The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: “It is now agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he quotes from Roberts (_Words of the New Testament_): “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field ... simply because there is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Krüger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of Koetschau’s Origen in the _L. Cbl._, No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted ἐκολάφισαν for the hapax legomenon ἐκεφαλίωσαν, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and λανθάνουσι for μανθάνουσι, 1 Tim. v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (_Revue Biblique_, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against “prêter de l’esprit à l’Esprit Saint.” Footnote 152: Compare my conjecture of מִפַתְרֹם for מִתְרַפֵם, Ps. lxviii. 31, and see below, p. 236. Footnote 153: Meyer-Wendt^8, p. 51. For an example of Σ repeated by mistake, _cf._ ΕΙΣΣΤΕΛΟΣ in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common. Footnote 154: Bagster, London, 1887. Footnote 155: See Isaac Taylor’s _History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times_ (1827); and compare also the text-books on Hermeneutics, _e.g._ in I. v. Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_. Footnote 156: _Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wölfflin_, Lipsiae, Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the _Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr._ ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521. Footnote 157: _Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti_ (_Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d. Wiss._, vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also _The Text of St. Benedict’s Rule_ by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the _Downside Review_, December 1899, 12 pp. Footnote 158: _TU._ xiv. 1, 1896. Footnote 159: Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895. Footnote 160: _TU._, New Series, i. 1, 1897. Footnote 161: Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by Niese and Naber. Footnote 162: