“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }
h2, h3 { color: #2C3E50; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #BDC3C7; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
Textual Variants in Revelation 11:15 and 22:19: The Influence of the Latin Vulgate on the Textus Receptus
This exegetical study of Textual Variants in Revelation 11:15 and 22:19: The Influence of the Latin Vulgate on the Textus Receptus is based on a b-greek discussion from Sun Sep 5 08:40:53 EDT 1999. The initial inquiry concerned the observation that some renderings in the King James Version (KJV) of Revelation might derive from Latin rather than Greek manuscripts, prompting a request for illustrative examples and supporting information.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the reliability of the Textus Receptus (TR) readings in Revelation, specifically the plural αἱ βασιλεῖαι versus the singular ἡ βασιλεία in Revelation 11:15, and the rendering of ἀπὸ τοῦ βιβλίου versus ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου in Revelation 22:19. These variants are believed to stem from Erasmus’s reliance on the Latin Vulgate to reconstruct portions of the Greek text of Revelation for his 1516 edition, due to the incompleteness of his sole Greek manuscript for the book.
Καὶ ὁ ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ μεγάλαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγοντες· Ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. (Rev 11:15 Nestle 1904)
Καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ. (Rev 22:19 Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
For Revelation 11:15 and 22:19, the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT 2010) are in substantial agreement. The differences under discussion primarily concern the Textus Receptus (TR) readings and their relationship to these critical editions:
- In Revelation 11:15, the TR (e.g., Stephanus 1550, Elzevir 1633) often reads αἱ βασιλεῖαι (plural) and ἐγένοντο (plural verb), whereas both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 read ἡ βασιλεία (singular) and ἐγένετο (singular verb).
- In Revelation 22:19, the TR reads ἀφαιρέσει… ἀπὸ τοῦ βιβλίου (will take away… from the book), while both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 read ἀφελεῖ… ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου (will take away… from the tree). The variant verb ἀφαιρέσει in the TR, instead of ἀφελεῖ, is also a notable difference.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The critical apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) strongly supports the readings found in Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for both passages. For Revelation 11:15, NA28 presents ἡ βασιλεία, supported by an overwhelming majority of early and significant Greek manuscripts, including P47, א (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and the Byzantine textual tradition. The variant αἱ βασιλεῖαι is primarily found in the TR and some later Byzantine manuscripts, often accompanied by the plural verb ἐγένοντο for grammatical agreement. For Revelation 22:19, NA28 reads ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς. This reading is well-attested by leading manuscripts such as P47, א, A, C, and the Byzantine tradition. The TR reading ἀπὸ τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς ζωῆς is not supported by these key Greek witnesses but appears to derive from Latin Vulgate translations, as documented by scholars like Bruce Metzger.
Lexical analysis further elucidates the nuances of these variants. The term βασιλεία (basileia), according to BDAG, can mean “kingship, rule, reign” (abstract) or “kingdom, realm” (concrete). KITTEL (TDNT) provides an extensive entry, noting its frequent use for God’s sovereign reign or the eschatological kingdom. The singular emphasizes a unified, comprehensive dominion. The terms ξύλον (xylon) and βιβλίον (biblion) are central to the variant in Revelation 22:19. BDAG defines ξύλον as “wood, tree, timber,” and in contexts like Revelation, specifically “tree of life.” Βιβλίον is defined as “roll, scroll, book,” referring to the “book of life.” KITTEL also reinforces these meanings. The phrase “tree of life” (ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς) carries significant biblical intertextual weight, harkening back to Genesis 2-3 and appearing several times in Revelation (2:7, 22:2, 14, 19). The “book of life” (βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς) is also a prominent motif (Phil 4:3, Rev 3:5, 13:8, 20:12, 15).
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The primary translation variants concern the number of “kingdom” in Revelation 11:15 and the object from which one’s portion is removed in Revelation 22:19. In Revelation 11:15, the variant hinges on ἡ βασιλεία (singular) versus αἱ βασιλεῖαι (plural). Grammatically, the critical text’s singular feminine nominative ἡ βασιλεία perfectly agrees with the aorist middle/passive indicative 3rd singular verb ἐγένετο (“became”). The TR’s plural αἱ βασιλεῖαι would necessitate a plural verb ἐγένοντο (“became”), which is indeed found in some TR editions. Rhetorically, the singular “the kingdom of the world” emphasizes a unified, singular entity or system of earthly power that becomes the Lord’s. This conveys a powerful image of universal dominion. The plural “the kingdoms of the world” might suggest individual nations or political entities, a subtly different emphasis, though still pointing to God’s ultimate sovereignty over all earthly powers.
