The “human” element in the secret of the Passion [240] 7. The idea of the Passion in the primitive Church. The shifting of the perspective [242] CHAPTER X Summary of the Life of Jesus [253] Postscript [274] THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD [pg 017] AN INTRODUCTION BY THE TRANSLATOR 1. An Account of Schweitzer’s Work and Its Reception. THE work which is here translated was published in 1901 as the _second_ part of a treatise entitled _Das Abendmahl._ The full title reads: _The Lord’s Supper in connection with the Life of Jesus and the History of Early Christianity._ This second part was issued separately and bore also the following sub-title: _Das Messianitäts und Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu._ It implies no disparagement of Schweitzer’s novel and important study of the Lord’s Supper that this second part is here separated from the first and published by itself in English. This part is really independent. It has moreover a much broader scope and appeals to a far wider interest than does the treatise as a whole. There is reason to fear that, appearing as a part of a study of the Lord’s Supper and under that title, it might be ignored by many of the persons who most would desire to read it. The scant [pg 018] attention accorded at first to Schweitzer’s work in Germany may be ascribed in part to that very cause, and there appears to be no other reason to account for the fact that the “Sketch” has not yet been publicly noticed in England or America, so far as the translator is aware. It will not be denied, even by those who are least inclined to agree with the views of the Author, that this first work of the young Strassburg student did not deserve the oblivion which seemed to threaten it for some years after its appearance. It is manifest now that Schweitzer’s theory, to say the least of it, must be _reckoned_ with by every one who would seriously study the Gospels or the Life of Jesus. Obviously it was not the weakness of the book, but rather its strong originality, and in particular the trenchant way in which it demolished the “liberal life of Jesus,” which accounts for the passive hostility with which it was greeted. In fact it contained more than could be readily digested at once either by a liberal or a conservative mind. Most of the New Testament students in Germany had collaborated in the fabrication of the “liberal life of Jesus” and they could not patiently endure to see their work destroyed. Those among us who fancy that German [pg 019] professors are bloodless beings who live in an atmosphere purified of passion and prejudice, need to be informed that on the contrary they are human, all too human. The animosities of party and school and the jealousies of the cathedra have been proverbial for generations. The reception accorded to Schweitzer’s work does not seem creditable. It was met by something like a conspiracy of silence.