Knapp in the main follows the text of Griesbach, in his latest editions; but occasionally he differs from him, in cases where he judges the evidence to preponderate against his readings. This edition of Knapp has been five times repeated in Germany, last in 1840; and has obtained a large measure of the public approbation. Professor H. A. Schott, late of Jena, also published a New Testament, with a new Latin version. The first edition (1805) adopts the revised text of Griesbach; but the second, and especially the third, differs from him in many places. Schott depends (and very justly) on internal as well as external evidence, in order to establish the validity of any reading.

In 1820, J. A. H. Tittmann, Professor in Leipsic, published a New Testament, with a text conformed to his best critical judgment. The work of Hahn, now before us, is a renewal of this valuable publication, in a somewhat different form, and with a much better apparatus. Tittmann was a man of eminently sound and sober judgment.

In 1824, J. S. Vater, at Halle, published an edition, in which much pains was bestowed on the readings, and various exegetical and other helps were added; a useful book, in many respects, to beginners in the study of the New Testament.

In the Romish church, Gratz and Van Ess have published minor editions, founded upon the Complutensian text, but exhibiting other readings.

In 1831, Lachmann published a New Testament of the minor form, professing mainly to exhibit the text as contained in the oriental manuscripts; to which occasionally he furnishes means of correction by various readings from the western sources. To this much deference has been paid in Germany, among critics. There is room to doubt, however, whether the judgment of Lachmann, as exhibited in this edition, will finally stand. The first volume of a larger edition by Lachmann, apparently with the same or nearly the same text, has quite recently been published, (1842,) in which the critical authorities for the various readings have been appended by the younger Buttmann.'

In the small edition (1831) of Lachmann's New Testament, p. 461, he expressly states his design in ac

cordance with the view here given of it. His object, therefore, is merely diplomatic, if he has execu

It is time to give some account, at length, of the edition of Hahn, a reprint of which now lies before me. Tauchnitz of Leipsic, some time since, expressed a wish to this indefatigable labourer in the department of diplomatic criticism, to renew the edition of Tittmann, with such improvements as he might make.

In addressing himself to this formidable labour, Prof. Hahn first of all reviewed with care the text of Tittmann. In this he found many errors of the press; specimens of which he has given us in his Preface. The interpunction, moreover, he found to be faulty; as also the use, in some cases, of capital letters. He found some readings admitted, as he thought, without due authority of manuscripts. The accentuation was faulty in many places; as well as the mode of writing words with the coronis, e. g. xảyú for xayo, etc. The Iota subscript in such words as six, omitted by Tittmann, Hahn judges to be wrongly omitted, and has restored it. The circumflex removed by Tittmann, in such words as lips, haiλay, and the like, Hahn restores. Many other smaller faults, which he specifies, he has laboured to correct; as well as the defects already enumerated above.

Thus much, as to correctness in the printing of the new edition. Next, as to the choice of readings.

Hahn has exhibited, in the margin of the work, the various readings of Griesbach's two later editions, those of the first volume of the third edition by Schulz, and also the readings of Knapp, of Scholz, and of Lachmann. The abbreviations which are used in referring to these authorities, are all sufficiently explained in the preface. The variations from the Textus receptus are also noted in the margin. The modes of designating suspected clauses, and of marking the beginning of verses, are all explained in the pre

ted his work in accordance with the views which he gives, and not a recension of the text. Yet Rinck, in a review of Tischendorf's New Testament of 1841, (Stud. and Krit. 1842, pp. 537, 556,) in stating the principles of criticism which this editor has adopted, says, that Tischendorf admits of no reading, unless it is sanctioned by the African testimonies; and he adds, that Lach

mann had prepared the way for this, by giving nearly a diplomatic reprint of the African manuscripts.The title of the new edition by Lachmann, mentioned in the text, is: NovUM TESTAMENTUM Graece et Latine. Car. Lachmann recensuit, Phil. Buttmannus Phil. F. Graecae Lectionis auctoritates apposuit. Tom. I. Berol. 1842.

face, and appear to be generally easy and judicious. The capitals at the beginning of verses not commencing a sentence, Prof. Robinson has very properly dropped, and substituted the mark (') in their room.

The received text, the editor says, is never abandoned without the most weighty reasons. When there is a disagreement among critical editors, whether it should be admitted or rejected, Hahn has taken care to note who are for it and who are against it. Where he has differed in judgment from other critics, the nature of his appeal to them advertises the reader, who are with the editor, and who are against him. In some cases he differs from all of them; and then, although he does not state his reasons in the margin, because the nature of his plan forbids him thus to enlarge, yet he assures his readers that he never ventures to dissent from all the other critical editions, unless he has what he deems to be good and forcible reasons for so doing. The critical reader, in such a case, must resort to Wetstein, or Griesbach's second critical edition in two volumes, or to Scholz, where he will find most, if not all of the authorities on which the judgment of Hahn rests; or in case he does not find satisfaction there, he must resort to the context, and to the comparison of parallel passages.

