BY THE SAME AUTHOR

THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

TRANSLATED BY

W. MONTGOMERY, B.A., B.D.

WITH A PREFACE BY

F. C. BURKITT, M.A., D.D.

NORRISIAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

SECOND EDITION 1911 Demy 8vo. Cloth. Price ioj. 6d. net (Post free, us.)

" The most remarkable theological work which has appeared in recent years in Germany ... a book of the highest interest." — The Times.

"This remarkable book. . . must play an important part in the history of the Higher Criticism of the Gospels." — The Cambridge Review.

A. AND C BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.

AG!

America . The Mac-miii an Company

64 & 66 Fifth Avenue, New Vokk

Au»TRAIA'.IA T«l Ox> I'kess

205 Flinders Lane, Melbourne

"MPANY OF CANAIM, l.in.

St. Mar 1 . -o BoMD Street, Toronto

10«, riTA

PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS

PAUL

AND

HIS INTERPRETERS

A CRITICAL HISTORY

BY

ALBERT SCHWEITZER

PRIVATDOZENT IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASSBURG AUTHOR OF "THE OJJEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS "

TRANSLATED BY

W. MONTGOMERY, B.A., B.D.

->

n

A

U

LONDON

ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

1912

PREFACE

The present work forms the continuation of my History of the Critical Study of the Life of Jesus, which appeared in 1906 under the title " Von Reimarus zu Wrede." l

Any one who deals with the teaching and the life and work of Jesus, and offers any kind of new reading of it, ought not to stop there, but must be held under obligation to trace, from the stand-point at which he has arrived, the pathway leading to the history of dogma. Only in this way can it be clearly shown what his discovery is worth.

The great and still undischarged task which confronts those engaged in the historical study of primitive Christianity is to explain how the teaching of Jesus developed into the early Greek theology, in the form in which it appears in the works of Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian and Irenaeus. How could the doctrinal system of Paul arise on the basis of the life and work of Jesus and the beliefs of the primitive com- munity ; and how did the early Greek theology arise out of Paulinism ?

Strauss and Kenan recognised the obligation, and each endeavoured in a series of works to trace the path leading from Jesus to the history of dogma. Since their time no one who has dealt with the life of Jesus has attempted to follow this course.

Meanwhile the history of dogma, on its part, has come to place the teaching of Jesus, as well as that of Paul, outside the scope of its investigations and to regard its own task as

1 Sub-title : " Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forsckung." English translation " The Quest of the Historical Jesus." London, A. &• C. Black, 1910, 2nd ed. 1911.

vi PREFACE

\ning at the point where the undisputed and general HeUenisation of Christianity sets in. It describes therefore rowth of Greek theology, but not of Christian theology as >le. And because it leaves the transition from Jesus to Paid, and from Paul to Justin and Ignatius, unexplained, and therefore fails to arrive at any intelligible and consistent conception of Christian dogma as a whole, the edifice which it erects has no secure basis. Any one who knows and admires Harnack's " History of Dogma " is aware that the solid mason-work only begins in the Greek period ; what precedes is not placed on firm foundations but only supported on piles.

Paulinism is an integral part of the history of dogma ; for the history of dogma begins immediately upon the death of Jesus.

Critical theology, in dividing up the history of the develop- ment of thought in primitive Christianity into the separate departments, Life of Jesus, Apostolic Age, History of Dogma, and clinging to this division as if it were something more than a mere convention of the academic syllabus, makes a confession of incompetence and resigns all hope of putting the history of dogma on a secure basis. Moreover, the separate departments thus left isolated are liable to fall into all kinds of confusions and errors, and it becomes a necessity of existence to them not to be compelled to follow their theories beyond the cunningly placed boundaries, or to be prepared to show at any moment how their view accords with the preceding and following stages in the development qf though/.

This independence and autonomy of the different de- partments of study begins with the downfall of the edifice con- structed by Baur. He was the last who dared to conceive, and to deal with, tlu "ma in the large and

< use us the scientific study of the development of the into the early Greek theology. After him ns, with Ritschl, the narrower and more convenient con- '. which resigns its imperial authority The department* of study deal of Jesus,

PREFACE

vn

Primitive Christianity and Paulinism, and allows these to be- come independent. In the works of Ritschl himself this new departure is not clearly apparent, because he still formally includes the teaching of Jesus, of Paul, and of primitive Christianity within the sphere of the history of dogma. But instead of explaining the differences between the various types of belief and doctrine, he glosses them over in such a way that he practically denies the development of the thoughts, and makes it impossible for a really scientific study of the teaching of Jesus and of Paulinism to fit into the ready- made frame which he provides.

Ritschl shares with Baur the presupposition that primitive dogma arose out of the teaching of Jesus by an organic and logical process. The separate disciplines which began after them have shown that this assumption is false. Of a " development " in the ordinary sense there can be no question, because closer investigation has not confirmed the existence of the natural lines of connexion which might a priori have been supposed to be self-evident, but reveals instead unintelligible gaps. This is the real reason why the different departments of study maintain their independence.

The^ system of the Apostle of the Gentiles stands over against the teaching of Jesus as something of an entirely different character, and does not create the impression of having arisen QuLoJIt. But how is such a new creation of Christian ideas — and that within a bare two or three decades after the death of Jesus — at all conceivable ?

From Paulinism, again, there are no visible lines of connexion leading to early Greek theology. Igwgtius and Justin do not take over his ideas, but create, in their turn, something new.

According to the assumption which in itself appears most natural, one would be prepared to see in the teaching of Jesus a mountain-mass, continued by the lofty summits of the Pauline range, and from these gradually falling away to the lower levels of the early Catholic theology. In reality the teaching of Jesus and that of the great Apostle are like two separate ranges of hills, lying irregularly disposed in

Ylll

PREFACE

front of the later " Gospel." Even the relation which each severally bears to primitive Christianity remains uncertain.

This want of connexion must have some explanation. The tqsk of historical science is to understand why these ms of teaching are necessarily independent, and at one time to point out the geological fault and dislocation of the strata, and enable us to recognise the essential continuity of these formations and the process by which they have taken their present shape.

The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen ; but his large and comprehensive conception of the history of dogma ought not to be given up. It is wholly wrong to ignore the problem at which he laboured and so create the false impression that it has been solved. Present day criticism is far from having explained how Paulinism and Greek theology have arisen out of the teaching of Jesus. All it has really done is to have gained some insight into the difficulties, and to have made it increasingly evident that the quest the Ecllenisation of Christianity is the

fundamental problem of the history of dogma.

ItcouTd not really hope to find a solution, because it is still working away with the presuppositions of Baur, Ritschl, and Renan, and has already tried three or four times over all the experiments which are possible on this basis, without ever attaining to a real insight into the course of the development. It has approached this or that problem differently, has given a new version — not to say in some cases a perversion — of it ; but it has not succeeded in giving a satisfactory, answer to the question when and how the Gospel was Hcllenised.

It has not even attained to clearness in regard to the

lUion in which the Gospel existed prior to its Hellenisa-

It has not ventured to mark off with perfect distinctness

'jo worlds of thou which the process is concerned,

and to formulate the problem as being that of explaining

how the Gospel, which was originally purely Jcwis1' and

eschatologtcaX became Greek in form and content. That

this could really > me about, it takes to be a priori

PREFACE

IX

impossible. It therefore seeks to soften down the antitheses as much as possible, to find in the teaching of Jesus thoughts which force their way out of the frame of the Jewish eschato- logical conceptions and have the character of universal religion, and in the teaching of Paul to discover a " genuinely Christian," and also a Hellenic element, alongside of the Rabbinic material.

Theological science has in fact been dominated by the desire to minimise as much as possible the element of Jewish Apocalyptic in Jesus and Paul, and so far as possible to represent the Hellenisation of the Gospel as having been prepared for by them. It thinks it has gained something when in formulating the problem it has done its best to soften down the antitheses to the utmost with a view to providing every facility for conceiving the transition of the Gospel from one world of thought to the other.

In following this method Baur and Renan proceed with a simple confidence which is no longer possible to present day theology. But in spite of that it must still continue to follow the same lines, because it has still to work with the old pre- suppositions and the weakening down of the problem which they imply. The result is in every respect unsatisfactory. The solution remains as impossible as it was before, and the simplifications which were supposed to be provided in the statement of the problem have only created new difficulties.

