Book of life or tree of life
One of the most controversial and highly debated KJV readings in the entire Bible can be found in Revelation 22:19 where the KJV reads book of life.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. KJV
Most modern versions, however, read tree of life.
Revelation 22:19 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. NIV
Revelation 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. ESV
So which reading is correct? Book of life or tree of life?
The first thing that we need to make note of is that this is not a translational issue, this is a textual issue. The underlying Greek words for book βίβλου biblou and tree ξύλου xylou are different.
We must also note that this is not specifically a KJV only issue. This is a critical text vs Textus receptus issue. The critical text follows the reading xylou while the Textus receptus follows the reading biblou.
In fact, this is one of the most disputed passages of scripture between those who assert the authority of the Critical and those that assert the Textus receptus.
All English bibles that preceded the KJV also read book of life rather than tree of life.
Revelation 22:19 And yf eny man shall mynyshe of the wordes of ye boke of this prophesy god shall take a waye his parte out of the boke of lyfe and oute of ye holy citie and fro thoo thynge which are written in this boke.Tyndale Bible
Revelation 22:19 And yf eny man shal mynishe of the wordes of the boke of this prophesy, God shal take awaye his parte out of the boke of life, and out of the holy citie, and fro tho thinges which are wrytten in this boke. Coverdale Bible
Revelation 22:19 And yf any man shal mynyshe of the wordes of the boke of this prophesy, God shall take awaye hys part out of the boke of lyfe, & out of the holye citie and from those thinges which are wrytten in this boke. Matthews Bible
Revelation 22:19 And yf eny man shall mynisshe of the wordes of the boke of this prophesy, God shall take awaye hys parte out of the boke of lyfe, and out of the holy cytie, and from the thynges which are written in this boke. Great Bible
Revelation 22:19 And yf any man shall minishe of the wordes of the booke of this prophecie, God shal take away his part out of the booke of lyfe, and out of the holy citie, and from the thynges which are writte in this booke. Bishops Bible
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall diminish of the wordes of the booke of this prophecie, God shall take away his part out of the Booke of life, and out of the holie citie, and from those things which are written in this booke. Geneva Bible
This includes the reading of the Wycliffe Bible of 1382 which was not translated from the TR but rather from the Latin Vulgate.
Revelation 22:19 And if ony man do awei of the wordis of the book of this prophesie, God schal take awei the part of hym fro the book of lijf, and fro the hooli citee, and fro these thingis that ben writun in this book. Wycliffe Bible
It shows that the reading, the book of life, was not a concoction by Erasmus as some do claim, but existed long long before, seeing it was the reading of the Latin vulgate of Jerome which was done in 384 AD.
Revelation 22:19 19 Et si quis diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiæ hujus, auferet Deus partem ejus de libro vitæ, et de civitate sancta, et de his quæ scripta sunt in libro isto:
Latin Vulgate Jerome
It is therefore evident that the Greek manuscripts available to Jerome contained the reading book of life and not tree of life. (Jerome stated that he used ancient Greek manuscripts when he translated the Vulgate.
Now, when it comes to the Latin vulgate, it must be noted that there are in fact 2 readings. The book of life, as per Jeromes’ translation but we also find the tree of life In the 16th Century translation of Clement
Vulgate clementina
Et si quis diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiæ hujus, auferet Deus partem ejus de libro vitæ, et de civitate sancta, et de his quæ scripta sunt in libro isto :
We must note however, that this version was not available to Erasmus seeing he had created his final edition of the Textus receptus and had in fact died over 50 years prior.
It is important to note that the book of revelation has more variants than any other book of the Bible. Unlike the gospels where we have literally thousands of supporting manuscripts, there are actually only 287 Greek manuscripts of Revelation with just 16 of these coming from before the 10th Century. It is also of relevance to note that there are no Papyri available that includes Revelation 22.
Furthermore, there are in fact only 5 Uncials that contain this chapter and only 4 of them contain the last 6 verses. These being Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046 and 051.
So the reality is that there certainly is not a lot of early Greek manuscript evidence for the reading of this verse available to us today.
Book of life is supported by the Old Bohairic version. It is also the reading of most latin manuscripts.
