No More Learning

Ullmann penetrated more deeply than Neander into the
heart of the question. He admits that in the Gospels legends
of an essentially symbolic character do occur, but it does not
? follow from this that everything is mythical ; it is precisely the problem to determine exactly the boundaries of the his
holds -- and without doubt rightly -- that Strauss's work failed chiefly in not doing this, but in confining itself to the mere negation of the traditions. Strauss's net result, as Ullmann acutely remarks, amounts to this, that the Church invented Christ ; but this makes the
torical and the mythical. Ullmann
history of Christianity incomprehensible. We ought rather to infer from this actual fact, which has changed the course of the world, that there was a corresponding cause, which can only be found in the personality of Christ, the Founder of the Church. Strauss, Ullmann argues, had underrated or ignored this personality, because his own philosophical assumptions involved the antecedent conviction that the idea does not fully manifest itself in a single individual, but is only un folded in the race as a whole. In reply to this assumption, it must be urged, that as an historical fact geniuses do appear from time to time in all departments of mental life, in whom ideas are embodied typically and perfectly, the idea of art, for example, in some of its forms. In a Homer, Sophocles, Dante, Shakespeare, Raphael, Handel, etc. , the idea of their respective arts is fully given in a single example, and a supreme standard is set up for all who come after to aim at. Much more must this be possible in the sphere of religion. Though revelation may be common to all nations and times, it necessarily tends to concentrate itself at one supreme point of the religious development of mankind, and this point is the ideal, sinless Christ.
? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS. 221
Amongst all the books written against him, Strauss treated that of Ullmann with the most respect, making, in fact, some not inconsiderable concessions to it. To the dilemma pro pounded by Ullmann, whether Christ created the Church or the Church invented Christ, Strauss replied, not without reason, that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive even
the Church had been created by the power of the person ality of Jesus, might still, in return, have transformed and
adorned the idea of Christ by the aid of its mythical
tions and hopes. Nevertheless, in his book, published shortly afterwards, Vergdngliches und Bleibcndes. Zwei friedliche Bldtter (1838-39), Strauss allowed the justice of Ullmann's objection so far as to admit that man's religious life related to the rest of his life as the centre of a circle to its circumference, and that religion Christ was supreme, and was so far above other founders of religions as to be un surpassable for all time. For was in him that the unity of the divine and human first became a matter of conscious
ness, and this with such creative power as to supply the need
of all who came after him. He therefore now, with Ullmann,
recognised Christ as a religious genius historically unique, only he refused to follow Ullmann and Schleiermacher in con
verting this uniqueness of genius into absolute perfection,
thus raising altogether above the plane of history. But assuming that this position of Strauss was in itself a tenable one, its weakness lay his method of proving this grandeur of Christ for clear that the philosophical consciousness 01 the unity of the divine and human can scarcely be ascribed to the Johannine Jesus, and at any rate not to the historical Jesus of the synoptic Gospels. The error, which was bound to prove fatal to this eirenical position, lay in the attempt to find Christ's greatness philosophical idea, instead of in the unique character of his religious and moral consciousness and work. And in order to be able to ascribe that philosophical conscious ness to Christ with an appearance of historical
justification, he was guilty of the blunder of admitting the possible genuine ness of the Johannine Gospel and of treating as an his
torical authority. This produced wavering uncertainty in the third edition of his Leben Jesu, unpleasing contrast to the unflinching logic and clearness of the earlier editions, while the possibility of thus creating favourable impression upon the theological public was lessened by the not unfounded
concep
? ? ? a
in
a
it
in a
it is
;
it
in
it
in it
is
if
;
I. ]
? 222 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
suspicion that personal motives of expediency had helped to produce these partial concessions. Strauss himself retraced this false step in the fourth edition, which appeared shortly after, and thus brought the question back to its original posi tion. But this wavering had at any rate shown the totally inadequate treatment by Strauss of the fundamental question for a life of Jesus, as to the historical value of the documentary sources, and their relation to each other. The necessity there fore was shown of a scientific investigation of the question.
This was first supplied, and in a very thorough manner, by Hermann Weisse. He says in the preface to his Evan- gelische Geschichte (1838), that he had from the first welcomed
Strauss's work as not an injurious one but a helpful contri bution to true Christian knowledge and insight, which belongs not to the past but to the future, inasmuch as the book had carried through the unpleasant task of destructive criticism so thoroughly as to give us all the more courage for the attempt to substitute something positive for what criticism had swept away. With this view, Weisse starts with a detailed investigation of the literary relations of the Gospels, and comes, to his own surprise, to the conclusion that Mark's Gospel must be placed before the others in point of origin ality and age ; a conclusion so opposed to the then universal view that it required considerable courage to make it the basis of an account of the gospel history. The same view was simultaneously defended by a compatriot of Weisse, the Saxon clergyman Wilke, in an exhaustive, treatise. Still the view could only slowly and with difficulty make any way at first against the twofold prejudice in favour of John and Matthew, and afterwards against that in favour of Matthew ; it has now been accepted by the majority of theologians ; and the acceptance of the priority of Mark and the late origin of the Gospels of Matthew and of John as among the assured results of Biblical criticism is apparently only a question of time. Notwithstanding Weisse's success in determining the relation of the synoptic Gospels to each other and to that of John, he took up an untenable half-way position with regard to the latter. He considered it to be the work of a disciple of the apostle John, having no claim to direct historical accuracy, but still based, in its speeches at any rate, upon
historical reminiscences of the apostle, which, however, received a strong subjective colouring both in the apostle's
? ? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
223
mind and in the process of literary composition by his disciple. The unity and symmetrical plan of the whole composition of John's Gospel were not recognised by Weisse Baur's indication of them sealed the fate of Weisse's semi-critical hypothesis. But while Weisse was certainly corrected by Baur on the question of the Fourth Gospel, he was as certainly superior to Baur in taking the right view of the synoptists.
