But in 1873 Keim issued a book of a more popular character, and in this we find that the revision of St. Matthew is placed about 100, St. Mark about 120, St. Luke also about 100, while it is no longer referred to a companion of St. Paul. Some years later (1878) Keim's position with regard to the Gospels was again differently expressed, and he seems to be prepared to make certain con- cessions to his opponents, and to attach more weight to the two-document theory as the result of a fresh study of Papias.t But it will be noticed that Pfleiderer has nothing but praise for Keim's treatment of the Fourth Gospel, which in 1867 he places between 100 and 117, and a few years after (1873) as late as A.D. 130. It must not, however, be forgotten that, as Dr. Drummond rightly points out, Keim's position with regard to St. John's Gospel marks a very long retreat in date from the position of Baur, whilst Pfleiderer himself is the sole critic of importance who still places the Gospel in question at the extravagant date, 170, demanded by the founder of the Tiibingen school.
But with all these variations as to dates, and with the free concession of the presence of mythical elements in the accounts of the great events of our Lord's life, Keim takes up a very different position from Strauss and Baur, and at all events the early members of the Tubingen school, with regard to the importance of the Person of Jesus and of our knowledge of Him. Nowhere is this more plainly seen than in the remarkable stress which he lays upon St. Paul's references to the facts of our Lorc\'s earthly life and upon his high Cliristology. Baur and his followers had fixed men's attention upon Paul, Keim insists upon the unique and supreme importance of Jesus, and he sees in Him the Sinless One, the Son of God.
But Keim's portraiture of Jesus is marred by many incon- sistencies. Thus he is prepared to admit that the miracles of healing may have happened in response to the faith evoked by the personality of Jesus, or he is thrown back in his treatment of the miraculous upon the old rationalistic methods ; the story, e.g., of Jesus walking upon the sea had its origin in the word's, ' Ye know not at what hour of the night your Lord cometh.' In some respects it is not too much to say that even the moral sin- lessness of Jesus is endangered, if not sacrificed. Keim rejects,
* B. Weiss, op. cit. pp. 184, 187. t Sanday, art. ' Gospels ' in Smith's DB^ ii. p. 1218. VOL. L-25
it 13 true, the visionary hypothesis, but he finds no alternative except the conviction that nothing irrefutable can be known concerning the issue of the life of Jesus, an assertion equally unsatisfactory with that of Baur. He speaks sometimes of the early and Apostolic testimony rendered to the appearances of the risen Jesus, while at times he seems unable to realize the full force of this early testimony and its marked reserve. In chronology we note another instance of Keim's arbitrary ■ - he knows of no going up to Jerusalem before the
I single year.
nd the publii
nprised within
In spite of much that savours of subjectivity, Keim, however, stands out as the writer who, m the 'Life of Jesm movement,' as Nippold has called it, has hitherto treated most fully of the Gospels as authorities, with the exception, perhaps, of Weizsacker. We have seen how this need of a full treatment of the Gospels as sources had been felt since the days of Strauss' first edition of his Leben Jesu, and we shall see that this need is still further felt and emphasized.
i. VVithin a few years of the latest publication of Keim's work, two important Lives of Jesus, which are often mentioned together, issued from the press in Germany, viz. B. "ffeisB' Lebcn Jesu and Beyschlag's book bearing the same title. These books are of interest not only as important in the 'Life of Jesus movement,' but as further and valuable attempts to deal with our Gospels and their sources. Here it must be sufficient to say that they testify to the new importance which had been given to the Synoptic problem by H. Holtz- mann's book. Die SynopHschcn Evangelien, 1863.
5. Holtziuann'a book gains its value not only by its rejection of the ' tendency ' theories with regard to the composition of the Gospels, but also because, in its advocacy of the two-document hypothesis, as we now call it, it marks a new departure, and lays down a foundation for future study.* Holtz- mann's investigations had been published in the year before Strauss gave to the German people his
f)Opular Life of Jesus, in which, as we have seen, lis account of the Gospels was still based upon the Tubingen researches ; but Holtzmann's theory has a permanent interest for \is to-day, while the author's subsequent statements of his views may be found in his published commentaries. It has indeed been said of the two-document theory that it may almost be reckoned to have passed out of the rank and number of mere hypotheses ; t and at all events any account of the life and teaching of Jesus, or any investigation as to the historical character of the Gospels, will have to take note of it not only in itself, but in its many possible com- binations with other sources.