Wednesday, February 18, 2026

‘Conjecture Magnets’ Ranked

25
In his chapter on emendation in the book Pen, Print, and Pixels, Jan Krans gives some very interesting data from the Amsterdam Database. It’s the kind of data that makes you want to ask follow up questions, which is what this post does. 

On pages 175–177, Jan gives a list of places that he calls “conjecture magnets.” These are the most conjectured about problems in the NT and show, as Jan points out, that those conjecturing agree there’s a problem but obviously can’t agree on the solution! 

A passage is a “magnet” if it has five or more conjectures for it. Jan lists 46 such places. What he doesn’t do in the article is tell us the number of conjectures for each one or rank them accordingly. Thankfully, that’s the perfect kind of thing you can do easily with the Amsterdam Database. So, listed below are Jan’s 46 conjecture magnets ranked by the number of conjectures in the database as of today.

You’ll have to go to Jan’s chapter or to the database itself to see what the issue is in each case. But, as one initial observation, it’s interesting that Matthew and especially Revelation do not make the list at all.

Rank Passage Total Conj.
11 Cor 11.1036
2Acts 2.927
3Rom 16.16-2322
4Rom 7.25-8.221
Heb 11.3721
2 Pet 3.1021
5Eph 1.120
6John 18.13-2419
Jas 3.619
7Col 2.1817
8Luke 2.214
Acts 5.12-1614
1 Cor 4.614
92 Cor 11.30-12.113
Gal 4.2513
Heb 2.913
10John 3.2512
John 19.2912
1 Cor 15.212
11Mark 9.2311
Acts 4.2511
1 Cor 15.2911
1 Thess 3.311
12Acts 13.3310
131 Cor 2.49
2 Cor 1.139
Jas 4.59
14Mark 14.418
Luke 18.78
John 19.398
Acts 1.188
Acts 16.128
Rom 4.128
Col 2.148
15Mark 14.37
Acts 10.307
Eph 5.267
2 Pet 1.207
16Acts 18.56
Acts 27.96
1 Tim 4.36
Heb 12.186
Jas 3.16
17Acts 20.45
Acts 27.75
1 Cor 6.55

25 comments

  1. Some of these are single problems, but others which deal with larger chunks of text might get high numbers by dealing with a large variety of re-arrangement proposals and other conjectures within those verse parameters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally, I regret the NA decision to delete all conjectures from the critical apparatus. Obviously there were difficulties in selection and attribution and equally obviously they are not data derived from direct witnesses. But the NA tradition that I first got to know well (NA26) had several features which connected the reader to the history of the discipline, and mentioning of some conjectures was one of those features which have been disappeared from recent editions. (I can of course use this list to begin to mark up some of the juiciest examples.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And in NA26 are already deleted 80 conjectures of the 200 in NA25!
      See De Jonge in his review of NA26, in NTT, 34, (1980) p. 315-316. ( https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2717744/view )

      Delete
    2. The Dutsch have a special fondness for conjectures!

      Delete
    3. I do miss them. FWIW, the new UBS6 does mark Acts 13.33 as being a conejcture in the ECM.

      Delete
  3. Fascinating subject, reminding me of the collocation "quote magnets," people conjectured to have coined even more familiar quotations than they actually did. E.g., Abraham Lincoln. A related text may or may not have been spoken by his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, who attended when Lincoln died. Most later publications--seeing from an historical perspective--claim he said "now he belongs to the ages." The less-attested "reading," "now he belongs to the angels" may fit the moment and Episcopalian Stanton better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Patrick James2/19/2026 6:54 pm

