The concentration on two sixteenth-century critics has one notable consequence of the terminology used in this study. In present-day textual criticism, the term ’emendation’ is often used as denoting only ‘conjectural emendation’. In the sixteenth century, however, ’emendation’ was not necessarily ‘conjectural’, but simply meant the correct of a vulgate text or the editio princeps. Critics emended, improved a previous edition with respect to details. This situation remained during the period of the dominance of the Textus Receptus. In this period, emendations, the adoption of alternative readings, was done in two distinct ways, depending on the way these readings were found: they could either be derived from manuscripts or be arrived at by rational argument. Hence a distinction was made between emendatio codicum ope (’emendation by means of manuscripts’) and emendatio ingenii ope (’emendation by means of reasoning’). For the Greek text of Erasmus’ New Testament edition, for instance, the typesetters used manuscripts which had been emended by Erasmus for the most part by means of a few other manuscripts.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, 4-5.

In the present study, however, the term ‘conjectural emendation’ is used consistently to reflect the distinction between emendatio codicum ope and emendatio ingenii ope as current before the nineteenth century. It should finally be noted that most conjectures discussed in this study were never printed as part of a Greek New Testament. They have their Sitz-im-Leben in annotations and commentaries. Indeed, a recurrent theme of this study is the tendency of Erasmus and Beza to propose conjectures without actually implementing them.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, 5.

The United States Constitution begins with the words “We the People.” It expresses the assumption, basic to American constitutionalism that “ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone” [Federalist No 46 (James Madison)]. The Covenanters met this assumption head on. In [Samuel] Wylie’s words, “Civil government does not, as some modern politicians affirm, originate either in the people, as its fountain, or in the vices consequent upon the fall. . . . [I]t is among the all things committed to him [Christ] by the donation of the Father.” To state the principle positively, “God the supreme Governor, is the fountain of all power and authority, and civil magistrates are his deputies.” Fundamental constitutional authority was not in the people; it was from the divine mediator Jesus Christ, granted “universal dominion” by the Father. Thus, for the Covenanters, American governments, founded by federal and state constitutions alike, rested upon an erroneous and corrupt principle. From this basic flaw flowed the Covenanters’ criticisms of American constitutional government, and their recommendations of what was necessary to reform the American constitutional system.

“Church and State in the Early Republic: The Covenanters’ Radical Critique” by Robert Emery in Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (2009), 493-494.

Though thousands of textual conjectures have been proposed by scholars over the last few centuries, today very few find any advocates. In the most widely used edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28), there are two places where the editors have left all the Greek manuscripts behind. These are Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. In both places, there are a few versional witnesses in support of the adopted text.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 101.

In 1 Kings 4:33, the narrator presents Solomon in the mold of an ancient scribe or scholar who discoursed “about trees, from the cedar which is in Lebanon to the hyssop which grows in the wall, and . . . spoke about beasts, birds, reptiles, and fish.” Solomon had catalogued the trees from great to small and the animals according to their kinds, he could recite them as the scribes of the ancient Near East did.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 41.

The preeminent scribe in Israel’s history was Ezra. He was a priest who was also described as “a skilled scribe in the Torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:5-6; see also 7:10). In the ancient world, priests curated texts that were stored in the temple, which functioned as a national archive, and Israel was no exception to this custom (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; see also 2 Kings 22:8) . . .

Israel also had scribes in the royal sphere. We mentioned above that Solomon was cast as a scribe. Deuteronomy 17:18 portrays each king of Israel as a scribe as he writes for himself a copy of the law.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 43.

William Symington’s Messiah the Prince (1838) most fully stated this doctrine [Christ’s Mediatorial Reign] through detailed Biblical exegesis. That God the Father appointed his son Jesus Christ the head of the church, all Protestant denominations accepted. Beyond this principle, however, Symington believed that scripture mandated belief in “the headship of Jesus, as Mediator, over the nations of the world, or the political associations of men.” The Bible, Symington held, specifically taught that Jehovah, God the Father, delegated to Christ his Son “mediatorial dominion” to rule the nations. The Father did not create and generally rule all nations as a matter of natural law; rather, he specificially “‘hath put all things in subjection under [Christ’s] feet,’ as respects his right of sovereignty” over human socities.

“Church and State in the Early Republic: The Covenanters’ Radical Critique” by Robert Emery in Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (2009), 491.

In judging the text of these early codices we must not expect to find a uniform tradition running through all the component parts. We must remember that the various books, before being brought together into these huge volumes, circulated separately or in small groups, and so developed an individual textual history.

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus (British Museum – Printed by Order of the Trustees – 1938), 34.