99 The puzzle in the case of Justin is that he uses Pauline phrases, and therefore seems to know the Epistles, but never mentions their author. According to Steck the explanation of this silence lies in the fact that the Epistles are, for the author of the _Apology_ and the _Dialogue,_ mere literary works and not as yet Church books. The _Didache,_ the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the _Epistle of Barnabas_ show no certain evidence of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles. 100 _Tertullian adversus Marcionem,_ bk. v., goes through the Epistles of Paul as used by Marcion in those “Antitheses” which are now lost to us. 101 _Theologisch Tijdschrift,_ 1887, pp. 382-533. “Marcions Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiërs.” The text thus arrived at is given on pp. 528-533. Van Manen is also inclined to hold that early Church witnesses may be found for a shorter recension of Romans. See _Die Unechtheit des Römerbriefs,_ 94-100. A reconstruction of the Marcionite text of Galatians had already been undertaken by Adolf Hilgenfeld, _Der Galaterbrief,_ 1852, 239 pp., pp. 218-234. He holds that it was not the original but a mutilated form. 102 Even the letter consisting of chapters i.-viii. is not, according to van Manen, all of a piece, as is evident, he thinks, from the complicated opening salutation, the vacillating use of “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus,” and other peculiarities of detail. One or more treatises—on justification by faith, on the equal importance of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles, on the significance of the law, on the sense in which believers are entitled to call Abraham their father even if they are not by birth of his posterity—may have formed the basis of the longer writing. Its close was probably formed by Rom. xv. 14-33. Later on, the essays which we have in chapters ix.-xi., xii.-xiv. and xv.-xvi. were worked in. The Epistle is supposed to have undergone several successive redactions. 103 Steck in the introduction to his work gives references to the articles which had appeared up to 1888. The chronicles of the following years appear in van Manen. At the head of the counter-movement among critics in Holland stood J. H. Scholten. His work, _Historisch-critische Bijdragen naar Aanleiding van de nieuweste Hypothese aangaande Jesus en den Paulus der vier Hoofdbrieven_ (“Contributions to Historical Criticism with Reference to the latest Hypotheses regarding Jesus and the Paul of the four main Epistles”), 1882, 118 pp., is directed against Loman’s arguments.