It will be seen, at once, that there is no proper ground of complaint against the editor, in this case, because he has not detailed his reasons; for to do this would be to swell the work into a form so large, as to frustrate the object of making a manual.

It will be seen, also, by a little examination of Hahn's preface, that he has in effect given the results of three editions of Griesbach. G* means the critical edition of Halle, 1796, Vol. I. II. G° means the minor edition of Leipsic, in 1805, consisting of only one volume, with merely the select various readings. G simply means both editions in common. Sch. in connexion with Griesbach's readings, means the third edition of Vol. I. of Griesbach, published at Berlin in 1827, by D. Schulz of. Breslau, in which many valuable additions to Griesbach are made. All of these will be found occasionally to differ. In the last edition of Griesbach himself, his New Testament with select readings (1805), he not unfrequently re-admits readings excluded in the preceding edition, and vice versa. Schulz, moreover, sometimes expresses dissent from the readings in

either edition, or in both. All such cases are marked by Hahn, in an appropriate way which is easily understood.

Thus, it will be perceived, Hahn has given the reader a syllabus of all that is contained in the various recensions of the New Testament text, which is of any importance. Griesbach's last edition (1796, 1806), contains embodied all the critical results which had preceded that time; and Scholz, Schulz, Knapp, and Lachmann, have given nearly all that has been developed since that period. Almost every month some new readings are coming to light, and the way is thus preparing for a critical recension at a future period, which will place all preceding editions merely on the shelf of the historian of criticism.

In addition to this important syllabus of the critical recensions, which Hahn has presented in his margin, his edition possesses some other advantages over the preceding manuals of this nature, which deserve a passing notice.

In a Prolegomenon of some length he has given a brief, but quite intelligible and appropriate, description of all the important uncial manuscripts. These, critics have generally deemed to be the most ancient and of the best authority. Their names, distinctive qualities, probable age, extent of contents, and the symbol used by critics to designate them, are all to be found in Hahn's description.

The manuscripts in the cursive or small-text Greek he has not undertaken to describe; because, as he thinks, the great mass of them originated in the tenth century, and only a few in the ninth. Of course, if such be the fact, the weight of authority belonging to them must be small.

The uncial manuscripts are divided into four classes, viz. I. Manuscripts of the Gospels. II. Of the Acts and Catholic Epistles. III. Of the Epistles of Paul. IV. Of the Apocalypse.-All the important ones, under each head, are specified and briefly described.

Next to this syllabus of uncial manuscripts comes a brief account of the ancient Versions made directly from the Greek. These are the Itala and other Latin versions before the time of Jerome; the Vulgate by Jerome; the Peshito or Old Syriac, and also the Philoxenian Syriac Version; the Egyptian Versions; the Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic, and Slavonic Versions.

Last of all is a reference to the citations of the Fathers, and the nature of the appeal to them is briefly stated.

Inasmuch as the Versions and the Fathers are cited in Griesbach and Scholz, as witnesses for or against any particular reading, and may be there found, Hahn does not produce them in his margin. He would no more do this, in consistency with his plan, than he would cite all the manuscript authorities.

The results of all the recensions is what Hahn has undertaken to give, not the process by which those results were made out. The larger editions of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann must be consulted for the process.

Every thing about this edition of Hahn wears the air of great neatness. The type is excellent; the paper good; the printing unusually correct; and the pointing judicious. It is truly a work of multum in parvo. The reader has before him the decisions of all the distinguished recent text-critics, as well as that of Hahn himself, and he is therefore at liberty, and is furnished with means, to examine and judge for himself. Hahn does not bind him by his own judgment. When he differs from others, he gives notice of it, and tells the reader how others have decided. For aught that we can see, this is all that the nature of the undertaking permitted to be done.

It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass any critical judgment on the preferences which Hahn gives to this or that text. A sober judgment, any one who knows his labours and his success in diplomatic matters would naturally expect of him; and that this trait may be found in his critical editions of the New Testament, there is no good room for doubt.

It cannot be expected, that all critics will agree in their judgment about the value of readings, so long as their maxims of criticism are so unsettled as at present. The old recension-system of Griesbach has taken such a deep root, that time and patience are both necessary, in order to eradicate it. It was born, as we believe, with the seeds of consumption in its component elements, and although it may die but a lingering death, not all the skill of doctors, learned and unlearned, can save it from agariouós much longer. Listen to Tischendorf, the latest editor of a critical New Testament in Germany, (Leipsic, 1841,) a young man full of zeal