For Revelation 22:19, the variants are ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς (“from the tree of life”) in critical texts versus ἀπὸ τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς ζωῆς (“from the book of life”) in the TR. Both are grammatically sound constructions within their respective contexts. The variant also involves the verb: critical texts have ἀφελεῖ (future active indicative 3rd singular of ἀφαιρέω), while the TR has ἀφαιρέσει (future active indicative 3rd singular of ἀφαιρέω, but with a different stem form). Rhetorically, “the tree of life” directly references the eschatological paradise and the promise of eternal life granted to the faithful (Revelation 2:7, 22:2). To have one’s portion removed from the tree of life signifies a forfeiture of this eternal blessing and access to God’s presence, connecting powerfully to the Genesis narrative of expulsion from Eden. “The book of life,” while also a potent image of inclusion in salvation, does not carry the same specific connection to the paradise imagery and the material, experiential aspect of eternal life as the “tree.” The origin of the TR reading in the Latin Vulgate, where libro (“book”) may have been a mistranscription for ligno (“tree”) or a translation of a variant Latin text, highlights the textual rather than theological impetus behind this particular variant.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on comprehensive textual and lexical analysis, the critical text readings for Revelation 11:15 (ἡ βασιλεία) and 22:19 (ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου) are overwhelmingly supported by the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. The variants found in the Textus Receptus for these verses are generally attributed to Erasmus’s reliance on the Latin Vulgate, necessitated by the incompleteness of his Greek manuscript for Revelation, a phenomenon well-documented by textual critics such as Bruce Metzger. These TR readings, therefore, lack strong Greek manuscript tradition.
Translation suggestions reflecting the critical text readings:
- For Revelation 11:15: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever.” This translation maintains the singular focus on the unified dominion of the world becoming God’s.
- For Revelation 22:19 (first part of the verse): “And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life…” This emphasizes the consequence of losing access to eternal life symbolized by the Tree, aligning with paradise imagery.
- For Revelation 22:19 (combining verb and object): “…God will remove his share from the tree of life and from the holy city, from the things written in this book.” This variant provides a slightly different nuance for “take away” and explicitly includes the “holy city” from which one might be removed, highlighting the comprehensive nature of the judgment.
“`
tell me more about this Gary Micheal Epping RichardAnna Boyce
One can obviously prefer the Majority Text as an overall form witnessed to by the majority of documents, without having to insist that every single original reading must have a majority of the surviving manuscripts in its favor. The overall form of text in the Hodges/Farstad edition is clearly the form found in a majority of the NT documents (except in John 7:53–8:11 and in Revelation where no one “form” of the text is in the majority). In this sense it is not illegitimate to call the Majority Text itself a “texttype.” But it is trans missionally possible that some of theoriginal readings of this “texttype” are not attested in a majority of the extant manuscripts known today. Revelation 11:13 When the seventh angel sounds his trumpet, John explains that loud voices in heaven proclaim that “our Lord” (God the Father) and “His Christ” (God the Son) are now in complete control of the earth. The kingdom (singular in the MT) “of this world has become the kingdom of” God. Obviously this event is being referred to as if it has already taken place (the phrase have become is anticipatory). The actual coronation of Christ will not come to pass until He returns to earth after the seven-year Tribulation is complete, but heaven is already singing about it and viewing it as accomplished. Once He is crowned as king, Christ will “reign forever and ever!” “And of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:33).
naah RichardAnna Boyce Majority Text is not even scholarly enough
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
I (Bob Wilkin – Free Grace) evaluate seven major translations in terms of how they handle passages of special interest to the Grace message. Those seven are the NIV, NASB, NET Bible, HCSB, ESV, KJV, and NKJV.
Before I discuss each, I think it is important to explain the difference between the Greek texts that five of these translations utilize versus the other two.
Critical Text Versus Majority Text Translations
Of the seven, only the KJV and the NKJV are translating what is often called the Majority Text (MT) of the NT. For example, in 1 John 4:19 the KJV and NKJV include the word Him after “we love,” but the other five translations do not. The options are: “We love Him because He first loved us” versus “We love because He first loved us.” The issue here is not translation style. The issue is the Greek manuscripts that they choose to translate.
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
Can Faith Save Him? James 2:14
Note how our seven translations handle this verse, and especially pay attention to the different ways they translate the last part of it, i.e., the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. I have italicized key differences.
KJV: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”
NKJV: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
NASB: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?”
NIV: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
NET: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?”
HCSB: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him?”
ESV “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
The NIV, NASB, NET, and ESV qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse with words which question the validity of the faith: “such faith,” “that faith,” “this kind of faith,” or “that faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. Though the HCSB has a qualifier (“his faith”), there is nothing in the qualifier that questions the faith.
The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (hē pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 17, 20, 22, and 26. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, NET, or ESV translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. The KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question.
In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when it translates ean… legē tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, legō, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.”
The issue in Jas 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not merely speakers. We find the same thing in 1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The other five translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV) correctly translated ean…legē tis.
The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB and ESV users are also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV, NKJV, and HCSB are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse since their translation does not try to interpret the verse for the readers.
This passage serves to illustrate how translators sometimes find it difficult to set aside their theological convictions when translating. If the goal were simply to convey what the original language says as clearly as possible in English, then they would not resort to this sort of interpretive rendering of the text.
A Critical Examination of Seven Bible Translations (Part 1)
January 1, 2015 by Bob Wilkin in Grace in Focus
Anyone Named Brother: 1 Corinthians 5:11
The key question here is how the various translations handle the Greek words tis adelphos onomazomenos.
KJV: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater…”
NKJV: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater…”
ESV: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater…”
NASB: “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater…”
NIV: “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolater…”
NET: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater…”
HCSB: “But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater…”
In this passage Paul is telling the believers in the church of Corinth that they are to judge those who are inside, not those outside, the church (vv 10, 12). If one believes those inside the church are believers, then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous believers in the church. If, however, one believes that those inside the church includes both believers and unbelievers [or false professors], then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous unbelievers in the church.
If the job of the translator is to translate and not interpret, the translator should seek to make his translation of this passage as vague as the original. In this case the first two translations, the KJV and NKJV, fit the bill. A Greek participle, onomazomenos, has a literal meaning of “anyone bearing the name.” The NKJV and ESV get it just right and the KJV is close. The other four, the NASB, NIV, HCSB, and NET all interpret this phrase for the reader rather than translate it.
There is nothing in the Greek that suggests translations such as “any so-called brother,” “anyone who calls himself a brother,” “anyone who calls himself a Christian,” or “anyone who claims to be a believer.” The words themselves and the context strongly suggest that a genuine believer is in view (compare vv 10 and 12). There is also nothing in the text about what the person calls himself. The Greek verb to call is not found in this verse. Nor is the word himself. Nor are the words Christian or believer. All these things are artificially placed there.
The last four translations reflect an interpretive bias which springs out of Reformed theology. If there is no such thing as a believer who is immoral or covetous or an idolater, then Paul isn’t warning about believers here. But note well that even if I was convinced this passage was warning about false professors, I still would translate it “anyone who bears the name brother” or “anyone named brother.” The reason is because it is not the job of a translator to explain what the text means. It is his job to give the best possible translation and leave the interpretation to the reader.
Conclusion to Part 1
In terms of which translation of the New Testament best handles the actual text that God gave us, I have argued that the KJV and NKJV stand out since they alone follow the Majority Text.
In terms of the two test verses we considered, four of the seven proved best. In terms of the translation of Jas 2:14, the KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB were best. For 1 Cor 5:11 the best three were the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV.
All of the seven translations considered are well done and can be used profitably by believers. However, some of those translations interpret, rather than translate, upon occasion, and sometimes when they do they introduce interpretations that are antithetical to the Free Grace position. The reader should be aware of this, regardless of which translation he uses.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/us/earthquake-salt-lake-temple-moroni/index.html