The thoroughgoing application of Jewish eschatology to the interpretation of the teaching and work of Jesus has created a new fact upon which to base the history of dogma. If the view developed at the close of my " Quest of the Histori- cal Jesus " is sound, the teaching of Jesus does not in any of its aspects go outside the Jewish world of thought and project itself into afwn-J^wish world, but represents a deeply ethical and perfected version of the contemporary Apocalyptic.

Therefore the Gospel is at its starting-point exclusively J ewish-eschatological. The sharply antithetic formulation of the problem of the Hellenisation of Christianity, which it was always hoped to avoid, is proved by the facts recorded in the Synoptists to be the only admissible one. Accordingly ,

x PREFACE

the history of dogma has to show how_j£/hMjsjas originally purely J ewish-eschatological has developed into something that is Greek. The expedients and evasions hitherto current have been dismissed from circulation.

The primary task is to define the position of Paul. Is he the first stage of the Hellenising process, or is his system of thought, like that of primitive Christianity, to be con- ceived as purely J ewish-eschatological ? Usually the former is taken for granted, because he detached Christianity from Judaism, and because otherwise his thoughts do not seem to be easily explicable. Besides, it was feared that if the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles, as well as primitive Christianity, were regarded as purely J ewish-eschatological, the problem of the Hellenisation of the Gospel would become so acute as to make the possibility of solving it more remote than ever.

Moreover, the theological study of history is apt, even though unconsciously, to give ear to practical considerations. At bottom, it is guided by the instinct that whatever in the primitive Gospel is capable of being Hellenised may also be considered capable of being modernised. It therefore seeks to discern in Paul's teaching — as also JrT'thM of Jesus — as much as possible that " transcends Judajsm." the character of" universal religion " andj^essential Christianity." It is haunted by the apprehension that the significance of Christianity, and its adaptation to our times, is dependent on justifying the modernisation of it on the lines hitherto followed and in accordance with the historical views hitherto current.

Those who have faced the recognition that the teaching of Jesus is eschatologically conditioned cannot be brought by considerations of this kind, scientific or unscientific, to entertain any doubt as to the task which awaits them. Thai is, to apply this new view to the explanation of the it ion to the history of dogma, and as the first step in , to undertake a new formulation of the problem of I'll it! in is)!' .7 naturally etideavour to find out

Jww farthc exclusively eschatological canr.e.ptmn of the

PREFACE

XI

Gospel manifests its influence in the thoughts of the Apostle of the Gentiles, and will take into account the possibility that his system, strange as this may at first sight appear, may have developed wholly and solely out of that conception.

As in the case of the study of the life of Jesus, the problem and the way to its solution will be developed by means of a survey of what has hitherto been done. At the same time this method of presentation will serve to promote the knowledge of the past periods of the science. Since it is impossible for students, and indeed for the younger teachers, to read for themselves all the works of earlier times, the danger arises that on the one hand the names will remain mere empty names, and on the other that, from ignorance, solutions will be tried over again which have already been advanced and have proved untenable. An attempt has therefore been made in this book to give a sufficient insight into what has been done so far, and to provide a substitute for the reading of such works as are not cither of classical importance or still gener- ally accessible."

For practical reasons the method adopted in my former book, of attaching the statement of the new view to the history of earlier views, has not been followed here. This view will be developed and defended in a separate work bearing the title " The Pauline Mysticism " (" Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus "), which will appear at an early date.

The English and American literature of the subject has not been included in this study, since the works in question were not in all cases accessible to me, and an insufficient acquaintance with the language raised a barrier.

Nor have I aimed at giving, even with this limitation, a complete enumeration of all the studies of Paul's teaching. I have only desired to cite works which either played a part of some value in the development of Pauline study, or were in some way typical. The fact that a work has been left unmentioned does not by any means necessarily imply that it has not been examined.

ALBERT SCHWEITZER.

igth Sept. 191 1.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
The Beginnings of the Scientific Method	PAGE I
CHAPTER II
Baur and his Critics ....	12
CHAPTER III
From Baur to Holtzmann	22
CHAPTER IV
H. J. Holtzmann .....	IOO

CHAPTER V

Critical Questions and Hypotheses . 117

CHAPTER VI

The Position at the Beginning of the Twentieth

Century . . . . . -151

CHAPTER VII

Paulinism and Comparative Religion . . 179

CHAPTER VIII

Summing-up and Formulation of the Problem . 237

INDEX . . . . . . .251

PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS

i

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Hugo Grotius. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 1641-1646.

