See e.g. B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 185.

See e.g. B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 185.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See e.g. J.K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles; Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation (NovTSup 137; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 8; M.W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in R.B. Stewart (ed.), The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 61-79 (67-68); U. Schmid, “Scribes and Variants: Sociology and Typology,” in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticicm of the New Testament (eds. H.A.G. Houghton and D.C. Parker; TS third series 6; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008) 1-23 (23). See also R. Wettlaufer, “Unseen Variants: Conjectural Emendation and the New Testament,” in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (eds. J.S. Kloppenborg and J.H. Newman; SBLRBS 69; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) 171-193, and No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James as a Case Study (NTTSD 44; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Seemlingly at odds with this trend, the latest edition of the Nestle text has obliterated all modern conjectures from its apparatus. However, its text contains a fresh conjecture at 2 Pet 3:10, besides the one already present at Acts 16:12. Moreover, the decision to omit the conjectures was a technical one (see NA28 Introduction, 49*); the Amsterdam project (see n. 1) will provide the digital NA28 with a full listing of all conjectures ever mentioned in previous Nestle editions.

See e.g. J.K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles; Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation (NovTSup 137; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 8; M.W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in R.B. Stewart (ed.), The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 61-79 (67-68); U. Schmid, “Scribes and Variants: Sociology and Typology,” in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticicm of the New Testament (eds. H.A.G. Houghton and D.C. Parker; TS third series 6; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008) 1-23 (23). See also R. Wettlaufer, “Unseen Variants: Conjectural Emendation and the New Testament,” in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (eds. J.S. Kloppenborg and J.H. Newman; SBLRBS 69; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) 171-193, and No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James as a Case Study (NTTSD 44; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Seemlingly at odds with this trend, the latest edition of the Nestle text has obliterated all modern conjectures from its apparatus. However, its text contains a fresh conjecture at 2 Pet 3:10, besides the one already present at Acts 16:12. Moreover, the decision to omit the conjectures was a technical one (see NA²⁸ Introduction, 49*); the Amsterdam project (see n. 1) will provide the digital NA²⁸ with a full listing of all conjectures ever mentioned in previous Nestle editions.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

J.L.H. Krans, Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (NTTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 2006).

J.L.H. Krans, Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (NTTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 2006).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. F.W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 150-198; P. Maas, Textual Criticism (transl. B. Flower; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958) 5, 10-13; E.J. Kenney, “Textual Criticism,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, n.p. [consulted 16 October 2013; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589489/textual-criticism/58836/Emendation]; B.A. Van Groningen, Traité d’histoire et de critique des textes grecs (Verhandelingen Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, section Letterkunde, second series 70; Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1963) 81-117; R. Renehan, Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Loeb Classical Monographs; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 2.

Cf. F.W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 150-198; P. Maas, Textual Criticism (transl. B. Flower; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958) 5, 10-13; E.J. Kenney, “Textual Criticism,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, n.p. [consulted 16 October 2013; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589489/textual-criticism/58836/Emendation]; B.A. Van Groningen, Traité d’histoire et de critique des textes grecs (Verhandelingen Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, section Letterkunde, second series 70; Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1963) 81-117; R. Renehan, Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Loeb Classical Monographs; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 2.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See e.g. the major study of J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008), who from his analysis of singular readings in 𝔓45, 𝔓46, 𝔓47, 𝔓66, 𝔓72, and 𝔓75 concludes that early scribes tended to omit rather than to add. From a statistical point of view, this would imply for conjectural criticism that a proposed addition is more plausible than a proposed omission.

See e.g. the major study of J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008), who from his analysis of singular readings in 𝔓⁴⁵, 𝔓⁴⁶, 𝔓⁴⁷, 𝔓⁶⁶, 𝔓⁷², and 𝔓⁷⁵ concludes that early scribes tended to omit rather than to add. From a statistical point of view, this would imply for conjectural criticism that a proposed addition is more plausible than a proposed omission.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See A. Maradi, “Classification, Typology, Taxonomy,” in Quality and Quantity 24 (1990) 129-157.

See A. Maradi, “Classification, Typology, Taxonomy,” in Quality and Quantity 24 (1990) 129-157.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

J. Delobel, “Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Siamese Twins?,” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Early Church History: A Discussion of Methods (eds. B. Aland and J. Delobel; CBET 7; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 98-117 (111-116).

J. Delobel, “Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Siamese Twins?,” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Early Church History: A Discussion of Methods (eds. B. Aland and J. Delobel; CBET 7; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 98-117 (111-116).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

W. Bousset, “Der erste Brief an die Korinther,” in Die Briefe. Die johanneischen Schriften (vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu überlegt und für die Gegenwart erklärt . . . ; ed. J. Weiß; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907) 123-124. In the Nestle editions (N13-NA27) the conjecture is mentioned in this form, though incorrectly under Straatman’s name. Bousset leaves out vs. 33b from the conjecture, because only vss. 34 and 35 are located after vs. 40 in the “Western Text” (information not used by Straatman). In Bousset’s version, the conjecture solves a fourth problem, this one being text-critical. As he assumes the suspicious words were first written down in the margin, and subsequently inserted into other copies at different locations, the cause now becomes “contextualization (with margin).”

W. Bousset, “Der erste Brief an die Korinther,” in Die Briefe. Die johanneischen Schriften (vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu überlegt und für die Gegenwart erklärt . . . ; ed. J. Weiß; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907) 123-124. In the Nestle editions (N¹³-NA²⁷) the conjecture is mentioned in this form, though incorrectly under Straatman’s name. Bousset leaves out vs. 33^b from the conjecture, because only vss. 34 and 35 are located after vs. 40 in the “Western Text” (information not used by Straatman). In Bousset’s version, the conjecture solves a fourth problem, this one being text-critical. As he assumes the suspicious words were first written down in the margin, and subsequently inserted into other copies at different locations, the cause now becomes “contextualization (with margin).”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

C.H. Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered Before the University of Oxford on October 22 and 29, 1920 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920) 46-47.

C.H. Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered Before the University of Oxford on October 22 and 29, 1920 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920) 46-47.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Turner, Study, 47.

Turner, Study, 47.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation