"I considered it a patriotic duty," wrote General Keim, "in my quality of president of the German League for Defence, to demand an increase of effectives such that France should find it out of the question to dream of a victorious war against us, even with the help of other nations."

Dr. Keim indeed would throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is decided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too late.

The subject has quite recently been treated in a monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions.

The subject has quite recently been treated in a monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions.

Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor Philip about A.D. 248.

At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks the question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean?

All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks may be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to Lucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that Lucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a bigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and narrow sense an Epicurean.

When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there are, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption.

The Celsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and Dr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal evidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178 A.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Such is Dr. Keim's view.

Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedländer fix upon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the second half, of the second century; while the following writers assume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially with Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutionsSpencer, Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch, Hase, Redepenning, Zeller.

The only two writers mentioned by Dr. Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who strangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur'

And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and that they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim.

Dr. Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean authorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he seems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is opposed.

'The Epistle of Barnabas,' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the lucid demonstration of Volkmarin spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizäcker, and now also of Riggenbachwas undoubtedly written at the time of the rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the year 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at latest 130.' It is not to be expected that this full and able statement should carry conviction to every reader.

The opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not sufficiently clear to be pressed controversially.

Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott [Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the Gospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied upon.

In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again emphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2].

And Dr. Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justin has merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the two phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question.

Dr. Keim thinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary

Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel.

Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should be perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of.

[263:1] Keim, Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 262.

KEIM, THEODOR, a German theologian, born at Stuttgart, professor at Zurich and afterwards at Giessen; his great work, to which others were preliminary, was his "History of Jesu of Nazara," in which he presents the person of Christ Himself as the one miracle in the story and that eclipses every other in it, and makes them of no account comparatively (1823-1878).