    Thank you, Peter: fascinating stuff! How many of these conjectures relate to points where there is disagreement among early witnesses (e.g. 2 Peter 3:10) and how many to places where there seems to be unanimity among witnesses (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:10)? How many concern are Hort's "primitive corruptions"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the list is the number of different conjectures offered for a verse, not how many support each conjecture has. I wonder if there is a way to recalculate to see which verses have the most supporters for a conjecture in the verse. In other words, there might be a verse that has only 2 conjectures, but with 20 supporters for each, and those 40 supporters might be more than the 36 conjectures and their supporters at 1 Cor 11:10.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am developing a means to do such queries. Here are at least the best supported conjectures (Reinv stands for Reinvention, and M/P/V for whether the conjecture has later been found to be attested (M), or whether the author appeals to Patristic attestation (P), or whether the author appeals to versional attestation (V)):

      cjID Reference Author Pro Reinv Contra Nestle M/P/V
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      cj10374 James 4:2 Desiderius Erasmus 57 0 47 Yes —
      cj10084 Acts 16:12 Johannes Clericus 44 3 25 Yes —
      cj11560 John 21:1 Hugo Grotius 45 0 15 — —
      cj10693 John 19:29 Theodorus Beza 38 0 31 Yes M
      cj10662 Hebrews 11:37 Desiderius Erasmus 38 0 13 Yes M
      cj11009 2 Corinthians 6:14 Karl Schrader 37 0 12 — —
      cj11914 1 Corinthians 14:34 James Drummond 31 1 26 Yes —
      cj13840 1 Corinthians 14:33 Karl Holsten 31 1 13 — —
      cj10100 Galatians 2:1 Ludovicus Cappellus 24 2 13 Yes M
      cj10608 1 Corinthians 2:4 Richard Bentley 21 4 7 Yes —
      cj10529 John 19:14 Ammonius of Alexandria 24 0 21 — M
      cj10296 Romans 9:5 Jonas Schlichting 21 2 48 Yes —
      cj10605 Romans 7:25 Peter Aloys Gratz 18 3 15 Yes —
      cj10090 Acts 6:9 Theodorus Beza 17 2 19 Yes —
      cj10604 Romans 6:17 Christian Hermann Weisse 18 1 15 — —
      cj10334 1 Corinthians 14:33 Jan Willem Straatman 19 0 10 Yes —
      cj11284 Mark 1:2 Theodorus Beza 17 2 10 — —
      cj10938 1 Corinthians 4:6 Friedrich August Bornemann 17 1 26 — —
      cj10008 Hebrews 12:15 Franciscus Ribera 14 4 21 Yes —
      cj10069 Luke 1:46 Alfred Firmin Loisy 14 3 11 Yes —
      cj12376 Matthew 27:9 Wolfgang Musculus 16 1 6 — M
      cj12395 Matthew 28:19 Anonymous 13 3 39 — P
      cj11713 2 Peter 3:10 Jan Hendrik Holwerda 15 1 15 Yes —
      cj10708 Galatians 4:25 Heinrich August Schott 15 1 5 Yes —
      cj10720 Luke 2:2 Theodorus Beza 13 2 16 — —
      cj10750 1 Timothy 5:13 Patricius Junius 11 4 11 Yes —
      cj10607 1 Corinthians 1:2 Johannes Weiss 14 1 9 Yes —
      cj10292 Romans 7:24 Herman Venema 12 2 14 Yes —
      cj10274 Romans 4:12 Desiderius Erasmus 14 0 4 Yes —
      cj11915 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Alfred Firmin Loisy 12 1 16 — —

      Delete
    2. Would you explain to me why a number of well-known conjectural emendations are not on this list, even though they have supported by numerous people through the years? (Edward Hills comes to mind as a recent example.) I'd consider the following readings with no Greek MS support to be some of the most famous conjectural emendations in the NT because of how often they have been printed. Or what criteria count as 'support' for a conjectural emendation?
      Luke 2:22 (αὐτῆς) Cardinal Jimenez, et al.
      Luke 7:31 (εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Acts 8:37 (αυτω ... σου ... ιησουν) Desiderius Erasmus (or does the margin of GA 2816 read like this?).
      Acts 9:6 (whole verse; while the v.l. of v. 5 is in GA 629, that was also part of Erasmus' conjecture) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Acts 10:6 (οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν) Desiderius Erasmus.
      1 John 5:7-8 (ὁ ... ὁ ... Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 1:8 (omit ὁ θεός) Desiderius Erasmus (but even GA 2814 includes ὁ θεός at the top of page 8r http://digital.bib-bvb.de/view/bvb_mets/viewer.0.6.5.jsp?folder_id=0&dvs=1771833443669~644&pid=6970294&locale=en&usePid1=true&usePid2=true ).
      Revelation 2:20 (ὀλίγα ... διδάσκειν καὶ πλανᾶσθαι) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 15:5 (ἰδού) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 16:5 (Κύριε, εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος) Theodorus Beza.
      Revelation 16:7 (ἄλλου ἐκ) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 17:8 (καὶπερ ἔστιν) Desiderius Erasmus (originally a mistake, but it still goes uncorrected in many editions, making it virtually a conjectural emendation).
      Revelation 21:24 (excluding τα εθνη δια του φωτος αυτης and instead including καὶ τα εθνη των σωζομενων τω φωτι αυτης) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 22:19 (ἀφαιρῇ ... ἀφαιρήσει ... βίβλου ... καί) Desiderius Erasmus.
      Revelation 22:21 (ἡμῶν ... ὑμῶν) Desiderius Erasmus.