Johann Jakob Rambach. Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae. 1723.

Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten. Unterricht der Auslegung der heiligen Schrift. (Instructions in the art of Expounding Holy Scripture.) 1742.

Johann Christoph Wolf. Curae philologicae et criticae. 1741.

Johann August Ernesti. Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti. 1762. (Eng. Trans., Biblical Interpretation of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1832-1833.)

Johann Salomo Semler. Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutic.

(Introduction to Theological Hermeneutic.) 1 760-1 769. Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons. (Essay on the free

Investigation of the Canon.) 1771-1775. Neuer Versuch die gemeinniitzige Auslegung und Anwendung des

Neuen Testaments zu befordern. (A New Attempt to Promote

a Generally Profitable Exposition and Application of the New

Testament.) 1786. Latin Paraphrases of the Epistles to the Romans (1769) and Corinthians

(1770, 1776).

Johann David Michaelis. Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes. (Introduction to the Divine Scriptures of the New Covenant.) 1750. (Eng. Trans, by H. Marsh, Cambridge, 1793.)

t)bersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Translation of the New Testa- ment.) 1790.

Anmerkungen fur Ungelehrte zu seiner Ubersetzung des Neuen Testa- ments. (Notes for Unlearned Readers on his Translation of the New Testament.) 1 790-1 792.

Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher. Uber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. (On the so-called First Epistle of Paul to Timothy.) 1807.

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. (Historical and Critical Introduction to the New Testament.) 3 vols. 1814.

2 BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer. Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. (The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1801.

Leonhard Usteri. Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. (The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1824.

August Ferdinand Dahne. Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbe- griffs. (The Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine.) 1835.

Karl Schrader. Der Apostel Paulus. 1 830-1 836.

J. A. W. Neander. Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christ- lichen Kirche durch die Apostel. (History of the Planting and Guidance of the Christian Church by the Apostles.) 1832. (Eng. Trans, by J. E. Ryland, 1851.)

W. M. Leberecht De Wette. Erklarung der Briefe an die Romer, Korinther, Galater und Thessalonicher. (Exposition of the Epistles to the Romans (2nd ed., 1838), Corinthians, etc. (1841).)

H. E. G. Paulus. Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und Romer-Christen. (The Apostle Paul's Doctrinal Epistles to the Galatian and Roman Christians.) 1831.

The Reformation fought and conquered in the name of Paul. Consequently the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles took a prominent place in Protestant study. Nevertheless the labour expended upon it did not, to begin with, advance the historical understanding of his system of thought. What men looked for in Paul's writings was proof-texts for Lutheran or Reformed theology ; and that was what they found. Reformation exegesis reads its own ideas into Paul, in order to receive them back again clothed with Apostolic authority.

Before this could be altered, the spell which dogma had laid upon exegesis needed to be broken. A very promising beginning in this direction was made by Hugo Grotius, who in his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum l rises superior to the limitations of ecclesiastical dogma. This work appeared in 1641-1646. The Pauline Epistles are treated with especial gusto. The great Netherlander makes it his business to bring out by patient study the simple literal meaning, and besides referring to patristic exegesis, cites parallels from Greek and Roman literature. He does not, however, show any special insight into the peculiar character of the Pauline world of thought.

1 In ilic Amsterdam edition of the whole in 1679, the Annotationes 00 the Pauline Epistles (iooo pp.), with those on the other Epistles and the Apocalypse, form vol. in.

THE RIGHTS OF EXEGESIS 3

In the ensuing period the principle gradually became established that exegesis ought to be independent of dogma. Pietism and Rationalism had an equal interest in promoting this result. The accepted formula was that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. This thought is common ground to the two famous works on exegesis which belong to the first half of the eighteenth century, the Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae 1 of Johann Jakob Rambach, which is written from the stand-point of a moderate pietism, and Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten's rationalistically inclined " Instruction in the art of ex- pounding Holy Scripture/' 2

On the soil thus prepared by pietism and rationalism it was possible for a philologically sound exegesis to thrive. One of the most important attempts in this direction is Johann Christoph Wolf's Curae philologicae et criticae3 This was regarded as authoritative for several decades, and even later is frequently drawn on by exegetes, either with or without acknowledgment. The merit of having gained the widest recognition for the principles of philo- logical exegesis belongs to Johann August Ernesti, the reformer of the St. Thomas's School at Leipzig and the determined opponent of its famous M Precentor," Johann Sebastian Bach. His Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti appeared in 1762. 4 It is on the plan of the " Hermeneutics " of Rambach and Baumgarten, and deals with grammar, manuscripts, editions, translations, patristic exegesis, history and geography as sciences ancillary to exegesis.

