of Jesus is, he thinks, to be found in the fact that for Him this Kingdom of God was only a "limiting conception"-the ultimate goal of a gradual process of approximation. "To the question whether it was to be realised here or in the beyond Jesus would have answered, as He answered a similar question, 'That, no man knoweth; no, not the Son.'"
As if He had not answered that question in the petition "Thy Kingdom come"-supposing that such a question could ever have occurred to a contemporary-in the sense that the Kingdom was to pass from the beyond into the present!
This modern historical theology will not allow Jesus to have formed a "theory" to explain His thoughts about His passion. "For Him the certainty was amply sufficient; 'My death will effect what My life has not been able to accomplish.'"
Is there then no theory implied in the saying about the "ransom for many," and in that about "My blood which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins," although Jesus does not explain it? How does von Soden know what was "amply sufficient" for Jesus or what was not?
Otto Schmiedel goes so far as to deny that Jesus gave distinct ex- pression to an expectation of suffering; the most He can have done-and this is only a "perhaps"-is to have hinted at it in His discourses.
In strong contrast with this confidence in committing themselves to historical conjectures stands the scepticism with which von Soden and Schmiedel approach the Gospels. "It is at once evident," says Schmiedel "that the great groups of discourses in Matthew, such as the Sermon the Mount, the Seven Parables of the Kingdom, and so forth, were not arranged in this order in the source (the Logia), still less by Jesus Himself. The order is, doubtless, due to the Evangelist. But what is the answer the question, "On what grounds is this 'at once' clear?" [1]
Von Soden's pronouncement is even more radical. "In the composition of the discourses," he says, "no regard is paid in Matthew, any more than in John, to the supposed audience, or to the point of time in the life of Jesus to which they are attributed." As early as the Sermon on the Mount we find references to persecutions, and warnings against false prophets. Similarly, in the charge to the Twelve, there are also warnings, which undoubtedly
- ↑ Schmiedel is not altogether right in making "the Heidelberg Professor Paulus" follow the same lines as Reimarus, "except that his works, of 1804 and 1828, are less malignant, but only the more dull for that." In reality the deistic Life of Jesus by Reimarus, and the rationalistic Life by Paulus have nothing in common. Paulus was perhaps influenced by Venturini, but not by Reimarus. The assertion that Strauss wrote his "Life of Jesus for the German people" because "Renan's fame gave him no peace" is not justified, either by Strauss's character or by the circumstances in which the second Life of Jesus was produced.