Codex Fuldensis (sixth century); Codex Karolinus (ninth century); Codex Oxoniensis (twelfth to thirteenth century); Codex Ulmensis (ninth century); Codex Uallicellanus (ninth century); Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century); and the corrector of Codex Parisinus (ninth century).
It must be noted that the Greek manuscript evidence for the reading is limited.
051 (10th Century), 296 (16th Century) 2049 (16th Century) It is also in the margin of 2067 but this is included by a later hand.
The reading book of life is also supported by the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).
So book of life, is an early reading and does have some attestation by early church writers. It is clearly at least early enough to influence other early translations
So in order to answer which is the correct reading we must do some textual criticism.
Most modern scholars today believe that the correct reading in Revelation 22:19 is actually tree and not book. So we must look at why most scholars come to this conclusion and what evidence they base their conclusion on.
When it comes to this particular reading there are many claims that are made.
It is claimed that Erasmus only had one copy of the book of Revelation when he created the very first edition of the Textus receptus. The manuscript contained a commentary along with the Biblical text but the biblical text was mixed in with the commentary and so it was a difficult job extracting the text from the commentary. Erasmus had someone else do this work for him but the scribe made some errors which Erasmus did not notice. The manuscript was also defective, in that it was missing the last 6 verses of chapter 22 of the book of Revelation. The manuscript was formerly known as 1r but more recently known as 2814 as numbered by Aland. Erasmus borrowed the manuscript from John Reuchlin. Consequently, Erasmus, not having access to the last 6 verses had to back translate from the Latin vulgate into Greek to produce the reading that is found in his work. The particular copy of the vulgate that Erasmus used read libro (book) instead of ligno(tree) and thus created a Greek reading that had never been found in any Greek manuscript prior to the creation of Erasmus’ first edition of the TR, and that this reading, book of life, remained in the text of all future editions of the Textus receptus including those produced by Stephanus and Beza, ultimately this reading was utilised the translators of the KJV, which is why the KJV, incorrectly reads, as the modern textual scholars would assert, book of life. This supposed error is often used to demonstrate that the KJV is not error free and so is used to argue against the KJV only position. The manuscript that Erasmus used was lost but was supposedly found in 1861, confirming the claims.
So lets delve into the claims. It is vitally important that we are able to differentiate between the claims and the historically attested to information. In order to do this was must carefully contrast the claims and the evidence for the claims, including the very words of Erasmus.
Erasmus used only one manuscript for Revelation.
When Erasmus created his first edition of the Textus Receptus it is almost certain that Erasmus only had one manuscript of the book of Revelation. He had obtained this manuscript from John Reuchlin.
Erasmus stated in an apology to Stunica that he had borrowed a manuscript from John Reuchlin. He also states that this manuscript was very ancient. He stated one copy was available to us.
- For the Book of Revelation only [non … nisi] one copy was immediately available to us (or, served our purpose), but that was a very ancient one, which John Reuchlin, that illustrious hero of the literary sciences provided for our perusal.
Erasmus also stated in his argument against Edward Lee that he only had one manuscript, stating that the book (of Revelation) was rarely found in the Greek, indicating that there were not very many Greek manuscripts of this book in existence, even at the time of Erasmus.
- At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek)
Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei – “Defense which responds to Edward Lee’s two invectives”, pages 54-55:
Erasmus described the manuscript as having contained a commentary.
“Because the Book of Revelation never particularly suited the Greeks, it is rarely found among them. And so, since we were desirous that our Edition should be remiss in no respect, with considerable effort we extorted out of that Illustrious man John Reuchlin a very ancient codex, which contained a Commentary to this work. From that we could ensure the words that belong together were correctly transcribed
Here we see that Erasmus again stated that the book of Revelation was rarely found amongst the Greeks, the manuscript he used was obtained from John Reuchlin and also that the codex was very ancient. (note the mention regarding the commentary contained in the manuscript as this plays a major role in this study).
Erasmus stated in his annotations that at the end of the book of Revelation that some words were missing and that he added them from the Latin.
- However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin.
