy in his religious life, but he was scarcely, if at all, interested in eschatology.231.P. W. Schmidt, now Professor in Basle, was born in Berlin in 1845.232.Otto Schmiedel, Professor at the Gymnasium at Eisenach,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. Schmiedel was born in 1858.Hermann Freiherr von Soden,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. Von Soden, Professor in Berlin, and preacher at the Jerusalem Kirche, was born in 1852.We may mention also the following works:—Fritz Barth (born 1856, Professor at Bern),Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu. 1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1903.Friedrich Nippold'sDer Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien(The Course of the Life of Jesus in the Words of the First Three Evangelists) (Hamburg, 1895, 213 pp.) is only an arrangement of the sections.Konrad Furrer'sVorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi(Lectures on the Life of Jesus Christ) have a special charm by reason of the author's knowledge of the country and the locality. Furrer, who was born in 1838, is Professor at Zurich.Another work which should not be forgotten is R. Otto'sLeben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung(Life and Work of Jesus from the Point of View of Historical Criticism). A Lecture. Göttingen, 1902. Rudolf Otto, born in 1869, is Privat-Docent at Göttingen.233.Schmiedel is not altogether right in making“the Heidelberg Professor Paulus”follow the same lines as Reimarus,“except that his works, of 1804 and 1828, are less malignant, but only the more dull for that.”In reality the deistic Life of Jesus by Reimarus, and the rationalistic Life by Paulus have nothing in common. Paulus was perhaps influenced by Venturini, but not by Reimarus. The assertion that Strauss wrote his“Life of Jesus for the German people”because“Renan's fame gave him no peace”is not justified, either by Strauss's character or by the circumstances in which the second Life of Jesus was produced.234.Von Soden gives on pp. 24 ff. the passages of Mark which he supposes to be derived from the Petrine tradition in a different order from that in which they occur in Mark, regrouping them freely. He puts together, for instance, Mark i. 16-20, iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27-ix. 1, ix. 33-40, under the title“The formation and training of the band of disciples.”He supposes Mark, the pupil of Peter, to have grouped in this way by a kind of association of ideas“what he had heard Peter relate in his missionary journeys, when writing it down after Peter's death, not connectedly, but giving as much as he could remember of it”; this would be in accordance with the statement of Papias that Mark wrote“not in order.”Papias's statement, therefore, refers to an“Ur-Markus,”which he found lacking in historical order.But what are we to make of a representative of the early Church thus approaching the Gospels with the demand for historical arrangement? And good, simple old Papias, of all people!But if the Marcan plan was not laid down in“Ur-Markus,”there is nothing for it—since the plan was certainly not given in the collection of Logia—but to ascribe it to the author of our Gospel of Mark, to the man, that is, who wrote down for the first time these“Pauline conceptions,”those reflections of experiences of individual believers and of the community, and inserted them into the Gospel. It is proposed, then, to retain the outline which he has given of the life of Jesus, and reject at the same time what he relates. That is to say, he is to be believed where it is convenient to believe him, and silenced where it is inconvenient. No more complete refutation of the Marcan hypothesis could possibly be given than this analysis, for it destroys its very foundation, the confident acceptance of the historicity of the Marcan plan.If there is to be an analysis of sources in Mark, then the Marcan plan must be ascribed to“Ur-Markus,”otherwise the analysis renders the Markan hypothesis historically useless. But if“Ur-Markus”is to be reconstructed on the basis of assigning to it the Marcan plan, then we cannot separate the natural from the supernatural, for the supernatural scenes, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, are among the main features of the Marcan outline.No hypothetical analysis of“Ur-Markus”has escaped this dilemma; what it can effect by literary methods is historically useless, and what would be historically useful cannot be attained nor“presented”by literary methods.235.Von Soden, for instance, germanises Jesus when he writes,“and this nature is sound to the core. In spite of its inwardness there is no trace of an exaggerated sentimentality. In spite of all the intensity of prayer there is nothing of ecstasy or vision. No apocalyptic dream-pictures find a lodging-place in His soul.”Is a man who teaches a world-renouncing ethic which sometimes soars to the dizzy heights such as that of Matt. xix. 12, according to our conceptions“sound to the core”? And does not the life of Jesus present a number of occasions on which He seems to have been in an ecstasy?Thus, von Soden has not simply read his Jesus out of the texts, but has added something of his own, and that something is Germanic in colouring.236.i.e.the MS. Life of Jesus written by Kai Jans, one of the characters of the novel. The way in which the whole life-experience of this character prepares him for the writing of the Life is strikingly—if not always acceptably—worked out.—Translator.237.Frenssen's Kai Jans professes to have used the“results of the whole range of critical investigation”in writing his work. Among the books which he enumerates and recommends in the after-word, we miss the works of Strauss, Weisse, Keim, Volkmar, and Brandt, and, generally speaking, the names of those who in the past have done something really great and original. Of the moderns, Johannes Weiss is lacking. Wrede is mentioned, but is virtually ignored. Pfleiderer's remarkable and profound presentation of Jesus in theUrchristentum(E. T.“Primitive Christianity,”vol. ii., 1909) is non-existent so far as he is concerned.238.Heimatkunst, the ideal that every production of German art should be racy of the soil. It has its relative justification as a protest against the long subservience of some departments of German art to French taste.—Translator.239.The Jesus of H. S. Chamberlain'sWorte Christi, 1901, 286 pp., is also modern. But the modernity is not so obtrusive, because he describes only the teaching of Jesus, not His life.240.Born in 1839 at Stettin. Studied at Tübingen, was appointed Professor in 1870 at Jena and in 1875 at Berlin. (Died 1908.)241.Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben.2nd ed. Berlin, 1902. Vol. i. (696 pp.), 615 ff.:Die Predigt Jesu und der Glaube der Urgemeinde(English Translation,“Primitive Christianity,”chap. xvi.). Pfleiderer's latest views are set forth in his work, based on academic lectures,Die Entstehung des Urchristentums. (How Christianity arose.) Munich, 1905. 255 pp.242.Albert Kalthoff,Das Christusproblem.Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie.(The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. 87 pp.Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem.(How Christianity arose.) Leipzig, 1904. 155 pp.Albert Kalthoff was born in 1850 at Barmen, and is engaged in pastoral work in Bremen.243.Das Leben Jesu.Lectures delivered before the Protestant Reform Society at Berlin. Berlin, 1880. 173 pp.244.If Kalthoff would only have spoken of the conception of the resurrection instead of the conception of immortality! Then his subjective knowledge would have been more or less tolerable.245.Against Kalthoff: Wilhelm Bousset,Was wissen wir von Jesus?(What do we know about Jesus?) Lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen. Halle, 1904. 73 pp. In reply: Albert Kalthoff,Was wissen wir von Jesus?A settlement of accounts with Professor Bousset. Berlin, 1904. 43 pp.A sound historical position is set forth in the clear and trenchant lecture of W. Kapp,Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthoff. (The problem of the Christ and of Christianity as handled by Kalthoff.) Strassburg, 1905. 23 pp.246.Eduard von Hartmann,Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments. (The Christianity of the N.T.) 2nd, revised and altered, edition of the“Letters on the Christian Religion.”Sachsa-in-the-Harz, 1905. 311 pp.247.Eduard von Hartmann ought, therefore, to have given his assistance to the others who have made this assertion in proving that there really existed Messianic claimants before and at the time of Jesus.248.“Jesus,”by Jülicher, inDie Kultur der Gegenwart. (An encyclopaedic publication which is appearing in parts.) Teubner, Berlin, 1905, pp. 40-69.See also W. Bousset,“Jesus,”Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher. (A series of religious-historical monographs.) Published by Schiele, Halle, 1904.Here should be mentioned also the thoughtful book, following very much the lines of Jülicher, by Eduard Grimm, entitledDie Ethik Jesu, Hamburg, 1903, 288 pp. The author, born in 1848, is the chief pastor at the Nicolaikirche in Hamburg.Another work which deserves mention is Arno Neumann,Jesu wie er geschichtlich war(Jesus as he historically existed), Freiburg, 1904, 198 pp. (New Paths to the Old God), a Life of Jesus distinguished by a lofty vein of natural poetry and based upon solid theological knowledge. Arno Neumann is headmaster of a school at Apolda.249.Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus-Bildes.Berlin, 1904, 112 pp. Earlier studies of the Life of Jesus from the Jewish point of view had been less ambitious. Dr. Aug. Wünsche had written in 1872 on“Jesus in His attitude towards women”from the Talmudic standpoint (146 pp.), and had described Him from the same standpoint as a Jesus who rejoiced in life,Der lebensfreudige Jesus der synoptischen Evangelien im Gegensatz zum leidenden Messias der Kirche. Leipzig, 1876, 444 pp. The basis is so far correct, that the eschatological, world-renouncing ethic which we find in Jesus was due to temporary conditions and is therefore transitory, and had nothing whatever to do with Judaism as such. The spirit of the Law is the opposite of world-renouncing. But the Talmud, be its traditions never so trustworthy, could teach us little about Jesus because it has preserved scarcely a trace of that eschatological phase of Jewish religion and ethics.250.Wolfgang Kirchbach,Was lehrte Jesus? Zwei Urevangelien. Berlin, 1897, 248 pp.; second greatly enlarged and improved edition, 1902, 339 pp. By the same author,Das Buch Jesus.Die Urevangelien. Neu nachgewiesen, neu übersetzt, geordnet und aus der Ursprache erklärt. (The Book of Jesus. The Primitive Gospels. Newly traced, translated, arranged, and explained on the basis of the original.) Berlin, 1897.251.Before him, Hugo Delff, in hisHistory of the Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth(Leipzig, 1889, 428 pp.), had confined himself to the Fourth Gospel, and even within that Gospel he drew some critical distinctions. His Jesus at first conceals His Messiahship from the fear of arousing the political expectations of the people, and speaks to them of the Son of Man in the third person. At His second visit to Jerusalem He breaks with the rulers, is subsequently compelled, in consequence of the conflict over the Sabbath, to leave Galilee, and then gives up His own people and turns to the heathen. Delff explains the raising of Lazarus by supposing him to have been buried in a state of trance.252.Albert Dulk,Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu.In geschichtlicher Aufassung dargestellt. Erster Teil: Die historischen Wurzeln und die galiläische Blüte, 1884. 