viii. 34), helped to mislead him into inserting the section at this point,

although this very remark points to the circumstances of the time just after the return of the disciples, when Jesus was sometimes alone with the disciples, and sometimes calls the eager multitude about Him.

The whole scene belongs, therefore, to the days which He spent at Bethsaida, and originally followed immediately upon the crossing of the lake, after the feeding of the multitude. It was after Jesus had been six days surrounded by the people, not six days after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, that the “transfiguration” took place (Mark ix. 2). On this assumption, all the difficulties of the incident at Caesarea Philippi are cleared up in a moment; there is no longer anything strange in the fact that Peter declares to Jesus who He really is, while Jesus appears neither surprised nor especially rejoiced at the insight of His disciple. The transfiguration had, in fact, been the revelation of the secret of the Messiahship to the three who constituted the inner circle of the disciples.(295) And Jesus had not Himself revealed it to them; what had happened was, that in a state of rapture common to them all, in which they had seen the Master in a glorious transfiguration, they had seen Him talking with Moses and Elias and had heard a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.”

We must always make a fresh effort to realise to ourselves, that Jesus and His immediate followers were, at that time, in an enthusiastic state of intense eschatological expectation. We must picture them among the people, who were filled with penitence for their sins, and with faith in the Kingdom, hourly expecting the coming of the Kingdom, and the revelation of Jesus as the Son of Man, seeing in the eager multitude itself a sign that their reckoning of the time was correct; thus the psychological conditions were present for a common ecstatic experience such as is described in the account of the transfiguration.

In this ecstasy the “three” heard the voice from heaven saying who He was. Therefore, the Matthaean report, according to which Jesus praises Simon “because flesh and blood have not revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven,” is not really at variance with the briefer Marcan account, since it rightly indicates the source of Peter’s knowledge.

Nevertheless Jesus was astonished. For Peter here disregarded the command given during the descent from the mount of transfiguration. He had “betrayed” to the Twelve Jesus’ consciousness of His Messiahship. One receives the impression that Jesus did not put the question to the disciples in order to reveal Himself to them as Messiah, and that by the impulsive speech of Peter, upon whose silence He had counted because of His command, and to whom He had not specially addressed the question, He was forced to take a different line of action in regard to the Twelve from what He had intended. It is probable that He had never had the intention of revealing the secret of His Messiahship to the disciples. Otherwise He would not have kept it from them at the time of their mission, when He did not expect them to return before the Parousia. Even at the transfiguration the “three” do not learn it from His lips, but in a state of ecstasy, an ecstasy which He shared with them. At Caesarea Philippi it is not He, but Peter, who reveals His Messiahship. We may say, therefore, that Jesus did not voluntarily give up His Messianic secret; it was wrung from Him by the pressure of events.

However that may be, from Caesarea Philippi onwards it was known to the other disciples through Peter; what Jesus Himself revealed to them, was the secret of his sufferings.

Pfleiderer and Wrede were quite right in pointing to the clear and definite predictions of the suffering, death, and resurrection as the historically inexplicable element in our reports, since the necessity of Jesus’ death, by which modern theology endeavours to make His resolve and His predictions intelligible, is not a necessity which arises out of the historical course of events. There was not present any natural ground for such a resolve on the part of Jesus. Had He returned to Galilee, He would immediately have had the multitudes flocking after Him again.

In order to make the historical possibility of the resolve to suffer and the prediction of the sufferings in some measure intelligible, modern theology has to ignore the prediction of the resurrection which is bound up with them, for this is “dogmatic.” That is, however, not permissible. We must, as Wrede insists, take the words as they are, and must not even indulge in ingenious explanations of the “three days.” Therefore, the resolve to suffer and to die are dogmatic; therefore, according to him, they are unhistorical, and only to be explained by a literary hypothesis.

But the thoroughgoing eschatological school says they are dogmatic, and therefore historical; because they find their explanation in eschatological conceptions.

Wrede held that the Messianic conception implied in the Marcan narrative is not the Jewish Messianic conception, just because of the thought of suffering and death which it involves. No stress must be laid on the fact that in Fourth Ezra vii. 29 the Christ dies and rises again, because His death takes place at the end of the Messianic Kingdom.(296) The Jewish Messiah is essentially a glorious being who shall appear in the last time. True, but the case in which the Messiah should be present, prior to the Parousia, should cause the final tribulations to come upon the earth, and should Himself undergo them, does not arise in the Jewish eschatology as described from without. It first arises with the self‐consciousness of Jesus. Therefore, the Jewish conception of the Messiah has no information to give us upon this point.

In order to understand Jesus’ resolve to suffer, we must first recognise that the mystery of this suffering is involved in the mystery of the Kingdom of God, since the Kingdom cannot come until the πειρασμός has taken place. This certainty of suffering is quite independent of the historic circumstances, as the beatitude on the persecuted in the sermon on the mount, and the predictions in the discourse at the sending forth of the Twelve, clearly show. Jesus’ prediction of His own sufferings at Caesarea Philippi is precisely as unintelligible, precisely as dogmatic, and therefore precisely as historical as the prediction to the disciples at the time of their mission. The “must be” of the sufferings is the same—the coming of the Kingdom, and of the Parousia, which are dependent upon the πειρασμός having first taken place.

In the first period Jesus’ thoughts concerning His own sufferings were included in the more general thought of the sufferings which formed part of the mystery of the Kingdom of God. The exhortations to hold steadfastly to Him in the time of trial, and not to lose faith in Him, certainly tended to suggest that He thought of Himself as the central point amid these conflicts and confusions, and reckoned on the possibility of His own death as much as on that of others. Upon this point nothing more definite can be said, since the mystery of Jesus’ own sufferings does not detach itself from the mystery of the sufferings connected with the Kingdom of God until after the Messianic secret is made known at Caesarea Philippi. What is certain is that, for Him, suffering was always associated with the Messianic secret, since He placed His Parousia at the end of the pre‐ Messianic tribulations in which He was to have His part.

The suffering, death, and resurrection of which the secret was revealed at Caesarea Philippi are not therefore in themselves new or surprising.(297) The novelty lies in the form in which they are conceived. The tribulation, so far as Jesus is concerned, is now connected with an historic event: He will go to Jerusalem, there to suffer death at the hands of the authorities.

For the future, however, He no longer speaks of the general tribulation which He is to bring upon the earth, nor of the sufferings which await His followers, nor of the sufferings in which they must rally round Him. In the predictions of the passion there is no word of that; at Jerusalem there is no word of that. This thought disappears once for all.

In the secret of His passion which Jesus reveals to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi the pre‐Messianic tribulation is for others set aside, abolished, concentrated upon Himself alone, and that in the form that they are fulfilled in His own passion and death at Jerusalem. That was the new conviction that had dawned upon Him. He must suffer for others ... that the Kingdom might come.

This change was due to the non‐fulfilment of the promises made in the discourse at the sending forth of the Twelve. He had thought then to let loose the final tribulation and so compel the coming of the Kingdom. And the cataclysm had not occurred. He had expected it also after the return of the disciples. In Bethsaida, in speaking to the multitude which He had consecrated by the foretaste of the Messianic feast, as also to the disciples at the time of their mission, He had turned their thoughts to things to come and had adjured them to be prepared to suffer with Him, to give up their lives, not to be ashamed of Him in His humiliation, since otherwise the Son of Man would be ashamed of them when He came in glory (Mark viii. 34‐ix. 1).(298)

In leaving Galilee He abandoned the hope that the final tribulation would begin of itself. If it delays, that means that there is still something to be done, and yet another of the violent must lay violent hands upon the Kingdom of God. The movement of repentance had not been sufficient. When, in accordance with His commission, by sending forth the disciples with their message, he hurled the fire‐brand which should kindle the fiery trials of the Last Time, the flame went out. He had not succeeded in sending the sword on earth and stirring up the conflict. And until the time of trial had come, the coming of the Kingdom and His own manifestation as Son of Man were impossible.

That meant—not that the Kingdom was not near at hand—but that God had appointed otherwise in regard to the time of trial. He had heard the Lord’s Prayer in which Jesus and His followers prayed for the coming of the Kingdom—and at the same time, for deliverance from the πειρασμός. The time of trial was not come; therefore God in His mercy and omnipotence had eliminated it from the series of eschatological events, and appointed to Him whose commission had been to bring it about, instead to accomplish it in His own person. As He who was to rule over the members of the Kingdom in the future age, He was appointed to serve them in the present, to give His life for them, the many (Mark x. 45 and xiv. 24), and to make in His own blood the atonement which they would have had to render in the tribulation.