In his estimate of the evangelical narratives Weisse fully agrees with Strauss in the negative conclusion, that every thing really miraculous, which the laws of nature, valid for all history, are alleged to have been broken by the absolute spirit, to be regarded as unnatural and on that account as unhistorical. " Before an act of the Deity completely viola ting the laws of nature and history, before a miracle in this properly unhistorical and anti-natural sense, we could only take up an attitude of vacant unreasoning resignation. " Weisse, too, believes that these narratives we must look for religious myths. But he by no means satisfied with Strauss's ex planation of them they are not to be explained, as Strauss thought, by a mechanical transference to the Messiah Jesus of conceptions and legends already given the Old Testa ment, but they are the special product of the religious spirit of Christianity, which expressed in them symbolically its ideal truth, as the fulfilment of all previous Jewish and heathen anticipations. Thus Weisse interprets the stories ot miracles purely as religious allegories, involuntarily invented by the imagination of the primitive community, which did not
distinguish between the poetic form and the ideal content. Weisse rightly urged that this method of exegesis much less offensive than Strauss's to the religious feeling of the present time. " For whatever illustrated legend permeated with the true subject-matter, with the idea of the sacred history, must be itself religious, essentially sacred. The historical revelation of God the Gospels loses not a whit of its sacred content a part of this content ceases to be regarded as an immediate fact of such a kind that the Deity appears as treating his own noblest work rather jest than in earnest. On the contrary, this revelation gains when the Gospels are recognised as the productions of rich spiritual
? which the circle of men, to whom the divine reve lation of Christianity was first addressed, deposited a pro ductive, creative consciousness of the divine spirit, descended
genius,
? ? in
it
is
in
in
if
in
is
in
in a
is
in
;
is in
;
I. ]
? 224 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
into their midst, and of the manner of his working. It was
a consciousness such as this which found its thoroughly
appropriate expression in the sacred legends. " It is certain that this way of looking at the Gospel narratives, in con
junction with a penetrating investigation of the literary rela tions and value of the authorities, first indicated the course by which theology might hope to leave behind it Strauss's purely negative criticism and obtain a positive understanding of the Gospels. The further pursuit of this method by the
Tubingen School led to very important results.
The best, most just and most thorough estimate of Strauss's
book was that given by his Tubingen teacher, the famous critic and ecclesiastical historian, Ferd1nand Chr1st1an Baur, in the introduction to his book, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhdltniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung. Baur finds both Strauss's strength and his weakness in his thoroughly logical negative criticism, which revealed the baselessness of our supposed knowledge of the Gospels, and showed us our ignorance of the real historic truth, thus preparing the way for true knowledge. To quote his own words, " Like all works of true originality and genius, Strauss's book has the great merit of being before and yet the child of its time. It gathered up the critical inquiries on the
life of Jesus with their results from every quarter, in order to present their naked ultimate issue and form them into a single whole, by a more vigorous method of proof, by defining what had been left indefinite, and by supplying existing deficiencies. Thus the book became the living centre of the whole critical movement of the time, which alone explains its immense effect. Strauss was hated because the spirit of the time could not endure its own picture, which he held up to it in faithful, clearly drawn outlines. In this reflection of itself the age became conscious of much of which it before had had no distinct idea, coming to perceive its contradictions and incon sistencies and false assumptions ; in a word, its complete want of true knowledge. Let us frankly admit the facts of the case, and rest assured that, instead of going on for ever with vague and empty polemics, it is time to look at Strauss's criticism as a product of its time, and to understand how, in the then existing stage of criticism, it was not only a possible but also a necessary phenomenon. What result could be reached from the investigations then carried on into the origin and
? ? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
25
mutual relation of the Gospels, except a purely negative one One opinion was opposed by another, taken together the opinions were mutually contradictory and destructive, and any certainty was impossible. was, in fact, just as Strauss himself said, in the darkness produced by the extinguishing of all supposed historical lights by criticism, the eye had gradually to learn to distinguish individual objects. Strauss's work was intended to begin this process, by leading men out of the general darkness into the clear day of historical know
But introduced a new era not in virtue of this positive but of its negative side its chief merit lay not in the knowledge which brought to light, but in the want of
of which made men conscious. This the truly historical importance of Strauss's critique. Its greatest merit will always consist having shown the condition of historical knowledge of the gospel history at the time, and in having done this from a pure love of truth, without prejudice or assumption, without mercy or consideration, and must be allowed with cold severity. Every step the work takes beyond this seems to lie outside its true province. But the spirit of an age resists with all its might the proof of its ignorance in a matter of its knowledge of which had long been so certain. Instead of recognising what had to be recognised, any progress was to be made, all possible attempts were made to create fresh illusions as to the true state of the case, by reviving long antiquated hypotheses, by theological charlatanism, by using all the motives of a false party spirit. But higher certainty as to the truth of the gospel history can only be attained by recognising, on the basis of Strauss's criticism, our previous knowledge as no knowledge at all. When all our previous knowledge self- contradictory and self-destructive, certain knowledge can only come from the examination and classification of details. But these details formed the limit of Strauss's criticism. "
In order to get beyond Strauss's negative results, the criticism of the gospel history must become the criticism of the documents which are the sources for this history. And
this not to continue to consist of mutually exclusive hypotheses, but to be placed upon a firm basis, the special characteristics of each Gospel must be exactly ascertained, the literary features and objects of its author must be investigated, and its relation determined to the general circumstances of
ledge.
