Have you ever noticed an interesting phenomenon, when reading a passage in Revelation 22:19, depending on the translation you may use?
The New King James Bible states: “… if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Similar to the Authorized Version and the German Luther Bibles from 1891, 1984, 2009 and 2017.
However, most translations render the verse in this way (using the New International Version as an example): “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
Rather than saying, God shall take away his part from the “Book of Life,” they say, God will take away his share in the “Tree of Life.”
Both statements make sense. When somebody tempers with God’s Word, God may take away the Holy Spirit which had been given to the person (symbolized by the Tree of Life), and when that happens, his name will be blotted out from the Book of Life (symbolizing the gift of eternal life; Revelation 3:5). Such a person will not inherit eternal life (Hebrews 6:4-6, 9; 10:26-27). So we see that the warning in Revelation 22:19 is extremely severe.
Still, can we determine which rendering is correct? Could it even be possible that the translation of the Authorized Version, the King James Bible and the Luther Bibles is incorrect?
To trace the history as to how and why the translations were included in the King James and Luther Bibles is a fascinating story. But before exploring this, let us consider a few examples where the King James and Luther Bibles ADDED disputed passages which should have been left out, or OMITTED passages which should have been included.
One example is Matthew 28:19.
In our Q&A, “Why do you not baptize by using the words, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’? (Part 3),” we pointed out that many have questioned the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, which is contained in the King James and Luther Bibles, concluding that it was a later addition which was not part of the original New Testament.
We stated the following, among other things:
“David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, states on page 86: ‘Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the church historian [who died in 340 AD] … in his writings preceding the council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without it.’…
“Fred C. Conybeare, ‘The Eusebian Form of the Text Mt. 28, 19,’ in ‘Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums,’ (1901), pointed out that Eusebius had quoted Matthew 28 seventeen times [others say, eighteen times] BEFORE the Council of Nicea, OMITTING the disputed words, and three times AFTER the Council of Nicea, including the disputed words (at p. 282). He also stated on pages 284-287: ‘[Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen give any] hint of the important precept to baptize in the triune name which in our texts intervene…’
“E.W. Bullinger writes in ‘Word Studies on the Holy Spirit,’ on pages 47-49: ‘It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command (in Matthew 28:19), if it had ever been given; or if it ever really formed part of the primitive text. It is a question therefore whether we have here something beyond the reach of science, or the powers of ordinary Textual Criticism. As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth century, and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the church knew nothing of these words. Eusebius quotes this verse no less than eighteen times, and always quotes it in this form, ‘Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all nations.’ He omits the reference to ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.’ Now, Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 AD, and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian libraries of that day. If the Greek MS there contained these words, it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them.
“Professor Lake… and Mr. Conybeare have called attention to this fact, and shown that neither Justin Martyr (who died in 165 AD), nor Aphraates of Nisibis (who flourished in Syria, 340 AD), knew nothing of these words. It looks, therefore, as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the church of North Africa; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS at their disposal. The point is interesting. The difficulty is there.”
The Church of the Eternal God takes the approach that even IF the passage in Matthew 28 is genuine, it does not set forth a formula which needs to be used when baptizing a person. Therefore, Church ministers, following the example of the early apostles, are baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ and, with the laying on of hands, are asking the Father to give the baptized person the Holy Spirit. But more likely than not, the passage in Matthew 28:19 does not appear to be genuine, which would mean that it was inserted in the Bible without authority.
There is another famous example where a verse was added which does clearly not belong in the Bible. We are referring to 1 John 5:7-8. The disputed passage can be found in the King James Bible, as well as in the Luther Bible of 1891. However, it has been omitted in the Luther Bible of 1984 and in all subsequent editions, except for the neue Lutherbibel 2009 which has still retained it.
Quoting from our booklet, “IS God a Trinity?”:
“The New King James Bible translates it this way: ‘For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.’
“… most scholars agree that the words in verse 7, ‘in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one,’ were later added by the Catholic Church to ‘prove’ the Trinity, and that these words were not in the original writings. Many Bible translations and commentaries state that this particular phrase, referred to as the ‘Comma Joanneum,’ is ‘not contained in the best authorities and constitutes a late addition in the Latin Text’ [Pattloch Bible, Appendix, page 85].
“The Zürcher Bible comments in a footnote that ‘this passage was added in the fourth century in the Latin Text, and only in the 15th century in some Greek Texts.’ The NIV adds in a footnote that this particular phrase is only contained ‘in the late manuscripts of the Latin Bible and that it is not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th century.’ Other commentaries point out that these words are clearly a falsification and that they have therefore been correctly omitted, even as a footnote, in many modern translations.”
In another example, we find that a verse in Matthew 27:49 was left out which needs to be included, but neither the King James Bibles nor the Luther Bibles include it.
