[13] [Matt. xxviii. 10]; [Mark xiii. 33] sqq.; [John xx. 17]. [↑]
[14] In the opinion of the Dutch school of theologians, whom Schläger follows in his essay, “Das Wort kürios (Herr) in Seiner Bezichung auf Gott oder Jesus Christus” (“Theol. Tijdschrift,” 33, 1899, Part I.), this mention of the “Brother of the Lord” does not come from Paul; as according to Schläger, all the passages in 1 Cor., which speak of Jesus under the title “Kurios,” are interpolated. “Missionary travels of Brothers of Jesus are unknown to us from any other quarter, and are also in themselves improbable” (op. cit., 46; cf. also Steck, op. cit., 272 sq.). [↑]
[15] Similarly Origen, “Contra Celsum,” i. 35; cf. Smith, op. cit., 18 sq. [↑]
[16] Cf. as to this Sieffert in “Realenzyklop. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche” under “James.” In Ezr. ii. 2 and 9 there is also mention of “Brothers” of the High Priest Joshua, by which only the priests subordinate to him seem to be meant; and in Justin (“Dial c. Tryph.,” 106) the apostles are collectively spoken of as “Brothers of Jesus.” Similarly in [Rev. xii. 17], those “who keep the word of God and bear testimony to Jesus Christ” are spoken of as children of the heavenly woman and also as Brothers and Sisters of the Divine Redeemer, whom the dragon attempts to swallow up together with his mother. As Revelation owes its origin to a pre-Christian Jesus-cult, the designation of pious brothers of a community as physical brothers of Jesus seems also to have been customary in that cult, antecedent to the Pauline epistles and the Gospels. [↑]
[17] This is actually the view of the Dutch school of theologians. [↑]
[18] A. Kalthoff, “Was wissen wir von Jesus? Eine Abrechnung mit Prof. D. Bousset,” 1904, 17. [↑]
[22] Cf. Brandt, “Die evangel. Geschichte u. d. Ursprung d. Christentums,” 1893, 296. Schläger also agrees with the Dutch school, and produces telling arguments in favour of the view that [1 Cor. xi. 23–32] is an interpolation. “In our opinion,” he says, “the opening words, ‘For I received of the Lord,’ betray the same attempt as can be seen in vii. 10 and ix. 14—and probably the attempt of one and the same interpolator—to trace back Church institutions and regulations to the authority of the Lord, of the Kurios. In the three cases in which the latter is mentioned he is called ‘the Lord,’ which is a fact well worthy of consideration in view of the usual designation.” Schläger also shows that verse 32 is a very appropriate conclusion to verse 22; while as they stand now the logical connection is broken in a forcible manner by the interpolation of the account of the Last Supper. Another proof of the interpolation of 23–32 is to be found, Schläger thinks, in the fact that in verse 33 as in verse 22 the Corinthians are addressed in the second person, while in verses 31 and 32 the first person plural is used (op. cit., 41 sq.). In view of these notorious facts we can hardly understand how German theologians can with such decision adhere to the authenticity of the passage, reproaching those who contest it with “faults in method.” As against this view of theirs Schläger justly objects that “References to words and events from the life of Jesus are so isolated in the Pauline writings that we are entitled to and forced to raise the question as to each such reference, whether it is not the reflection of a later age, of an age which already placed confidence in the Gospel literature, that brought Jesus’ authority into the text” (Schläger, op. cit., 36). And the critical theologians are convinced that the writings of the New Testament are worked over to a great extent, rectified to accord with the Church, and in many places interpolated. But when some one else brings this to publicity, and dares to doubt the authenticity of a passage, they immediately raise a great outcry, and accuse him of wilfully misrepresenting the text; as if there were even one single such passage on which the views of critics are not divergent! [↑]