In a previous recently closed post, we examined Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations? The author of the opening post gave a resounding “No!” I pose as a follow up, “Should the Nestle-Aland 28 have conjectural emendations?” The NA28 is a critical edition of the New Testament most often designated by its two most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. “28” represents the edition number (i.e. 28th edition). The actual title is Novum Testamentum Graece. The 1st edition was published in 1898 and the 28th edition in 2012.
Ryan Wettlaufer defines conjectural emendation as “the act of restoring a given text at points where all extant manuscript evidence appears to be corrupt.” (No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, p. 3) Basil Gildersleeve defines it as “the appeal from manuscripts we have to a manuscript [source] that has been lost.” (Encyclopedia Britannica.) Dan Wallace seems to consider something a conjectural emendation only if it is not in either manuscripts, early versions, or quotations from early church fathers. Jan Krans seems to agree, also noting “there are no absolute standards to determine what counts as manuscript ‘evidence’.” He even suggests “a sliding scale of ‘conjecturality’.” (Beyond What is Written, p. 90.) Others consider anything that is not found in a manuscript as a conjectural emendation, even if found in versions and church fathers. Dennis R. MacDonald proposes the use of conjecture after internal problems in a passage cannot be solved by other methods. Conjectural emendation is one method used by scholars to attempt to restore the transmitted text to its authentic state. It is not something that has been rejected by modern scholars (though some do), and is something for which there are varying degrees of support. An extreme conjectural emendation based on no manuscript, early version, or patristic writings is educated guesswork limited to knowledge of corruptions and internal evidence. Conjectural emendations usually arise because of conflicting manuscripts, coupled with evidence from early versions and/or patristic writings.
Benjamin B. Warfield agreed with the use of conjectural emendation, in theory, where the variants are “so hopelessly in conflict that it cannot be harmonized,” or in the case “on which there are no variations.” Nevertheless, he thought there were few passages that need conjecture, that “the passages in which successful conjectures have been made are fewer still,” concluding “Perhaps no absolutely satisfactory one has yet been made.” (An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 206ff.) His friend A. T. Robertson basically agreed. In theory emendation might be needed because “We possess no Greek ms. and no early version that are free from errors of some kind. It cannot be assumed therefore that no errors were made by copyists during the hundred or two hundred years intervening between the autographs and our earliest documentary evidence.” (Introduction to Textual Criticism, pp 237-38.)
Westcott and Hort seemed to be cautious in their advocacy of conjectural emendation, but perhaps not as cautious in their use of it (or at least Dean Burgon thought so). Hort wrote, “The art of Conjectural Emendation depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 71.) Scrivener and Burgon, on the other hand, thought it should not be resorted to, “even in passages of acknowledged difficulty.” (The Revision Revised, p. 355.)
I post the above to provide a glimpse into the past and modern views on conjectural emendation, not that I agree with all of it. There is disagreement among scholars at the ground floor, the definition of “conjectural emendation,” as well as whether and how it should be used.
Daniel Wallace says there are two conjectural emendations in the NA28, at Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. (Wallace does not call them “explicit conjectural emendations” because he is following the definition of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman – having no support in Greek manuscripts, versions, or fathers as opposed to having no support in manuscripts.) Nevertheless, these emendations do not have support in any known Greek manuscripts. In 2006, Wallace also cited a conjecture of Westcott & Hort that changed the spelling on a word in Revelation 21:17 (NA27). However, he does not seem to mention it more recently. Perhaps he decided it should not be considered a conjecture, or perhaps it has been “corrected” in the NA28 (Reinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You, p. 285, endnote 5).
Ryan Wettlaufer defines conjectural emendation as “the act of restoring a given text at points where all extant manuscript evidence appears to be corrupt.” (No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, p. 3) Basil Gildersleeve defines it as “the appeal from manuscripts we have to a manuscript [source] that has been lost.” (Encyclopedia Britannica.) Dan Wallace seems to consider something a conjectural emendation only if it is not in either manuscripts, early versions, or quotations from early church fathers. Jan Krans seems to agree, also noting “there are no absolute standards to determine what counts as manuscript ‘evidence’.” He even suggests “a sliding scale of ‘conjecturality’.” (Beyond What is Written, p. 90.) Others consider anything that is not found in a manuscript as a conjectural emendation, even if found in versions and church fathers. Dennis R. MacDonald proposes the use of conjecture after internal problems in a passage cannot be solved by other methods. Conjectural emendation is one method used by scholars to attempt to restore the transmitted text to its authentic state. It is not something that has been rejected by modern scholars (though some do), and is something for which there are varying degrees of support. An extreme conjectural emendation based on no manuscript, early version, or patristic writings is educated guesswork limited to knowledge of corruptions and internal evidence. Conjectural emendations usually arise because of conflicting manuscripts, coupled with evidence from early versions and/or patristic writings.
Benjamin B. Warfield agreed with the use of conjectural emendation, in theory, where the variants are “so hopelessly in conflict that it cannot be harmonized,” or in the case “on which there are no variations.” Nevertheless, he thought there were few passages that need conjecture, that “the passages in which successful conjectures have been made are fewer still,” concluding “Perhaps no absolutely satisfactory one has yet been made.” (An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 206ff.) His friend A. T. Robertson basically agreed. In theory emendation might be needed because “We possess no Greek ms. and no early version that are free from errors of some kind. It cannot be assumed therefore that no errors were made by copyists during the hundred or two hundred years intervening between the autographs and our earliest documentary evidence.” (Introduction to Textual Criticism, pp 237-38.)
Westcott and Hort seemed to be cautious in their advocacy of conjectural emendation, but perhaps not as cautious in their use of it (or at least Dean Burgon thought so). Hort wrote, “The art of Conjectural Emendation depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 71.) Scrivener and Burgon, on the other hand, thought it should not be resorted to, “even in passages of acknowledged difficulty.” (The Revision Revised, p. 355.)
I post the above to provide a glimpse into the past and modern views on conjectural emendation, not that I agree with all of it. There is disagreement among scholars at the ground floor, the definition of “conjectural emendation,” as well as whether and how it should be used.
Daniel Wallace says there are two conjectural emendations in the NA28, at Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. (Wallace does not call them “explicit conjectural emendations” because he is following the definition of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman – having no support in Greek manuscripts, versions, or fathers as opposed to having no support in manuscripts.) Nevertheless, these emendations do not have support in any known Greek manuscripts. In 2006, Wallace also cited a conjecture of Westcott & Hort that changed the spelling on a word in Revelation 21:17 (NA27). However, he does not seem to mention it more recently. Perhaps he decided it should not be considered a conjecture, or perhaps it has been “corrected” in the NA28 (Reinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You, p. 285, endnote 5).
Last edited:
