[23] The laity has, as is well known, but a slight suspicion of this. So S. E. Verus’ “Vergleichende Übersicht der vier Evangelien” (1897), with the commentary, is to be recommended. [↑]
[27] “Jesus u. d. neutestamentl. Schriftsteller,” ii. 43. Let us take the final paragraph in E. Petersen’s “Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes,” which reaches the zenith in proving the mythical nature of the evangelical account of the Saviour’s birth: “If, not because we wish it, but because we are forced to do so by the necessity of History, we remove the sentence, ‘Conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary’—Jesus nevertheless remains the ‘Son of God.’ He remains such because he experienced God as his father, and because he stands at God’s side for us. Also, in spite of our setting aside the miraculous birth as unhistorical, we are quite justified in declaring ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’” M. Brückner speaks similarly at the close of his otherwise excellent work. “Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland.” For the person to whom such phraseology is not—futile, there is no help. [↑]
[28] Cf. “Jesus Christus,” a course of lectures delivered at the University of Freiburg i. B., 1908. [↑]
[29] Schäfer, “Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik,” 1908, 123. The story of the Church’s development in the first century is a story of shameless literary falsifications, of rough violence in matters of faith, of unlimited trial of the credence of the masses. So that for those who know history the iteration of the “credibility” of the Christian writers of the age raises at most but an ironical smile. Cf. Robertson, “History of Christianity,” 1910. [↑]
[30] Cf. Hochart, “Études au sujet de la persécution des Chrétiens sous Néron,” 1885, cp. 4. [↑]
[31] A. Kalthoff, “Das Christusproblem, Grundzüge zu einer Sozialtheologie,” 1902, 14 sq. [↑]
[32] Kalthoff, “Die Entstehung des Christentums: Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem,” 1904, 8. [↑]