The Kingdom could not come until the debt which weighed upon the world was discharged. Until then, not only the now living believers, but the chosen of all generations since the beginning of the world wait for their manifestation in glory—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the countless unknown who should come from the East and from the West to sit at tables with them at the Messianic feast (Matt. viii. 11). The enigmatic πολλοί for whom Jesus dies are those predestined to the Kingdom, since His death must at last compel the Coming of the Kingdom.(299)

This thought Jesus found in the prophecies of Isaiah, which spoke of the suffering Servant of the Lord. The mysterious description of Him who in His humiliation was despised and misunderstood, who, nevertheless bears the guilt of others and afterwards is made manifest in what He has done for them, points, He feels, to Himself.

And since He found it there set down that He must suffer unrecognised, and that those for whom He suffered should doubt Him, His suffering should, nay must, remain a mystery. In that case those who doubted Him would not bring condemnation upon themselves. He no longer needs to adjure them for their own sakes to be faithful to Him and to stand by Him even amid reproach and humiliation; He can calmly predict to His disciples that they shall all be offended in Him and shall flee (Mark xiv. 26, 27); He can tell Peter, who boasts that he will die with Him, that before the dawn he shall deny Him thrice (Mark xiv. 29‐31); all that is so set down in the Scripture. They must doubt Him. But now they shall not lose their blessedness, for He bears all sins and transgressions. That, too, is buried in the atonement which He offers.

Therefore, also, there is no need for them to understand His secret. He spoke of it to them without any explanation. It is sufficient that they should know why He goes up to Jerusalem. They, on their part, are thinking only of the coming transformation of all things, as their conversation shows. The prospect which He has opened up to them is clear enough; the only thing that they do not understand is why He must first die at Jerusalem. The first time that Peter ventured to speak to Him about it, He had turned on him with cruel harshness, had almost cursed him (Mark viii. 32, 33); from that time forward they no longer dared to ask Him anything about it. The new thought of His own passion has its basis therefore in the authority with which Jesus was armed to bring about the beginning of the final tribulation. Ethically regarded, His taking the suffering upon Himself is an act of mercy and compassion towards those who would otherwise have had to bear these tribulations, and perhaps would not have stood the test. Historically regarded, the thought of His sufferings involves the same lofty treatment both of history and eschatology as was manifested in the identification of the Baptist with Elias. For now He identifies His condemnation and execution, which are to take place on natural lines, with the predicted pre‐Messianic tribulations. This imperious forcing of eschatology into history is also its destruction; its assertion and abandonment at the same time.

Towards Passover, therefore, Jesus sets out for Jerusalem, solely in order to die there.(300) “It is,” says Wrede, “beyond question the opinion of Mark that Jesus went to Jerusalem because He had decided to die; that is obvious even from the details of the story.” It is therefore a mistake to speak of Jesus as “teaching” in Jerusalem. He has no intention of doing so. As a prophet He foretells in veiled parabolic form the offence which must come (Mark xii. 1‐12), exhorts men to watch for the Parousia, pictures the nature of the judgment which the Son of Man shall hold, and, for the rest, thinks only how He can so provoke the Pharisees and the rulers that they will be compelled to get rid of Him. That is why He violently cleanses the Temple, and attacks the Pharisees, in the presence of the people, with passionate invective.

From the revelation at Caesarea Philippi onward, all that belongs to the history of Jesus, in the strict sense, are the events which lead up to His death; or, to put it more accurately, the events in which He Himself is the sole actor. The other things which happen, the questions which are laid before Him for decision, the episodic incidents which occur in those days, have nothing to do with the real “Life of Jesus,” since they contribute nothing to the decisive issue, but merely form the anecdotic fringes of the real outward and inward event, the deliberate bringing down of death upon Himself.

It is in truth surprising that He succeeded in transforming into history this resolve which had its roots in dogma, and really dying alone. Is it not almost unintelligible that His disciples were not involved in His fate? Not even the disciple who smote with the sword was arrested along with Him (Mark xiv. 47); Peter, recognised in the courtyard of the High Priest’s house as one who had been with Jesus the Nazarene, is allowed to go free.

For a moment indeed, Jesus believes that the “three” are destined to share His fate, not from any outward necessity, but because they had professed themselves able to suffer the last extremities with Him. The sons of Zebedee, when He asked them whether, in order to sit at His right hand and His left, they are prepared to drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism, had declared that they were, and thereupon He had predicted that they should do so (Mark x. 38, 39). Peter again had that very night, in spite of the warning of Jesus, sworn that he would go even unto death with Him (Mark xiv. 30, 31). Hence He is conscious of a higher possibility that these three are to go through the trial with Him. He takes them with Him to Gethsemane and bids them remain near Him and watch with Him. And since they do not perceive the danger of the hour, He adjures them to watch and pray. They are to pray that they may not have to pass through the trial (ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν) since, though the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. Amid His own sore distress He is anxious about them and their capacity to share His trial as they had declared their willingness to do.(301)

Here also it is once more made clear that for Jesus the necessity of His death is grounded in dogma, not in external historical facts. Above the dogmatic eschatological necessity, however, there stands the omnipotence of God, which is bound by no limitations. As Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer had taught His followers to pray for deliverance from the πειρασμός, and as in His fears for the three He bids them pray for the same thing, so now He Himself prays for deliverance, even in this last moment when He knows that the armed band which is coming to arrest Him is already on the way. Literal history does not exist for Him, only the will of God; and this is exalted even above eschatological necessity.

But how did this exact agreement between the fate of Jesus and His predictions come about? Why did the authorities strike at Him only, not at His whole following, not even at the disciples? He was arrested and condemned on account of His Messianic claims. But how did the High Priest know that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah? And why does he put the accusation as a direct question without calling witnesses in support of it? Why was the attempt first made to bring up a saying about the Temple which could be interpreted as blasphemy in order to condemn Him on this ground (Mark xiv. 57‐59)? Before that again, as is evident from Mark’s account, they had brought up a whole crowd of witnesses in the hope of securing evidence sufficient to justify His condemnation; and the attempt had not succeeded.

It was only after all these attempts had failed that the High Priest brought his accusation concerning the Messianic claim, and he did so without citing the three necessary witnesses. Why so? Because he had not got them. The condemnation of Jesus depended on His own admission. That was why they had endeavoured to convict Him upon other charges.(302)

This wholly unintelligible feature of the trial confirms what is evident also from the discourses and attitude of Jesus at Jerusalem, viz. that He had not been held by the multitude to be the Messiah, that the idea of His making such claims had not for a moment occurred to them—lay in fact for them quite beyond the range of possibility. Therefore He cannot have made a Messianic entry.

According to Havet, Brandt, Wellhausen, Dalman, and Wrede the ovation at the entry had no Messianic character whatever. It is wholly mistaken, as Wrede quite rightly remarks, to represent matters as if the Messianic ovation was forced upon Jesus—that He accepted it with inner repugnance and in silent passivity. For that would involve the supposition that the people had for a moment regarded Him as Messiah and then afterwards had shown themselves as completely without any suspicion of His Messiahship as though they had in the interval drunk of the waters of Lethe. The exact opposite is true: Jesus Himself made the preparations for the Messianic entry. Its Messianic features were due to His arrangements. He made a point of riding upon the ass, not because He was weary, but because He desired that the Messianic prophecy of Zech. ix. 9 should be secretly fulfilled.

The entry is therefore a Messianic act on the part of Jesus, an action in which His consciousness of His office breaks through, as it did at the sending forth of the disciples, in the explanation that the Baptist was Elias, and in the feeding of the multitude. But others can have had no suspicion of the Messianic significance of that which was going on before their eyes. The entry into Jerusalem was therefore Messianic for Jesus, but not Messianic for the people.

But what was He for the people? Here Wrede’s theory that He was a teacher again refutes itself. In the triumphal entry there is more than the ovation offered to a teacher. The jubilations have reference to “Him who is to come”; it is to Him that the acclamations are offered and because of Him that the people rejoice in the nearness of the Kingdom, as in Mark, the cries of jubilation show; for here, as Dalman rightly remarks, there is actually no mention of the Messiah.

Jesus therefore made His entry into Jerusalem as the Prophet, as Elias. That is confirmed by Matthew (xxi. 11), although Matthew gives a Messianic colouring to the entry itself by bringing in the acclamation in which He was designated the Son of David, just as, conversely, he reports the Baptist’s question rightly, and introduces it wrongly, by making the Baptist hear of the “works of the Christ.”

