From this exceedingly complicated controversy one thing results with certainty, namely, that the problem, in the form in which it is stated, is an unreal one. The statement of the problem which is here presupposed leaves out of account the middle term, primitive Christianity. The credit of having expressed this clearly, and thus put an end to the unprofitable wrangling about “Jesus and Paul” and “Jesus or Paul,” belongs to Harnack._(_124_)_ If, he writes in the 1909 edition of his “History of Dogma,” even in the first generation the religion of Jesus underwent a change, it must be said that it was not Paul who was responsible for this but the primitive Christian community. He is not, however, able to explain why the Apostle of the Gentiles goes still further than the primitive community. The question of the peculiarly inconsistent attitude of the Apostle towards the law is not elucidated by Titius and Feine. The ethics are treated in monographs by Jakoby and Juncker._(_125_)_ The former gives a detailed description. [pg 161] The latter tries to discover the fundamental principle, and naturally finds himself obliged to deal with the whole doctrine of redemption. In the method which he applies he recalls Titius. With historical insight he recognises, in his fine chapter upon the origin of the new life, that all the ethical conceptions of Paul are in one way or another of an eschatological and “physical” character. Later on he falls a victim to the temptation to modernise. Thus he tries, for instance, to show that Paul did not think of the influence of the Spirit in man as analogous to a physical process, but, on the contrary, “regarded the feeling of thankful love towards God and Christ as the subjective root of the new way of life.” So that we find here, too, the dread of recognising anything objective in the Apostle’s views and the tendency, not indeed to fall into the “one-sidedly intellectual view,” but to bring into the foreground the “specifically religious estimate of the Apostle’s person and gospel.” It is no accident that the scholars of this period are so anxious to distinguish between theology and religion. This expedient covers dismay and apprehension. Meanwhile the study of Late Judaism had been going its own way. The further it advanced the more evident it became that this was the soil on which the theology of Paul had grown up. Holtzmann’s New Testament Theology had not availed to render theological science proof against the assaults which it was to experience in the next few years from this direction. The impression was too strong to be escaped. And when the results [pg 162] of the study were presented, with a certain provisional completeness, in Bousset’s powerful book on “Jewish Religious Life in New Testament Times,” it became certain that the apprehension had not been unfounded._(_126_)_