But the want of clearness is not wholly to be put down to the account of the language; it is partly due to the mental attitude of the writers. The problem really includes two questions. First, Was Paul under the influence of Jewish Hellenism? Secondly, Did Greek thought in itself, apart from the alliance into which it had entered with Judaism, exercise any influence upon his views? Instead of keeping these questions separate these writers constantly confuse them, and assume that they have proved the existence of Greek ideas in the [pg 065] Apostle’s system of doctrine when they have only discussed his relations with Jewish-Hellenism. Sometimes one actually gets the impression that in this difficult question they intentionally make their discussions a little obscure and inconsistent, and are more concerned to conceal than to reveal their views, in order not to lay themselves open to attack. The discovery and the grouping of their opinions is therefore associated with difficulties, and can never be carried out in a way entirely free from objection. Fortunately the discussion and decision of the question does not depend on drawing them up in three divisions, each under the banner of its particular view, and so putting them through their facings. It suffices to note the fact that in the study of the subject from Baur onward the greatly predominating opinion is that Paul was not only influenced by Jewish Hellenism but also derived some of his ideas directly from Greek thought. It is also safe to assert that of all the writers in question—even though some of them take up an attitude of reserve to Pfleiderer’s more thoroughgoing views, none of them denies the influence of Jewish Hellenism on Paul. The difference between them consists rather in the fact that some assume in addition to this what may be called “free” Greek influence, while others are sceptical on this point and think that the facts can be explained without this assumption. It is to be expressly remarked that the latter do not try to arrive at an understanding of the essence of Paul’s thought by a different method, but only to clothe the usual explanations in different words. This is the case with Weizsäcker. The well-known account of Paulinism in his “Apostolic Age”_(_58_)_ neither offers any new idea nor raises any new problem. Though he is in some respects more cautious than Pfleiderer, because he feels the difficulty of proving Greek influence more strongly than the latter, in other [pg 066] respects he is less exacting than Pfleiderer with his logical development of Baur’s ideas, since he is content with explanations which do not satisfy Pfleiderer. That Bernard Weiss in dealing with Pauline theology dispenses with the assumption of Greek influence is due to the fact that his investigation holds strictly to the lines of “Biblical theology,” and on principle takes no account of anything beyond the borders of the Canon.