Was Mark conscious, one wonders, that it was not a Messianic entry that he was reporting? We do not know. It is not inherently impossible that, as Wrede asserts, “he had no real view concerning the historical life of Jesus,” did not know whether Jesus was recognised as Messiah, and took no interest in the question from an historical point of view. Fortunately for us! For that is why he simply hands on tradition and does not write a Life of Jesus.

The Marcan hypothesis went astray in conceiving this Gospel as a Life of Jesus written with either complete or partial historical consciousness, and interpreting it on these lines, on the sole ground that it only brings in the name Son of Man twice prior to the incident at Caesarea Philippi. The Life of Jesus cannot be arrived at by following the arrangement of a single Gospel, but only on the basis of the tradition which is preserved more or less faithfully in the earliest pair of Synoptic Gospels.

Questions of literary priority, indeed literary questions in general, have in the last resort, as Keim remarked long ago, nothing to do with the gaining of a clear idea of the course of events, since the Evangelists had not themselves a clear idea of it before their minds; it can only be arrived at hypothetically by an experimental reconstruction based on the necessary inner connexion of the incidents.

But who could possibly have had in early times a clear conception of the Life of Jesus? Even its most critical moments were totally unintelligible to the disciples who had themselves shared in the experiences, and who were the only sources for the tradition.

They were simply swept through these events by the momentum of the purpose of Jesus. That is why the tradition is incoherent. The reality had been incoherent too, since it was only the secret Messianic self‐consciousness of Jesus which created alike the events and their connexion. Every Life of Jesus remains therefore a reconstruction on the basis of a more or less accurate insight into the nature of the dynamic self‐consciousness of Jesus which created the history.

The people, whatever Mark may have thought, did not offer Jesus a Messianic ovation at all; it was He who, in the conviction that they were wholly unable to recognise it, played with His Messianic self‐ consciousness before their eyes, just as He did at the time after the sending forth of the disciples, when, as now, He thought the end at hand. It was in the same way, too, that He closed the invective against the Pharisees with the words “I say unto you, ye shall see me no more until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. xxiii. 39). This saying implies His Parousia.

Similarly He is playing with His secret in that crucial question regarding the Messiahship in Mark xii. 35‐37. There is no question of dissociating the Davidic Sonship from the Messiahship.(303) He asks only how can the Christ in virtue of His descent from David be, as his son, inferior to David, and yet be addressed by David in the Psalm as his Lord? The answer is; by reason of the metamorphosis and Parousia in which natural relationships are abolished and the scion of David’s line who is the predestined Son of Man shall take possession of His unique glory.

Far from rejecting the Davidic Sonship in this saying, Jesus, on the contrary, presupposes His possession of it. That raises the question whether He did not really during His lifetime regard Himself as a descendant of David and whether He was not regarded as such. Paul, who otherwise shows no interest in the earthly phase of the existence of the Lord, certainly implies His descent from David.

The blind man at Jericho, too, cries out to the Nazarene prophet as “Son of David” (Mark x. 47). But in doing so he does not mean to address Jesus as Messiah, for afterwards, when he is brought to Him he simply calls Him “Rabbi” (Mark x. 51). And the people thought nothing further about what he had said. When the expectant people bid him keep silence they do not do so because the expression Son of David offends them, but because his clamour annoys them. Jesus, however, was struck by this cry, stood still and caused him, as he was standing timidly behind the eager multitude, to be brought to Him. It is possible, of course, that this address is a mere mistake in the tradition, the same tradition which unsuspectingly brought in the expression Son of Man at the wrong place.

So much, however, is certain: the people were not made aware of the Messiahship of Jesus by the cry of the blind man any more than by the outcries of the demoniacs. The entry into Jerusalem was not a Messianic ovation. All that history is concerned with is that this fact should be admitted on all hands. Except Jesus and the disciples, therefore, no one knew the secret of His Messiahship even in those days at Jerusalem. But the High Priest suddenly showed himself in possession of it. How? Through the betrayal of Judas.

For a hundred and fifty years the question has been historically discussed why Judas betrayed his Master. That the main question for history was _what he betrayed_ was suspected by few and they touched on it only in a timid kind of way—indeed the problems of the trial of Jesus may be said to have been non‐existent for criticism.

The traitorous act of Judas cannot have consisted in informing the Sanhedrin where Jesus was to be found at a suitable place for an arrest. They could have had that information more cheaply by causing Jesus to be watched by spies. But Mark expressly says that Judas when he betrayed Jesus did not yet know of a favourable opportunity for the arrest, but was seeking such an opportunity. Mark xiv. 10, 11, “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.”

In the betrayal, therefore, there were two points, a more general and a more special: the general fact by which he gave Jesus into their power, and the undertaking to let them know of the next opportunity when they could arrest Him quietly, without publicity. The betrayal by which he brought his Master to death, in consequence of which the rulers decided upon the arrest, knowing that their cause was safe in any case, was the betrayal of the Messianic secret. Jesus died because two of His disciples had broken His command of silence: Peter when he made known the secret of the Messiahship to the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi; Judas Iscariot by communicating it to the High Priest. But the difficulty was that Judas was the sole witness. Therefore the betrayal was useless so far as the actual trial was concerned unless Jesus admitted the charge. So they first tried to secure His condemnation on other grounds, and only when these attempts broke down did the High Priest put, in the form of a question, the charge in support of which he could have brought no witnesses.

But Jesus immediately admitted it, and strengthened the admission by an allusion to His Parousia in the near future as Son of Man.

The betrayal and the trial can only be rightly understood when it is realised that the public knew nothing whatever of the secret of the Messiahship.(304)

It is the same in regard to the scene in the presence of Pilate. The people on that morning knew nothing of the trial of Jesus, but came to Pilate with the sole object of asking the release of a prisoner, as was the custom at the feast (Mark xv. 6‐8). The idea then occurs to Pilate, who was just about to hand over, willingly enough, this troublesome fellow and prophet to the priestly faction, to play off the people against the priests and work on the multitude to petition for the release of Jesus. In this way he would have secured himself on both sides. He would have condemned Jesus to please the priests, and after condemning Him would have released Him to please the people. The priests are greatly embarrassed by the presence of the multitude. They had done everything so quickly and quietly that they might well have hoped to get Jesus crucified before any one knew what was happening or had had time to wonder at His non‐ appearance in the Temple.

The priests therefore go among the people and induce them not to agree to the Procurator’s proposal. How? By telling them why He was condemned, by revealing to them the Messianic secret. That makes Him at once from a prophet worthy of honour into a deluded enthusiast and blasphemer. That was the explanation of the “fickleness” of the Jerusalem mob which is always so eloquently described, without any evidence for it except this single inexplicable case.

At midday of the same day—it was the 14th Nisan, and in the evening the Paschal lamb would be eaten—Jesus cried aloud and expired. He had chosen to remain fully conscious to the last.

XX. RESULTS

Those who are fond of talking about negative theology can find their account here. There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus.

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form. The thoroughgoing sceptical and the thoroughgoing eschatological school have only completed the work of destruction by linking the problems into a system and so making an end of the _Divide et impera_ of modern theology, which undertook to solve each of them separately, that is, in a less difficult form. Henceforth it is no longer permissible to take one problem out of the series and dispose of it by itself, since the weight of the whole hangs upon each.

Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting‐point the problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it claimed from its own half‐ historical, half‐modern, Jesus. He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

In either case, He will not be a Jesus Christ to whom the religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long‐cherished custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its own making. Nor will He be a figure which can be made by a popular historical treatment so sympathetic and universally intelligible to the multitude. The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.

The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour. It loosed the bands by which He had been riveted for centuries to the stony rocks of ecclesiastical doctrine, and rejoiced to see life and movement coming into the figure once more, and the historical Jesus advancing, as it seemed, to meet it. But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. What surprised and dismayed the theology of the last forty years was that, despite all forced and arbitrary interpretations, it could not keep Him in our time, but had to let Him go. He returned to His own time, not owing to the application of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position.

The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation. The work which historical theology thought itself bound to carry out, and which fell to pieces just as it was nearing completion, was only the brick facing of the real immovable historical foundation which is independent of any historical confirmation or justification.

Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed. Secondly because, although historical knowledge can no doubt introduce greater clearness into an existing spiritual life, it cannot call spiritual life into existence. History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it.

