2. Hug's System. Somewhat different from Griesbach's system is that of Hug, first proposed in his Introduction to the New Testament.
The koLvii bc.50air, i. e. the most ancient text unrevised, conformed to no recension, exhibit ing diversities of reading of mixed origin, but containing particular glosses and interpolations intended to explain the sense. This text is found in five MSS. of the Gospels, in four of Paul's epistles, in the most ancient Latin versions and in the Sahidic, in the oldest of the fathers down to the time of Origen, and in Origen him self. Such a phase of the text is seen till the middle of the third century, and agrees with the Occidental recension of Griesbach. In reference to the old Syriac, Griesbach afterwards conceded to Hug that it approached nearer the Occidental than the Alexandrian.
3. Hesychian Revision. About the middle of the third century, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a revision of the most ancient text. But he was too fond of such readings as contained purer and more elegant Greek. To this Hesychian revision, which obtained ecclesi astical authority only in Egypt, belong B, C. L of the Gospels, and A, B, C of the Epistles, the Memphitic version, with the quotations of Athanasius, Macarius, and Cyril of Alexandria. Thus the Hesychian recension of Hug coincides with the Alexandrian of Griesbach.
4. Lucian's Version. About the same time, Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch in Syria, revised the most ancient text, as it appeared in the Pesh ito, comparing different MSS. current in Syria. In this way he produced a text that did not wholly harmonize with the Hesychian, because he was less studious of elegant Latinity. This third form of the text is found in codices E, F, G, H, S, V of the Gospels. in G of St. Paul's epistles, in the Moscow MSS., the Sclavonic and Gothic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of those countries that adopted it, from the middle of the third century.
5. Origen's Revision. A fourth form of the text he attributes to Origen during his residence at Tyre. This revision was based on the Vulgate edition current in Palestine, and in many places differs both from the Hesychian and Lucian.
t is found in the codices A, K, M of the Gospels, in the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac, and in the writings of Chrysostom and Theodoret. Here Hug and Griesbach are at variance, the latter be lieving the alleged Origenian recension to be nothing more than a branch of the Constantino politan or Lucianian.
6. Eichhorn's System. Eichhorn's system is substantially the same as that of Hug, with one important exception. That distinguished critic admitted a twofold form of the text before it had received any revision ; the one peculiar to Asia, the other to Africa. This unrevised text may be traced in its two forms as early as the second century. Hesychius revised the first ; Lu cian the second. Accordingly, from the conclusion of the third century, there was a threefold phase of the text : the African or Alexandrian; the Asiatic or Constantinopolitan ; and a mixed form composed of the other two. Eichhorn denies that Origen made a new recension.
7. Scholz's System. Scholz makes only two classes or families of documents, the Alexan drian, which he also absurdly calls the Occidental, and the Constantinopolitan, which, with equal perversity, he designates the Oriental. The Occi dental class of Griesbach is thus merged into the Alexandrian. The Alexandrian embraces the MSS. that were made in Egypt and \Vestern Europe, most of the Coptic and Latin versions, the Ethiopic, and the ecclesiastical writers be longing to Egypt and Western Europe, To the Constantinopolitan he refers the codices belonging to Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Eastern Europe, especially Constantinople, with the Harclean or Philoxenian, the Gothic, Georgian, and Sclavonic versions; as also the ecclesiastical fathers of these regions. To the latter documents he gives a de cided preference, because of their mutual agree ment, and because they were written with great care agreeably to the most ancient exemplars ; whereas the Alexandrian were arbitrarily altered by officious grammarians. Indeed, he traces the Constantinopolitan codices directly to the auto graphs of the original writers of the New Testa ment.