C. Baur's method.
Ann., 1880, 11, 399) that in weak fields the relation of the magnetization I to the magnetizing force H is approximately expressed by an equation of the form I =aH +bH2, or K=I/H =a+bH, whence it appears that within the limits of Baur's experiments the magnetization curve is a parabola, and the susceptibility curve an inclined straight line, x being therefore a known function of H.
"Fond of emphasizing his independence of Baur, he still, in all important points, followed in the footsteps of his master; his method, which he is wont to contrast as Literarkritik with Baur's Tendenzkritik, is nevertheless essentially the same as Baur's" (Otto Pfleiderer).
Holsten was an adherent of the Tubingen school, and held to Baur's views on the alleged antagonism between Petrinism and Paulinism.
Baur's whole theory indeed starts with the supposition that Christianity was gradually developed out of Judaism.
The value of these works is impaired somewhat by Baur's habit of making the history of dogma conform to the formulae of Hegel's philosophy, a procedure "which only served to obscure the truth and profundity of his conception of history as a true development of the human mind" (Pfleiderer).
Baur's lectures on the history of dogma, Ausfiihrlichere Vorlesungen fiber die christliche Dogmengeschichte, were published later by his son (1865-1868).
Baur's views were revolutionary and often extreme; but, whatever may be thought of them, it is admitted that as a critic he rendered a great service to theological science.
C. Baur's labours, and a complete list of his writings will be found in the article in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopddie, in which his work is divided into three periods: (1) "Philosophy of Religion," (2) "Biblical criticism," (3) "Church History."
Besides the books mentioned under Mysticism, and those referred to under individual authors, Baur's Die christliche Gnosis in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1835) and Hamberger, Stimmen aus dem Heiligthum der christlichen Mystik and Theosophie (1857), may be mentioned.
Lipsius (2nd ed., Hand.-Commentar, 1892), and Zockler (2nd ed., 1894) may still be consulted with advantage, while Hilgenfeld's commentary (1852) discusses acutely the historical problems of the epistle from the standpoint of Baur's criticism.