But it is impossible to over‐estimate the value of what German research upon the Life of Jesus has accomplished. It is a uniquely great expression of sincerity, one of the most significant events in the whole mental and spiritual life of humanity. What has been done for the religious life of the present and the immediate future by scholars such as P. W. Schmidt, Bousset, Jülicher, Weinel, Wernle—and their pupil Frenssen—and the others who have been called to the task of bringing to the knowledge of wider circles, in a form which is popular without being superficial, the results of religious‐historical study, only becomes evident when one examines the literature and social culture of the Latin nations, who have been scarcely if at all touched by the influence of these thinkers.

And yet the time of doubt was bound to come. We modern theologians are too proud of our historical method, too proud of our historical Jesus, too confident in our belief in the spiritual gains which our historical theology can bring to the world. The thought that we could build up by the increase of historical knowledge a new and vigorous Christianity and set free new spiritual forces, rules us like a fixed idea, and prevents us from seeing that the task which we have grappled with and in some measure discharged is only one of the intellectual preliminaries of the great religious task. We thought that it was for us to lead our time by a roundabout way through the historical Jesus, as we understood Him, in order to bring it to the Jesus who is a spiritual power in the present. This roundabout way has now been closed by genuine history.

There was a danger of our thrusting ourselves between men and the Gospels, and refusing to leave the individual man alone with the sayings of Jesus.

There was a danger that we should offer them a Jesus who was too small, because we had forced Him into conformity with our human standards and human psychology. To see that, one need only read the Lives of Jesus written since the ’sixties, and notice what they have made of the great imperious sayings of the Lord, how they have weakened down His imperative world‐contemning demands upon individuals, that He might not come into conflict with our ethical ideals, and might tune His denial of the world to our acceptance of it. Many of the greatest sayings are found lying in a corner like explosive shells from which the charges have been removed. No small portion of elemental religious power needed to be drawn off from His sayings to prevent them from conflicting with our system of religious world‐acceptance. We have made Jesus hold another language with our time from that which He really held.

In the process we ourselves have been enfeebled, and have robbed our own thoughts of their vigour in order to project them back into history and make them speak to us out of the past. It is nothing less than a misfortune for modern theology that it mixes history with everything and ends by being proud of the skill with which it finds its own thoughts—even to its beggarly pseudo‐metaphysic with which it has banished genuine speculative metaphysic from the sphere of religion—in Jesus, and represents Him as expressing them. It had almost deserved the reproach: “he who putteth his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”

It was no small matter, therefore, that in the course of the critical study of the Life of Jesus, after a resistance lasting for two generations, during which first one expedient was tried and then another, theology was forced by genuine history to begin to doubt the artificial history with which it had thought to give new life to our Christianity, and to yield to the facts, which, as Wrede strikingly said, are sometimes the most radical critics of all. History will force it to find a way to transcend history, and to fight for the lordship and rule of Jesus over this world with weapons tempered in a different forge.

We are experiencing what Paul experienced. In the very moment when we were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than men had ever come before, and were already stretching out our hands to draw Him into our own time, we have been obliged to give up the attempt and acknowledge our failure in that paradoxical saying: “If we have known Christ after the flesh yet henceforth know we Him no more.” And further we must be prepared to find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion.

But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from Him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence and rule, is that which overcomes the world.

It is not given to history to disengage that which is abiding and eternal in the being of Jesus from the historical forms in which it worked itself out, and to introduce it into our world as a living influence. It has toiled in vain at this undertaking. As a water‐plant is beautiful so long as it is growing in the water, but once torn from its roots, withers and becomes unrecognisable, so it is with the historical Jesus when He is wrenched loose from the soil of eschatology, and the attempt is made to conceive Him “historically” as a Being not subject to temporal conditions. The abiding and eternal in Jesus is absolutely independent of historical knowledge and can only be understood by contact with His spirit which is still at work in the world. In proportion as we have the Spirit of Jesus we have the true knowledge of Jesus.

Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to our time, but His spirit, which lies hidden in His words, is known in simplicity, and its influence is direct. Every saying contains in its own way the whole Jesus. The very strangeness and unconditionedness in which He stands before us makes it easier for individuals to find their own personal standpoint in regard to Him.

Men feared that to admit the claims of eschatology would abolish the significance of His words for our time; and hence there was a feverish eagerness to discover in them any elements that might be considered not eschatologically conditioned. When any sayings were found of which the wording did not absolutely imply an eschatological connexion there was great jubilation—these at least had been saved uninjured from the coming _débâcle_.

But in reality that which is eternal in the words of Jesus is due to the very fact that they are based on an eschatological world‐view, and contain the expression of a mind for which the contemporary world with its historical and social circumstances no longer had any existence. They are appropriate, therefore, to any world, for in every world they raise the man who dares to meet their challenge, and does not turn and twist them into meaninglessness, above his world and his time, making him inwardly free, so that he is fitted to be, in his own world and in his own time, a simple channel of the power of Jesus.

Modern Lives of Jesus are too general in their scope. They aim at influencing, by giving a complete impression of the life of Jesus, a whole community. But the historical Jesus, as He is depicted in the Gospels, influenced individuals by the individual word. They understood Him so far as it was necessary for them to understand, without forming any conception of His life as a whole, since this in its ultimate aims remained a mystery even for the disciples.

Because it is thus preoccupied with the general, the universal, modern theology is determined to find its world‐accepting ethic in the teaching of Jesus. Therein lies its weakness. The world affirms itself automatically; the modern spirit cannot but affirm it. But why on that account abolish the conflict between modern life, with the world‐affirming spirit which inspires it as a whole, and the world‐negating spirit of Jesus? Why spare the spirit of the individual man its appointed task of fighting its way through the world‐negation of Jesus, of contending with Him at every step over the value of material and intellectual goods—a conflict in which it may never rest? For the general, for the institutions of society, the rule is: affirmation of the world, in conscious opposition to the view of Jesus, on the ground that the world has affirmed itself! This general affirmation of the world, however, if it is to be Christian, must in the individual spirit be Christianised and transfigured by the personal rejection of the world which is preached in the sayings of Jesus. It is only by means of the tension thus set up that religious energy can be communicated to our time. There was a danger that modern theology, for the sake of peace, would deny the world‐negation in the sayings of Jesus, with which Protestantism was out of sympathy, and thus unstring the bow and make Protestantism a mere sociological instead of a religious force. There was perhaps also a danger of inward insincerity, in the fact that it refused to admit to itself and others that it maintained its affirmation of the world in opposition to the sayings of Jesus, simply because it could not do otherwise.

For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake‐ side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS

(Including Reference To English Translations)

Ammon, Christoph Friedrich von. Fortbildung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1840); Die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu mit steter Rücksicht auf die vorhandenen Quellen (1842‐1847), 11, 97, 104 f., 117 f.

Anonymous Works— Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft. Aus dem Englischen (see under Whateley) nebst einigen Nutzanwendungen auf das Leben‐Jesu von Strauss (1836), 112

Did Jesus live 100 B.C.? (London and Benares, Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903), 327

Dr. Strauss und die Züricher Kirche (Basle, 1839), 103

Wichtige Enthüllungen über die wirkliche Todesart Jesu (5th ed., Leipzig, 1849); Historische Enthüllungen über die wirklichen Ereignisse der Geburt und Jugend Jesu (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1849), 161 f.

Zwei Gespräche über die Ansicht des Herrn Dr. Strauss von der evangelischen Geschichte (Jena, 1839), 100

Baader, Franz. Über das Leben‐Jesu von Strauss (Munich, 1836), 100

Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich. Briefe über die Bibel im Volkston (1782); Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu (1784‐1792); Die sämtlichen Reden Jesu aus den Evangelien ausgezogen (1786), 4, 5, 38, 39 f., 46, 53, 59, 299, 313

Baldensperger, Wilhelm. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit (Strassburg, 1888, 2nd ed. 1892, 3rd ed. pt. i. 1903), 12, 233‐237, 250, 266, 278 f., 365, 366

Barth, Fritz. Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu (1st ed. 1899, 2nd ed. 1903), 301

Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes (Bremen, 1840); Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (Leipzig, 1841‐1842); Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (Berlin, 1850‐1851); Kritik der Apostelgeschichte (1850); Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe (Berlin, 1850‐1852); Philo, Strauss, Renan und das Urchristentum (Berlin, 1874); Christus und die Cäsaren (Berlin, 1877); Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit (Zurich, 1843), 5, 9, 10, 12, 137‐160, 186 f., 221, 231, 256‐258, 305 f., 312, 315, 328, 332, 335 f., 338, 342, 346, 358, 368, 388

Baumer, Friedrich. Schwarz, Strauss, Renan (Leipzig, 1864), 191

Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien (Tübingen, 1847), 25, 58, 68, 87, 89, 124, 182, 195, 201, 229