      Delete
    3. It is rather simple. First, for Luke 2:22, I have found only 9 instances of support (“Pro”) thus far, and for Rev 16:5 only 7. Perhaps more can be found, I am open for suggestions of course. I do wonder, however, whether simply (i.e. uncritically) taking over a reading from a printed edition should be counted as support for that very reading. Second, for all the other (Erasmian) readings you mention, they are not in the Amsterdam Database, because I do not consider them to be conjectures, but rather infelicitous editorial errors or decisions. Perhaps I should include all those many instances where the capricious genesis of the Textus Receptus produced unattested readings, but they would then almost be a category on their own.

      Delete
  6. Please note that it all depends of the quality (and quantity) of the research that went into the Amsterdam Database. I do not think we did a bad job, but we keep finding conjectures, and the reception history of conjectures is vaster than I had imagined. Still, I think the Database has sufficient “mass” to be indicative of trends and hot spots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my article, the “hot spots’ I mention are just a selection of the many more “magnets”. In the latest instalment, I count 218 verses with five conjectures or more. My query gives the following:
    Found 218 verses with 5+ conjectures
    [part 1: 32 to 9 conjectures]
    Reference Conj Count Total Sources Avg Sources
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Corinthians 11:10 32 194 6.1 9
    Acts 2:9 23 240 10.4 8
    Hebrews 11:37 20 318 15.9 7
    Ephesians 1:1 19 106 5.6 1
    2 Peter 3:10 19 155 8.2 2
    James 3:6 17 77 4.5 1
    Colossians 2:18 15 109 7.3 1
    1 Corinthians 4:6 13 116 8.9 8
    Hebrews 2:9 13 37 2.8 8
    Luke 2:2 12 104 8.7 3
    Romans 5:6 12 44 3.7 5
    Mark 1:1 11 32 2.9 2
    Mark 9:49 11 63 5.7 7
    John 19:29 11 169 15.4 4
    Acts 4:25 11 47 4.3 7
    Romans 9:5 11 137 12.5 2
    Acts 13:33 10 60 6.0 2
    Galatians 1:10 10 32 3.2 0
    Matthew 8:9 9 38 4.2 1
    Mark 9:12 9 43 4.8 5
    Mark 9:23 9 34 3.8 6
    Luke 3:23 9 37 4.1 4
    John 3:25 9 77 8.6 4
    Acts 7:16 9 59 6.6 0
    Acts 19:40 9 24 2.7 1
    Romans 1:18 9 18 2.0 3
    Romans 5:12 9 21 2.3 0
    Romans 7:21 9 34 3.8 9
    Romans 9:10 9 17 1.9 3
    1 Corinthians 2:4 9 86 9.6 0
    1 Corinthians 15:29 9 43 4.8 2
    Galatians 2:5 9 15 1.7 2
    Galatians 4:25 9 89 9.9 6
    Colossians 2:23 9 17 1.9 3
    1 Thessalonians 3:3 9 45 5.0 7

