_William Wrede._ Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie. (1897.) (On the Task and the Method of the so-called New Testament Theology.) HOLTZMANN’S “New Testament Theology” was eagerly awaited on all sides. It was hoped that it would bring about a clearing of ideas such as had been produced in regard to questions of criticism by his “Introduction.” In the new work the author follows the method which seemed to him to have proved its usefulness in the former work. He lets every writer who has dealt with the subject have his say at the appropriate place, even though he runs the risk of not making his own opinion distinctly heard amid the strife of tongues._(_84_)_ While in the “Introduction” the advantages of the method predominate, in the “Theology” its disadvantages are conspicuous. The former work dealt with a series of questions which are already formulated and can be answered with a clear yes or no. There is therefore some sense in taking the suffrages of the writers, living and dead. It leads up to a verdict which in a certain sense [pg 101] may be given forth as the objective result of the period under survey. But when it is a question of the content of thought in the New Testament writings, the questions are not so clearly formulated. The continual hearing of opinions has not the same usefulness. On the contrary, the account of the subject becomes thereby only the more complicated and confused. Here the result of Holtzmann’s threading his own view through those of others is that neither the one nor the other stands out with any clearness. Undoubtedly, he knows the literature as no one else does, and has absorbed into his own mind and worked up all that it has to offer. But a clear view of the state of opinion is what he does not in the end succeed in conveying, since he intentionally omits to give a sketch and criticism of the works cited and contents himself with quoting passages from them. This unfortunate atomistic method does not even allow the individual problems to appear as clearly as would be desirable. In the post-Baur study of Paulinism, various questions had come up one after another which, taken together, form its fundamental problem. The most natural procedure for one who intended to make critical use of the work already done would have been to sketch these in their full extent and then formulate them more exactly and exhibit their inner connexions. But that is not the kind of treatment which Holtzmann aims at. He has the feeling that this is no longer necessary, and agrees with contemporary scholars in thinking that assured results have been attained in sufficient number to admit of a simple positive account of the system. In accordance with this view he feels it to be his duty to act as a critical camera, focussing the views on his lens and combining them into a picture.