Bergh van Eysinga, Van den. Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen (Göttingen, 1904), 290

Bernhard ter Haar (Utrecht). Zehn Vorlesungen über Renans “Leben‐Jesu” (German by H. Doermer, Gotha, 1864), 191

Beyschlag, Willibald. Über das Leben‐Jesu von Renan (Berlin, 1864); Das Leben‐Jesu (pt. i. 1885, pt. ii. 1886, 2nd ed. 1887‐1888), 6, 10, 190, 215 f., 218

Binder, 68, 69

Bleby, H. W. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth considered as a Judicial Act (1880), 391

Bleek, 229, 231

Böklen, E. Die Verwandtschaft der jüdisch‐christlichen und der parsischen Eschatologie (1902), 287

Bolten, Johann Adrian. Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messias (Altona, 1792), 271, 276

Bosc, Ernest. La Vie ésotérique de Jésus de Nazareth et les origines orientales du christianisme (Paris, 1902), 294, 327

Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich (Göttingen, 1892); Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Herkunft und ihrer Bedeutung für das Neue Testament (Berlin, 1903); Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1902); Was wissen wir von Jesus? Vorträge im Protestantenverein zu Bremen (Halle, 1904); Jesus (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher, herausgegeben von Schiele, Halle, 1904) (English translation, _Jesus_, by J. P. Trevelyan, London, 1906), 241‐249, 255 f., 262, 264, 267, 280, 300, 359, 398

Brandt, Wilhelm. Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums auf Grund einer Kritik der Berichte über das Leiden und die Auferstehung Jesu (Leipzig, 1893), 241, 256‐261, 267, 301, 309, 312, 313, 391

Bretschneider, Karl Gottlob, 85, 118

Brunner, Sebastian. Der Atheist Renan und sein Evangelium (Regensburg, 1864), 190

Bugge, Chr. A. Die Hauptparabeln Jesu. (From the Norwegian) (Giessen, 1903), 263

Bunsen, Christian Karl Josias, Ritter von. Das Leben Jesu, vol. ix. of Bunsen’s “Bibelwerk” (published by Holtzmann, 1865), 200

Cairns, John. Falsche Christi und der wahre Christus, oder Verteidigung der evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss und Renan. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt (Hamburg, 1864) (_False Christ and the True_, A sermon delivered before the National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1864), 191

Capitaine, W. Jesus von Nazareth (Regensburg, 1905), 294

Cassel, Paulus. Bericht über Renans Leben‐Jesu (Berlin, 1864), 191

“Casuar.” Das Leben Luthers kritisch bearbeitet. Herausgegeben von Jul. Ferd. Wurm (“Mexiko, 2836”), 112

Chamberlain, H. S. Worte Christi (1901), 310

Charles, R. H. “The Son of Man” (Expos. Times, 1893), 267

Colani, Timothée. Examen de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan (Strassburg, 1864); Jésus‐Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (Strassburg, 1864), 182, 189, 209, 221 f., 226, 229, 233, 248, 372

Cone, Orello. “Jesus’ Self‐designation in the Synoptic Gospels” (The New World, 1893), 266

Coquerel, Athanase (jun.), 189, 209

Credner, 89

Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des jüdisch‐palästinensischen Aramäisch (Leipzig, 1894); Die Worte Jesu. Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache, I. (Leipzig, 1898) (authorised English translation by D. M. Kay, _The Words of Jesus_, Edinburgh, 1902), 269, 271, 273‐275, 278, 279‐281, 286‐289, 363, 391 f.

Darboy, Georges. Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l’Archevêque de Paris sur la divinité de Jésus‐Christ, et mandement pour le carême de 1864, 188

Delff, Hugo. Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth (Leipzig, 1889), 11, 323

Delitzsch, Franz, 273, 285

Deutlinger, Martin. Renan und das Wunder. Ein Beitrag zur christlichen Apologetik (Munich, 1864), 190

Didon, Le Père, de l’ordre des frères prêcheurs. Jésus Christ (Paris, 1891, 2 vols., German, 1895) (English translation, _Jesus Christ_, 2 vols., 1891), 295

Dieu, Louis de, 14

Dillmann, 223

Diodati, Dominicus, 271

Döderlein. Fragmente und Antifragmente (Nuremberg, 1778), 25

Dulk, Albert. Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu. In geschichtlicher Auffassung dargestellt (pt. i. 1884, pt. ii. 1885), 294, 324

Dupanloup, Félix Antoine Philibert, Évêque d’Orléans. Avertissement à la jeunesse et aux pères de famille sur les attaques dirigées contre la religion par quelques écrivains de nos jours (Paris, 1864), 188

Ebrard, August. Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte (Frankfort, 1842), 97, 116 f.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London, 1st ed. 1883, 3rd ed. 1886, 2 vols.), 233

Eerdmanns, B. E. “De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking ’Zoon des Menschen’ als evangelische Messiastitel” (Theol. Tijdschr., 1894), 276

Ehrhardt. Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu in Verhältnis zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes und zu seinem eigenen Messiasbewusstsein (Freiburg, 1895); Le Principe de la morale de Jésus (Paris, 1896), 249

Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, 78, 89

Emmerich, Anna Katharina. Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi. Herausgegeben von Brentano (1858‐1860, new ed. 1895) (English translation, _The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ_, London, 1862); Das Leben Jesu, 3 vols. (1858‐1860), 109 f., 295

Ewald, Georg Heinrich August. “Geschichte Christus’ und seiner Zeit,” vol. v. of the “Geschichte des Volkes Israel” (Göttingen, 1855, 2nd ed. 1857), English translation of the _Life of Jesus Christ_, by Octavius Glover (London, 1865); Die drei ersten Evangelien (1850), 97, 117, 124, 135

Fiebig, Paul. Der Menschensohn (Tübingen, 1901); Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (Tübingen, 1904), 278, 286

Frantzen, Wilhelm. Die “Leben‐Jesu‐” Bewegung seit Strauss (Dorpat, 1898), 12

Frenssen, Gustav. Hilligenlei (Berlin, 1905), pp. 462‐593: “Die Handschrift” (English translation, _Holy Land_, by M. A. Hamilton, London, 1906), 293, 307‐309, 398

Freppel, Charles Emile. Examen critique de la vie de Jesus de M. Renan (Paris, 1864) (German by Kollmus, Vienna, 1864), 188, 190

Frick, Otto. Mythus und Evangelium (Heilbronn, 1879), 112

Furrer, Konrad. Vorträge über das Leben Jesu Christi (1902), 301

Gabler, 78

Gardner, P. Exploratio Evangelica. A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899, 2nd ed. 1907), 217

Gerlach, Hermann. Gegen Renans Leben‐Jesu 1864 (Berlin), 191

Gfrörer, August Friedrich. Kritische Geschichte des Urchristentums (vol. i. 1st ed. 1831, 2nd ed. 1835, vol. ii. 1838), 161, 163‐166, 195

Ghillany, Friedrich Wilhelm (“Richard von der Alm”). Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation (3 vols. 1863); Die Urteile heidnischer und christlicher Schriftsteller der vier ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte über Jesus (1864), 161, 166‐172, 240, 363

Godet, F. Das Leben Jesu vor seinem öffentlichen Auftreten (German by M. Reineck, Hanover, 1897), 217

Gratz, 89

Greiling. Das Leben Jesu von Nazareth (1813), 50

Gressman, Hugo, 234

Griesbach, Johann Jakob, 13, 89

Grimm, Eduard. Die Ethik Jesu (Hamburg, 1903), 320

Grimm, Joseph. Das Leben Jesu (Würzburg, 6 vols., 2nd ed. 1890‐1903), 294

Grotius, Hugo, 270

Gunkel, Hermann, 277

Hagel, Maurus. Dr. Strauss’ Leben‐Jesu aus dens Standpunkt des Katholicismus betrachtet (1839), 108

Hahn, Werner. Leben‐Jesu (Berlin, 1844), 118

Haneberg, Daniel Bonifacius. Ernest Renans Leben‐Jesu (Regensburg, 1864), 190

Hanson, Sir Richard. The Jesus of History (1869), 202

Harless, Adolf. Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von David Friedrich Strauss nach ihrem wissenschaftlichen Werte beleuchtet (Erlangen, 1836), 98 f.