    ReplyDelete
  8. [part 2: 8 to 7 conjectures]
    Matthew 7:6 8 17 2.1 6
    Mark 1:2 8 87 10.9 6
    Mark 6:20 8 16 2.0 2
    Mark 14:41 8 22 2.8 6
    John 19:39 8 35 4.4 3
    Acts 5:12 8 42 5.2 7
    Acts 16:12 8 111 13.9 2
    Romans 5:15 8 20 2.5 3
    Romans 6:19 8 24 3.0 4
    Romans 8:3 8 15 1.9 4
    1 Corinthians 12:2 8 32 4.0 7
    1 Corinthians 15:1 8 37 4.6 4
    2 Corinthians 1:13 8 17 2.1 6
    Galatians 2:2 8 12 1.5 9
    Galatians 2:6 8 11 1.4 7
    Colossians 2:14 8 14 1.8 6
    Hebrews 12:1 8 33 4.1 4
    James 4:5 8 53 6.6 7
    Matthew 1:11 7 31 4.4 6
    Mark 1:27 7 18 2.6 4
    Mark 7:3 7 38 5.4 1
    Mark 14:3 7 27 3.9 8
    Luke 11:36 7 40 5.7 3
    Luke 18:7 7 30 4.3 9
    John 8:44 7 33 4.7 4
    Acts 8:1 7 22 3.1 4
    Acts 10:30 7 20 2.9 9
    Acts 20:24 7 14 2.0 9
    Acts 26:28 7 22 3.1 6
    Acts 27:21 7 18 2.6 0
    Romans 1:32 7 14 2.0 5
    Romans 2:16 7 41 5.9 5
    Romans 4:1 7 12 1.7 7
    Romans 4:12 7 49 7.0 9
    Romans 5:7 7 41 5.9 0
    Romans 6:16 7 18 2.6 3
    1 Corinthians 9:12 7 30 4.3 9
    1 Corinthians 12:31 7 28 4.0 7
    1 Corinthians 15:2 7 14 2.0 4
    Galatians 2:3 7 16 2.3 5
    1 Timothy 3:16 7 24 3.4 0
    1 Peter 3:19 7 77 11.0 8
    2 Peter 1:20 7 52 7.4 6
    2 Peter 2:18 7 20 2.9 1
    Jude 1:5 7 49 7.0 2

    ReplyDelete
  9. [part 3: 6 conjectures]
    Matthew 1:1 6 29 4.8 3
    Matthew 2:6 6 20 3.3 7
    Matthew 19:4 6 15 2.5 9
    Matthew 28:17 6 55 9.2 8
    Mark 7:19 6 25 4.2 2
    Mark 10:32 6 15 2.5 1
    Luke 19:38 6 24 4.0 0
    John 1:18 6 36 6.0 4
    John 3:22 6 15 2.5 1
    John 4:1 6 9 1.5 0
    John 14:2 6 15 2.5 7
    John 18:14 6 22 3.7 2
    John 19:11 6 20 3.3 1
    Acts 1:18 6 20 3.3 1
    Acts 7:38 6 14 2.3 8
    Acts 7:43 6 12 2.0 9
    Acts 8:7 6 18 3.0 1
    Acts 10:36 6 23 3.8 3
    Acts 13:8 6 21 3.5 1
    Acts 13:27 6 15 2.5 5
    Acts 13:42 6 21 3.5 1
    Acts 14:8 6 13 2.2 4
    Acts 18:5 6 24 4.0 4
    Acts 27:9 6 20 3.3 9
    Romans 1:17 6 16 2.7 5
    Romans 2:1 6 26 4.3 8
    Romans 5:16 6 8 1.3 1
    Romans 6:4 6 15 2.5 5
    Romans 8:2 6 13 2.2 1
    Romans 9:31 6 15 2.5 9
    Romans 12:1 6 6 1.0 9
    Romans 12:3 6 33 5.5 3
    1 Corinthians 7:36 6 19 3.2 8
    1 Corinthians 15:45 6 11 1.8 5
    2 Corinthians 3:17 6 52 8.7 0
    Galatians 2:4 6 21 3.5 7
    Ephesians 5:26 6 18 3.0 9
    Philippians 2:6 6 30 5.0 2
    Colossians 3:15 6 10 1.7 4
    2 Thessalonians 1:10 6 28 4.7 8
    1 Timothy 4:3 6 47 7.8 7
    Hebrews 12:18 6 37 6.2 9
    James 2:18 6 37 6.2 2
    James 3:1 6 43 7.2 2
    1 Peter 1:7 6 8 1.3 2
    1 Peter 1:13 6 23 3.8 3
    1 Peter 3:21 6 26 4.3 3
    2 Peter 3:2 6 34 5.7 8

