the age and character of the fourth gospel, the genuineness of
the Pauline epistles, even the mutual relations of the three
synoptics, were still undetermined; and, as a natural. result of
this uncertainty, the progress of dogma during the first century
was ill understood. At the present day it is impossible to read
the early work of Strauss without being impressed with the
necessity of obtaining positive data as to the origin and
dogmatic character of the New Testament writings, before
attempting to reach any conclusions as to the probable career of
Jesus. These positive data we owe to the genius and diligence of
the Tubingen School, and, above all, to its founder, Ferdinand
Christian Baur. Beginning with the epistles of Paul, of which he
distinguished four as genuine, Baur gradually worked his way
through the entire New Testament collection, detecting--with that
inspired insight which only unflinching diligence can impart to
original genius--the age at which each book was written, and the
circumstances which called it forth. To give any account of
Baur's detailed conclusions, or of the method by which he reached
them, would require a volume. They are very scantily presented in
Mr. Mackay's work on the "Tubingen School and its Antecedents,"
to which we may refer the reader desirous of further information.
We can here merely say that twenty years of energetic controversy
have only served to establish most of Baur's leading conclusions
more firmly than ever. The priority of the so-called gospel of
Matthew, the Pauline purpose of "Luke," the second in date of our
gospels, the derivative and second-hand character of "Mark," and
the unapostolic origin of the fourth gospel, are points which may
for the future be regarded as wellnigh established by
circumstantial evidence. So with respect to the pseudo-Pauline
epistles, Baur's work was done so thoroughly that the only