According to the other party, the Hellenisation came about in the course of a long development. But they cannot explain why Paulinism shows an entirely different character from that of the Greek Christianity which appears elsewhere in the literature of the second century. They assert that it belongs to Gnosticism; and are right in this so far as regards the form of the system. On the other hand they cannot allow themselves to consider seriously the difference between the doctrine of the letters and the fundamental views of the known Gnostic schools, or the hypothesis flies in pieces. The Gnostics were real spiritualists, opposed to eschatology, and denying a corporeal resurrection; Paul is an eschatologist, looking for the parousia and the transformation of the body. Therefore the “Ultra-Tübingen” critics must either explain the Jewish eschatological element in the system in such a way as to spiritualise it, or else drop it out of sight. And as a matter of fact the ominous word eschatology is, one might almost say, never mentioned in their works. [pg 140] The parallel between what the one and the other construction can and cannot make intelligible goes through to the last detail. For both it is true that the ostensible solution in each case introduces openly or otherwise a new problem which arises out of the solution itself. The sum of what is explained and unexplained is the same for both. At first sight the position of the legitimate successors of the Tübingen school is more favourable than that of the other party. They have tradition and natural impression on their side, and are able to regard the situation implied in the Epistles as historic, whereas their opponents are bound to show that it is fictitious. When subjected to critical examination, however, they are no better off, for they cannot give any proof that the main epistles can belong to primitive Christianity and to it only. When they declared again and again that the attacks of the radicals had served a useful purpose in inciting them to examine anew their results, and to make corrections where necessary, that was the mere cant of criticism. If they had dared to make an effort to understand the objection which Loman, Steck, and van Manen constantly repeated, and to consider whether they could really prove the Pauline origin of the main epistles, or whether they did not really by their conception of the doctrine make it improbable, they would have been bound to perceive that nothing could be done by revising and correcting; it was a case of mutually exclusive alternatives. As matters stood, they had to choose between being consistent but irrational, or rational but inconsistent. They chose the latter form of the dilemma and left the other to the radicals.