knowledge
? c. T.
? ? Q
it
is
is
if is
I. ]
is
if a
it
it
it it in
It
;
2 ?
? 2 26 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
the time out of which it arose. This had been attempted, after a fashion, before F. Chr. Baur by Bruno Bauer, Weisse, and Wilke, who put the evangelist Mark in the place of a general indefinite tradition, as the original evangelist, and derived the other Gospels from him. This view was carried to the most extreme lengths by Bruno Bauer, who regarded Mark not only as the first narrator, but even as the creator of the gospel history, thus making the latter a fiction and
Christianity the invention of a single original evangelist. In spite of the evident absurdity of this " phantasmagorical view
of history," we must recognise a grain of truth in Bruno Bauer's opposition to Strauss, when he asked whether the
mysterious myth-creating consciousness of the community could produce its Gospels without having hands wherewith to write, or taste to compose, or judgment to connect related and exclude alien matter ? This touched, in fact, a weak place in Strauss's method, viz. his ignoring the subjectivity of the authors of the Gospels. But it was precisely this subjectivity, as F. Chr. Baur remarks, which deserved the primary atten tion of historical criticism. " Since all history, before it reaches us, passes through the medium of a narrator, in our criticism of the gospel history, the first question is not. What objective reality is possessed by this or that narrative per se ? but rather, What is the relation of the narrative to the mind of the narrator, through the medium of whom it becomes for us an object of historical knowledge ? " We must, therefore, in the first place know the aim and purpose of the writer, his motive in writing as he does, and the influence of this motive on his account ; and this question can only be answered by as exact an investigation as possible ot the historical conditions under the influence of which the author wrote. Every author belongs to the time in which he lives, and the greater the importance of his subject for the
? and interests of the time, the safer the assumption that he must bear the impress of his age, and that the motives determining the form of his narrative must be sought in the circumstances of the time. This holds also of
the Gospels ; hence the first question in the criticism of them will be, What was the aim and purpose of each of their authors ? Thus only can we gain the firm ground of con
struggles, parties,
crete historical truth. Since a special motive [Tendenz]
is most apparent in the fourth Gospel, Baur took this Gospel,
? ? ? Ch. MEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
227'
which had hitherto offered the stoutest resistance to- all the attacks of criticism, as the point of departure for his inquiry.
But before we trace this inquiry further, we must glance at his previous critical works. have begun with the above discussion in the introduction to his book on the canonical Gospels simply in order to make clear his relation to Strauss.
Baur himself, which characteristic of his method, started
not from the Gospels, the most complicated problem of New Testament criticism, but from the Pauline Epistles, where the questions are comparatively simpler. As the fruit of his exegetical lectures on the Epistles to the Corinthians, he published in 1831 the essay, Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christenthums in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom. He had here proved that Paul had to con tend in Corinth with a Jewish Christian party, which disputed his apostolical authority and wished to set up a particularistic Jewish Christianity, opposition to his universal Christianity. He had then pursued the traces of the same division of parties in the post-apostolic age, down to the Clementine Homilies,
and attempted to explain by its means the legends of Simon Magus and of the episcopate of Peter Rome. In these in genious, at times rash, theories lay the germs of his later
view of primitive Christianity, but his literary criticism had not yet reached an independent position. The full and unique importance of this was first seen in the work, Uber die
sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, which appeared the same year as Strauss's Leben Jesu (1835). His researches into the Christian Gnosis, published the same year, had led Baur to look for traces of this phenomenon the New Testament also, and he then discerned that the false teachers opposed the Epistles to Timothy and Titus could be no other than the Gnostics of the second century, in particular the Marcionites. This gave a firm footing of objective historical value for the criticism of these epistles place of the previous vague sub
jective hypotheses. Other peculiarities of these epistles, in particular those respecting ecclesiastical offices and arrange
? clearer light by the circumstances of the
ments, were set
second century, and this at the same time served to support the hypothesis based on his characterisation of the false teachers. Individual critics, such as Eichhom and De Wette,
? ? in a
in
in
in
in
I
in
in
in
if
is
I. ]
? 2 28 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
and also Schleiermacher, had previously doubted the authen ticity, at any rate of I Timothy, and not only were these doubts now fully justified by Baur, but, what was the main thing, the positive result was reached that these Epistles originated in the opposition of the Catholic Church to Gnosticism in the middle of the second century, and were intended to establish the Church's tradition and hierarchy against heretics. The importance of this work of Baur's went far beyond the
question directly treated of, inasmuch as it substituted for
the first time objective eriticism, based on a wide general
conception of the conditions of primitive Christianity, for the subjective criticism hitherto adopted -- a new method, of the great importance of which Baur in his preface shows himself well aware. This critical method he applied during the following years to the Pauline epistles and to the Acts of the Apostles, and collected the results of these researches in the work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und
Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre (1st ed. , 1845 ! 2nd ed. , 1866). In the first part of this work, Baur describes the life and work of Paul, as the apostle who first gave Christi anity its universal historical importance, and freed it from Judaism, which was not accomplished -- as was hitherto held in conformity with the Church's tradition --with the concurrence of the elder apostles and the primitive Church, but in op position to and in conflict with them. He here subjects the
account given in the Acts to a thorough critical investigation, which leads to the result that this book differs from the authentic testimony of the Pauline epistles in so many and im portant points that it can be regarded as of only quite second ary historical value"; the author's aim was not to write history, but to give a defence of the Apostle of the Gentiles against the attacks and accusations of the Judaisers. " With
this view he represented Paul as quite a different man from the actual Paul of the genuine Pauline Epistles ; he minimised his divergence from the Jewish Christians in the same way as he made Peter more Pauline than was really the case. The writer's motives for doing this must be looked for in the cir cumstances of the time, in which " Paulinism had been so put in the background by Jewish Christian efforts as only to be able to maintain itself by entering into a compromise with the powerful Jewish Christian party, and by an attitude of conciliation softening down all the harshness and directness
? ? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
229
of its opposition to Judaism. "1 The second part of the work gives an analysis and criticism of the Pauline Epistles, of which only those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, are accepted as genuine. The third part gives an account of the Pauline theology from the point of view that repre sents Christianity as the absolute spiritual religion opposi tion to Heathenism and Judaism. There no doubt much in these two latter parts, as in the former one, capable of being disputed and needing amendment, but the great merit of the book remains, of having clearly set forth with an emphasis, never approached before, the epoch-making im portance of the Apostle Paul in the history of Christianity, the originality of his conception of Christianity, and the magnitude of the struggle by which he carried out his ideas in spite of the Jewish prejudices of the primitive Church.
Equally important, for right understanding of primitive Christianity, with Baur's work on Paul was further his Criticism of John's Gospel, first given as an essay (1844), which he afterwards incorporated in his book on Die kanonischen Evan-
gelien (1847), as its first and most important part. He does not start the customary way with the question as to the author, which only concludes the investigation. The question he starts with on the contrary, that of the idea and purpose guiding the author in his peculiar presentation of the gospel history. Baur finds this in the idea of the Logos presented in the prologue since the Logos, as the divine principle of light and life, appears bodily the phenomenal world in the person of Jesus, and enters into conflict with the darkness of the world, the whole history of Jesus turns on the development and solution of this antithesis of metaphysical and ethical
This view of the Acts of the Apostles was further developed and put into more extreme form by Zeller. It regards the Acts as an "offer of peace " made by Paulinist to the Judaisers with a view to the union of the two
parties: but cannot be maintained: for (1) the supposed extremity of Paulinism presence of an all-powerful Jewish Christianity unhistorical (2) the Acts, on the contrary, exhibits a Gentile Christianity energetically asserting itself against Judaism (3) the inexact account of Paulinism given
in this book cannot be the result of intentional misrepresentation, since was not peculiar to the author but common to Gentile Christians of the second century (4) finally, the theory altogether overlooks the real and undoubted object of the writer, viz. to defend Christianity view of the Roman power as religion not violating the laws of the State, and with claim to the same toleration as Judaism.
? ? ? ; a
it
in
is
a it ;
;
a in
in is,
a
1
in
;
a
is
in it
I. ]
? 23O BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. HI.
principles, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, belief and disbelief, children of God and children of the devil, life and death. Thus John's Gospel contains a Christian gnosis akin to though not identical with the heretical gnosis, clothed in the form of an historical account of the life of
That such an account, completely dominated by ideal motives of a doctrinal nature, does not possess historical truth, and cannot and does not really lay claim to self- evident, and then further proved by Baur by a critical comparison of the Johannine and synoptic Gospels, the
superior historical probability being always found on the side of the latter. In particular shown, opposition to
the attempts to divide the Gospel, that precisely the Johannine speeches serve the dogmatic purpose of the author and stand
the closest connection with the narratives, and
that the whole Gospel shows a systematic unity of composition which excludes all possibility of distinguishing between genuine and not genuine -- or better, between historical and purely ficti tious elements. At last the question as to the author of the Gospel investigated and his identity with the Apostle dis proved, partly by the unhistorical character of so many of the narratives, in which the Gospel inferior even to the writings of Mark and Luke, who were not eye-witnesses, and par ticular by the ignorance shown of places and conditions in
Palestine {e. g. , 28 v. ix. xi. 51 xviii. 13); partly by the attitude of the author to the question of the Passover, which the exact opposite of the view which the Church in Asia Minor claimed to derive from the Apostle John partly also by the contrast between the entire dogmatic character of the Gospel and that of the Apocalypse, which exhibits, accordance with Galatians ii. , the Apostle John as still quite enthralled in Jewish Christian conceptions, which the author of the gospel has left far behind. But be asked how was possible for a non-apostolic gospel to be regarded by the Church as a work of the apostle, Baur finds the explanation in the peculiar spirit and character of the Gospel.