Harnack, Adolf, 242, 252, 314

Hartmann, Eduard von. Das Christentum des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed. of the “Briefe über die christliche Religion” (Sachsa‐in‐the‐Harz, 1905), 292, 318‐320

Hartmann, Julius. Leben Jesu (2 vols., 1837‐1839), 101

Hase, Karl August von. Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 1829); Geschichte Jesu (Leipzig, 1876), 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 28, 58 f., 65, 72, 81, 88, 99, 106, 116, 120, 162, 193, 214 f., 218, 220, 229

Haupt, Erich. Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (1895), 241, 250 f.

Hausrath, Adolf. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (1st ed., Munich, 1868 ff., 3rd ed., vol. i. 1879) (English translation, _A History of the __ New Testament Times, The Time of Jesus_, by C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer, London, 1878), 214

Havet, Ernest. Jésus dans l’histoire. Examen de la vie de Jésus par M. Renan. Extrait de la Revue des deux mondes (Paris, 1863); Le Christianisme et ses origines, 3me ptie, Le Nouveau Testament (1884), 189, 290, 328, 391

Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm, 49, 68 f., 79 f., 107, 111, 114 f., 122, 137, 163, 165, 194

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, 106 f., 111, 115, 143

Hennell, Charles Christian. An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity (London, 1838) (Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Christentums. Vorrede von David Friedrich Strauss, 1840), 161

Herder, Johann Gottfried. Vom Erlöser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (1796); Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland. Nach Johannes Evangelium (1797), 27, 29, 34, 89, 203

Hess, Johann Jakob. Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu (1768 ff.), 4, 14, 27‐31

Hilgenfeld, Adolf, 124, 222, 266

Hoekstra. “De Christologie van het canonieke Marcus‐Evangelie, vergeleken met die van de beide andere synoptische Evangelien” (Theol. Tijdschrift, v., 1871), 328

Hoffmann, Wilhelm. Das Leben‐Jesu kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. David Fried. Strauss. Geprüft für Theologen und Nicht‐Theologen (1836), 99

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, 10, 61, 125, 195, 200, 202‐205, 209, 218, 220, 229, 231, 235, 237, 277, 294

Holtzmann, Oskar. Das Leben Jesu, (1901) (English translation, _The Life of Jesus_, by J. T. Bealby and Maurice A. Canney, London, 1904); Das Messianitätsbewusstsein Jesu und seine neueste Bestreitung. Vortrag (1902); War Jesus Ekstatiker? (Tübingen, 1903), 208, 293, 295‐300, 306 f., 308, 312, 359

Hug, Leonhard. Gutachten über das Leben‐Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet von D. Fr. Strauss (Freiburg, 1840), 97, 108, 109, 271

Ingraham, J. H. The Prince of the House of David (London, 1859) (Der Fürst aus Davids Hause, new ed., 1896, Brunswick), 326

Inchofer, 270

Issel, 237

Jacobi, Johann Adolf. Die Geschichte Jesu für denkende und gemütvolle Leser (1816), 27, 34

Jonge, De. Jeschua. Der klassische jüdische Mann. Zerstörung des kirchlichen, Enthüllung des jüdischen Jesus‐Bildes (Berlin, 1904), 293, 321 f.

Jülicher, Adolf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (pt. i. 1888, pt. ii. 1899); Die Kultur der Gegenwart (Teubner, Berlin, 1905), pp. 40‐69; “Jesus,” 241, 262‐264, 286, 290, 320, 398

Kalthoff, Albert. Das Christus‐Problem. Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie (Leipzig, 1902); Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christus‐Problem (Leipzig, 1904) (English translation, _The Rise of Christianity_, by Joseph M’Cabe, London, 1907); Das Leben Jesu. Reden gehalten im prot. Reformverein zu Berlin (1880); Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit Professor Bousset in Göttingen (Berlin, 1904), 293, 314‐318

Kant, Emmanuel, 50, 105, 322

Kapp, W. Das Christus‐und Christentum‐Problem bei Kalthoff (Strassburg, 1905), 318

Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich, 271

Keim, Theodor. Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (3 vols., Zurich, pt. i. 1867, pt. ii. 1871, pt. iii. 1872); Die Geschichte Jesu. Nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft für weitere Kreise übersichtlich erzählt (Zurich, 1872) (English translation of the larger work, _The History of Jesus of Nazara_, by E. M. Geldart and A. Ransom, 6 vols., London, 1873‐1883), 11, 61, 193, 200, 209, 211‐214, 231 f., 310, 343, 351, 357, 380, 392

Kienlen, 228

Kirchbach, Wolfgang. Was lehrte Jesus? (Berlin, 1897, 2nd ed. 1902); Das Buch Jesus (Berlin, 1897), 294, 322‐324

Koppe, 89

Köstlin, Karl Reinhold, 124

Krabbe. Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu für Theologen und Nicht‐Theologen (Hamburg, 1839), 100

Kralik, Richard von. Jesu Leben und Werk (Kempten‐Nürnberg, 1904), 294

Krauss, S. Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (1902), 327

Krüger‐Velthusen, W. Leben Jesu. (Elberfeld, 1872), 217

Kuhn, Johannes von. Leben Jesu (Tübingen, 1840), 108

Kunz, K. Christus medicus (Freiburg, 1905), 325

Lachmann, 89

Lamy. Renans Leben‐Jesu vor dem Richterstuhle der Kritik. Übersetzt von Aug. Rohling (Münster, 1864), 190

Lange, Johann Peter. Das Leben Jesu, 5 vols. (1844‐1847) (English translation, _The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ_, by Sophia Taylor, Edinburgh, 1864), 117

Längin, G. Der Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum (2 vols., 1897‐1898), 217

Langsdorf, Karl von. Wohlgeprüfte Darstellung des Lebens Jesu (Mannheim, 1831), 162

Lasserre, Henri. L’Évangile selon Renan (1864, 12 editions, German, Munich, 1864), 188, 190

Lehmann. Renan wider Renan (Zwickau, 1864), 191

Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 5, 14‐16, 75

Levi, Giuseppe. Parabeln, Legenden und Gedanken aus Talmud und Midrasch (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877), 286

Lichtenstein, Wilhelm Jakob. Leben des Herrn Jesu Christi (Erlangen, 1856), 101

Lietzmann, Hans. Der Menschensohn (Freiburg, 1896); Zur Menschensohnfrage (1898), 265, 276 f., 285, 289

Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Herausgegeben von J. B. Carpzov (Leipzig, 1684), 222, 285

Lillie, A. The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity (London, 1893), 326

Littré, M., 181

Loisy, Alfred. Le Quatrième Évangile (Paris, 1903); Les Évangiles synoptiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907); L’Évangile et l’Église (Paris, 1903) (translated by C. Home, _The Gospel and the Church_, new ed. with a preface by G. Tyrrell, 1908), 295

Lücke, 106

Luthardt, Christoph Ernst. Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu. Vortrag (Leipzig, 1864), 191, 209

Luther, 13

Mack, Joseph. Bericht über des Herrn Dr. Strauss’ historische Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu (1837), 108

Manen, van, 286

Marius, Emmanuel. Die Persönlichkeit Jesu mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Mythologien und Mysterien der alten Völker (Leipzig, 1879), 112

Meinhold, J. Jesus und das Alte Testament (1896), 255

Meuschen, Johann Gerhardt, 285

Meyer, Arnold. Jesu Muttersprache (Leipzig, 1896), 229, 231, 265, 269, 271, 274, 276, 286, 287, 289

Michaelis, 49, 271

Michelis. Renans Roman vom Leben‐Jesu (Münster, 1864), 190

Müller, A. Jesus ein Arier (Leipzig, 1904), 327

Müller, Max, 290

Mussard, Eugène. Du système mythique appliqué à l’histoire de la vie de Jésus (1838), 112

Nahor, Pierre (Émilie Lerou), Jésus. (German by Walther Bloch, Berlin, 1905), 325

Neander, August Wilhelm. Das Leben Jesu Christi (Hamburg, 1837) (English translation, _The Life of Jesus Christ_, by J. M’Clintock and C. E. Blumenthal, London, 1851); Gutachten über das Buch des Dr. Strauss’, Leben‐Jesu (1836), 72, 97, 101‐103, 116, 139

Nestle, 276

Neubauer, Adolf, 273

Neumann, Arno. Jesus wie er geschichtlich war (Freiburg, 1904), 320

Nicolas, Amadée. Renan et sa vie de Jésus sous les rapports moral, légal et littéraire (Paris‐Marseille, 1864), 188

Nippold, Friedrich. Der Entwicklungsgang des Lebens Jesu im Wortlaut der drei ersten Evangelien (Hamburg, 1895); Die psychiatrische Seite der Heilstätigkeit Jesu (1889), 301, 324