    ReplyDelete
  10. [part 4: 5 conjectures (Matt-Rom)]
    Matthew 3:4 5 26 5.2 1
    Mark 7:4 5 10 2.0 0
    Mark 11:13 5 35 7.0 4
    Luke 6:1 5 12 2.4 4
    Luke 7:8 5 15 3.0 2
    Luke 11:3 5 11 2.2 0
    John 4:44 5 23 4.6 1
    John 5:2 5 14 2.8 6
    John 6:8 5 16 3.2 5
    John 6:22 5 15 3.0 9
    John 19:14 5 70 14.0 7
    John 20:17 5 48 9.6 8
    Acts 5:13 5 9 1.8 1
    Acts 10:37 5 13 2.6 1
    Acts 15:20 5 37 7.4 1
    Acts 15:28 5 21 4.2 8
    Acts 17:4 5 15 3.0 5
    Acts 18:25 5 20 4.0 9
    Acts 20:4 5 30 6.0 8
    Acts 21:3 5 15 3.0 3
    Acts 26:20 5 20 4.0 8
    Acts 27:7 5 14 2.8 2
    Acts 27:17 5 14 2.8 2
    Romans 1:19 5 15 3.0 1
    Romans 2:7 5 9 1.8 6
    Romans 3:8 5 12 2.4 8
    Romans 3:25 5 15 3.0 8
    Romans 3:27 5 8 1.6 4
    Romans 5:18 5 9 1.8 3
    Romans 6:5 5 10 2.0 4
    Romans 7:23 5 7 1.4 2
    Romans 7:24 5 52 10.4 4
    Romans 7:25 5 67 13.4 2
    Romans 8:1 5 8 1.6 8
    Romans 8:12 5 8 1.6 2
    Romans 8:28 5 12 2.4 7
    Romans 8:38 5 17 3.4 9
    Romans 9:3 5 6 1.2 9
    Romans 9:11 5 7 1.4 6
    Romans 10:6 5 9 1.8 1
    Romans 10:15 5 12 2.4 1
    Romans 12:16 5 8 1.6 3
    Romans 13:1 5 46 9.2 8
    Romans 14:21 5 17 3.4 8
    Romans 15:18 5 9 1.8 5
    Romans 15:28 5 10 2.0 3
    Romans 16:17 5 31 6.2 8

    ReplyDelete
  11. [part 5: 5 conjectures (1 Cor to Rev)
    1 Corinthians 1:2 5 37 7.4 7
    1 Corinthians 3:4 5 29 5.8 9
    1 Corinthians 3:13 5 17 3.4 0
    1 Corinthians 5:3 5 7 1.4 1
    1 Corinthians 6:5 5 32 6.4 4
    1 Corinthians 7:34 5 8 1.6 7
    1 Corinthians 8:10 5 25 5.0 8
    1 Corinthians 9:10 5 24 4.8 5
    1 Corinthians 10:29 5 14 2.8 4
    1 Corinthians 12:28 5 10 2.0 5
    1 Corinthians 14:33 5 92 18.4 5
    1 Corinthians 15:27 5 10 2.0 1
    1 Corinthians 16:22 5 21 4.2 9
    2 Corinthians 1:11 5 16 3.2 0
    2 Corinthians 4:4 5 12 2.4 8
    2 Corinthians 8:11 5 10 2.0 0
    2 Corinthians 11:32 5 26 5.2 8
    2 Corinthians 12:6 5 14 2.8 3
    2 Corinthians 12:7 5 13 2.6 8
    Galatians 1:1 5 25 5.0 1
    Galatians 2:10 5 20 4.0 0
    Galatians 3:5 5 8 1.6 9
    Galatians 4:17 5 27 5.4 9
    Galatians 5:1 5 9 1.8 6
    Galatians 5:13 5 6 1.2 8
    Galatians 5:17 5 6 1.2 9
    Ephesians 4:29 5 13 2.6 7
    Colossians 1:18 5 7 1.4 1
    Colossians 2:15 5 18 3.6 8
    Colossians 3:16 5 8 1.6 6
    1 Timothy 2:6 5 6 1.2 0
    1 Timothy 5:13 5 44 8.8 9
    2 Timothy 1:3 5 13 2.6 2
    Philemon 1:23 5 40 8.0 0
    Hebrews 4:2 5 31 6.2 7
    Hebrews 9:11 5 14 2.8 1
    James 4:2 5 142 28.4 6
    1 Peter 3:4 5 22 4.4 0
    1 Peter 4:14 5 14 2.8 6
    Jude 1:1 5 31 6.2 9
    Jude 1:7 5 27 5.4 1
    Jude 1:12 5 15 3.0 7
    Revelation 3:7 5 25 5.0 9

    ReplyDelete
  12. I honestly would have picked 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, or 1 Corinthians 14:34-5/36, as more controversial passages as might attract variants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this remark. It has to do with a problem of how I let the query handle conjectures that span more than one verse. There are actually 5 conjectures (known to me) that affect 1 Thess 2:14, so it should have made the list, but the query only looked at the first verse, so Loisy’s important conjecture (cj11915) that states that 1 Thess 2:13–16 is an interpolation, was not taken into account. For similar reasons, 1 Cor 14:34–35 flew just under the radar. More in general, problems that can be solved by means of (conjectural) omission will betray far less diversity than those solved by substitution.

      Delete
    2. The Amsterdam Database (as of February 2026) has 2645 conjectures involving just omission. The top 40 with the most support (as far as I have found so far) are the following (part 1: 1–20):
      cjID Reference Author Yr Pro Reinv Contra Nestle M/P/V MCT Reading
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      cj11560 John 21:1–25 Hugo Grotius 1641 45 0 15 — — vss
      cj10662 Hebrews 11:37 Desiderius Erasmus 1522 38 0 13 Yes M ἐπειράσθησαν (ℵ/𝔐)
      cj11009 2 Cor 6:14–1 Karl Schrader 1835 37 0 12 — — vss
      cj11914 1 Cor 14:34–35 James Drummond 1899 31 1 26 Yes — vss
      cj13840 1 Cor 14:33–36 Karl Holsten 1880 31 1 13 — — vss 33b–36
      cj10605 Rom 7:25 Pet Aloys Gratz 1814 18 3 15 Yes — Ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω … νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας
      cj10604 Rom 6:17 Christian Hermann Weisse 1866 18 1 15 — — ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς
      cj11284 Mark 1:2 Theodorus Beza 1582 17 2 10 — — ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου …, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου
      cj10334 1 Cor 14:33–35 Jan Willem Straatman 1863 19 0 10 Yes — vss 33b–35
      cj10938 1 Cor 4:6 Friedrich August Bornemann 1843 17 1 26 — — τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται
      cj10069 Luke 1:46 Alfred Firmin Loisy 1894 14 3 11 Yes — Μαριάμ
      cj12376 Matt 27:9 Wolfgang Musculus 1544 16 1 6 — M Ἰερεμίου
      cj12395 Matt 28:19 Anonymous 1670 13 3 39 — P βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς … τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
      cj10708 Gal 4:25 Heinrich August Schott 1834 15 1 5 Yes — τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστιν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ
      cj10720 Luke 2:2 Theodorus Beza 1556 13 2 16 — — vs
      cj10607 1 Cor 1:2 Johannes Weiss 1900 14 1 9 Yes — σὺν πᾶσιν … ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν
      cj10274 Rom 4:12 Desiderius Erasmus 1529 14 0 4 Yes — καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν
      cj11915 1 Thess 2:13–16 Alfred Firmin Loisy 1922 12 1 16 — — vss
      cj11833 1 Cor 1:12 Zachary Pearce 1721 11 1 19 — — ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ
      cj11580 Acts 2:9 William Whiston 1746 10 2 16 — — Ἰουδαίαν

