The letter is one of the group of four (I. IL Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which have been almost universally attributed to a Pauline authorship. Bruno Bauer's rejection of all the letters of Paul (1850-52) as unapostolic products of the second century, made no impression as far as this group was concerned—the Ttibingen School constituting them, in fact, the standard of genu ineness for all their New Testament criticism; while the recent attempt by the Dutch School of documentary critics to make the letter a com posite writing by a post-apostolic author, com piled largely from Romans, Corinthians, and the Book of Acts, has been generally considered by the critical world as not proven.
Biumooaaritv. Commentaries: Ellicott (Lon don, 1854) ; Philippi (Glitersloh, 1884) ; Light foot (Andover, 1890) ; Lipsius, in mentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg, 1893) ; Jowett (London, 1894) ; Zockler, in ler Komnientar (Munich, 1895) ; Sieffert, in Meyer Konimentar (G6ttingen, 1899) ; B. Weiss, in Die Paulinischen Briefe (Berlin, 1896) ; Ram say (New York, 1900). Introductions: Holtz
mann (Freiburg, 1892) ; Godet (English transla tion, Edinburgh, 1894) ; Salmon (London, 1894) ; B. Weiss, English translation (Edinburgh, 1888) ; Zahn (Leipzig, 1900) ; Bacon (New York, 1900) ; Jfilicher (Leipzig, 1901) ; Moffatt, Historical ;Veto Testament (New York, 1901). Discussions: Baur, Paulus, English translation (London, 1873 75) ; Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus (Ber lin, 1880) ; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (New York, 1893) ; Saint Paul the Trav eler and Roman Citizen (New York, 1896). Bauer's attack is represented in his Apostelge schichte (Berlin, 1850) and his Kritik der Paulinisehen Brick (Berlin, The Dutch School is best represented by Steck, Per Galatcrbrief (Berlin, 1888) ; the best reply is given by GloVI, Die jiingste Kritik des Gala terbriefes (Erlangen, 1890). For general dis cussion of the school, consult Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles (London, 1892).