Noack, Ludwig. Die Geschichte Jesu (2nd ed., Mannheim, 1876); Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha (1870‐1871), 161 f., 172‐179, 185, 322

Nork, J., 285, 286

Notowitsch, Nicolas. La Vie inconnue de Jésus‐Christ (Paris, 1894) (German, Stuttgart, 1894), 290, 326

Oort, H. L. Die Uitdrukking ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in het Nieuwe Testament (Leiden, 1893), 266, 278, 286

Opitz, Ernst August. Geschichte und Characterzüge Jesu (1812), 27, 34

Osiander, Andreas, 13

Osiander, Johann Ernst. Apologie des Lebens Jesu gegenüber dem neuesten Versuch, es in Mythen aufzulösen (1837), 100

Osterzee, J. J. van (Utrecht). Geschichte oder Roman? Das Leben‐Jesu von Ernest Renan vorläufig beleuchtet. (From the Dutch) (Hamburg, 1864), 191

Otto, Rudolf. Leben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch‐kritischer Auffassung. Vortrag (Göttingen, 1902), 301

Paul, Ludwig. Die Vorstellung vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern (Bonn, 1895), 265

Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob. Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums (1828), 4, 28, 37, 48 f., 104, 271, 276, 303

Pfleiderer, Otto. Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben (2nd ed., Berlin, 1902, 2 vols.) (English translation, _Primitive Christianity_, vols. i. and ii. (vol. i. of original), London, 1906, 1909); Die Entstehung des Urchristentums (Munich, 1905) (English translation, _Christian Origins_, by D. A. Huebsch, London, 1905), 229, 293, 309, 311‐313, 384

Plank. Geschichte des Christentums (Göttingen, 1818), 34

Pressel, Theodor. Leben Jesu Christi (1857), 101

Pressensé, Edmond Dehoult de. Jésus‐Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre (Paris, 1865) (English translation, _Jesus Christ, His Times, His Life, His Work_, by A. Harwood, 3rd ed., London, 1869); L’École critique et Jésus‐Christ, à propos de la vie de Jésus de M. Renan, 180, 189

Quinet, Edgar, 108

Rauch, C. Jeschua ben Joseph (Deichert, 1899), 326

Régla, Paul de. Jesus von Nazareth, (German by A. Just, Leipzig, 1894), 294, 325

Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger (published by Lessing, Brunswick, 1778) (English translation, _The Object of Jesus and His disciples, as seen in the New Testament_, edited by A. Voysey, 1879), 4, 9, 10, 13‐26, 75, 94, 107, 120, 159, 166, 172, 221, 239, 264, 303, 312, 319, 345, 365

Reinhard, Franz Volkmar. Versuch über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf (1798), 4, 31 f., 48, 206

Renan, Ernest. La Vie de Jésus (Paris, 1863), German, 1895 (English translation, _The Life of Jesus_, London, 1864; translated with an introduction by W. G. Hutchison, London, 1898), 11, 75, 108, 180‐192, 193 f., 197, 200, 207, 213 f., 219, 225, 229, 252, 259, 290, 295, 303, 309, 310

Resch, 273

Reuss, Eduard, 124, 182, 189, 228

Réville, Albert. La Vie de Jésus de Renan devant les orthodoxes et devant la critique (1864), 125, 189, 249

Ritschl, Albrecht, 1, 124 f., 250, 320

Robertson, J. M. Christianity and Mythology (London, 1900), 290 f.

Rogers, A. K. The Life and Teachings of Jesus: a critical analysis, etc. (London and New York, 1894), 249

Rosegger, Peter. Frohe Botschaft eines armen Sünders (Leipzig, 1906), 326

Rossi, Giambernardo de. 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), 271

Salvator. Jésus‐Christ et sa doctrine (Paris, 1838, 2 vols.), 162

Sanday, 90

Saumaise, Claude, 270

Scaliger, Justus, 270

Schegg, Peter. Sechs Bücher des Lebens Jesu (Freiburg, 1874‐1875), 294

Schell, Hermann. Christus (Mainz, 1903), 294 f.

Schenkel, Daniel. Das Charakterbild Jesu (Wiesbaden, 1st and 2nd ed. 1864, 4th ed. 1873) (English translation, _A Sketch of the Character of Jesus_, London, 1869), 11, 103, 131, 193, 200, 203, 205‐210, 215, 218, 220, 229, 310

Scherer, Edmond, 189, 191, 209

Scherer, Edmond, und Athanase Coquerel (jun.). Zwei französische Stimmen über Renans Leben‐Jesu (Regensburg, 1864), 189

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel. Das Leben Jesu (1864), 49, 58, 62 f., 70, 73, 80, 81, 85, 88, 89, 101 f., 108, 116, 127, 139, 195, 197, 218, 233, 320

Schmiedel, Otto. Die Hauptprobleme der Leben‐Jesu‐Forschung (Tübingen, 1902), 12, 22, 293, 301, 303, 305, 312

Schmiedel, P., 277

Schmidt, N. “Was בן נשא a Messianic Title?” (Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature, xv., 1896), 277

Schmidt, Paul Wilhelm. Die Geschichte Jesu, i. (Freiburg, 1899), ii. (Tübingen, 1904), 265, 278, 293, 301, 304, 308, 398

Schmoller. Über die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im Neuen Testament, 237

Scholten, 231

Schöttgen, Christian, 285

Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes ins Zeitalter Jesu Christi (2nd ed., 2nd pt., 1886) (English translation, _History of Jewish People in time of Jesus Christ_, Edinburgh, 1885); Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi (1903), 234, 241, 254 f., 287

Schwartzkoppf. Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinem Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfüllung (1895), 267

Schweitzer, Albert. Das Messianitätsund Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tübingen, 1901), 281, 287, 328‐330, 332 f., 336, 339 f., 351, 382 f.

Schweizer, Alexander, 118, 127 f., 200, 219, 265

Semler, Johann Salomo. Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten, insbesondere vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger (Halle, 1779), 13, 15, 25 f., 49

Sepp, Johann Nepomuk. Das Leben Jesu Christi (Regensburg, 7 vols., 1st ed. 1843‐1846, 2nd ed. 1853‐1862), 108, 294

Seydel, Rudolf. Das Evangelium Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zur Buddha‐ Saga und Buddha‐Lehre (Leipzig, 1882); Die Buddha‐Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien (2nd ed. 1897); Buddha und Christus (Breslau, 1884), 269, 290‐292

Siegfried, Carl, 285

Simon, Richard, 270

Soden, Hermann Freiherr von. Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Berlin, 1904), 12, 293, 301‐308, 312

Stalker, J. The Life of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1880) (German, Tübingen, 1898), 217

Stapfer, E. La Vie de Jésus (pt. i. 1896, pt. ii. 1897, pt. iii. 1898) (English translation, _Jesus Christ before His Ministry_, by L. S. Houghton, 1897, _Jesus Christ during His Ministry_, by L. S. Houghton, 1897), 217

Stave, 243

Storr, 89

Strauss, David Friedrich. Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte. Eine Kritik des Schleiermacher’schen Lebens Jesu (Berlin, 1865); Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 1835 and 1836, 2 vols., 3rd ed., revised, 1838 and 1839, 4th ed. 1840) (_The Life of Jesus Critically Examined_, translated from the 4th German ed. by George Eliot, London, 1846, 3rd ed. with a preface by Otto Pfleiderer, 1898); Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (Leipzig, 1864, 8th ed.) (English translation, _A New Life of Jesus_, London, 1865), 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 24, 28, 35‐37, 58, 60, 62, 65, 79 f., 97 f., 68‐121, 125, 129 f., 136, 138, 140, 145, 151, 153, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 166, 171, 173, 180 f., 182, 185, 188, 190, 193‐199, 200, 201, 209 f., 214, 218, 221, 225, 229, 237, 252, 281, 294, 303, 309, 329, 331, 363

Stricker. Jesus von Nazareth (1868), 202

Tal, T., 286

Tholuck, August. Die Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss (Hamburg, 1837) (English translation, _The Credibility of the Evangelical History, illustrated with reference to the __“__Leben‐Jesu__”__ of Dr. Strauss_, London, 1844), 70, 97, 100 f., 116, 119, 122, 139

Titius, Arthur, 250

Uhlhorn, Johann Gerhard Wilhelm. Das Leben Jesu in seinen neueren Darstellungen. Vorträge (1892), 5, 11

Ullmann, 100

Usteri, 78

Venturini, Karl Heinrich. Natürliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth (1st ed. 1800‐1802, 2nd ed. 1806), 4, 38, 44, 45, 50, 59, 82, 162, 170, 299, 303, 313, 325, 327

Veuillot, Louis. La Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus‐Christ (Paris, 1863), (German by Waldener, Köln‐Neuss, 1864), 295

Volkmar, Gustav. Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit, mit den beiden ersten Erzählern (Zurich, 1882), 11, 210, 225‐228, 233, 256, 301, 309, 313, 328

Volz, Paul. Die jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen, 1903), 234

Vossius, 270

Wallon, H. Vie de notre Seigneur Jésus‐Christ (Paris, 1865), 295

Walton, Brian, 270

Weber, Ferdinand. System der altsynagogalen palästinensischen Theologie (Leipzig, 1880, 2nd ed. 1897), 269, 285 f.

Weiffenbach, Wilhelm. Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu (1873), 222, 228‐233, 237, 250

Weinel, Heinrich. Jesus im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1904), 12, 398

Weiss, Bernhard. Das Leben Jesu (1st ed. 2 vols. 1882, 2nd ed. 1884) (English translation, _The Life of Jesus_, by J. W. Hope, Edinburgh, 1883), 10, 193, 216‐218, 250, 262

Weiss, Johannes. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1st ed. 1892, 2nd ed. 1900), 9, 10, 11, 23, 61, 91, 92, 136, 221, 222, 237‐240, 249 f., 256, 262, 265‐267, 278, 301, 309, 336, 349, 383, 388

Weisse, Christian Hermann. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols., Leipzig, 1838); Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwärtigen Stadium (Leipzig, 1856), 12, 118, 120, 121‐136, 140, 162, 195, 198, 200, 204 f., 218, 229, 232, 294, 309, 328, 341, 357, 374, 378, 389

Weitbrecht, M. G. Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien (1881), 217

Weizsäcker, Karl Heinrich. Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha, 1864), 190, 193, 200‐202, 205, 207, 218, 229, 259

Wellhausen, Julius. Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (3rd ed. 1897, 4th ed. 1902); Das Evangelium Marci (1903); Das Evangelium Matthäi (1904); Das Evangelium Lucae (1904); Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (1899), 254, 269, 276, 277, 285, 287, 289, 391

Wendt, Hans Heinrich. Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen, pt. i. 1886, pt. ii. 1890) (English translation, _The Teaching of Jesus_, by J. Wilson, Edinburgh, 1892) (2nd German ed. 1902, 3rd ed. 1903), 219, 249, 265

Wernle, Paul. Die Anfänge unserer Religion (Tübingen‐Leipzig, 1901, 2nd ed. 1904) (English translation, _The Beginnings of Christianity_, by G. A. Bienemann, London, 1903); Die Reichgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (1903), 241, 252‐254, 265, 267, 314, 398

Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de, 72, 78, 86, 103, 119, 208

Wettstein, Johann Jakob, 285

Whateley, Richard. Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (London, 1819) (adapted as Das Leben Napoleons kritisch geprüft), 112

Wieseler, Karl Georg. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien (Hamburg, 1843), 117

Wiesinger, Albert. Aphorismen gegen Renans Leben‐Jesu (Vienna, 1864), 117, 190

Widmanstadt, Joh. Alb., 270

Wilke, Christian Gottlob. Tradition und Mythe (Leipzig, 1837); Der Urevangelist (Dresden and Leipzig, 1838), 97, 112‐114, 119, 121, 124, 140 f., 148, 195, 202, 225, 328

Wittichen, Karl. Leben Jesu (Jena, 1876), 218

Wrede, Wilhelm. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1901), 9, 11, 25, 131, 210, 221, 256, 257, 264, 309, 328‐349, 350, 358, 380, 384 f., 389, 391 f., 399

Wünsche, August. Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (Göttingen, 1878); Jesus in seiner Stellung zu den Frauen (1876), 269, 285 f.

Xavier, Hieronymus. Historia Christi persice conscripta (Lugd. 1639), 14

Ziegler, Heinrich. Der geschichtliche Christus (1891), 217

Ziegler, Theobald, 69

FOOTNOTES

1 _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. and XIV. 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’s _Geschichte 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 the _Deutsche 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 the _Deutsche 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 is Knows I shed no tear; She to whom I say this Feels I have no fear.

Time has come for fading, Like a glimmering ray, Or a sense‐evading Strain that floats away.

May, though fainter, dimmer, Only, clear and pure, To the last the glimmer And 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 Kritik_ und _Die theologischen Studien und Kritiken_ in ihrer Stellung zu meiner Kritik des Lebens Jesu.” (The attitude taken up by ... in regard to my critical Life of Jesus.) 179 pp. In the _Studien und Kritiken_ two 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 the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_ the 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 the _Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung_ for 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, whose _Geschichte 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 the _Geschichte 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 the _Leben des Herrn Jesu Christi_ by 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 the _Xame 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’s _Fortbildung 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 in _Tract 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 the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_ in 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. The _Life of Jesus_ was 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’s _Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte_, published in 1819, and primarily directed against Hume’s _Essay 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 famous _Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica_—which had appeared in 1840‐1841—in the form of a lexicon for Catholic students of theology. His _Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments_, published in 1843‐1844, appeared in 1853 as _Biblische 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. 89 above.

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 work _Die 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 his _Glaubenslehre_ (System of Doctrine), 2 vols., 1863‐1872; 2nd ed., 1877.

85 The German is _Mirakeln_, the usual word being _Wunder_, 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 also _Die 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 the _Wohlgeprüfte 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 his _Jésus‐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 in _Faust_.

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 in _Philo, 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 la _Revue 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_. (Renan _versus_ Renan.) 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 to _The 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 his _Bibelwerk_. (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 his _Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde_ was 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 the _phrase_ is 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 the _National‐ Zeitung_ of September 21, 1864.) An appendix to _Der 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 by _Der 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’s _Neutestamentliche 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 also _Das Markusevangelium_, 1872; _Das Matthäusevangelium_, 1876; and the _Lehrbuch 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 his _Der Christus der Geschichte und sein Christentum_ (The Christ of History and His Christianity) on a purely Synoptic basis. 2 vols., 1897‐1898.

The English _Life 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’s _Exploratio 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’s _Der 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 the _Christliche Welt_, 1891, pp. 563‐568, 874‐877.)

147 Holtzmann, _Neutestamentliche Einleitung_, 2nd ed., 1886. Weizsäcker declares himself in the _Theologische Literaturzeitung_ for 1882, No. 23, and _Das 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 of _naïveté_ when we find a series of sections grouped under the title, “The establishment of _Christianity_ in 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’s _Das 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’s _Henoch_, 1851; and Hilgenfeld’s _Jüdische 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” in _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, art. “Gospels,” col. 1857. It consists of the verses Matt. xxiv. 6‐8, 15‐22, 29‐31, 34, corresponding to Mark xiii. 7‐9_a_, 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 title _Die messianisch‐apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums_.

See also the interesting use made of Late‐Jewish and Rabbinic ideas in Alfred Edersheim’s _The 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 is _Die 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 Lübeck

164 _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’s _Die 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 his _Skizzen_ (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, in _Jesus 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 his _Geschichte 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 also _Die 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 also _Der leidende und der sterbende Messias_ (The Suffering and Dying Messiah), 1888; and _Was sagt der Talmud über Jesum?_ (What does the Talmud say about Jesus?), 1891.

194 2 Kings xviii. 26 ff.

195 _Studia Biblica_ I. _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 of _barnâsh_ and _barnâshâ_ in Aramaic. The English reader will find the linguistic facts well put in sections 4 and 32 of N. Schmidt’s article “Son of Man” in _Encyclopædia Biblica_ (cols. 4708, 4723), or he may consult Prof. Bevan’s review of Dalman’s _Worte Jesu_ in the _Critical Review_ for 1899, p. 148 ff. The main point is that ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου are equally legitimate translations of _barnâshâ_. 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 See _Worte 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 the _Luth. 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 tractate _Yoma_. 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 as _Parabeln, 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 are _Buddha 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’s _Christus_ (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. 109 f.) 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 ecclesiastical _Approbation_ printed 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’s _L’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’s _Der 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’s _Vorträge 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’s _Leben 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 the _Urchristentum_ (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’s _Worte 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, in _Die 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, entitled _Die 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 his _History 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 title _Die Lücke im Leben Jesu_ (The Gap in the Life of Jesus). Stuttgart, 1894. 186 pp. See Holtzmann in the _Theol. 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’s _I.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’s _Jeschua 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 100 __B.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 the _Toledoth Jeshu_ was 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 the _Sketch 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