395 pp.Zweiter Teil: Der Messiaseinzug und die Erhebung ans Kreuz, 1885, 302 pp. (The Error of the Life of Jesus. Historically apprehended and set forth. Pt. i., The Historical Roots and the Galilaean Blossom. Pt. ii., The Messianic Entry and the Crucifixion.) The course of Dulk's own life was somewhat erratic. Born in 1819, he came prominently forward in the revolution of 1848, as a political pamphleteer and agitator. Later, though almost without means, he undertook long journeys, even to Sinai and to Lapland. Finally, he worked as a social democratic reformer. He died in 1884.253.A scientific treatment of this subject is supplied by Fr. Nippold,Die psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu(The Psychiatric Side of Jesus' Works of Healing), 1889, in which a luminous review of the medical material is to be found. See also Dr. K. Kunz,Christus medicus, Freiburg in Baden, 1905, 74 pp. The scientific value of this work is, however, very much reduced by the fact that the author has no acquaintance with the preliminary questions belonging to the sphere of history and literature, and regards all the miracles of healing as actual events, believing himself able to explain them from the medical point of view. The tendency of the work is mainly apologetic.254.Jesus von Nazareth. Described from the Scientific, Historical, and Social Point of View.Translated from the French (into German) by A. Just. Leipzig, 1894. The author, whose real name is P. A. Desjardin, is a practising physician. De Régla, too, makes the Fourth Gospel the basis of his narrative.255.Pierre Nahor (Emilie Lerou),Jesus. Translated from the French by Walter Bloch. Berlin, 1905. Its motto is: The figure of Jesus belongs, like all mysterious, heroic, or mythical figures, to legend and poetry. In the introduction we find the statement,“This book is a confession of faith.”The narrative is based on the Fourth Gospel.256.La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ.Paris, 1894. 301 pp. German, under the titleDie Lücke im Leben Jesu(The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. See Holtzmann in theTheol. Jahresbericht, xiv. p. 140.In a certain limited sense the work of A. Lillie,The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity(London, 1893), is to be numbered among the fictitious works on the life of Jesus. The fictitious element consists in Jesus being made an Essene by the writer, and Essenism equated with Buddhism.Among“edifying”romances on the life of Jesus intended for family reading, that of the English writer J. H. Ingraham,The Prince of the House of David, has had a very long lease of life. It appeared in a German translation as early as 1858, and was reissued in 1906 (Brunswick).A fictitious life of Jesus of wonderful beauty is Peter Rosegger'sI.N.R.I. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders(The Glad Tidings of a poor Sinner). Leipzig, 6th-10th thousand, 1906. 293 pp.A feminine point of view reveals itself in C. Rauch'sJeschua ben Joseph. Deichert, 1899.257.La Vie ésotérique de Jésu-Christ et les origines orientales du christianisme.Paris, 1902. 445 pp.That Jesus was of Aryan race is argued by A. Müller, who assumes a Gaulish immigration into Galilee.Jesus ein Arier.Leipzig, 1904. 74 pp.258.Did Jesus live 100b.c.?London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903. 440 pp.A scientific discussion of the“Toledoth Jeshu,”with citations from the Talmudic tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss,Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, 1902. 309 pp. According to him theToledoth Jeshuwas committed to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a modified version of the Christian tradition.259.William Wrede, born in 1859 at Bücken in Hanover, was Professor at Breslau. (He died in 1907.)Wrede names as his real predecessors on the same lines Bruno Bauer, Volkmar, and the Dutch writer Hoekstra (“De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien,”Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871).In a certain limited degree the work of Ernest Havet (Le Christianisme et ses origines) has a claim to be classed in the same category. His scepticism refers principally to the entry into Jerusalem and the story of the passion.260.These and the following questions are raised more especially in theSketch of the Life of Jesus.261.It would perhaps be more historical to say“as a prophet.”262.The difficulties which the incident at Caesarea Philippi places in the way of Wrede's construction may be realised by placing two of his statements side by side. P. 101:“From this it is evident that this incident contains no element which cannot be easily understood on the basis of Mark's ideas.”P. 238:“But in another aspect this incident stands in direct contradiction to the Marcan view of the disciples. It is inconsistent with their general‘want of understanding,’and can therefore hardly have been created by Mark himself.”263.The question of the attitude of pre-Origenic theology towards the historical Jesus, and of the influence exercised by dogma upon the evangelical tradition regarding Jesus in the course of the first two centuries, is certainly deserving of a detailed examination.264.Certain of the conceptions with which Wrede operates are simply not in accordance with the text, because he gives them a different significance from that which they have in the narrative. Thus, for example, he always takes the“resurrection,”when it occurs in the mouth of Jesus, as a reference to that resurrection which as an historical fact became a matter of apprehended experience to the apostles. But Jesus speaks without any distinction of His resurrection and of His Parousia. The conception of the resurrection, therefore, if one is to arrive at it inductively from the Marcan text, is most closely bound up with the Parousia. The Evangelist would thus seem to have made Jesus predict a different kind of resurrection from that which actually happened. The resurrection, according to the Marcan text, is an eschatological event, and has no reference whatever to Wrede's“historical resurrection.”Further, if their resurrection experience was the first and fundamental point in the Messianic enlightenment of the disciples, why did they only begin to proclaim it some weeks later? This is a problem which was long ago recognised by Reimarus, and which is not solved by merely assuming that the disciples were afraid.265.P. 33 ff. The prohibitions in Mark i. 43 and 44, v. 43, vii. 36, and viii. 26 are put on the same footing with the really Messianic prohibitions in viii. 30 and ix. 9, with which may be associated also the imposition of silence upon the demoniacs who recognise his Messiahship in Mark i. 34 and iii. 12.266.The narrative in Matt. xiv. 22-33, according to which the disciples, after seeing Jesus walk upon the sea, hail Him on His coming into the boat as the Son of God, and the description of the deeds of Jesus as“deeds of Christ,”in the introduction to the Baptist's question in Matt. xi. 2, do not cancel the old theory even in Matthew, because the Synoptists, differing therein from the fourth Evangelist, do not represent the demand for a sign as a demand for a Messianic sign, nor the cures wrought by Jesus as Messianic proofs of power. The action of the demons in crying out upon Jesus as the Son of God betokens their recognition of Him; it has nothing to do with the miracles of healing as such.267.For further examples of the pressing of the theory to its utmost limits, see Wrede, p. 134 ff.268.It is always assumed as self-evident that Jesus is speaking of the sufferings and persecutions which would take place after His death, or that the Evangelist, in making Him speak in this way, is thinking of these later persecutions. There is no hint of that in the text.269.That the eschatological school showed a certain timidity in drawing the consequences of its recognition of the character of the preaching of Jesus and examining the tradition from the eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes Weiss's work,“The Earliest Gospel”(Das älteste Evangelium), Göttingen, 1903, 414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is surprised to find the author of the“Preaching of Jesus”here endeavouring to distinguish between Mark and“Ur-Markus,”to point to examples of Pauline influence, to exhibit clearly the“tendencies”which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist and the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological view of the preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him a clue to quite a different psychology from that which he actually applies. Against Wrede he brings forward many arguments which are worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have refuted him, because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the exact form in which it was raised by Wrede.270.Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark's version the experience at the baptism is conceived as an open miracle, perceptible to others. The way in which the revelations to the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament does not make in favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in the presence of a multitude without perceiving that in this case the Messianic secret was a secret no longer. If so, the story of the baptism stands on the same footing as the story of the Messianic entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely no results.271.The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared for a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off to the north once more (Mark vii. 31-viii. 27), may here provisionally be left out of account since it stands in relation with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So too the enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii. 34-ix. 30) may here be passed over. These statements make no difference to the fact that Jesus really broke off his work in Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, since they imply at most a quite transient contact with the people.272.On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work of Jesus see the“Sketch,”p. 3 ff.,“The four Pre-suppositions of the Modern Historical Solution.”273.Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion of the people, since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by the Pharisees, not by the people. The abandonment of the Galilaean work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he thought, have been due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the time had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of Jesus' miracle-working power which caused the change in His attitude, since it is remarkable that He performed no further miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.274.The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset's, who proposes to treat the mission and everything connected with it as a“confused and unintelligible”tradition.275.Joel iii. 13,“Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!”In the Apocalypse of John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the heavenly harvest:“Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped”(Rev. xiv. 15 and 16).The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch:“Behold, the days come, when the time of the world shall be ripe, and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil shall come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its inhabitants and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror that makes the heart stand still; and they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war; and the despised shall have power over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of the few ... and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before-mentioned (dangers) ... shall be given into the hands of my servant, the Messiah.”(Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. Following the translation of E. Kautzsch.)The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was therefore one of the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And as the Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the period abouta.d.70, it may be assumed that this association of ideas was also current in the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of sowing and reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of the time. What Jesus did was to make known to those who understood Him that the coming earthly harvest was the last, and was also the token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.276.With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the discourse in Matt. xi. in order to make the“cry of jubilation”into the cry with which Jesus saluted the return of His disciples, and to find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida somewhere else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this apparently disconnected material held together by an inner bond of connexion—the secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently impending over Jesus and the people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach like one who has a thesis to maintain and seeks about for the most logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly connexion belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?277.If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His resurrection, He means by that, not a single isolated act, but a complex occurrence consisting of His metamorphosis, translation to heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with this is associated the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is, therefore, one and the same thing whether He speaks of His resurrection or of His coming on the clouds of heaven.278.The title of Baldensperger's book,The Self-consciousness of Jesus in the Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time, really contains a promise which is impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary“Messianic hopes”can only explain the hopes of Jesus so far as they corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, in which He is absolutely original.279.Even Baldensperger's book,Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums(1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. The coming volume is to deal with the eschatology of Jesus. That is a“theological,”but not an historical division of the material. The second volume should properly come in the middle of the first.280.The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by the ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the rising influence of the ancient prophetic literature. This designation has nothing whatever to do with a political ideal of a kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in their character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural as the Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read into both Daniel and the prophets.281.Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The earliest portion, the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of Daniel and of contemporary origin. The Similitudes (capp. xxxvii.-lxix.), which, with their description of the Judgment of the Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of Jesus, may be placed in 80-70b.c.They do not presuppose the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey.282.The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the Similitudes.283.The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long after the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years later.284.The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology before the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from 60b.c.untila.d.30, we have no information regarding eschatological movements! And do the Psalms of Solomon really point to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in studying the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have no eschatological character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next turning-point in the history of the apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and Fourth Ezra show.285.Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of Man they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It is to their part in the judgment that belong also the authority to bind and to loose which He entrusts to them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards to all the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present decisions will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does the“upon earth”refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last Judgment will be held on earth?“I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be historical? Is it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the“church”which He will found upon the Rock-disciple? But if one has once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre-existing“church”was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is given an uneschatological reference to the Church as we know it, it loses all real meaning and becomes a treasure-trove to the Roman Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.286.That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how short a time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun. He only became known, as the Baptist's question shows, at the time of the mission of the disciples; Herod first heard of Him after the death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of Jesus beforehand, it would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him with the Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry of Jesus.287.That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology lost sight of the fact because it did not know how to make any historical use of it.288.Psal. Sol. xv. 8.289.That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim to something future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of His sufferings and death as a special baptism, and asks the sons of Zebedee whether they are willing, for the sake of gaining the thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. If the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it would be unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.290.The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and lxv. 12 ff. It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6-8, a passage which perhaps dates from the time of Alexander the Great,“and Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things prepared with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall destroy, in this mountain, among all peoples, the veil which has veiled all peoples and the covering which has covered all nations. He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall wipe away the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall disappear from the earth.”(The German follows Kautzsch's translation.)In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is connected with that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits to the elect upon the mountain of the King. Similarly in the Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11.The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the Son of Man, and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved“shall eat with the Son of Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him to all eternity.”Jesus' references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely images, but point to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He prophesies that many shall come from the East and from the West to sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. xxii. 1-14 the Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1-13 as a marriage feast.The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its forms. In Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the tree of life; in ii. 17 it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake-side was a true sacrament.291.Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing with Mark must consist in explaining how such“myths”could be accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as our Mark does.292.It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross,“Eli, Eli,”was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to Elias.293.From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any of them to have“arrived gradually at the knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus.”294.For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been worked into one another, see the“Sketch of the Life of Jesus,”1901, p. 52 ff.,“After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and historical problems.”A theory resting on the same principle was lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss,Das älteste Evangelium(The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.295.It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede also observes:“The transfiguration and Peter's confession are closely connected in content”(p. 123). He also clearly perceives the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow-disciples do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious difficulty for Wrede's reading of the facts, since this assumes Jesus to have been the revealer of it.296.“After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps, awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”297.Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will“go before them”into Galilee. That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He shall returnwiththem, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean appearances.We find it“corrected”by the saying of the“young man”at the grave, who says to the women,“Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.”Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words“he goeth before you,”whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the“correction.”298.Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.299.Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of“many”instead of speaking of“His own”or“the believers.”Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the“for many”in the words of Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any kind of contact with early theology the“many”disappear to give place to the“believers.”In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the“many”as the nation (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the“many”cannot include the disciples, since they“who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.”They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.300.One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to die. Here as in so many other places Weisse's clearness of perception is surprising. Jesus' journey was according to him a pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.301.“That ye enter not into temptation”is the content of the prayer that they are to offer while watching with Him.302.As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial Act) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this technical error was very serious.But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.303.That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been brought up as a charge against Him.304.When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence. But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.