By its spiritual nature, that pneumatic character attributed to even by the ancients, exercised peculiar charm on men's minds; and since, in virtue of its later origin, represented a
more developed form of Christian consciousness and life, offered all the more points of contact with the time its
Jesus.
? origination
and diffusion. contains references to all the
general
? ? it It
2 ;
it
in
a
7 is
; it
of
it it it in
; init, in is
if
it ;
is
in is
i. ;
is
is
? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
23
conflicts of the time, and yet nowhere bears the definite mark
of a temporal or local opposition. The most important of these elements of its time are the Gnosis, the doctrine of the Logos, Montanism, and the question of the Passover. To all these movements and questions of the age the Gospel stands in a special relation we cannot say that they presuppose the Gospel, and yet neither conditioned by them comes into contact with them, and yet remains this respect free
and independent. the peculiar characteristic of this Gospel to be connected with all shapes of the consciousness of the age, and yet only in so far as at the same time to main tain an independent attitude towards all, harmonising the antitheses into a higher unity. "
While particular points in Baur's argument may be im pugned, his view of the Fourth Gospel has as a whole not been refuted by later researches, but always confirmed anew. And when we consider how this very Gospel had previously stoutly withstood all criticism, and how difficult this non liquet had made a scientific investigation of the gospels, and so of the origin of Christianity generally, we must admit that Baur's
discovery deserves to be called the beginning of a new era and a fundamental achievement for all future investigation of primitive Christianity. The same cannot be said of his criticism of the three synoptic Gospels. However natural was for him to think that he ought to apply to the other gospels the key which had proved so useful in the case of
? Gospel, viz. the discovery of a dogmatic purpose, was this very fact that prevented him from seeing their literary relation to each other. Only thus can we explain
Baur's resting content with Griesbach's altogether mistaken hypothesis that Mark's Gospel consists of extracts from Matthew and Luke, when Wilke and Weisse had already clearly and irrefragably proved the priority of Mark as the source of both the others. the common fate of scientific discoverers to be led into fresh extremes and errors by the exaggerated application of their newly found principles. Baur did not escape this fatality that his keen critical eye failed him the case of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and of
the Apocalypse only to be explained by the apparent agree ment in these cases of the traditional view with his theory, derived from Paulus, of the perpetuation of the opposition be tween the Judaic and Pauline parties the post- Pauline age
John's
? ? in
is
in
I. ]
;
is
It
it
it
I
; It
is
is it
in
; it
? 232 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
A more exact appreciation and a less prejudiced critical analysis of these three books might have led to a limitation of the scope of this theory. Baur's further labours in the history of the Church and of dogma will be described in a later chapter.
Baur was as great a teacher as he was an author. He pro
secuted scientific research as a sacred service in the temple of
truth ; he combined the lofty comprehensive glance of genius with the laborious industry and careful accuracy of the scholar, and imparted the truth he discovered with the straightforward openness of a conscience freed from selfishness and party spirit ; he thus exerted an influence over intelligent and re ceptive young men of the depth and intensity of which the present generation can form no idea. No wonder that Baur from the first decade of his academical activity continued to gather round him a band of disciples who followed intelli gently in the footsteps of their master, and soon became his co-workers by their independent prosecution of his researches.
The first of these was Strauss, who had shot ahead of his teacher by his Leben Jesu, considered above, and who had supplied if not the impulse yet the proximate occasion of the
? epoch-making critical investigation of the Gospels. He was followed by Eduard Zeller, Albert Schwegler, Karl Planck, Karl Kostlin, and" others. The common organ of this
" Tubingen School was the Theologische Jahrbiicher, edited by Zeller, still of special interest as the monument of one of the most active and fruitful periods of modern theology. A glance at the essays and studies therein collected suffices to show how entirely Baur's disciples and friends were free from the slavish dependence, narrow-mindedness, and dull uni formity which are wont to form the unpleasing darker side of "schools. " Essentially agreed in their critical method, Baur's disciples differed from the first not a little in their critical results.
Zeller, in his critical essays on the Acts of the Apostles,
which first appeared in the Theologische Jahrbiicher, and were afterwards collected in a volume, made some valuable con tributions to the exegetical interpretation and historical criticism of the Acts ; even those who, like myself,1 hold that he carried out Baur's theory of an intended reconciliation of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity in a one-sided and much exaggerated
1 Comp. ante, p. 229 note.
? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
233
manner, to the neglect of other essential points, will not deny to Zeller's book the merit of having by its incisive criticism
out the problem of early Christian history into the full light of day, and of having thus contributed to its solution, even though this does not accord with his own.
Even more than of Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, we must say of A. Schwegler's book, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptpunkten seiner Entwicke lung vols. , 1846), that, in spite of all the ingenuity often shown the just appreciation of details, must be regarded as on the whole failure.
