True to the Baur and post-Baur tradition, Holtzmann postpones the chapter on eschatology to the end. That this arrangement does not contribute to a satisfactory treatment of the ethics is not surprising. The eschatological roots of the conception of predestination discussed in this chapter, or of the designation of believers as “saints” are hardly visible. That the most general ethical maxims of the Apostle are conditioned by the expectation of the nearness of the parousia, and that the ethical implications of the mystical dying and rising again with Christ have also in the last resort an eschatological orientation, is never fairly recognised. Holtzmann finds himself, therefore, rather helpless when he has to deal with points in which the eschatological character of Paul’s ethic comes most clearly to light. In the directions given in I Corinthians vii. about married and unmarried persons, about marrying or remaining single, he finds a certain “hesitation.” In a quite general way, he is willing to assume that “the so closely bounded view of the future explains why in this and other departments there was no complete development of the ethics.” This halting estimate of the ethical significance of eschatology shows that Holtzmann regards the Pauline ethical teaching from the modern point of view. He is bound to take this course with regard to eschatology because he agrees with Pfleiderer and the rest in admitting a comprehensive influence of Greek ideas upon Paul, and is well aware that a man cannot serve two masters. Even in the Apostle’s doctrine of man he finds a Hellenistic factor alongside of the Jewish, and asserts that the “emphasis rests on the former.” Wherever reference is made to the antithesis of flesh and spirit [pg 110] he thinks that the influence of the Greek element is manifest. By regarding sin as implicate in the empirical nature of man “Paul abandons in principle the ultimate basis of the Jewish philosophy and ethic.” Greek, or to speak more precisely, Alexandrian, is the metaphysical background of his conception of Christ. According to Holtzmann, Paul never really goes back expressly to Daniel or the Apocalyptic Messiah. His own special view grew up, Holtzmann thinks, out of speculations allied to those of Philo about the two accounts of the creation and the heavenly and earthly Adam. The primary point for him is “the metaphysical hypothesis of the two classes of mankind” which stand opposed to each other as the “psychic” and the “pneumatic” creation.