But Ernesti's work suffices to show that the undog- matic philological method did not in itself lead to any

1 1723, 822 pp.

2 1st ed. 1742 ; 2nd, 1745, 232 pp. (For title see head of chapter.)

3 Bale, 1 74 1. Five vols., covering the whole of the New Testament. The Pauline Epistles are treated in the 3rd (820 pp.) and 4th (837 pp.)- The full title is : Curae philologicae et criticae . . . quibus integritati contextus Graeci consulitur, sensus verborum ex praesidiis philologicis illustratur, diversae Interpretum Sententiae summatim enarrantur et modesto examini subjectae vel approbantur vel repelluntur.

4 I35 PP- Later editions 1765, 1774, 1792, 1809. The last two were brought out under the care of Ammon.

4 BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

result. Its author is in reality by no means free from dogmatic prepossessions, but he skilfully avoids those questions which would bring him into conflict with Church doctrine. In fact the use he makes of philology is more or less formal. He does not venture to treat the books of the New Testament without prepossession as witnesses from the literature of a distant period, and to show the peculiar mould in which Christian ideas are there cast in comparison with subsequent periods and with the period for which he writes. He did not realise that the undogmatic, philological method of exegesis must logically lead to a method in which philology is the handmaid of historical criticism.

His great contemporary, Johann Salomo Semler, ventures to give expression to this truth, and so becomes the creator of historical theology. In his theoretical works on the Scriptures and on exegesis — " Introduction to theological Hermeneutics " (1760-1769),1 " Essay on the free Investigation of the Canon " (1771-1775),2 " A new attempt to promote a generally profitable Exposition and Application of the New Testament " (1786) 3 — the Halle professor explains again and again what is to be understood by a " historical " method of exegesis. He demands that the New Testament shall be regarded as a temporally conditioned expression of Christian thought, and examined with an unprejudiced eye. In making this claim he does not speak as a

1 Four parts. Parts i. and ii. form the first volume (424 pp.), part iii.= vol. ii. (396 pp.), part iv. = vol. iii. (396 pp. ). Part i. is occupied with the general principles of exegesis, part ii. with the text of the Old Testament, parts iii. and iv. with that of the New Testament.

2 Four volumes. The first (in the reprint of 1776, 333 pp.) : On the natural conception of Scripture. The second (in the first edit ion, 1772, 608 pp.) : On Inspiration and the Canon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. Third (1st ed., 1773, 567 pp.) : On the History of the Canon, Answers to criticisms and attacks. The fourth (1775, 460 pp.) If wholly occupied by an answer to the work of a certain Dr! Schul

1 his often mentioned but little read work does not therefore present exactly the appearance that mighl be expected from its title. The poli-inic al replies occupy a much laigex spare than the orginal argu-

3 298 pp. A striking and brilliantly written work.

THE CLAIMS OF CRITICISM 5

disinterested representative of historical science, but makes it in the name of religion. If religion is to develop progressively and purify itself into an ethical belief, the special embodiments which it has received in the past must not lay the embargo of a false authority upon its progress. We must acknowledge to ourselves that many conceptions and arguments, not only of the Old Testament but also of the New, have not the same sig- nificance for us as they had for the early days of Chris- tianity. In his work of 1786, Semler even demands that " for present day Christians there should be made a generally useful selection from the discourses of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles, in which the local refer- ence to contemporary readers shall be distinguished or eliminated.' '

This theory of historical exegesis is carried out in dealing with the great Pauline Epistles. Semler points the way to the critical investigation of the Apostle's thought. He gives paraphrases of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistles to the Corinthians, and attempts to make clear the content and the connection of thought by a paraphrastic and expanded rendering of each individual verse.1 Exegesis is no longer to be encumbered with a panoply of erudition ; it is no longer to be interpenetrated with homiletic and dog- matic considerations, and to defer to the authority of the old Greek expositors, who, " when it is a question of historical arguments, had no better or clearer knowledge than we have ourselves." It must let the Scriptural

1 Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Romanos . . . cum Dissertatione de Appendice, capp. xv. et xvi., 1769, 311 pp. (Dedicated to Johann August Ernesti.)

Paraphrasis in Primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 1770, 540 pp. (Dedicated to Johann David Michaelis.)

Paraphrasis II. Epistolae ad Corinthios, 1776, 388 pp. Each of these works contains a preface of some length on the principles of historical exegesis. As a specimen of the paraphrase we may quote that of Rom. vi. 1 : Jam si haec est Evangelii tarn exoptata hominibusque cunctis tarn frugifera doctrina, num audebimus statuere, perseverare nos tamen posse in ista peccandi consuetudine, ut quasi eo fiat amplior gratiae divinae locus ?

6 BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

phrases say openly and freely what they mean in their literal sense, and devote itself simply to that dispassionate, objective study of facts which has hitherto been too much neglected.

The importance of the paraphrases does not however consist, as might be supposed, in their exhibiting the distinctive character of the Pauline trains of thought in comparison with the views of the other New Testament writers. By his use of a paraphrastic rendering of the text Semler puts an obstacle in the way of his gaining an insight into the specifically Pauline reasoning, and un- consciously imports his own logic into the Apostle's arguments.

On the other hand, his brilliant powers of observation enable him to call attention to some fundamental prob- lems of literary criticism. He is the first to point out that we do not possess the Pauline Epistles in their original form, but only in the form in which they were read in the churches. The canonical Epistle is therefore not, as a matter of a priori certainty, identical with the historical letter. It is quite possible, he argues, that the letters as read in the churches were produced by joining together, or working up together, different letters, and also that written directions and messages, which originally existed in a separate form, were attached in later copies to the Epistles in order that no part of the heritage left by the Apostle might be lost.

On the basis of considerations of this kind Semler arrives at the result that the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Romans did not belong to the original Epistle. The sixteenth is, in his view, a series of greetings which Paul — who, it is assumed, was writing from Ephesus — gave to the bearers of the Epistle to be conveyed to the churches which they would visit on their way through Macedonia and Achaia. In the ninth chapter of 2 Cor- inthians there 1 rved, he thinks, a writing in-

tended for another city in Achaia, which was only later welded into the Epistle to the Corinthians. From the

THE QUESTION OF THE PASTORALS 7

fourteenth verse of the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians to the close of the thirteenth chapter we have to assume the presence of a separate writing, of later date than the original Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Thus Semler takes the first steps upon the road of literary hypothesis. Theology at first took little notice of these investigations. In the third edition of his " New Testament Introduction " (1777) / the great Gottingen philologist and theologian J. D. Michaelis treats the letters of the Apostle in a quite uncritical spirit, and does not enter at all into the literary problems ; in his " Translation " and " Exposition " of the New Testament 2 he follows the old tracks and makes no attempt to carry out the task which Semler had assigned to historical exegesis. In general the eighteenth century, after Semler, contributed very little to the investigation of Paulinism. Schleiermacher was the first to take a step forward, when, in a letter to Gass, he expressed his doubts as to the genuineness of 1 Timothy.3

Shortly before the battle of Jena — so he recounts in the preface — he had communicated his doubts to his friend, but had not got the length of setting them forth in a reasoned argument. " The battle — though indeed it ended all too quickly — the consequent unrest in the town, and even in the house, the confused hurrying to and fro, the sight of the French soldiers, which was interesting in so many ways . . . the still incomprehensible blow which struck our University even before you left, and the sad sight of the students saying their farewells and taking their departure, — these were certainly not the surroundings

1 Johann David Michaelis, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Bundes, ist ed., 1750. In its successive editions this work dominates the theology of all the latter half of the eighteenth century ; at the beginning of the nineteenth it is superseded by Eichhorn's Introduction. The third edition (1777) contains 1356 pp. The Pauline Epistles occupy pp. 1001-1128.

2 Vbersetzung des Neuen Testaments, 1790, 566 pp. Anmerkungen fiir Ungelehrte zu seiner Vbersetzung des Neuen Testaments, 4 vols., 1790-92. The Pauline Epistles are treated in vols. iii. and iv.

3 Friedrich Ernst David Schleiermacher, Vber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an Joachim Christian Gass, 1807. In his complete works this is to be found in the second volume of the first division, 1836, pp. 223-320.