Annotationes, page 675 (625) (Full title: In Novum Testamentum annotationes, ab ipso autore iam quartum recognitae, & ex Graecis codicibus quos postea nactus est auctario neutiquam poenitendo locupletatae):
What is interesting here is that Erasmus refers to the words missing from “our versions” plural, and also “lacking in the Greek copies”. What is so often ignored is that Erasmus, prior to his creation of the Textus Receptus had been a serious biblical scholar. He had been studying the Bible and biblical manuscripts for a long time prior to his creation of TR and in fact had created a Latin translation only 2 years prior in 1514. While Erasmus may have used one manuscript in the first edition, he most certainly had not only seen the book of Revelation in this one manuscript during his studies.
Scrivener did point out the mentions of copies by Erasmus.
As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text ^. Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels (e. g. on Heb. i. 3 ; Apoc. i. 4 ; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere (e. g. Acts xxiv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3 ; Heb. iv. 13 ; 3 Pet. iii. 1 ; Apoc. ii. 18). A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students by Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose, 1813-1891; Miller, Edward, 1825-1901
Metzger stated that the manuscript that Erasmus used was missing the last leaf and so he to back translate the last 6 verses (plus some other places) from the Latin into Greek.
For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are so mixed up as to be almost indistinguishable Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript — but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.
Metzger Text of the New Testament 2nd Edition pages 99-100
It is important to note that Erasmus did not state that the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation were missing due to the manuscript he used being damaged. In fact, Erasmus never actually mentions his manuscript was damaged at all.
What Erasmus actually stated was that there were a small number of words missing in the manuscript that had been omitted through scribal error (135 words in the last 6 verses of Revelation is not a few). Erasmus stated that he had added the words, which he stated had been erroneously omitted by a scribe, from the Latin in order to not create a lacuna (Gap) in the text but also that he had clearly recorded in his annotations what he had done so that the reader could check the words for themselves. Erasmus even tells us exactly which words were not found in the text, explaining that this was due to homoeoteleuton (Jumping from one word to another usage of the same word, omitting the words that are found between these two words) .
But at the end the following words were missing by a scribal error: ‘And if anyone shall take away from the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall take his part out of the book of Life and from the Holy City, and from those things which are written in this book.’ But our impression was that a scribe had made a mistake in that instance, since, as the words ‘in this book’ occur twice, his eyes passed involuntarily over to the latter occurrence, thus omitting the phrases in between. And indeed, book-writers make no mistake more frequently than this. There was no doubt these words had been omitted by error, and that their number was small. Therefore, to avoid a gap in the text, we made good the Greek from our Latin copies. But since we did not want this to escape the notice of the reader, we made mention of what we had done in the annotations, so that if our words differed in any way from those which the author of this work originally set down here, the reader once having procured a copy would be able to restore the original.”
No mention of damage in his manuscript leading to missing words, but rather the words missing because of a scribal error.
Erasmus included these words which he had translated from the Latin so as to not leave a gap, but also recorded what he had done. He left no doubt as to the words that were missing, nor why they were missing. He also made it clear that he believed that these words were omitted.
Edward Lee accused Erasmus of ADDING the words to the Greek text. Erasmus responded that Lee had accused him of an impious crime, the crime of adding words.
“Not content with that, he [Lee] accused me of an impious crime…. that in the end of the Book of Revelation I added a small number of words in a Greek codex from our Latin copies”
However, Erasmus, in his response to Lee’s accusations, stated that there was no doubt that the words had been omitted and they were a only a few. Erasmus then was arguing against the charge of adding words, stating that they had been omitted, Erasmus clearly argued that he was not adding the words but rather he was putting back into the text words that should have been in the text but were not due to scribal error. He also states that he would not dared have done so in the Gospels, but that this was at the conclusion of his work. He also again states that he recorded what he had done in his annotations, and did not conceal what he had done.
There was no doubt that the words had been omitted, and they were only a few. To avoid leaving a lacuna in my text, I supplied the Greek out of our Latin version. I did not want to conceal this from the reader, however, and admitted in the annotations what I had done. My thought was that the reader, if he had access to a manuscript, could correct anything in our words that differed from those put by the author of this work. … And yet I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the apostolic Epistles what I have done here. The language of this book is very simple, and the content has mostly a historical sense, not to mention that the authorship was once uncertain. Finally, this passage is merely the conclusion of the work.
