Chapter XX: Results (3)

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
viii. 26 are put on the same footing with the really Messianic
prohibitions in viii. 30 and ix. 9, with which may be associated
also the imposition of silence upon the demoniacs who recognise his
Messiahship in Mark i. 34 and iii. 12.

266 The narrative in Matt. xiv. 22‐33, according to which the disciples,
after seeing Jesus walk upon the sea, hail Him on His coming into
the boat as the Son of God, and the description of the deeds of
Jesus as “deeds of Christ,” in the introduction to the Baptist’s
question in Matt. xi. 2, do not cancel the old theory even in
Matthew, because the Synoptists, differing therein from the fourth
Evangelist, do not represent the demand for a sign as a demand for a
Messianic sign, nor the cures wrought by Jesus as Messianic proofs
of power. The action of the demons in crying out upon Jesus as the
Son of God betokens their recognition of Him; it has nothing to do
with the miracles of healing as such.

267 For further examples of the pressing of the theory to its utmost
limits, see Wrede, p. 134 ff.

268 It is always assumed as self‐evident that Jesus is speaking of the
sufferings and persecutions which would take place after His death,
or that the Evangelist, in making Him speak in this way, is thinking
of these later persecutions. There is no hint of that in the text.

269 That the eschatological school showed a certain timidity in drawing
the consequences of its recognition of the character of the
preaching of Jesus and examining the tradition from the
eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes Weiss’s work,
“The Earliest Gospel” (_Das älteste Evangelium_), Göttingen, 1903,
414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is
surprised to find the author of the “Preaching of Jesus” here
endeavouring to distinguish between Mark and “Ur‐Markus,” to point
to examples of Pauline influence, to exhibit clearly the
“tendencies” which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist and
the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological
view of the preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him
a clue to quite a different psychology from that which he actually
applies. Against Wrede he brings forward many arguments which are
worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have refuted him,
because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the
exact form in which it was raised by Wrede.

270 Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark’s
version the experience at the baptism is conceived as an open
miracle, perceptible to others. The way in which the revelations to
the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament does not make in
favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the
Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in
the presence of a multitude without perceiving that in this case the
Messianic secret was a secret no longer. If so, the story of the
baptism stands on the same footing as the story of the Messianic
entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely no
results.

271 The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared
for a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off
to the north once more (Mark vii. 31‐viii. 27), may here
provisionally be left out of account since it stands in relation
with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So too the
enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii.
34‐ix. 30) may here be passed over. These statements make no
difference to the fact that Jesus really broke off his work in
Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, since they imply at
most a quite transient contact with the people.

272 On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work
of Jesus see the “Sketch,” p. 3 ff., “The four Pre‐suppositions of
the Modern Historical Solution.”

273 Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion
of the people, since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by
the Pharisees, not by the people. The abandonment of the Galilaean
work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he thought, have been
due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the time
had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of
Jesus’ miracle‐working power which caused the change in His
attitude, since it is remarkable that He performed no further
miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.

274 The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset’s, who proposes
to treat the mission and everything connected with it as a “confused
and unintelligible” tradition.

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

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

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

276 With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the
discourse in Matt. xi. in order to make the “cry of jubilation” into
the cry with which Jesus saluted the return of His disciples, and to
find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida somewhere
else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this apparently
disconnected material held together by an inner bond of
connexion—the secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently
impending over Jesus and the people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach
like one who has a thesis to maintain and seeks about for the most
logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly connexion
belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?

277 If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His
resurrection, He means by that, not a single isolated act, but a
complex occurrence consisting of His metamorphosis, translation to
heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with this is associated
the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is,
therefore, one and the same thing whether He speaks of His
resurrection or of His coming on the clouds of heaven.

278 The title of Baldensperger’s book, _The Self‐consciousness of Jesus
in the Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time_, really contains a
promise which is impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary
“Messianic hopes” can only explain the hopes of Jesus so far as they
corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, in which He is
absolutely original.

279 Even Baldensperger’s book, _Die messianisch‐apokalyptischen
Hoffnungen des Judentums_ (1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms
of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. The coming volume is to deal with the
eschatology of Jesus. That is a “theological,” but not an historical
division of the material. The second volume should properly come in
the middle of the first.

280 The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by
the ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the
rising influence of the ancient prophetic literature. This
designation has nothing whatever to do with a political ideal of a
kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in their
character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural
as the Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read
into both Daniel and the prophets.

281 Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The
earliest portion, the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of
Daniel and of contemporary origin. The Similitudes (capp.
xxxvii.‐lxix.), which, with their description of the Judgment of the
Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of
Jesus, may be placed in 80‐70 B.C. They do not presuppose the taking
of Jerusalem by Pompey.

282 The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the
Similitudes.

283 The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long
after the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years
later.

284 The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology
before the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from
60 B.C. until A.D. 30, we have no information regarding
eschatological movements! And do the Psalms of Solomon really point
to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the taking of
Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in
studying the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have
no eschatological character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next
turning‐point in the history of the apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and
Fourth Ezra show.

285 Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of
Man they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It is to their part in the judgment that
belong also the authority to bind and to loose which He entrusts to
them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards to all
the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present
decisions will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does
the “upon earth” refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last
Judgment will be held on earth? “I give unto thee the Keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be
historical? Is it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the
“church” which He will found upon the Rock‐disciple? But if one has
once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre‐existing “church”
was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear
impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which
the gates of hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is
given an uneschatological reference to the Church as we know it, it
loses all real meaning and becomes a treasure‐trove to the Roman
Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.

286 That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how
short a time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun.
He only became known, as the Baptist’s question shows, at the time
of the mission of the disciples; Herod first heard of Him after the
death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of Jesus beforehand, it
would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him with the
Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been
overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry
of Jesus.

287 That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology
lost sight of the fact because it did not know how to make any
historical use of it.

288 Psal. Sol. xv. 8.

289 That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim
to something future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of
His sufferings and death as a special baptism, and asks the sons of
Zebedee whether they are willing, for the sake of gaining the
thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. If
the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it
would be unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

291 Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing
with Mark must consist in explaining how such “myths” could be
accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as
our Mark does.

292 It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross, “Eli,
Eli,” was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to
Elias.

293 From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any
of them to have “arrived gradually at the knowledge of the
Messiahship of Jesus.”

294 For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been
worked into one another, see the “Sketch of the Life of Jesus,”
1901, p. 52 ff., “After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and
historical problems.” A theory resting on the same principle was
lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss, _Das älteste
Evangelium_ (The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.

295 It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions
in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede
also observes: “The transfiguration and Peter’s confession are
closely connected in content” (p. 123). He also clearly perceives
the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives
evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow‐disciples
do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not
Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious
difficulty for Wrede’s reading of the facts, since this assumes
Jesus to have been the revealer of it.

296 “After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all
who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the
primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no
man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps,
awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”

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

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

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

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

298 Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the
sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come
after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the
thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same
reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic
Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.

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

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

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

300 One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the
lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to
die. Here as in so many other places Weisse’s clearness of
perception is surprising. Jesus’ journey was according to him a
pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.

301 “That ye enter not into temptation” is the content of the prayer
that they are to offer while watching with Him.

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

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

303 That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have
sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been
brought up as a charge against Him.

304 When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally
known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to
explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that
they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence.
But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the
prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a
different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at
the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the
public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.