THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the New Testament, or containing passages more or less parallel in sentiment. His publisher insisted on his reprinting the textus receptus (substantially that of the Elzevirs); but he gives his critical judgment in the margin and the notes. Other editions to be briefly mentioned are those of F C. Alter (Vienna, 1786-87), giving the readings of twenty-two Vienna manuscripts and of four manuscripts of the Slavonic version; of Andrew Birch i Quatuor Evangelia Greece, Copenhagen, 178S, 4to, and Varioe lectiones, 1798, 1800, 1801), exhibiting the readings of many manuscripts collated in the libraries of Italy, Spain, and Germany, by himself and others; and of C. F. Matthaei {Novum Testamentum Greece et Latino [the Vulgate], 12 vols., 8vo, Riga, 17S2-SS; also Novum Testamcntum Greece, 3 vols., 8vo, Wittenberg, etc., 1803-07), for which over a hundred manuscripts were used, mostly from the library of the Holy Synod at Moscow. Matthaei was a careful collator, but a very poor critic; and his manuscripts generally were of inferior quality.
The first edition of Johann Jacob Griesbach (q.v.) was published in 1774-75 (the first three Gospels in synopsis); but it was only in the second edition (2 vols., 8vo, Halle, 1796-1806) that he first made really good use of the materials gathered by his predecessors, and augmented by his own collections. A manual edition was issued at Leipsic in 1805, the text of which, differing somewhat from that of the larger edition, expresses his later critical judgment. Following
4. Griesbach and
his Fol- *n *ne *rac^ °f Bengel and Sender, lowers. Griesbach sought to simplify the process of criticism by classifying his manuscripts and other authorities. He made three classes or recensions — the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Const antinopolitan or Byzantine — to the latter of which the mass of later and inferior manuscripts belongs. Though his system is not now accepted in its details, much truth lay at the bottom of it. His principles of criticism were sound; and in his application of them he displayed rare tact and skill. In 1827 a third edition of the first volume of his Greek Testament was published, with important additions, under the editorship of Dr. David Schulz. Griesbach's Symbolce criticce (Halle, 1785-93), and Commentarlus criticus on Matthew and Mark, parts i, ii, with Meletemata critica prefixed to part ii, Jena, 1798, 1811, are still valuable. A number of manual editions founded on that of Griesbach, but inclining more to the textus receptus, as those of H. A. Schott (Leipsic, 1S05, 1813, 1825, 1839), with a good Latin translation; G. C. Knapp (Halle, 1797, 1813, 1824, 1829, 1840), with a useful Commentatio isagogiea, or introduction, and carefully punctuated and divided; J. A. H. Tittmann (ster., Leipsic, 1820, 1828, 16mo; 1824, 1831, 8vo); A. Hahn (Leipsic, 1840, 1841, revised ed. 1861; reprinted at New York, 1842, by Edward Robinson); K. G. W Theile (ster., Leipsic, 1844, 11th ed. 1875, by (). von Gebhardt), with the variations of the chief modern editors, parallel passages, etc.; also S. T. Bloomfield's Greek Testament with English Notes (London, 1832, 9th ed., 1855,
2 voIs.,8vo), mark no progress in criticism beyond Griesbach, but rather a retrograde movement. The same is true of the large edition of the Catholic scholar J. M. A. Scholz (2 vols., 4to, Leipsic, 1830- 1836), whose extensive travels and researches in libraries enabled him to add a very large number of new manuscripts (according to Scrivener, 616) to the list of those previously known. But of these only thirteen were collated entire; a few others in the greater part; many in only a few chapters; many more simply inspected, or only enrolled in the list. Scholz was a poor critic, and as an editor and collator incredibly careless. He divided his manuscripts into two classes or recensions — the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan, giving the preference to the latter. But in applying his system, he was happily inconsistent, particularly in his second volume, and at a later period of his life (1845) abandoned it. His edition met with no favor from intelligent scholars; but in England, where Biblical criticism was at its lowest ebb, it was welcomed and praised by many, and its text reprinted.
A new period in the history of textual criticism was inaugurated by the appearance (Berlin, 1831) of a small edition of the Greek Testament by the distinguished classical scholar Carl Lachmann (q.v.), followed by a larger edition, in which the authorities for the Greek text were supplied by Philipp Buttmann, with the Latin Vulgate in the lower margin, critically edited from codd. Fuldensis, Amiatinus, and other manuscripts (2 vols., 8vo, Berlin, 1842-50). Lachmann's aim in these editions was not to reproduce the original text according to his best judgment
5. Lach- (for this he deemed conjectural critimann. cism to be necessaiy in some cases), but to present as far as possible on purely documentary evidence the text current in the Eastern churches in the fourth century as a basis for criticism. He paid no attention to the textus receptus, and used no cursive manuscripts, but founded his text wholly on ancient authorities; viz., codd. ABCDPQTZof the Gospels, A B C D E in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, A B C D G in the Pauline Epistles, and A B C in the Apocalypse, with the Latin Vulgate, and codd. a (Vercellensis, fourth century), b (Veronensis, fifth century), and c (Colbertinus, eleventh century) of the Old Latin, for the Gospels, besides the Latin versions of the Greco-Latin manuscripts in the above list; of the Fathers he used Irena?us, Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and, in the Apocalypse, Primasius. His attempted task was not fully accomplished, partly because the text of some of the most important manuscripts winch he used (B C P Q, and the Latin Codex Amiatinus) had been but very imperfectly collated or edited, partly because the range of his authorities was too narrow, and partly because he was sometimes, apparently at least, inconsistent in the application of his principles. But he was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence (Griesbach disregarded what he deemed unimportant variations from the received text); and his editions, to which his eminent reputation as a critic gave wide cur-