Source: Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei (“Answer to Edward Lee’s Annotations”), page 278:
Erasmus argues that he had good justification to do what he did, as he did not have a manuscript for his first edition, however, he also stated that in his second edition he had help from the Aldine edition.
But I have a very good justification. I did not have the manuscript in the first edition; in the second edition I had the help of the Aldine edition. Therefore I fulfilled the promise I had made in the first edition. (CWE 72, pg. 45) –
Erasmus argued that Lee himself would have included words that he knew were missing and that including words that should be in the text is not adding.
I would like Lee to answer me this question: If he had
found that a typesetter or scribe had omitted something in the manuscript
he submitted or had copied, would he have been deterred by this prohibition from adding what had been omitted? If he did not have access to
a Latin manuscript and knew the passage had to be added, would he be
too afraid to add it on the basis of the Greek, at least until he could obtain a Latin manuscript? And why should this law deter me from adding
anything or taking it away? To restore what is lacking is not ‘adding.’ On
the contrary, I would have diminished the text if I had not added what was
clearly lacking. You see, dear reader, that Lee has made a horrible tragedy
out of a matter of no importance.
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee.
For this second edition, Erasmus would send it to Basel so that its readings could be checked against the Aldine edition, which he had not yet purchased. Note he specifically refers to the “second edition”.
At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.
Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei (“Defense which responds to Edward Lee’s two invectives”), pages 54-55:
Again Erasmus states that he had recorded in his annotations exactly what he had done and also again refers to the revised edition.
Below is the Aldine edition.
Erasmus while he did use the Latin to include the missing words for his for his first edition did have this checked for his second edition. Erasmus only records that he back translated the Latin into Greek in his annotations for his first edition. His subsequent 4 editions make no mention of this.
Below is information taken from Nick Sayers website
The Last Six Verses of Revelation – Textus Receptus (textus-receptus.com)
Erasmus makes note in his annotation for his edition in 1516 but these notes are not present in any of his following 4 editions.
Erasmus’ Annotationes of 1516 at Revelation 22. Quamquam in calce huius libri nonnulla ver ba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus; ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.
Erasmus’ Annotationes of 1519 at Revelation 22. (omitted)
Erasmus’ Annotationes of 1522 at Revelation 22. (omitted)
Erasmus’ Annotationes of 1527 at Revelation 22. (omitted)
Erasmus’ Annotationes of 1535 at Revelation 22. (omitted)
Modern scholar Jan Krans wrote a small rebuttal against Thomas Holland’s work “Crowned with Glory”. In his footnotes Jan even states that Erasmus was mistaken, the words were not missing because of homoeoteleuton, missing because of a scribal error, as Erasmus had said, but rather because the manuscript was missing the last leaf.
- ...16 “Sensimus autem scribam per eam occasionem errasse, quod cum bis ponatur in libro isto ille ad posterius oculos deflexerit relictis que sunt in medio. Siquidem ad nullum lapidem frequentius impingunt librarii” (Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 11. 32-34). This description is nice and clearly based on acquaintance with scribal practice, but Erasmus is mistaken about the text-critical case he is describing. In min. 2814, the manuscript he used for Revelation in his first edition, the final verses of the book are not missing because of homoeoteleuton, but simply because a leaf of the manuscript is missing (actually — as is often stated — it is not the final leaf of the manuscript that is missing, but the leaf with, besides part of the commentary, the final verses of the text, to wit Rev 22:16-21, from the words ὁ ἀστὴρ at the end of verse 16 onwards). It has to be granted, however, that min. 2814 or its Vorlage certainly suffered from homoeoteleuton at many places. One might conclude that homoeoteleuton phenomena were familiar to Erasmus to such an extent that he could even use them as a subterfuge when he no longer remembered the exact state of affairs. For a harsher view, see Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde 1, pp. 14-15.
But this actually assumes that the manuscript that Franz Delitzsch claimed was the manuscript Erasmus used is indeed that very manuscript.
There are a number of issues with simply taking this manuscript as being the very manuscript that Erasmus used in his first edition of the TR.
(A comparison study between the readings of the manuscript and that of Erasmus 1516 edition has yet to be done by myself. This will be done as and when it is possible for me to do so. However, for reference, the following book needs to be studied:
Karrer, Martin, ed. Der Codex Reuchlins zur Apokalypse: Byzanz – Basler Konzil – Erasmus. Manuscripta Biblica, Band 5. Berlin ; Boston: De Gruyter, 2020.)
