In regard to the question of the relation of Paul to Jesus, Wrede holds that they lived in two wholly different worlds of thought. This is connected with his view that the Galilaean Master made no claim to the Messiahship, but was first raised to Messianic dignity after His death, and that this claim was then projected back into the Gospels in the form that Jesus had made His rank known to His disciples only, and had enjoined upon them to keep silence until after His death._(_136_)_ His preaching was, above all things, ethical. So far as concerns eschatology and the meaning to be attached to His death, the Apostle of the Gentiles received no impulse of a theological character from Him. Paul, therefore, created something essentially new, which has, one might almost say, nothing to do with the thought of Jesus, and also goes far beyond the conceptions of primitive Christianity._(_137_)_ Thus for Wrede, as for Holsten and Holtzmann, the doctrine of Paul is an isolated entity without connexion in the past or influence upon the future. And he, too, finds himself unable to explain why the system thus remained without influence. That the “controversial theology,” with its insistence on the atoning death, lost its significance when the question of the law ceased to be actual may appear plausible. But why did the mystical doctrine of redemption get pushed aside instead of being further developed? Its presuppositions—if Wrede’s account of [pg 171] matters is correct—could hardly have been much altered in the next generation. A valuable supplement in many respects to Wrede’s views is offered by Martin Brückner’s study of the origin of the Pauline Christology._(_138_)_ The author offers a detailed proof that the Pauline Christology arose by the insertion of the earthly episode of the incarnation, dying and rising again into the already present conception of a pre-existent heavenly Personality._(_139_)_ Incidentally he gives an admirably clear account of the Jewish eschatology and its formation._(_140_)_ He shows that the Jewish eschatology itself, in the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, distinguished between the temporally limited Messianic Kingdom and the subsequent complete renewal of the world, and that, in conformity with this, two resurrections have to be recognised. One, in which only a limited number have a part, takes place at the appearance of the Messiah; the other, the general resurrection, only follows at the end of the intervening Kingdom. The scene of the latter was pictured, he thinks, by Paul, as by his Jewish predecessors, as the land of Palestine, with the New Jerusalem as its centre.