Baur's view of the original opposition and gradual reconcilia
tion of the primitive Christian parties here exaggerated into a caricature. Christianity before Paul, Schwegler con sidered to have had no lofty ideas at all, but to have been nar row, rigidly ascetic and legal form of Judaism, closely related to Essenism, which, as " Ebionitism," maintained the upper hand even against Paul's universalistic teaching, so that the principles of the latter could scarcely anywhere prevail until the age of Irenaeus ecclesiastical Christianity remained more or less an Ebionitic Jewish Christianity, which by degrees de veloped into Catholicism. This point of view guides Schwegler in his estimate of the whole of early Christian literature everything in really, or presumedly, un-Pauline at once taken as a proof of the Jewish Christian character of the book in question the possibility never considered of the existence of Gentile Christians with un-Pauline and even anti-Pauline views, not from Judaising tendencies, but because they found much Paul's theology which was unsuited to the compre hension and needs of the Gentile Christian Churches. seems as Schwegler, hypnotised as were with the one idea of early Christian " Ebionitism," was completely blind to all the varied thoughts and interests which moved that age and also influenced the life and belief of the Christian Churches.
The dangerous tendency, to be seen, must be confessed, in
Baur, of insisting too exclusively on a new point of view as the only true one, was carried in Schwegler to the most
extreme lengths.
however, of importance to note that a protest was
immediately raised against this one-sidedness from within
the Tubingen School itself. Planck and Kostlin, in several
excellent essays, still worth reading, in the Theologische Jahr- biicher (1847 and 1850) endeavoured to correct Schwegler's
brought
? ? ? It is,
I. ]
it
it
in (2
in if
;
it
it
It ;
is
is
a a
;
is
? 234 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
theory. Its principal error, Planck holds to be, that it made
Paul the real author of the new principle, and therefore the
founder of Christianity, leaving unexplained how he was enabled to arrive at this new knowledge and to connect it with the person of Jesus. We must rather start from the position that the new principle was actually conceived, if not fully developed, by Jesus, being contained in his idea of the true righteousness as perfect self-renunciation and the surrender of the human will to the divine will, thus combining the perfect fulfilment of the law with its translation into the spirit, and the cancelling of its purely external character. Paulinism therefore only developed into full consciousness the principle implicitly contained in primitive Christianity. The true right eousness of self-surrender to God, which Jesus spontaneously exemplified and so experienced as an immediate fact of his own consciousness, became in Paul the quickening " grace," or power of the " Holy Spirit," coming to us from without, from Christ. In this appears the difference between the dependent and the creative mind, between the systematising theologian and the original religious genius. Since the older apostles did not, like Paul, prosecute dogmatic reflections, they failed indeed to see so clearly the difference between the new Christian principle and Judaism, but they still possessed this principle in the form, directly derived from Jesus, of deepened righteousness and practical piety. This Christianity,
? Judaic only in form, was not opposed in principle to Paul's anti-
Judaic Christianity ; and hence a reconciliation of the two was possible, without external concessions, by means of an inward
of each to the other. It should be mentioned that Planck held with Schwegler, that the development was wholly on the Jewish Christian side, while Paulinism stood apart as a stimulating principle but one incapable of growth.
Kostl1n likewise censures Schwegler for not distinguishing between the later extreme Ebionitism and the original apos tolic Jewish Christianity. The latter was from the first, in point of fact, though without being clearly aware of in advance of Judaism, and was then stimulated by Paul to a development two directions on the one hand, advanced to ecclesiastical unity, and, on the other, retrograded to here tical Ebionitism. To Kostlin also belongs in particular the credit of first seeing that Paulinism and Gentile Christianity must not be forthwith identified. The failure of the Pauline
approximation
? ? in
;
it
it,
? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
235
doctrines of righteousness by faith and of the annulling of the law to find permanent acceptance, to be explained not, as Schwegler thought, by the preponderance of Jewish Chris tianity, but by the fact that the Gentile Christians themselves were without the speculative conditions and practical needs necessary for the comprehension and adoption of these doc trines. They did not need, like Paul, the disciple of the Pharisees, deliverance from the law, but the discipline of the law the law did not seem to them, as did to Paul, a negative stage of development of transitory validity, but the permanent standard of a pure and thoroughly ethical life for the community. The natural desire to form fixed Christian morals was what made the acceptance of Paul's doctrines of the law and of justification a practical impossibility to the Gentile Christian Churches, even they had been understood. Even Paul had recognised this desire of his Churches so far as to speak of a "law of the Spirit," according to which Christians ought to live. Nevertheless his teaching lacked the legal precision desiderated by the Church was too ideal to be directly made use of by it. The need was felt of
? this ideal Paulinism on the side of the actual morality of works, and this found expression in the combina
tion of Peter with Paul, or the appeal against the one-sided party watchwords of the heretics to the authority of all the apostles--i. e. of Christ himself.
