_J. M. S. Baljon._ Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling over den Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiërs. (Exegetic and Critical Essay on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.) 1889. [pg 118] _Wilhelm Brückner._ Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind. (The Chronological Order in which the Epistles of the New Testament were written.) 1890. _Carl Clemen._ Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe. 1893. Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe. (The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles.) 1894. Paulus, 2 vols., 1904. _Christian Hermann Weisse._ Philosophische Dogmatik (3 vols., 1855; 1860; 1862). Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. (Contributions to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Brought out by Sulze in 1867. _J. M. S. Baljon._ De Text der Breven van Paulus. 1884. _Daniel Völter._ Die Composition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. (The Composition of the chief Pauline Epistles.) 1890. Paulus und seine Briefe. 1905. _Friedrich Spitta._ Untersuchung über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer. (Examination of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans—in his work, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. iii., 1st half, 1901.) THOSE critics who reject the Pauline letters as a whole profess to have derived the impulse thereto from Ferdinand Christian Baur, to be his true because logically consistent disciples, and to bear the same relation to him as Schopenhauer did to Kant. This profession, which has always filled the “legitimate” Tübingen school with indignation, is in many points well founded. Baur’s criticism was occupied with the _Corpus Paulinum_ which remained after the exclusion of the Pastoral epistles. In the ten remaining Epistles, which show a large degree of inner homogeneity, he professed to discover differences on the basis of which some were to be assigned to the Apostle, others to the school which took its rise from him. Once the rights of such a criticism are admitted, nothing can prevent it from working itself out to its limit, and seeking to explain all the Epistles as products of a school which went under Paul’s name. The Tübingen master held that the Epistles to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians could not both be from the same hand. But the differences between the former and the Epistle to the Galatians are in their own way scarcely less great, if one considers that the violent [pg 119] controversy about the law with which the latter is filled is never mentioned in the others. The letters to the Romans and to the Galatians, on the other hand, deal partly with the same subjects, since they both treat of sin, law, and justification by faith. Nevertheless they are far from coinciding. For all their agreement in fundamental views they show remarkable differences in detail. Is it, if this line of argument be followed, after all so indubitably certain that the four main epistles are from the same pen?