See Theobald Ziegler,“Zur Biographie von David Friedrich Strauss”(Materials for the Biography of D. F. S.), in theDeutsche Revue, May, June, July 1905. The hitherto unpublished letters to Binder throw some light on the development of Strauss during the formative years before the publication of the Life of Jesus.

Binder, later Director of the Board of Studies at Stuttgart, was the friend who delivered the funeral allocution at the grave of Strauss. This last act of friendship exposed him to enmity and calumny of all kinds. For the text of his short address, see theDeutsche Revue, 1905, p. 107.

He to whom my plaint isKnows I shed no tear;She to whom I say thisFeels I have no fear.

Time has come for fading,Like a glimmering ray,Or a sense-evadingStrain that floats away.

May, though fainter, dimmer,Only, clear and pure,To the last the glimmerAnd the strain endure.

The persons alluded to in the first verse are his son, who, as a physician, attended him in his illness, and to whom he was deeply attached, and a very old friend to whom the verses were addressed.—Translator.

Das Leben Jesu-Christi.Hamburg, 1837. Aug. Wilhelm Neander was born in 1789 at Göttingen, of Jewish parents, his real name being David Mendel. He was baptized in 1806, studied theology, and in 1813 was appointed to a professorship in Berlin, where he displayed a many-sided activity and exercised a beneficent influence. He died in 1850. The best-known of his writings is theGeschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel(History of the Propagation and Administration of the Christian Church by the Apostles), Hamburg, 1832-1833, of which a reprint appeared as late as 1890. Neander was a man not only of deep piety, but also of great solidity of character.

Strauss, in his Life of Jesus of 1864, passes the following judgment upon Neander's work:“A book such as in these circumstances Neander's Life of Jesus was bound to be calls forth our sympathy; the author himself acknowledges in his preface that it bears upon it only too clearly the marks of the time of crisis, division, pain, and distress in which it was produced.”

Of the innumerable“positive”Lives of Jesus which appeared about the end of the 'thirties we may mention that of Julius Hartmann (2 vols., 1837-1839). Among the later Lives of Jesus of the mediating theology may be mentioned that of Theodore Pressel of Tübingen, which was much read at the time of its appearance (1857, 592 pp.). It aims primarily at edification. We may also mention theLeben des Herrn Jesu Christiby Wil. Jak. Lichtenstein (Erlangen, 1856), which reflects the ideas of von Hofmann.

Anna Katharina Emmerich was born in 1774 at Flamske near Coesfeld. Her parents were peasants. In 1803 she took up her abode with the Augustinian nuns of the convent of Agnetenberg at Dülmen. After the dissolution of the convent, she lived in a single room in Dülmen itself. The“stigmata”showed themselves first in 1812. She died on the 9th of February 1824. Brentano had been in her neighbourhood since 1819.Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi(The Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ) was issued by Brentano himself in 1834. TheLife of Jesuswas published on the basis of notes left by him—he died in 1842—in three volumes, 1858-1860, at Regensburg, under the sanction of the Bishop of Limberg.

First volume.—From the death of St. Joseph to the end of the first year after the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. Communicated between May 1, 1821, and October 1, 1822.

Second volume.—From the beginning of the second year after the Baptism in Jordan to the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem. Communicated between October 1, 1822, and April 30, 1823.

Third volume.—From the close of the second Passover in Jerusalem to the Mission of the Holy Spirit. Communicated between October 21, 1823, and January 8, 1824, and from July 29, 1820, to May 1821.

Both works have been frequently reissued, the“Bitter Sufferings”as late as 1894.

Ch. G. Wilke,Tradition und Mythe. A contribution to the historical criticism of the Gospels in general, and in particular to the appreciation of the treatment of myth and idealism in Strauss's“Life of Jesus.”Leipzig, 1837.

Christian Gottlob Wilke was born in 1786 at Werm, near Zeitz, studied theology and became pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge. He resigned this office in 1837 in order to devote himself to his studies, perhaps also because he had become conscious of an inner unrest. In 1845 he prepared the way for his conversion to Catholicism by publishing a work entitled“Can a Protestant go over to the Roman Church with a good conscience?”He took the decisive step in August 1846. Later he removed to Würzburg. Subsequently he recast his famousClavis Novi Testamenti Philologica—which had appeared in 1840-1841—in the form of a lexicon for Catholic students of theology. HisHermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, published in 1843-1844, appeared in 1853 asBiblische Hermeneutik nach katholischen Grundsätzen(The Science of Biblical Interpretation according to Catholic principles). He was engaged in recasting his Clavis when he died in 1854.

Of later works dealing with the question of myth, we may refer to Emanuel Marius,Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker(The Personality of Jesus, with special reference to the Mythologies and Mysteries of Ancient Nations), Leipzig, 1879, 395 pp.; and Otto Frick,Mythus und Evangelium(Myth and Gospel), Heilbronn, 1879, 44 pp.

Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte.(Scientific Criticism of the Gospel History.) August Ebrard. Frankfort, 1842; 3rd ed., 1868.

Johannes Heinrich Aug. Ebrard was born in 1818 at Erlangen, was, first, Professor of Reformed Theology at Zurich and Erlangen, afterwards (1853) went to Speyer as“Konsistorialrat,”but was unable to cope with the Liberal opposition there, and returned in 1861 to Erlangen, where he died in 1888.

A characteristic example of Ebrard's way of treating the subject is his method of meeting the objection that a fish with a piece of money in its jaws could not have taken the hook.“The fish might very well,”he explains,“have thrown up the piece of money from its belly into the opening of the jaws in the moment in which Peter opened its mouth.”Upon this Strauss remarks:“The inventor of this argument tosses it down before us as who should say,‘I know very well it is bad, but it is good enough for you, at any rate so long as the Church has livings to distribute and we Konsistorialrats have to examine the theological candidates.’”Strauss, therefore, characterises Ebrard's Life of Jesus as“Orthodoxy restored on a basis of impudence.”The pettifogging character of this work made a bad impression even in Conservative quarters.

Georg Heinrich August Ewald,Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (History of the People of Israel.) 7 vols. Göttingen, 1843-1859; 3rd ed., 1864-1870. Fifth vol.,Geschichte Christus' und seiner Zeit. (History of Christ and His Times.) 1855; 2nd ed., 1857.

Ewald was born in 1803 at Göttingen, where in 1827 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages. Having made a protest against the repeal of the fundamental law of the Hanoverian Constitution he was removed from his office and went to Tübingen, first as Professor of philology; in 1841 he was transferred to the theological faculty. In 1848 he returned to Göttingen. When, in 1866, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia, he was compulsorily retired, and, in consequence of imprudent expressions of opinion, was also deprived of the right to lecture. The town of Hanover chose him as its representative in the North German and in the German Reichstag, where he sat among the Guelph opposition, in the middle of the centre party. He died in 1875 at Göttingen. His contributions to New Testament studies were much inferior to his Oriental and Old Testament researches. His Life of Jesus, in particular, is worthless, in spite of the Old Testament and Oriental learning with which it was furnished forth. He lays great stress upon making the genitive of“Christus”not“Christi,”but, according to German inflection,“Christus'.”

