Along with this opposition arose a more thor ough-going one in the strictly conservative school of Hengstenherg (died 1869; ('ommentary on Apocalypse, trans., Edinburgh, 1351; Gospel of John, trans., ib., 1865), to which more distinctly belonged: Stier (died 1862; Words of the Lord ,lesys, trans., 1869; Apostles, ib., 1869; Angels, London. 1837; Commentary on Hebrews, Brunswick, 1862; James, Epistles of Prier and Jude. Berlin, 1850) ; Philippi (died 1882; Commentary on Romans, Giitersloh, 1878; Galatians, ib., 1834) ; K. F. Neil (died 1888; Commentary on Matthew. Leipzig, 1877; Mark and Luke, ib., 1879; John, ill., 1881; Peter and Jude, ih., 1883; Hebrews, ib., 1885). To these should he added the following later writers, be longing to the same general conservative attitude, though varying among themselves as to their degree of conservatism: Franz Delitzsch (died 1890), whose chief New Testament work was a commentary on Hebrews (trans., Edinburgh, 1868-70) ; Luthardt (Commentary on John's Gos vel, Nuremberg. 1852-53; Apocalypse, Leipzig, 1861 ; Commentary on John's Gospel and Acts, with Z6ck1er, trans., Edinburgh, 1878-79; John's Epistles and Humans, in Strack and ZOckler, Munich, 1886-88) ; Niisgen (Commentary on Acts, Leipzig, 1882; (' Urn m la ry on Matthew, .11 a rk, and Luke, in Strad!: and Z6ckler, Munich, Iss6 88) ; Zilekler, editor with Strack of the Concise Commentary on the Holy Writings of the Old and New Testaments (Munich, 1886-88 ), to which lie personally contributed John's Cosi), / and Acts (with Luthardt), The Pastoral Epistles, He bre•s and it po•olapse (with Riggenbach), Th•s salonians and in the last edition (Munich, 1894-98). Apart. front all schools, occu pying an unaffiliated and isolated position, yet bitterly hostile to the Tiibingen school, is to he placed Ewald (died 1875; Commentary on the Apocalypse, Leipzig, 1828; Exposition of the First Three Gospels, Caittingen, 1850).
la this struggle the followers of Baur were not able to maintain their critical position, but abandoned it point by point, suffering their greatest defeat in the defection from their ranks of Ritschl (died 1889), who, in the second edition of his Old catholic Church (Bonn, 1857), showed that the historical premises on which the exegesis of the school was founded were false. (in the basis of this newly established position has arisen a school of exegesis which practically re produces the Schleiermacher position of the sep aration of the critical and religious elements in biblical study. It has gained great influence and may be said to control the New Testament interpretation of to-day. The more prominent exegetes of this school are: II. J. Boltzmann, editor of the Hand Commentary to the New Testa men t (Freiburg, 1889-91), to which he con tributed personally in the first edition Matthew, Mark, Luke, John's Gospel and Epistles, the Apocalypse, and Arts; Lipsius (died 1892; menta•y on Romans, Galatians, Philippians in the first edition of Boltzmann, ib., 1891) ; Schmiedel (('ommentary on. Corinthians and Thessalo»ians in the first. edition of Boltzmann, ib., 1890) ; von Soden (('ontmentary on Ephe sians, Colossians, Philemon, Timothy, Titus, He brews, James, Peter, and Jude in the first edition of Boltzmann, ib., 1891) ; Wendt (('ommentary on Arts in the last edition of Meyer, Edinburgh, 1899) ; Kiihl (0»nmenta•y on Peter and Jude in the last edition of Meyer, ib., 1897) : Bousset (Commentary on the Aporalyp.se in the last edi tion of Meyer, ib., 1896) ; Bornemann (Commen tary on Thessalonians in the last edition of Meyer, ib., 1894) ; E. ITaupt (The First Epistle of John. trans., Edinburgh, 1379; Commentary on the Captirity Epistles of Paul in the last edition of Meyer, ib., 1897) ; Kliipper (Commen tary on II. Corinthians, Berlin, 1369 and 1874; Colossians, ib., 1882; II. Thessalonians, ib., 1889;
Ephesians, ib., 1891; Philippians, ib.. 1893) ; J. Wei AS (Can m ent a ry on Epistles to Timothy and Titus: also, with B. Weiss, Mark and Luke in the last edition of Meyer, Berlin, 1392).
