133 In the sense of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR. 134 How far Wrede was consciously influenced by Kabisch, and how far he has the sense of creating something new, is not quite evident. He reckons the book among the “very important studies on special points,” to which he refers in the bibliography, but he does not quote it. 135 C. von Dobschütz, _Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters_ (“Problems of the Apostolic Age,” 1904, 138 pp.), does not enter in detail into the question regarding the genesis of the Pauline view of the law, although he treats Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity with some fulness. 136 See the present writer’s _Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (1906, 418 pp.). On Wrede, pp. 327-347. (English translation, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” A. and C. Black, London, 2nd ed., 1911. On Wrede, pp. 328-348.) 137 This thesis of Wrede’s called into being a new literature upon Paul and Jesus which attacked Wrede chiefly on the score of his one-sidedness. P. Kölbing, _Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,_ 1906 (“The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul”). Adolf Jülicher, _Paulus und Jesus,_ 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer, _Wer hat das Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus?_ 1907, 104 pp. (“Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?”) Wilhelm Walther, _Pauli Christentum, Jesu Evangelium,_ 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, _Paulus und Jesus,_ 1909, 72 pp. _Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas,_ 1909, 88 pp. (“Christ: The Beginnings of Dogma”). 138 Martin Brückner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,_ 1903, 237 pp. The work appeared some months before Wrede’s _Paulus,_ but the author, who had the opportunity of personal intercourse and the interchange of ideas with him, was acquainted with his method and fundamental views. As he is also an independent thinker, his work represents not only a supplement but a real advance. 139 Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR. 140 William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Brückner in his thoughtful but obscure and heavily written dissertation, _Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie_ (1909, 170 pp.) (“The Roots of the Pauline Eschatology”). He thinks that the origin of Christianity which they suggest does not explain the “characteristic and peculiar connexion of Christology with Pneumatology,” and insists that in the Damascus vision is to be found the sufficient reason for “the intimately organic fusion” of the conception of Christ with that of the Spirit which operates through Him. In any case he holds it to be “false in principle and method to try to derive the roots of the Pauline Christology from the Jewish Apocalyptic Christology.”