Cramer.[148] Baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emendations in his edition of the text published in 1898 (see above, p. 24). In place of πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι, _e.g._, in James iii. 1, Lachmann would read πῶλοι δύσκολοι, Naber πλανοδιδάσκαλοι, while Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer πολυλάλοι on the ground that m^{64} has _nolite multiloqui esse_.[149] So far, therefore, this last is not pure conjecture. For κρινέτω in Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished to read κιρνάτω, because the verb דוד found in the Peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to translate θροεῖν (Matt. xxiv. 6), ταράσσειν (John xiv. 1, 27), ἐγκόπτειν (Gal. v. 7), and also διαστρέφειν (Eccl. vii. 18; xii. 3). My proposal to read ἐπὶ πόντον in Apoc. xviii. 17, a reading adopted by Baljon in his text, instead of ἐπὶ τόπον or ἐπὶ πλοίων as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but it has the support of _super mare_ in Primasius.[150] There is therefore no objection on principle to the method of conjecture, nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text, though it is only to be resorted to as the _ultima ratio regis_ and with due regard to all the considerations involved, transcriptional, linguistic, and otherwise.[151] There is no essential difficulty in supposing, _e.g._, that κιρνάτω in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted into κρινάτω and then into κρινέτω. Such a transposition of the liquid is quite common in all languages.[152] But we must see if κιρνάτω has the sense required in the passage. There is no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far, therefore, the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true that evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word proposed to be inserted. Passow, _e.g._, gives τὸ τῆς φύσεως σκληρὸν κιρνᾶν from Polybius iv. 21, 3, and τὴν πόλιν κιρνᾶν from Aristophanes i. 1. In spite of this, however, I have considerable misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony with Pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82), a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing prevalent at the time when the corruption is supposed to have originated. Luke’s handwriting must have been very bad indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of D or the parent manuscript mistook ἠρνήσασθε for the enigmatical ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable how he came to write δόξῃ instead of δεξιᾷ in v. 31, or conversely wrote ἐδέξαντο instead of ἐδόξασαν in xiii. 48, or that ΚΑΙΤΟΥΤΩΣΥΝΦΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ was made into ΚΑΙΟΥΤΩΣΣΥΝΦΩΝΗΣΟΥΣΙΝ or _vice versa_.[153] A slight experience in the reading of ancient manuscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actually do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish’s _Handy Concordance of