8 BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

in which to set up a critical judgment-seat. Although, on the other hand, you would perhaps have been more ready then, when all seemed lost, to give up a New Testament book, than you are now." The verbal promise then given but not fulfilled is now discharged in writing.

Schleiermacher bases his argument against i Timothy upon 2 Timothy and Titus. While the same general conceptions are present in the longer letter as in the two shorter ones, they are not there found in the natural connections in which they occur in the others. It makes the impression of being a composite structure, and in its vocabulary, too, shows remarkable differences from the remaining letters taken as a whole.

Strictly speaking it was not Schleiermacher the critic, but Schleiermacher the aesthete who had come to have doubts about 2 Timothy. The letter does not suit his taste. He fails to perceive that, so far as the language goes, the two other letters diverge from the rest of the Pauline Epistles in the same way as 1 Timothy, and that they also show the same looseness and disconnectedness ; only that, in consequence of their smaller extent, it is not so striking. And, most important of all, it escapes him that as regards their ideas all three letters agree in diverging from the remainder of the Pauline Epistles.

Schleiermacher's omissions are supplied by Eichhorn in his well-known Introduction.1 He lays it down that the three Epistles are all by the same author, and are all spurious. His criticism deals first with the language and thought of the letters, which he shows to be un-Pauline ; then he argues that the implied historical situations cannot be fitted into the life of the Apostle, as known to us from the remaining letters and the Acts of the Apostles ; finally, he points to the unnaturalness of the relation

1 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das

Neue Testament, 1st ed., vol. hi., second half (1814), pp. 315-410.

Ik hlioin points out that he hud recognised the spuriousness of the

ml had expressed his conviction in his Uni-

!<• Schleiermacher published his criticisms of the

Lpibtic oi Timothy.

STUDY OF PAULINE THEOLOGY 9

between Paul and his helpers as it is represented by these Epistles.

The Apostle, he points out, gives them in writing exhortations and directions which on the assumption of a real personal acquaintance and a long period of joint work with them are in any case unnecessary, and become much more so from the fact that the letters look forward to an early meeting. From this Eichhorn concludes that " some one else has put himself in Paul's place," and he sees no possibility of the success of any attempt to defend the genuineness of the Epistles against the arguments which he has brought forward. In particular he gives a warning against the seductive attempt to save the genuineness of 2 Timothy by the assumption of a second imprisonment. No hypothesis, he declares, can in any way help the Pastorals, since they must be pronounced from internal evidence — because of their divergence from the remain- ing Epistles — not to be by the Apostle. This was a long step forward. The circle of writings which have come down under the name of Paul had undergone a restriction which made it possible to give an account of his system of thought without being obliged to find a place in it for ideas which already have a quite early-Catholic ring.

Ten years after Eichhorn's literary achievement, in the year 1824, the Swiss theologian Leonhard Usteri, a pupil of Schleiermacher's, published his " Development of the Pauline System of Doctrine," l which is generally regarded as the starting-point of the purely historical study of Paulinism, the first attempt to give effect to the demands of Semler.2

Usteri wishes to show the subjective imprint and

1 Leonhard Usteri, Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, 1824, 191 pp. The editions of 1829, 1830, and 1832 were revised by the author, who died in 1833. After his death two more appeared (1834, 1851). Reference may be made also to Usteri's " Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians," 1833, 252 pp.

2 The first work which undertook to give an account of the Apostle's system of thought as such is Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer's Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, 1801, 380 pp. The author has collected the material well, but does not know in what direction Paul's peculiarity lies.

io BEGINNINGS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

enrichment which ordinary Christianity received at the hands of the Apostle, and he sees in the Epistle to the Galatians the outline of his whole doctrine. He does not, however, venture to give full recognition to the idea of a real antithesis between the Pauline conceptions and those of the primitive Apostles, and consequently is led to soften down the peculiarities of the former so far as possible. The spirit of Schleiermacher, which tended to level down everything of a historical character, influences the book more than the author is aware.1 A peculiar interlude in the investigation of Paulinism was due to the Heidelberger H. E. G. Paulus.2 He published, in the year 1831, a study of the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, which was in reality an essay on the Apostle's system of doctrine. The work is undertaken entirely in the interests of a rationalism bent on opposing the reaction to orthodoxy.

