[3d cd. by Schulz], vol. i. p. lxx sq.).
Michaelis thinks that there have existed four princi- pal editions: 1. The Western, used in countries where the Latin language was spoken. •_'. The Alexandrian or Egyptian, with which the quotations of Origen coin- cide and the Coptic version. 3. The Edessene edition, embracing the MSS. from which the old Syriac was made. 4. The Byzantine, in general use at Constanti- nople after that city became the capital of the Eastern empire. This last is subdivided into the ancient ami the modern {Introduction <<> tin New Test., translated by Marsh, ii. 175 sq., 2d ed.).
Assuredly this classification is no improvement upon Gricsbach's.
Somewhat different from Griesbach's system is that of Hug, which was tirst proposed in hi- Einleitung in das in a, Testament (1808). 1. The KOtvq :k-i~<>rm_: i.e. the nio-t ancient text, iiiuevi-ed. which came into ex- istence in the 2d century, found in I). 1. 13, 69, 124, of the gospels; in D. I'., V. c. of Paul's epistles; in D, E,of the Acts; and in the old Latin ami Thebaic versions. The Peshito also belongs to this class of text, though
it differs in sonic respects from D. "_'. About the mid- dle of the 3d century, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, made a recension of the cmi'i; tKCoair. To this belong B,C, 1.. of the gospels; A, B, C, 40, 30, 367, in the Ads: A, P.. c. 10, 367, in the Catholic epistles; \. B, I . 16, 367, 17. of the Pauline epistles; and A. < '. of the Apoca- lypse. It appears in the citations of Athanasius, Mar- cus and MacariuS the monks. Cyril of Alexandria, and Cosmas ihdicopleustea This recension had ecclesias- tical authority in Egypt and Alexandria. 3. About the same' time, Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, in Syria, re- vised the koivtj iicdoffic as it then existed in the Peshi- to, comparing different MSS. current in Syria. In this way he produced a text which did not wholly harmo- nize with the He.-ychian because be was less studious of elegant Latinity. It appears in L. V. G, II. s. V. of the gospels, and b, h, of the Moscow Evangelistaria col- lated by Matthii. with most of the cursive MSS.; in f,
B„ b, d, c. m. k I Mallhai |, of the Act.-; in g I Matthai), I. k. 1. in. c. d. of the Pauline and Catholic epistles; in r, k. p, l,o, Moscow MSS.. of the Apocalyp.-e; in the Goth-
RECENSIONS
951
RECENSIONS
ic and Slavonic versions, and the quotations of Theo- phylact, though his text is no longer pure. 4. A fourth recension Hug attributes to Origen during his residence at Tyre. To'it belong A, K, M, 4.2, 106, 114, 116, and 10 of Matthai in the gospels, the Philoxenian Syriac, the quotations of Theodoret and Chrysostom. From this summary it appears that Hug's icoivt) ticoWic agrees substantially with the Western recension of Griesbach. It is more comprehensive, as including the Peshito, with the quotations of Clement and Origen. The Hesychian recension of Hug coincides with the Alexandrian of Griesbach.
Eichhom's system is substantially that of Hug, with one important exception. He assumed an unrevised form of the text in Asia, and, with some differences, in Africa also. This unrevised text may be traced in its two forms as early as the 2d century. Lucian revised the first, Hesychius the second. Hence, from the close of the third century, there was a threefold phase of the text — the African or Alexandrian, the Asiatic or Con- stantinopolitan, and a mixture of both. Eichhorn de- nied that Origen made a new recension (Einleitung in das neue Testament, vol. iv, § 35 sq.).
In 1815 Nolan published an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, in which he propounded a pecul- iar theory of recensions. He divided all the documents into three classes — the Palestinian, equivalent to Gries- bach's Alexandrian ; the Egyptian, identical with Gries- bach's Western ; and the Byzantine. The three forms of the text are represented, as he assumed, by the Co- dex Vaticanus and Jerome's Vulgate, with the Codices Vercellensis and Brixianus of the Latin version. The last two contained a more ancient text than that rep- resented by the version of Jerome. The Palestinian recension, which he attributes to Eusebius of Cajsarea, is greatly censured as having been executed by this father with arbitrariness and dishonesty, since he tam- pered with passages because of their opposition to his Arian opinions. At the end of the 5th century this recension was introduced into Alexandria by Euthalius, and was circulated there.
Scholz made two classes or families — the Alexan- drian or Occidental, and Constantinopolitan or Oriental. Griesbach's Western class is contained in the former. He referred to the Alexandrian several of the ancient MSS., and a few later ones — the Memphitic, Thebaic, Ethiopic, and Latin versions, and the ecclesiastical writ- ers belonging to Western Europe, with those of Africa. To the Constantinopolitan he referred the MSS. belong- ing to Asia Minor. Palestine, Syria, Eastern Europe, es- pecially Constantinople, with the Philoxenian, Syriac, Gothic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions, besides the fa- thers of these regions. To the latter he gave a decided preference, because of their alleged mutual agreement, and also because they were supposed to be written with great care after the most ancient exemplars; whereas the Alexandrian documents were arbitrarily altered by officious grammarians. Indeed, he traces the Constan- tinopolitan to the autography of the original writers.