In our Q&A, titled, “How, exactly, did Jesus Christ die? Why did a soldier pierce Him with a spear when He was already dead?”, we said the following:
“When we read Matthew’s account, in the New King James Bible, we will not find exactly how Christ died. The reason is that this translation omits a crucial verse, at the end of Matthew 27:49. Several translations, as well as many old manuscripts, have retained this missing verse. For instance, verses 49 and 50 read in the Moffat translation: ‘But the others said, “Stop, let us see if Elijah does come to save him!” (Seizing a lance, another pricked [better, pierced] his side, and out came water and blood.) Jesus again uttered a loud scream, and gave up his spirit.’
“The Fenton Bible translates the missing verse as follows: ‘But another taking a spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out.’
“A.T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels, states in a footnote to Matthew 27:49: ‘Many ancient authorities add: And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.’
“The Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, add the following footnote: ‘Other ancient authorities insert, And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood.’
“The Vaticanus–a Greek New Testament written in the 300’s A.D.–contains the missing verse as well. It reads: ‘And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came forth water and blood.’ The Sinaiticus Codex also contains the verse, and so does the Codex Ephraemi. According to The Testament in Greek, by Wescott and Hort, published in 1896, the missing verse also appears in most Syrian, Egyptian, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic translations. It also appears in Origen’s work [around 200 A.D.]. Walton’s Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, published in 1657, claims, in Vol. VI, on page 6 of the appendix, that this missing verse was still a marginal reading of the Greek text when the King James Version was made.”
“Do we know WHY the inspired passage in Matthew 27:49 was deleted from the sacred text? The deletion occurred when a spurious version of the book of Matthew, which was allegedly written by Barnabas, was found, which did not include the passage in Matthew 27:49. Note the following excerpts from Westcott and Hort: ‘In a letter partially preserved in Syriac… [Severus] mentions the reading [of the missing passage] as having been vigorously debated at Constantinople in connexion with the matter of the patriarch Macedonius, when the… [spurious] copy of… Matthew’s Gospel said to have been discovered in Cyprus with the body of… Barnabas in the reign of Zeno (?477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence in question … at Constantinople the holy Gospels were by command of the emperor censored,’ and the passage in question was deleted from the sacred text of the gospel according to Matthew.”
We also then explained the Scripture in John 19:32-34, which, correctly translated, supports not only the conclusion as to how Christ died (a soldier killed Him by piercing His side with a spear), but also, that the missing verse in Matthew’s account needs to be included in the Bible.
So we have seen that on a few occasions, crucial verses were omitted or added in the King James and Luther Bibles, while other translations or commentaries, based on historical records, clarify that situation.
Returning now to Revelation 22:19, let us explore what happened when the rendering “Book of Life” was used—as distinguished from “Tree of Life.”
We should first of all notice that the Authorized Version and also the Luther Bible are based on Erasmus’s Greek New Testament and Latin translations. It is interesting that we do not know of ANY Greek manuscripts at the time before Erasmus which has the wording “book of life.” They all say “tree of life.”
When in 1515 and 1516, Erasmus worked on the Greek New Testament, he had only access to a manuscript from the 12th century. It is today preserved in the university library in Augsburg. In that manuscript, the last five verses of Revelation 22 were missing. Erasmus was pressed for time, as the demand for a Greek New Testament was great, and he wanted to be the first to publish it (as others in Spain were also working on a Greek New Testament edition). So, Erasmus used the commonly used Latin text (the Vulgata) of Revelation 22:16-21 and translated that back into the Greek.
He clearly revealed in writing what he had done in his annotation to the New Testament, stating in Latin: “Quamquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.” (In English: “Even though I found at the end of this book some words, which were missing in the Greek manuscripts, we still added them from the Latin manuscripts.”) He confirmed this again in a subsequent letter: “Proinde nos ne hierat lacuna, ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca.” (In English: “So that we should not have a loss, we supplemented the Greek (words) from our Latin (manuscripts).”
The Latin text had indeed “libro vitae,” i.e., book of life. It does not appear that Erasmus’ subsequent editions corrected or changed this rendition, and so it was used by the King James and Luther Bibles as the basis for their translations into English and German. But it does not appear that this is the correct translation, and it appears that Revelation 22:19 should indeed be rendered to say that God will take away the TREE of life from the person who deletes Scriptures, obviously not inadvertently, but with full knowledge and intent.
We want to conclude with a quote from chapter 2 of our free booklet, “The Authority of the Bible :
“While using [different] types of translations when studying the Bible can be beneficial, only literally translated editions—such as the New King James Bible (for English)—should be depended upon for doctrinal clarity. Even so, there may be errors due to inaccurate translation. It is, therefore, necessary and important that a faithful minister of God explain and correct such errors (compare Romans 10:14–15).”
This Q&A served to do this in regard to Revelation 22:19.
Lead Writer: Norbert Link