      Delete
    3. (part 2: 21–40)
      cj10337 1 Cor 15:56 Jan Willem Straatman 1865 12 0 13 Yes — vs
      cj10349 1 Thess 2:16 Albrecht Ritschl 1847 11 0 21 Yes — ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος
      cj10344 Eph 1:1 Johann Benjamin Koppe 1791 9 2 7 — — τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ]
      cj10056 Matt 26:68 Cuthbert Hamilton Turner 1920 10 0 9 — — τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;
      cj10139 Rom 2:16 Christian Hermann Weisse 1866 9 1 12 — — vs
      cj10439 Mark 11:13 Jonathan Toup 1764 9 1 11 — — ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων
      cj14041 Matt 27:53 Johann Christoph Friedrich Schulz 1790 7 3 1 — V μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ
      cj12712 Rom 13:1–7 Christian Eggenberger 1943 7 2 19 — — vss
      cj10092 Acts 13:33 Friedrich August Bornemann 1848 9 0 5 Yes — τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν
      cj10132 Matt 7:19 Jeremiah Markland 1772 7 2 3 — — vs
      cj10496 Luke 22:19–20 Friedrich Blass 1896 8 1 5 — — vss
      cj10142 2 Cor 3:3 Jan Hendrik Holwerda 1853 9 0 3 Yes M καρδίαις
      cj10066 Mark 10:46 Theodorus Beza 1565 8 1 1 Yes — ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου
      cj11040 Eph 2:5 Hugo Grotius 1645 6 3 1 — — χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι
      cj10928 Rom 8:38 Carl Friedrich August Fritzsche 1839 7 2 0 — MP οὔτε δυνάμεις
      cj11127 1 Pet 2:7–8 Hugo Grotius 1645 9 0 0 — V λίθος ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη … γωνίας καί
      cj10618 Mark 1:2–3 Karl Lachmann 1830 8 0 7 Yes — vss
      cj13620 Luke 1:5–52 Jean Bodin 1592 5 3 12 — — vss
      cj12646 Gal 3:20 Johann David Michaelis 1777 6 2 11 — — vs
      cj13121 1 Cor 11:10 Carl Friedrich Bahrdt 1773 4 4 10 — — διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους

      Delete
  13. Thanks for these lists. Yesterday
    https://languagehat.com/the-science-of-blunders/ called attention to a fine article,
    "The Science of Blunders: Confessions of a Textual Critic"
    by James Willis
    https://antigonejournal.com/2026/02/science-of-blunders-confessions-textual-critic/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Jan for these helpful lists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very helpful, thank you! I'm looking forward to looking through these passages with translation teams I work with to see how they've handled these hotspots. To do this, I made a public "Conjecture Magnets" passage list in Logos: https://flshare.net/p62xn3. Here are all the references in a simplified list in case anyone else finds it helpful:

    Conjecture Magnets
    1 Co 11:10; Ac 2:9; Ro 16:16–23; 7:25–8:2; Heb 11:37; 2 Pe 3:10; Eph 1:1; Jn 18:13–24; Jas 3:6; Col 2:18; Lk 2:2; Ac 5:12–16; 1 Co 4:6; 2 Co 11:30–12:1; Ga 4:25; Heb 2:9; Jn 3:25; 19:29; 1 Co 15:2; Mk 9:23; Ac 4:25; 1 Co 15:29; 1 Th 3:3; Ac 13:33; 1 Co 2:4; 2 Co 1:13; Jas 4:5; Mk 14:41; Lk 18:7; Jn 19:39; Ac 1:18; 16:12; Ro 4:12; Col 2:14; Mk 14:3; Ac 10:30; Eph 5:26; 2 Pe 1:20; Ac 18:5; 27:9; 1 Ti 4:3; Heb 12:18; Jas 3:1; Ac 20:4; 27:7; 1 Co 6:5

    ReplyDelete