Christian Gottlob Wilke, formerly pastor of Hermannsdorf in the Erzgebirge.Der Urevangelist, oder eine exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung des Verwandschaftsverhältnisses der drei ersten Evangelien.(The Earliest Evangelist, a Critical and Exegetical Inquiry into the Relationship of the First Three Gospels.) The subsequent course of the discussion of the Marcan hypothesis was as follows:—

In answer to Wilke there appeared a work signed Philosophotos Aletheias,Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr Verhältnis zu einander. (The Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their relation to one another.) Leipzig, 1845, 440 pp. The author sees in Paul the evil genius of early Christianity, and thinks that the work of scientific criticism must be directed to detecting and weeding out the Pauline elements in the Gospels. Luke is in his opinion a party-writing, biased by Paulinism; in fact Paul had a share in its preparation, and this is what Paul alludes to when he speaks in Romans ii. 16, xi. 28, and xvi. 25 of“his”Gospel. His hand is especially recognisable in chapters i.-iii., vii., ix., xi., xviii., xx., xxi., and xxiv. Mark consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke; John presupposes the other three. The Tübingen standpoint was set forth by Baur in his work,Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. (A Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels.) Tübingen, 1847, 622 pp. According to him Mark is based on Matthew and Luke. At the same time, however, the irreconcilability of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists is for the first time fully worked out, and the refutation of its historical character is carried into detail.

The order Matthew, Mark, Luke is defended by Adolf Hilgenfeld in his workDie Evangelien. Leipzig, 1854, 355 pp.

Karl Reinhold Köstlin's work,Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien(Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels), is rendered nugatory by obscurities and compromises. Stuttgart, 1853, 400 pp. The priority of Mark is defended by Edward Reuss,Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments(History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testament), 1842; H. Ewald,Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1850; A. Ritschl,Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche(Origin of the ancient Catholic Church), 1850; A. Réville,Études critiques sur l'Évangile selon St. Matthieu, 1862. In 1863 the foundations of the Marcan hypothesis were relaid, more firmly than before, by Holtzmann's work,Die synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1863, 514 pp.

We subjoin the titles of the divisions of this work, which are of some interest:

Vol. i. Book i. The Sources of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book ii. The Legends of the Childhood.Vol. i. Book iii. General Sketch of the Gospel History.Vol. i. Book iv. The Incidents and Discourses according to Mark.Vol. ii. Book v. The Incidents and Discourses according to Matthew and Luke.Vol. ii. Book vi. The Incidents and Discourses according to John.Vol. ii. Book vii. The Resurrection and the Ascension.Vol. ii. Book viii. Concluding Philosophical Exposition of the Significance of the Person of Christ and of the Gospel Tradition.

One of the most ingenious of the followers of Venturini was the French Jew Salvator. In hisJésus-Christ et sa doctrine(Paris, 2 vols., 1838), he seeks to prove that Jesus was the last representative of a mysticism which, drawing its nutriment from the other Oriental religions, was to be traced among the Jews from the time of Solomon onwards. In Jesus this mysticism allied itself with Messianic enthusiasm. After He had lost consciousness upon the cross He was succoured by Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate's wife, contrary to His own expectation and purpose. He ended His days among the Essenes.

Salvator looks to a spiritualised mystical Mosaism as destined to be the successful rival of Christianity.

Charles Émile Freppel (Abbé), Professeur d'éloquence sacrée à la Sorbonne.Examen critique de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan.Paris, 1864. 148 pp.

Henri Lasserre's pamphlet,L'Évangile selon Renan(The Gospel according to Renan), reached its four-and-twentieth edition in the course of the same year.

Lasserre,Das Evangelium nach Renan. Munich, 1864.

Freppel,Kritische Beleuchtung der E. Renan'schen Schrift. Translated by Kallmus. Vienna, 1864.

See also Lamy, Professor of the Theological Faculty of the Catholic University of Louvain,Renans Leben-Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. (Renan's Life of Jesus before the Judgment Seat of Criticism.) Translated by August Rohling, Priest. Münster, 1864.

Dr. Michelis,Renans Roman vom Leben Jesu.Eine deutsche Antwort auf eine französische Blasphemie.(Renan's Romance on the Life of Jesus. A German answer to a French blasphemy.) Münster, 1864.

Dr. Sebastian Brunner,Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium. (The Atheist Renan and his Gospel.) Regensburg, 1864.

Albert Wiesinger,Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben-Jesu. Vienna, 1864.

Dr. Martin Deutlinger,Renan und das Wunder. (Renan and Miracle. A contribution to Christian Apologetic.) Munich, 1864. 159 pp.

Dr. Daniel Bonifacius Haneberg,Ernest Renans Leben-Jesu. Regensburg, 1864.

Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Doctor and Professor of Theology,Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. (Modern Presentations of the Life of Jesus.) A discussion of the writings of Strauss, Renan, and Schenkel, and of the essays of Coquerel the younger, Scherer, Colani, and Keim. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.

Of the remaining Protestant polemics we may name:—

Dr. Hermann Gerlach,Gegen Renans Leben-Jesu 1864. Berlin.

Br. Lehmann,Renan wider Renan. (RenanversusRenan.) A Lecture addressed to cultured Germans. Zwickau, 1864.

Friedrich Baumer,Schwarz, Strauss, Renan. A Lecture. Leipzig, 1864.

John Cairns, D. D. (of Berwick).Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan.(False Christs and the True, a Defence of the Gospel History against Strauss and Renan.) A Lecture delivered before the Bible Society. Translated from the English. Hamburg, 1864.

Bernhard ter Haar, Doctor of Theology and Professor at Utrecht,Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans Leben-Jesu. (Ten Lectures on Renan's Life of Jesus.) Translated by H. Doermer. Gotha, 1864.

Paulus Cassel, Professor and Licentiate in Theology,Bericht über Renans Leben-Jesu. (A Report upon Renan's Life of Jesus.)

J. J. van Oosterzee, Doctor and Professor of Theology at Utrecht,Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben-Jesu von Renan vorläufig beleuchtet.(History or Fiction? A Preliminary Examination of Renan's Life of Jesus.) Hamburg, 1864.

Theodor Keim,Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus of Nazara in Relation to the General Life of His People, freely examined and fully narrated.) 3 vols. Zurich, 1867-1872. Vol. i. The Day of Preparation; vol. ii. The Year of Teaching in Galilee; vol. iii. The Death-Passover (Todesostern) in Jerusalem. A short account in a more popular form appeared in 1872,Geschichte Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt. (The History of Jesus according to the Results of Present-day Criticism, briefly narrated for the General Reader.) 2nd ed., 1875.

Karl Theodor Keim was born in 1825 at Stuttgart, was Repetent at Tübingen from 1851 to 1855, and after he had been five years in the ministry, became Professor at Zurich in 1860. In 1873 he accepted a call to Giessen, where he died in 1878.

Geschichte Jesu. Nach akademischen Vorlesungen von Dr. Karl Hase.1876. Special mention ought also to be made of the fine sketch of the Life of Jesus in A. Hausrath'sNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte(History of New Testament Times), 1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff.; 3rd ed., 1 vol., 1879, pp. 325-515;Die zeitgeschichtlichen Beziehungen des Lebens Jesu(The Relations of the Life of Jesus to the History of His time).

Adolf Hausrath was born at Karlsruhe. He was appointed Professor of Theology at Heidelberg in 1867, and died in 1909.

Bernhard Weiss,Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. Berlin, 1882. See alsoDas Markusevangelium, 1872;Das Matthäusevangelium, 1876; and theLehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 5th ed., 1888. Bernhard Weiss was born in 1827 at Königsberg, where he qualified as Privat-Docent in 1852. In 1863 he went as Ordinary Professor to Kiel, and was called to Berlin in the same capacity in 1877.

Among the distinctly liberal Lives of Jesus of an earlier date, that of W. Krüger-Velthusen (Elberfeld, 1872, 271 pp.) might be mentioned if it were not so entirely uncritical. Although the author does not hold the Fourth Gospel to be apostolic he has no hesitation in making use of it as an historical source.

There is more sentiment than science, too, in the work of M. G. Weitbrecht,Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 1881.

A weakness in the treatment of the Johannine question and a want of clearness on some other points disfigures the three-volume Life of Jesus of the Paris professor, E. Stapfer, which is otherwise marked by much acumen and real depth of feeling. Vol. i.Jésus-Christ avant son ministère(Fischbacher, Paris, 1896); vol. ii.Jésus-Christ pendant son ministère(1897); vol. iii.La Mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ(1898).

F. Godet writes of“The Life of Jesus before His Public Appearance”(German translation by M. Reineck,Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten. Hanover, 1897).

G. Längin founds hisDer Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum(The Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897-1898.

The EnglishLife of Jesus Christ, by James Stalker, D. D. (now Professor of Church History in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen), passed through numberless editions (German, 1898; Tübingen, 4th ed., 1901).

Very pithy and interesting is Dr. Percy Gardner'sExploratio Evangelica.A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief.1899; 2nd ed., 1907.

A work which is free from all compromise is H. Ziegler'sDer geschichtliche Christus(The Historical Christ). 1891. For this reason the five lectures, delivered in Liegnitz, out of which it is composed, attracted such unfavourable attention that the Ecclesiastical Council took proceedings against the author. (See theChristliche Welt, 1891, pp. 563-568, 874-877.)

Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Einleitung, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares himself in theTheologische Literaturzeitungfor 1882, No. 23, andDas apostolische Zeitalter, 2nd ed., 1890.

Hase and Schenkel accepted this position in principle, but were careful to keep open a line of retreat.

Towards the end of the 'seventies the rejection of the Fourth Gospel as an historical source was almost universally recognised in the critical camp. It is taken for granted in the Life of Jesus by Karl Wittichen (Jena, 1876, 397 pp.), which might be reckoned one of the most clearly conceived works of this kind based on the Marcan hypothesis if its arrangement were not so bad. It is partly in the form of a commentary, inasmuch as the presentment of the life takes the form of a discussion of sixty-seven sections. The detail is very interesting. It makes an impression ofnaïvetéwhen we find a series of sections grouped under the title,“The establishment ofChristianityin Galilee.”No stress is laid on the significance of Jesus' journey to the north. Wittichen, also, misled by Luke, asserts, just as Weisse had done, that Jesus had worked in Judaea for some time prior to the triumphal entry.

A new edition appeared in 1891. There is no fundamental alteration, but in consequence of the polemic against opponents who had arisen in the meantime it is fuller. The first part of a third edition appeared in 1903 under the titleDie messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums.

See also the interesting use made of Late-Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred Edersheim'sThe Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2nd ed., London, 1884, 2 vols.

Emil Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. (History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ.) 2nd ed., part second, 1886, pp. 417 ff. Here is to be found also a bibliography of the older literature of the subject. 3rd ed., 1889, vol. ii. pp. 498 ff.

Emil Schürer was born at Augsburg in 1844, and from 1873 onwards was successively Professor at Leipzig, Giessen, and Kiel, and is now (1909) at Göttingen.

The latest presentment of Jewish apocalyptic isDie jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, by Paul Volz, Pastor in Leonberg. Tübingen, 1903. 412 pp. The material is very completely given. Unfortunately the author has chosen the systematic method of treating his subject, instead of tracing the history of its development, the only right way. As a consequence Jesus and Paul occupy far too little space in this survey of Jewish apocalyptic. For a treatment of the origin of Jewish eschatology from the point of view of the history of religion see Hugo Gressmann, now Professor at Berlin,Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie(The Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology), Göttingen, 1905. 377 pp.

Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein.Freiburg, 1895, 119 pp. See also his inaugural dissertation of 1896,Le Principe de la morale de Jésus. Paris, 1896.

A. K. Rogers,The Life and Teachings of Jesus; a Critical Analysis, etc.(London and New York, 1894), regards Jesus' teaching as purely ethical, refusing to admit any eschatology at all.

Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 163-168; 2nd ed., 1895, pp. 198-204; 3rd ed., 1897; 4th ed., 1901, pp. 380-394. See also hisSkizzen(Sketches), pp. 6, 187 ff.

See also J. Wellhausen,Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, 2nd ed., 1909;Das Evangelium Matthäi, 1904;Das Evangelium Lucae, 1904.

Julius Wellhausen, now Professor at Göttingen, was born in 1844 at Hameln.

Emil Schürer,Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi. (The Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus Christ.) 1903, 24 pp.

According to J. Meinhold, too, inJesus und das alte Testament(Jesus and the Old Testament), 1896, Jesus did not purpose to be the Messiah of Israel.

Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu.(The Gospel History and the Origin of Christianity considered in the light of a critical investigation of the Reports of the Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus.) By Dr. W. Brandt, Leipzig, 1893, 588 pp.

Wilhelm Brandt was born in 1855 of German parents in Amsterdam and became a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1891 he resigned this office and studied in Strassburg and Berlin. In 1893 he was appointed to lecture in General History of Religion as a member of the theological faculty of Amsterdam.

Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Vol. i., 1888. The substance of it had already been published in a different form. Freiburg, 1886.

Adolf Jülicher, at present Professor in Marburg, was born in 1857 at Falkenberg.

Ad. Jülicher,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2nd pt. (Exposition of the Parables in the first three Gospels.) Freiburg, 1899, 641 pp.

Chr. A. Bugge,Die Hauptparabeln Jesu(The most important Parables of Jesus), German, from the Norwegian, Giessen, 1903, rightly remarks on the obscure and inexplicable character of some of the parables, but makes no attempt to deal with it from the historical point of view.

Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament.(Jewish Apocalyptic in its religious-historical origin and in its significance for the New Testament.) 1903.

On the eschatology of Jesus see also Schwartzkoppf,Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinen Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung. (The Predictions of Jesus Christ concerning His Death, His Resurrection, and Second Coming, and their Fulfilment.) 1895.

P. Wernle,Die Reichgotteshofnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus. (The Hope of the Kingdom of God in the most ancient Christian Documents and as held by Jesus.)

Franz Delitzsch,Die Bücher des Neuen Testaments aus dem Griechischen ins Hebräische übersetzt. 1877. (The Books of the N.T. translated from Greek into Hebrew.) This work has been circulated by thousands among Jews throughout the whole world.

Delitzsch was born in 1813 at Leipzig and became Privat-Docent there in 1842, went to Rostock as Professor in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and returned in 1867 to Leipzig. By conviction he was a strict Lutheran in theology. He was one of the leading experts in Late-Jewish and Talmudic literature. He died in 1890.

For the last phase of the discussion we may name:

Wellhausen,Skizzen und Vorarbeiten(Sketches and Studies), 1899, pp. 187-215, where he throws further light on Dalman's philological objections; and goes on to deny Jesus' use of the expression.