According to the arguments of Paulus it is not the case that the letters speak of expiatory suffering and imputed righteousness. Paul cannot have upheld " legality " as against " morality " and have maintained an " unpurified conception of religion." The " chief sayings/' the characteristic terms, are to be given a purely moral interpretation. The Apostle means that " faith in Jesus " must become in us " the faith of Jesus," and the narrower conception of righteousness must be enlarged into the

1 Of the works which criticise Usteri and mark an advance in Pauline study the following may be named : —

Karl Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus ; vols, i., 1830 (264 pp.), and ii., l832 (373 PP-). deal with the life of the Apostle Paul; vol hi., 1833 (331 pp.), with the doctrine; vols, iv., 1835 (490 pp.), and v., 1836 (574 pp.), contain the exposition of the Epistles.

August Ferdinand Dahne, Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegrijfs, 1835, 211 pp.

Mention may also be made of the chapter on Paulinism in J. A. W. Neander's Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel, 1st ed., 1832 ; 2nd ed., 1st vol., 1838 (433 pp.). Paul is treated in pp. 102-433 > 4tn ed., 1847 ; 5th, 1862. As typical of the exegesis of the period prior to Baur may be mentioned the Commentaries of W. M. L. de Wette on Romans (2nd ed.), 1838; 1 and 2 CorinthiSJ GeJatUni and Thessalonians, 1841.

Mlhll, Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und Romer-Christen, 1831, 368 pp.

A SIGNIFICANT ANTITHESIS n

conception of " the righteousness of God." The " righteousness of God " betokens righteousness such as it exists in God, and is demanded by Him in man's spirit as its " true good," " the only real atonement which brings us into harmony with the Deity." Thus a proper interpretation enables us to discover in these writings " the agreement between the Gospel and a rational faith."

The book appeared two or three decades too late. The rationalism which it represents had had its day. But there is something imposing in this determined wresting of the Apostle's views. It is parallel to that which was practised by the Reformation. The latter interpreted the whole of Paulinism by the passages on the atoning death, and ignored the other thoughts in the Epistles. The Heidelberg rationalist starts from the conceptions connected with the " new creature," which were later to be described as the ethical system of the Apostle, and interprets everything else by them.

The fact that the two views — the only ones which endeavoured to grasp Paulinism as a complete, articulated system — thus stand over against each other antithetically is significant for the future. Critical study in the course of its investigations was to come to a point where it would have to recognise both views as justified, and to point out the existence in Paul of a twofold system of doctrine — a juridical system based on the idea of justification, and an ethical system dominated by the conception of sanctification — without at first being able to show how the two are interrelated and together form a unity.

II

BAUR AND HIS CRITICS

Ferdinand Christian Baur. Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde. (The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church.) Ap- peared in the Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 183 1 and 1836. t)ber Zweck u. Veranlassung des Romerbriefs (Purpose and occasion of Rom.), ib. 1836. Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe. (The so-called Pastoral Epistles.) 1835.

Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1st ed., 1845; 2nd ed., 1866-67). (Eng. Trans, by "A. P. " and A. Menzies, 1873-75.)

Beitrage zu den Briefen an die Korinther, Thessalonicher und Romer. (Contributions to the elucidation of the Epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians and Romans.) Tubinger Jakrbucher fur Theologie.

1850-57- Vorlesungen iiber neutestamentliche Theologie. 1864. (Lectures on

New-Testament Theology.) Vorlesungen iiber die christliche Dogmengeschichte. (Lectures on

the History of Dogma.) Vol. i., 1865.

Albert Schwegler. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1846. (The Post-Apostolic Age.)

Carl Wieseler. Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 1848. (The Chronology of the Apostolic Age.) On the Pauline Epp., 225-278.

Albrecht Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. (The Origin of the Early Catholic Church.) 1st ed., 1850; 2nd ed., 1857.

Gotthard Viktor Lechler. Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter. (The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.) 1852. (Eng. Trans, by A. J. K. Davidson, Edinburgh, 1886.)

Richard Adalbert Lipsius. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre. (The Pauline Doctrine of Justification.) 1853.

In the fourth number of the Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie for the year 183 1, F. C. Baur gave to the study of Paulinism a new direction, by advancing the opinion that the Apostle had developed his doctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive Christian community, and that only when this is recognised can we