The lines of Planck and Kostlin were further pursued by Albrecht Ritschl, until from being an adherent he became an opponent of the Tubingen school. In the first edition of his book, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (1850), his disagreement with the theories of Baur and Schwegler was only partial, but in the second edition (1857) he declared his total antagonism to their fundamental principles. Like Planck and Kostlin, Ritschl holds that the person of Jesus and the belief of the first apostles we have the common neutral start ing-point of the various later parties. The attitude of Jesus towards the law, he maintains, was an essentially independent one -- superiority to the externality of the ceremonial law in the ethical principle of love to God and man, while observing
conservative attitude in outward religious life. Accordingly Ritschl considers that the first apostles no longer regarded
the law as religiously binding, but only continued its ob servance as national custom, view for which he appeals
supplementing
? ? a
a
a in
if
in
; it
;
it
is
I. ]
? 236 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
to the Epistles of Peter and James, the genuineness of which he ventures to maintain against the doubts of criticism. Though we must admit this to be too great a concession to conservative apologetics, we recognise a valuable advance on
the older Tubingen theologians in Ritschl's tracing the de velopment of Catholic Christianity, not like them from Jewish, but from Gentile Christianity, which he distinguishes from
Paulinism. He rightly points out that Paulinism had a neutral basis in common with Jewish Christianity in the doctrines of God, angels and demons, the present and future world, Christ's second coming, the resurrection and judgment ; to which we must add that the specifically Pauline doctrines of reconciliation and justification have their roots in Jewish (Pharisaic) theology. The earlier Tubingen theologians were distinctly in the wrong in almost completely overlooking Paul's Jewish side in exclusive attention to his anti-Jewish tendencies, and thereupon explaining every departure from his teaching by a reference to Judaistic motives, while, reversely, it must be explained for the most part from the anti-Judaistic habit of thought of the Gentile Christians. Ritschl is right in main taining that " Catholic Christianity is a distinct stage of re ligious thought within the sphere of Gentile Christianity ; it is independent of the conditions of Jewish Christian life, and opposed to the fundamental principle of Jewish Christianity ;
it does not, however, depend merely upon the authority of Paul, but rests both upon the Old Testament and the sayings of Christ, and also upon the authority of all the apostles, represented by Peter and Paul. " But when Ritschl goes on to explain the conversion of Paul's teaching into the Catholic Christianity of the early Church by the failure of the latter to
understand the Old Testament, and condemns it as a "de
generation," the objection presents itself that Paul's doctrine of justification is not found in the Old Testament, which, as the Epistle of James shows, offers rather the means of its refutation than of its proof. Ritschl was unacquainted with the sources of the Pauline theology, and hence cannot satis factorily explain its post-apostolic development. A second serious defect is his total neglect of the other chief factor in the evolution of the theology of the Church, and even of that of the New Testament --viz. Hellenism. This explains his strange inability to deal with such an important phenomenon of early Christianity as the Gospel of John, and his omission of all
? ? ? ? Ch. NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
237
reference to in his book, with the exception of a brief and meaningless note. Beyond question this gospel can be explained neither by means of Jewish Christianity nor of Paulinism, least of all by a superficial Gentile "degeneration" of the latter, since purely a product of Christian Hellen ism. The very existence of this single book (irrespective of others, e. g. the Epistle to the Hebrews) a proof that no history of early Christianity can be regarded as complete which does not take account of the important factor of Hellenism, which Ritschl, a much more striking degree even than the other Tubingen critics, has failed to do.
With Ritschl are connected several other opponents of the Tubingen school, of whom we may here mention the more important: Meyer (Commentar zum neuen Testament), Bleek (Einleitung in das N. Test, and Commentar zu den synop-
tischen Evangelien), Lechler (das apostolische und nachaposto- lische Zeitalter mit Riicksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben, 2nd ed. , 1857), Weiss (der petrinische Lehrbegriff der johanneische Lehrbegriff Biblische Theolo-
gie des Neuen Testaments Einleitung in das Neue Testa
ment), Reuss (die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments, and Histoire de la The"ologie chretienne au siecle
Ewald (Geschichte Israels, vols. v. and vi. Geschichte Christus, and Gesch. des apostol. Zeitalters), Hase (die Tilbinger Schule. Ein Sendschreiben an Dr. Baur). would lead us far beyond our limits to give the views of all these theologians in detail, and we shall therefore be content to mention summarily their objections to the Tubingen theory. They first dispute the sharp antithesis affirmed by this theory between Paul and the original apostles. A certain difference in tendency indeed admitted but this not such that the two parties were mutually exclusive, but rather such that they supplemented each other. "We find variety coupled with agreement, and unity with difference, between Paul and the earlier apostles we recognise the one spirit in the many gifts" (Lechler). The Judaistic antagonists against whom
Paul had to contend were an extreme party with which the
? apostolique),
themselves must not be identified. Further, the view controverted that the struggle and the attempts at mediation and reconciliation were continued until the middle of the second century on the contrary, contended that the destruction of Jerusalem severed the bond which had
apostles
? ? ;
it is
it is
is
;
is
is
;
is
;
;
It ;
;
in
it
I. ]
? 238 BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
hitherto connected the converted Jews with their nation and its worship. With this ceased also the influence of Judaistic agitation upon the Gentile Christian Churches ; and hence forth, in place of the Pauline- Judaistic controversies, we have the new struggle with the heathen political power and heathen heresy (Gnosticism), to which the Johannine Apocalypse already bears witness. Further, an attack is made on Baur's method of tracing in the New Testament writings products of a definite party movement, and of determining their place in the history of primitive Christianity by means of their supposed dogmatic or ecclesiastical " Tendens. " These ob jections are generally urged, moreover (irrespective of just objections to exaggerations on the part of the Tubingen School), from an apologetic desire to save the traditional authorship of the Biblical writings, the most serious critical arguments being too little regarded. The Epistles of James and 1 Peter are asserted to be not only genuine, but pre- Pauline, and (by Ritschl and Weiss) to be nowise connected with Paul. Of the deutero- Pauline Epistles, all--even those to the Ephesians, Timothy, and Titus, regarded as spurious even by Credner and De Wette-- are reclaimed as Pauline. Special ardour is shown in the contention for the genuineness of John's Gospel ; the dilemma, admitted by Lucke, that either the Apocalypse or the Gospel, but not both, is genuine, is given up, and the development of the author of the Apoca lypse into the evangelist is considered probable. But the more hotly the contention raged at first around this question, the greater is the significance of the fact that the former champions of the genuineness of John's Gospel could not altogether resist the adverse arguments, but were compelled to make greater or less concessions to criticism. Hase, Weizsacker, and Reuss have recently attributed the Gospel not to the apostle himself, but to one of his disciples ; and even Weiss limits the historical value of the speeches to a minimum of reminis cences, which have become confused in the mind of the author with his own reflections, and thereby transformed. With re gard to other books also -- e. g. the Pastoral Epistles or the
Acts -- we have to note concessions made by the above-named theologians to Tubingen criticism, so that a gradual agree ment as to the main questions need not be regarded as im possible. It is a specially happy omen that, in the province of exegesis, a uniform method of philological objectivity and
? ? ? ? Ch. I. ] NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.