W. Baldensperger,“Die neueste Forschung über den Menschensohn,”Theol. Rundschau, 1900, 3, pp. 201-210, 243-255.

P. Fiebig,Der Menschensohn. Tübingen, 1901.

P. W. Schmiedel,“Die neueste Auffassung des Namens Menschensohn,”Prot. Monatsh.5, pp. 333-351, 1901. (The Latest View of the Designation Son of Man.)

P. W. Schmidt,Die Geschichte Jesu, ii. (Erläuterungen—Explanations). Tübingen, 1904, p. 157 ff.

See the classical discussion in J. Weiss,Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes, 1892, 1st ed., p. 52 ff.

In the second edition, of 1900, p. 160 ff., he allows himself to be led astray by the“chiefest apostles”of modern theology to indulge in the subtleties of fine-spun psychology, and explain Jesus' way of speaking of Himself in the third person as the Son of Man as due to the“extreme modesty of Jesus,”a modesty which did not forsake Him in the presence of His judges. This recent access of psychologising exegesis has not conduced to clearness of presentation, and the preference for the Lucan narrative does not so much contribute to throw light on the facts as to discover in the thoughts of Jesus subtleties of which the historical Jesus never dreamt. If the Lord always used the term Son of Man when speaking of His Messiahship, the reason was that this was the only way in which He could speak of it at all, since the Messiahship was not yet realised, but was only to be so at the appearing of the Son of Man. For a consistent, purely historical, non-psychological exposition of the Son-of-Man passages see Albert Schweitzer,Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. (The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion.) A sketch of the Life of Jesus. Tübingen, 1901.

See Dalman, p. 60 ff.

John Lightfoot,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Edited by J. B. Carpzov. Leipzig, 1684.

Christian Schöttgen,Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Dresden-Leipzig, 1733.

Joh. Gerh. Meuschen,Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum. Leipzig, 1736.

J. Jakob. Wettstein,Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amsterdam, 1751 and 1752.

F. Nork,Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Schriftstellen, Leipzig, 1839.

Franz Delitzsch,“Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,”in theLuth. Zeitsch., 1876-1878.

Carl Siegfried,Analecta Rabbinica, 1875;“Rabbin. Analekten,”Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1876.

A. Wünsche,Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Contributions to the Exposition of the Gospels from Talmud and Midrash.) Göttingen, 1878.

Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig,Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise. (The Gospel of Jesus in its relation to the Buddha Legend and the Teaching of Buddha, with constant reference to other religious groups.) Leipzig, 1882, p. 337.

Other works by the same author areBuddha und Christus. Deutsche Bücherei No. 33, Breslau, Schottländer, 1884.

Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien.2nd ed. Weimar, 1897. (Edited by the son of the late author.) 129 pp.

See also on this question Van den Bergh van Eysinga,Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen. Göttingen, 1904. 104 pp.

According to J. M. Robertson,Christianity and Mythology(London, 1900), the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition is to be symbolically interpreted.

In the Catholic Church the study of the Life of Jesus has remained down to the present day entirely free from scepticism. The reason of that is, that in principle it has remained at a pre-Straussian standpoint, and does not venture upon an unreserved application of historical considerations either to the miracle question or to the Johannine question, and naturally therefore resigns the attempt to take account of and explain the great historical problems.

We may name the following Lives of Jesus produced by German Catholic writers:—

Joh. Nep. Sepp,Das Leben Jesu Christi. Regensburg, 1843-1846. 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1853-1862.

Peter Schegg,Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu. (The Life of Jesus in Six Books.) Freiburg, 1874-1875. c. 1200 pp.

Joseph Grimm,Das Leben Jesu. Würzburg, 2nd ed., 1890-1903. 6 vols.

Richard von Kralik,Jesu Leben und Werk. Kempten-Nürnberg, 1904. 481 pp.

W. Capitaine,Jesus von Nazareth. Regensburg, 1905. 192 pp.

How narrow are the limits within which the Catholic study of the life of Jesus moves even when it aims at scientific treatment, is illustrated by Hermann Schell'sChristus(Mainz, 1903. 152 pp.). After reading the forty-two questions with which he introduces his narrative one might suppose that the author was well aware of the bearing of all the historical problems of the life of Jesus, and intended to supply an answer to them. Instead of doing so, however, he adopts as the work proceeds more and more the rôle of an apologist, not facing definitely either the miracle question or the Johannine question, but gliding over the difficulties by the aid of ingenious headings, so that in the end his book almost takes the form of an explanatory text to the eighty-nine illustrations which adorn the book and make it difficult to read.

In France, Renan's work gave the incentive to an extensive Catholic“Life-of-Jesus”literature. We may name the following:—

Louis Veuillot,La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1864. 509 pp. German by Waldeyer. Köln-Neuss, 1864. 573 pp.

H. Wallon,Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Paris, 1865. 355 pp.

A work which met with a particularly favourable reception was that of Père Didon, the Dominican,Jésus-Christ, Paris, 1891, 2 vols., vol. i. 483 pp., vol. ii. 469 pp. The German translation is dated 1895.

In the same year there appeared a new edition of the“Bitter Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ”(see above, p.109f.) by Katharina Emmerich; the cheap popular edition of the translation of Renan's“Life of Jesus”; and the eighth edition of Strauss's“Life of Jesus for the German People.”

We may quote from the ecclesiasticalApprobationprinted at the beginning of Didon's Life of Jesus.“If the author sometimes seems to speak the language of his opponents, it is at once evident that he has aimed at defeating them on their own ground, and he is particularly successful in doing so when he confronts their irreligious a priori theories with the positive arguments of history.”

As a matter of fact the work is skilfully written, but without a spark of understanding of the historical questions.

All honour to Alfred Loisy! (Le Quatrième Évangile, Paris, 1903, 960 pp.), who takes a clear view on the Johannine question, and denies the existence of a Johannine historical tradition. But what that means for the Catholic camp may be recognised from the excitement produced by the book and its express condemnation. See also the same writer'sL'Évangile et l'Église(German translation, Munich, 1904, 189 pp.), in which Loisy here and there makes good historical points against Harnack's“What is Christianity?”

Otto Schmiedel, Professor at the Gymnasium at Eisenach,Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen, 1902. 71 pp. Schmiedel was born in 1858.

Hermann Freiherr von Soden,Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. Von Soden, Professor in Berlin, and preacher at the Jerusalem Kirche, was born in 1852.

We may mention also the following works:—

Fritz Barth (born 1856, Professor at Bern),Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu. 1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1903.

Friedrich Nippold'sDer Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien(The Course of the Life of Jesus in the Words of the First Three Evangelists) (Hamburg, 1895, 213 pp.) is only an arrangement of the sections.

Konrad Furrer'sVorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi(Lectures on the Life of Jesus Christ) have a special charm by reason of the author's knowledge of the country and the locality. Furrer, who was born in 1838, is Professor at Zurich.

Another work which should not be forgotten is R. Otto'sLeben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung(Life and Work of Jesus from the Point of View of Historical Criticism). A Lecture. Göttingen, 1902. Rudolf Otto, born in 1869, is Privat-Docent at Göttingen.

Von Soden gives on pp. 24 ff. the passages of Mark which he supposes to be derived from the Petrine tradition in a different order from that in which they occur in Mark, regrouping them freely. He puts together, for instance, Mark i. 16-20, iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27-ix. 1, ix. 33-40, under the title“The formation and training of the band of disciples.”He supposes Mark, the pupil of Peter, to have grouped in this way by a kind of association of ideas“what he had heard Peter relate in his missionary journeys, when writing it down after Peter's death, not connectedly, but giving as much as he could remember of it”; this would be in accordance with the statement of Papias that Mark wrote“not in order.”Papias's statement, therefore, refers to an“Ur-Markus,”which he found lacking in historical order.

But what are we to make of a representative of the early Church thus approaching the Gospels with the demand for historical arrangement? And good, simple old Papias, of all people!

