Bart Ehrman has raised a question as to whether some portions of the original NT have been lost while through the years the text has been copied. The process of trying to restore words that may have been lost is called conjectural emendation. Among scholars, three views about the need for conjectural emendation have arisen: the optimistic view which contends that no words have been lost, the mixed perspective which says that perhaps a few but not many words have been lost, and the pessimistic view that many words have been lost. Since conjectural emendation is so subjective, an effort to reach a firm conclusion is fruitless, but it is helpful to observe that no text exists for which the need for emendation is universally acknowledged. A more helpful approach is to select 2 Pet 3:10d for examination because many scholars have suggested the need for emendation of this text. The textual problem in that verse centers in the reading of the last word åßñåèÞóåôáé. This word finds good support in the external witnesses, but is quite problematic in regard to how it fits its context. Numerous conjectures regarding how to replace the word have emerged, some of them quite insufficient and some of them more plausible. The best explanation which comes from Bauckham accepts the correctness of the reading åßñåèÞóåôáé and assigns it the meaning of “discovered.” Thus the need for conjectural emendation in 2 Pet 3:10d is erased.