In France, after Renan (died 1802) had sup ported and developed the mythical principles of Strauss, the best results in New Testament exegesis were produced by the conservative schol ar F. Glodet (died 1900: Commentary on Luke. trans., Edinburgh, 1875; John, trans., ih., 1:879 SO; Romans. trans.. ib., 1880; 1. Corinthians, trans., ib., 1886). In Holland the earlier writers were conservative in their tendency. being best represented perhaps by van Oosterzee (died 1882; Person and Work of the Redeemer, trans., Lon don, 1856; Commentary on Luke, Edinburgh, 1863; the Pastorals and, with Lange, James in Lange, ib., 1858-62). The later years have been practically barren of New Testament exegesis.
The New' Testament exegesis produced in Great Britain and America during the nineteenth cen tury was not noticeably affected by the English Deism which closed the century preceding, nor to any degree by the various rationalistic move ments which, during the first half of the century, so profoundly influenced the exegesis of Germany. The effect of Ritschlism is as yet not marked. In Great Britain such writers as Scott (died 1821; Family Bible, London. 1796.1825) and Adam Clarke (died 1832; Commentary on the Holy Bible, ib., 1810-26) continued the popular work of Henry, Doddridge, and Gill, but with better critical results. Scholars like Alford (died 1871; The Greek New Testament with Com mentary, London, 1849-61) ; Ellicott (Commen tary on Galatians, Cambridge, 1854; Ephesians, ib., 1855; the Pastorals, ib., 1856; Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, ib., 1857; Thessalonians, ib., 1S5S; 1. Corinthians, London, 1887) ; J. B. Lightfoot (died 1889; Commentary on Galatians, London, 1865; Philippians, ib., 1868; Colos sians, Philemon, ib.. 1875; Notes on Paul's Epis tles, ib., 1895) ; Westeott (died 1901 ; Commen tory on John's Epistles, ib., 1883; Hebrews, ib., 1889; John's Gospel, ib., 1892) ; Eadie (died 1S76; Commentary on Colossians, ib., 1856; Phi lippians, ib., 1859; Ephesians, ib., 1861; Gala tians, ib., 1869; Thessalonians, ib., 1877) ; Plumptre (died 1891; Commentary on Acts, Cambridge, 1879; M ark, lb., 1879; II. Corinthians, ib., 1383) ; and MacPherson (Commentary on Ephesions, Edinburgh, 1892) produced works of permanent value, though generally conservative in their attitude. Stanley (died 1881; Com mentary on. Corinthians, London, 1862) and Jo•ett (died 1893; Commentary on, Galatians, Romans, Thessalonians, London, 1859) represent a freer tendency. In America, New Testament exegesis was perhaps more conservative, though, with noted exceptions, not so remarkable for scholarship. Its best representatives were: Moses Stuart (died 1852; Commentary on He brews, Andover, 1827-28; Romans, ib., 1832; Apocalypse, ib., 1845; Principles of Interpreta tion, from the Latin of Ernesti, lb., 1842) ; J. A. Alexander (died 1860; Commentary on Acts, New York, 1856; Mark, ib., 1858; Matthew, ib., 186'0) ; Hackett (died 1875; Commentary on Acts, Boston, 1551; Philemon, New York, 1860) ; C. Hodge (died 1878; Commentary on Romans, Philadelphia, 1835; Ephesians, New York, 1856; Corinthians, ib., 1857 -59) ; Cowles (died 1,881; Notes on the Old. and New Testaments, New York, 1867-81) ; Conant (Annotated Version of Matthew, ih., 1860; Revised Version of the New Testament, with Notes, ib., 1866) ; Broadus ( died 1895; Commentary on Matthew., Philadel phia, 1886) ; Hovey, editor of the American Vain »lentary on. the Yen, 7'estoment (111Hadelphirt, 1887-90), to which he personally contributed John's Gospel and Galatians (1890).