But if the Marcan plan was not laid down in“Ur-Markus,”there is nothing for it—since the plan was certainly not given in the collection of Logia—but to ascribe it to the author of our Gospel of Mark, to the man, that is, who wrote down for the first time these“Pauline conceptions,”those reflections of experiences of individual believers and of the community, and inserted them into the Gospel. It is proposed, then, to retain the outline which he has given of the life of Jesus, and reject at the same time what he relates. That is to say, he is to be believed where it is convenient to believe him, and silenced where it is inconvenient. No more complete refutation of the Marcan hypothesis could possibly be given than this analysis, for it destroys its very foundation, the confident acceptance of the historicity of the Marcan plan.

If there is to be an analysis of sources in Mark, then the Marcan plan must be ascribed to“Ur-Markus,”otherwise the analysis renders the Markan hypothesis historically useless. But if“Ur-Markus”is to be reconstructed on the basis of assigning to it the Marcan plan, then we cannot separate the natural from the supernatural, for the supernatural scenes, like the feeding of the multitude and the transfiguration, are among the main features of the Marcan outline.

No hypothetical analysis of“Ur-Markus”has escaped this dilemma; what it can effect by literary methods is historically useless, and what would be historically useful cannot be attained nor“presented”by literary methods.

Von Soden, for instance, germanises Jesus when he writes,“and this nature is sound to the core. In spite of its inwardness there is no trace of an exaggerated sentimentality. In spite of all the intensity of prayer there is nothing of ecstasy or vision. No apocalyptic dream-pictures find a lodging-place in His soul.”

Is a man who teaches a world-renouncing ethic which sometimes soars to the dizzy heights such as that of Matt. xix. 12, according to our conceptions“sound to the core”? And does not the life of Jesus present a number of occasions on which He seems to have been in an ecstasy?

Thus, von Soden has not simply read his Jesus out of the texts, but has added something of his own, and that something is Germanic in colouring.

Albert Kalthoff,Das Christusproblem.Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie.(The Problem of the Christ: Ground-plan of a Social Theology.) Leipzig, 1902. 87 pp.

Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem.(How Christianity arose.) Leipzig, 1904. 155 pp.

Albert Kalthoff was born in 1850 at Barmen, and is engaged in pastoral work in Bremen.

Against Kalthoff: Wilhelm Bousset,Was wissen wir von Jesus?(What do we know about Jesus?) Lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen. Halle, 1904. 73 pp. In reply: Albert Kalthoff,Was wissen wir von Jesus?A settlement of accounts with Professor Bousset. Berlin, 1904. 43 pp.

A sound historical position is set forth in the clear and trenchant lecture of W. Kapp,Das Christus- und Christentumsproblem bei Kalthoff. (The problem of the Christ and of Christianity as handled by Kalthoff.) Strassburg, 1905. 23 pp.

“Jesus,”by Jülicher, inDie Kultur der Gegenwart. (An encyclopaedic publication which is appearing in parts.) Teubner, Berlin, 1905, pp. 40-69.

See also W. Bousset,“Jesus,”Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher. (A series of religious-historical monographs.) Published by Schiele, Halle, 1904.

Here should be mentioned also the thoughtful book, following very much the lines of Jülicher, by Eduard Grimm, entitledDie Ethik Jesu, Hamburg, 1903, 288 pp. The author, born in 1848, is the chief pastor at the Nicolaikirche in Hamburg.

Another work which deserves mention is Arno Neumann,Jesu wie er geschichtlich war(Jesus as he historically existed), Freiburg, 1904, 198 pp. (New Paths to the Old God), a Life of Jesus distinguished by a lofty vein of natural poetry and based upon solid theological knowledge. Arno Neumann is headmaster of a school at Apolda.

La Vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ.Paris, 1894. 301 pp. German, under the titleDie Lücke im Leben Jesu(The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. See Holtzmann in theTheol. Jahresbericht, xiv. p. 140.

In a certain limited sense the work of A. Lillie,The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity(London, 1893), is to be numbered among the fictitious works on the life of Jesus. The fictitious element consists in Jesus being made an Essene by the writer, and Essenism equated with Buddhism.

Among“edifying”romances on the life of Jesus intended for family reading, that of the English writer J. H. Ingraham,The Prince of the House of David, has had a very long lease of life. It appeared in a German translation as early as 1858, and was reissued in 1906 (Brunswick).

A fictitious life of Jesus of wonderful beauty is Peter Rosegger'sI.N.R.I. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders(The Glad Tidings of a poor Sinner). Leipzig, 6th-10th thousand, 1906. 293 pp.

A feminine point of view reveals itself in C. Rauch'sJeschua ben Joseph. Deichert, 1899.

La Vie ésotérique de Jésu-Christ et les origines orientales du christianisme.Paris, 1902. 445 pp.

That Jesus was of Aryan race is argued by A. Müller, who assumes a Gaulish immigration into Galilee.Jesus ein Arier.Leipzig, 1904. 74 pp.

Did Jesus live 100b.c.?London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903. 440 pp.

A scientific discussion of the“Toledoth Jeshu,”with citations from the Talmudic tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss,Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, 1902. 309 pp. According to him theToledoth Jeshuwas committed to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a modified version of the Christian tradition.

William Wrede, born in 1859 at Bücken in Hanover, was Professor at Breslau. (He died in 1907.)

Wrede names as his real predecessors on the same lines Bruno Bauer, Volkmar, and the Dutch writer Hoekstra (“De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus-Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien,”Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871).

In a certain limited degree the work of Ernest Havet (Le Christianisme et ses origines) has a claim to be classed in the same category. His scepticism refers principally to the entry into Jerusalem and the story of the passion.

Joel iii. 13,“Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!”In the Apocalypse of John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the heavenly harvest:“Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped”(Rev. xiv. 15 and 16).

The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth of the disciples is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch:“Behold, the days come, when the time of the world shall be ripe, and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil shall come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its inhabitants and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror that makes the heart stand still; and they shall hate one another and provoke one another to war; and the despised shall have power over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of the few ... and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before-mentioned (dangers) ... shall be given into the hands of my servant, the Messiah.”(Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. Following the translation of E. Kautzsch.)

The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was therefore one of the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And as the Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the period abouta.d.70, it may be assumed that this association of ideas was also current in the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of sowing and reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of the time. What Jesus did was to make known to those who understood Him that the coming earthly harvest was the last, and was also the token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.

The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and lxv. 12 ff. It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6-8, a passage which perhaps dates from the time of Alexander the Great,“and Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things prepared with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall destroy, in this mountain, among all peoples, the veil which has veiled all peoples and the covering which has covered all nations. He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall wipe away the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall disappear from the earth.”(The German follows Kautzsch's translation.)

In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is connected with that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits to the elect upon the mountain of the King. Similarly in the Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11.

The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the Son of Man, and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved“shall eat with the Son of Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him to all eternity.”

Jesus' references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely images, but point to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He prophesies that many shall come from the East and from the West to sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. xxii. 1-14 the Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1-13 as a marriage feast.

The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its forms. In Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the tree of life; in ii. 17 it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.

The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake-side was a true sacrament.

Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will“go before them”into Galilee. That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He shall returnwiththem, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean appearances.

We find it“corrected”by the saying of the“young man”at the grave, who says to the women,“Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.”

Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words“he goeth before you,”whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.

But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the“correction.”

Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of“many”instead of speaking of“His own”or“the believers.”Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the“for many”in the words of Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any kind of contact with early theology the“many”disappear to give place to the“believers.”In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).

Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the“many”as the nation (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the“many”cannot include the disciples, since they“who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.”They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.

This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.

As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial Act) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this technical error was very serious.

But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.

Back to IndexNext