If one insists upon speaking of a successful period, it is the _second_ that must be so denominated. For wherever Jesus appears in public after the return of the Twelve he is accompanied by a devoted multitude—in Galilee, from the Jordan to Jerusalem, and in the capital itself. The surly Jewish populace is an invention of the Fourth Evangelist. Then, too, the illegality of his secret arrest and hasty conviction shows what the Council feared from the popular favour in behalf of Jesus. That was the only “ill[ ]success” of [pg 069] the second period. It was indeed a fatal one. The first and successful Galilean period is therefore in reality a time of humiliation and ill[ ]success. There is a double reason for regarding it nevertheless as a “happy” time. In the first place there is an æsthetic element in it, which Keim in particular strongly emphasises. A series of parables drawn from nature, as well as the wonderful speech against worldly care (Mt 6:25-34), seem hardly intelligible except as the reflection of a glad and cheerful sense for the beauty of nature. With this is associated, in the second place, an _historical postulate._ In the first period no trace is discoverable of the idea of the Passion: the second is dominated by it. Hence the first was successful, the second unsuccessful,—for otherwise there is no way of accounting, psychologically or historically, for the change. The historical facts speak differently. In the real period of ill[ ]success the resolution to suffer did not come to light. In the successful second period, on the other hand, Jesus disclosed to his Disciples that he must be put to death by the scribes. Thus the relation was the reverse. Herewith modern-historical psychology finds itself before an enigma. [pg 070] 4. The Influence of the Pauline Theory of the Atonement upon the Formulation of the Synoptical Prediction of the Passion. (Second Assumption.) No proof can be brought to support the contention that the Passion passages in the Synoptic Gospels are influenced by Pauline conceptions. Here again we have a sort of postulate. For if the juridical character of Mk 10:45 and Mk 14:24 cannot be set down to the account of the Pauline medium, one must assume that Jesus’ own notion of the Passion contained this bold conception of atonement. The modern-historical solution, however, is not adapted to that alternative.