239
exactness has been more and more developed on all hands ; the services of Meyer and Weiss to exegesis are everywhere acknowledged. A tribute should also be paid to Weiss's Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, as a work of pre-eminent scientific soundness, containing copious matter arranged with exemplary clearness, and surpassing all others in practical utility as a textbook for students.
The Tubingen school was not behindhand in replying to these numerous and serious attacks. Besides Baur and Zeller, Hilgenfeld, in numerous books and essays (in the Zeitschrift
fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie), distinguished
himself as the ready champion of the right of scientific criticism. Fond of
emphasising his independence of Baur, he still, in all impor tant points, followed in the footsteps of the master ; his method, which he is wont to contrast as Literarkritik with
Baur's Tendenzkritik, is nevertheless essentially the same as
? Baur's. In his view of the fourth
Gospel, Hilgenfeld goes even further than Baur, making it altogether dependent upon Gnosticism. In the Synoptic question he leaves Baur's view
Mark between Matthew and Luke. He modifies somewhat the criticism of Paul's epistles, restoring Philippians and 1 Thessalonians to Paul. Volkmar differs decidedly from the other Tubingen critics
only on the question of the Synoptists ; he follows Wilke and
Weisse in regarding Mark as the earliest Gospel, which was
followed by Luke immediately, and only subsequently by Matthew, the last being dependent upon both the others, and a gospel harmony from the point of view of the Catholic Church, with its reconciliation of differences. This un doubtedly correct view Volkmar has exaggerated, after the fashion of Bruno Bauer, by making Mark the author of a "didactic epic," intended to illustrate the Pauline gospel. Though this seemed to do away with all historical foundations, Volkmar, in his Religion Jesu, and still more in his Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit (1882), tries to separate and establish a kernel of historical facts as the basis of the gospels. In his interpretation of the Apocalypse, he follows Tubingen principles, and refers the Apocalyptic imagery in the boldest manner to the party struggles of
essentially unchanged, only placing
The book is now somewhat out of date, since Volter has shown that the Apocalypse is composed of elements belonging to different authors and times, and
primitive Christianity.
? ? ? 24O BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. [Bk. III.
Vischer has made a Jewish basis with Christian revisions very probable. With Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, we must mention Holsten as a strict adherent of Baur in his line of criticism. In his commentary on Galatians, and in several works on Paul, he has discussed the Apostle's peculiar teaching with great acumen, though often with too great subtlety and exaggerated
dialectic ; his long-promised review of the entire Pauline theo
logy has not yet appeared. The question of the Synop- tists has also latterly engaged Holsten's attention : he tries very hard, but with doubtful success, to defend Hilgenfeld's view (Matthew-Mark-Luke). On this question, Holtzmann is the exponent of the view now most generally accepted. In his book on die synoptischen Evangelien, he maintains the priority of Mark ; our Matthew he derives from Mark and Matthew's original "collection of sayings" (the \6yia of Papias), and finally Luke from our Matthew and Mark. Besides numerous essays, Holtzmann has furnished valuable contributions to New Testament exegesis and criticism in his works on the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles ; and his Einleitung in das Neue Testa ment gives an excellent summary of the present position of all the questions concerned. Whilst most critics were thus working at questions of detail, Hausrath was led by his natural love of artistic form, and his position as ecclesiastical historian, to combine details into a vivid account of the time as a whole. In particular his neutestamentliche
? Zeitgeschichte has the merit of showing the place of the development of primitive Christianity in the history of the world, and of
describing the connexion, too much neglected, between the evolution of the Christian Church and the condition of the Gra:co- Roman world. As this work is further distinguished by a beauty of style rare in German theolo gians, it has attracted attention even among the laity, and contributed much to the diffusion of the results of modern research.
At the commencement of the sixth decade of the century, after Baur's death, the labours of Bible critics were so much confined to literary questions of detail that these purely learned controversies seemed to have put an end to the interest in the great fundamental questions. This interest was, however, revived in the same field in which a generation before the whole movement had originated. The appearance in quick
? ? ? Ch.