[320] Gunkel also takes the view "that before Jesus there was a belief in Christ's death and resurrection current in Jewish syncretic circles (op. cit., 82). Now we have already seen (p. 57) that the term "Christ" is of very similar significance to "Jesus." So that it is not at all necessary to believe, as Gunkel asserted in the Darmstadt discussion, that Paul in speaking of "Jesus" testifies to an historical figure, because Jesus is the name of a person. "Jesus Christ" is simply a double expression for one and the same idea--that is, for the idea of the Messiah, Saviour, Physician, and Redeemer; and it is not at all improbable, as Smith supposes, that the contradictions in the conception of the Messiah in two different sects or spheres of thought found their settlement in the juxtaposition of the two names. [321] "Not the teacher, not the miracle-worker, not the friend of the publicans and sinners, not the opponent of the Pharisees, is of importance for Paul. It is the crucified and risen Son of God alone" (Wernle, op. cit., 5). [322] "Indeed, the historical Jesus in the sense of the Ritschlian school would have been for Paul an absurdity. The Pauline theology has to do rather with the experiences of a heavenly being, which have, and will yet have, extraordinary significance for humanity" (M. Brückner, "Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie," 1903, 12). Brückner also considers it settled "that Jesus' life on earth had no interest at all for Paul" (op. cit., 46). "Paul did not trouble himself about Jesus' life on earth, and what he may here and there have learnt concerning it, with few exceptions, remained indifferent to him" (42). Brückner also shows that the passages which are cited to contradict this prove nothing as to Paul's more detailed acquaintance with Jesus' life on earth (41 sqq.). He claims "to have given the historical demonstration" in his work "that the Christian religion is at bottom independent of 'uncertain historical truths'" (Preface). And in spite of this he cannot as a theologian free himself from the conception of an historical Jesus even with regard to Paul, though he is, nevertheless, not in a position to show where and to what extent the historical Jesus had a really decided influence over Paul. [323] Movers, op. cit., 438 sqq.; Fraser, "Adonis, Attis, Osiris," 42, 43, 47, 60, 79 sq. [324] Cumont, "Textes et monuments," &c., i. 240; Pfleiderer, "Urchristentum," i. 29 sqq. [325] 1 Cor. x. 16. [326] Pfleiderer, op. cit., 45. [327] xi. 19 sqq. [328] Smith, op. cit., 21 sq. [329] Cf. Zimmern, "Zum Streit um die Christusmythe," 23.