The problem of the relation of Paul to Jesus stands for Titius and Feine as the foreground of the interest. Both hold the view that the connexion is a much closer one than criticism had hitherto been prepared to admit. The indifference which the Apostle professes regarding “Christ after the flesh” is not to be understood in the sense that he had no concern with His teaching. In his detailed monograph Feine endeavours to prove that Paul shows himself familiar with the words and thoughts of the historic Jesus, and in his eschatology, doctrine of redemption, ethics, attitude towards the law, and conception of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, only carries to a further [pg 159] point of development what is already present or fore-shadowed in the teaching of Jesus. Titius set himself the same task, and believes himself to have proved “to how great an extent the Apostle bases his views on the thoughts of Jesus, attaches himself to them, and further develops them.”_(_122_)_ This result is opposed by Maurice Goguel,_(_123_)_ who offers a thoroughgoing defence of the usual view. He is prepared to admit that Paul knew more of the life and teaching of Jesus than his Epistles show; but a fundamental difference in doctrine is, he thinks, not to be denied, and he finds that it consists in the fact that the one preaches “salvation,” the other the way of obtaining it. In his utterances about redemption through the death and resurrection of Christ, the parousia, Christology, Church and sacraments, Paul expresses, according to Goguel, views which go much beyond the horizon of the historical Jesus. A point of contact is only to be found in the simple ethical teaching. In reference to the law, Jesus prepared the way for what the Apostle of the Gentiles accomplished, without fully measuring the far-reaching consequences of his attitude. The problem which theology since the time of Baur had always avoided now therefore came at last to discussion. Goguel’s essay did not indeed greatly elucidate the matter. That the thesis of Feine and Titius goes far beyond what the material warrants was not difficult to prove. On the other hand, it had, in justice, to be conceded to them that they had shown that there was [pg 160] something in common between the fundamental conceptions of Jesus and Paul on which sufficient stress had not previously been laid. Goguel’s sharp antitheses are at first sight more convincing than the somewhat involved argument of Feine, because he has the direct evidence of the text on his side. The difficulty, however, immediately makes itself felt when he endeavours to make it intelligible exactly why Paul was forced to create new conceptions. He cannot point to any objective factors to account for this development, and is consequently reduced to explaining everything psychologically.