One of the main reasons that this manuscript is asserted as being the manuscript that Erasmus used is that it contains the text intermixed with a commentary by Andreas of Ceserea As we saw earlier, and as I noted was important to this study, Erasmus had said that the manuscript that he had used had contained a commentary.
The Biblical text of 2814 is intermingled with the commentary.
James White, in a video you can see on Youtube, made the erroneous claim that Erasmus used a Latin commentary in his back translation. The commentary which accompanies manuscript 2814 is actually in Greek and it was not the commentary that Erasmus used in this back translation. The claims of Dr White, just like many he purports are in no uncertain terms fallacious.
It has been asserted that the text was difficult to read seeing it was imbedded in the commentary. This was what Erika Rummel had stated.
“For the Apocalypse he had but one mutilated MS., borrowed from Reuchlin, in which the text and commentary were intermixed almost unintelligibly. And thus he used here and there the Latin Vulgate for his guide, retranslating into Greek as well as he could.”
Samuel Tregelles An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament,
Even Edward F. Hills made this statement in his book defending the King James Bible.
“The last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev. 22:16-21) were lacking, and its text in other places was sometimes hard to distinguish from the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in which it was embedded. According to almost all scholars, Erasmus endeavored to supply these deficiencies in his manuscript by retranslating the Latin Vulgate into Greek.”
However, this itself is a misunderstanding of what Erasmus actually wrote.
Erasmus didn’t say that he had difficulty in getting the text out of the manuscript.
To assert that the difficulty that Erasmus talks of as being that of extracting the text from the manuscript is a distortion of what Erasmus stated.
The prior claims regarding the intermixed commentary and mutilated manuscript are not based on the writings of Erasmus himself.
It was Johann Albrecht Bengel writing in the 18th Century who first made claim that Erasmus had translated the Latin back into Greek because his manuscript was mutilated. Although Bengel did not specifically refer to the last 6 verses of Revelation.
Erasmus, as he himself admits, had only one Greek Manuscript on the Apocalypse, by Jo. Capnio, and the commentary of Andreas of Cesarea, with which the text was interspersed. From that, he says, WE TOOK care that the words of the context should be written down. And since the book was mutilated, he supplied the text, in a hasty manner, from the Vulgate, which was not yet revised ; and he did this without great care, since he did not very highly esteem this prophecy
Johann Albrecht Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament page 174
Bengel was also the one that claimed the commentary in the manuscript was that of Andreas of cesarea and that the text was intermingled with the commentary, it was not Erasmus who stated this.
I.) The Reuchlinian copy was the commentary of Andreas of Ssesarea upon the Apocalypse, and this had or the text inserted amidst the commentary.
Johann Albrecht Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament page 231
Bengel even stated that Erasmus did not know who the author of the commentary was. Again Bengel makes mention of a mutilated manuscript and that Erasmus supplied part of chapter 22 from the Latin, but again does not specify which part of this chapter was translated. Erasmus does not mention who the commentary was by.
III.) Erasmus wonderfully extols the antiquity of this manuscript. ; undoubtedly had a good text, and that in some places of singular excellence ; but that it was likewise mutilated, is understood from this, that Erasmus was both ignorant of the author of the commentry, and supplied a part of chapter xxii. from Latin editions. He himself acknowledges the former point in his Annotations upon the New Testament, and the latter in his Epistles.
Johann Albrecht Bengel Gnomon of the New Testamentl page 231
Franz Delitzsch’s claims regarding manuscript 2814 being the one that Erasmus used were based on the description of the manuscript used by Erasmus given by Bengel and not that of Erasmus. The descriptions do not match. It thus requires the description by Bengel to be true and that of Erasmus to be false for manuscript 2814 to be the manuscript that Erasmus used.
The identification of manuscript 2814 as being the one Erasmus used because the text is intermixed and missing the last 6 verses are in no way based on Erasmus. All modern scholars that make these claims about the manuscript are using the details asserted by Bengel and actually ignoring the words of Erasmus, even stating that he was mistaken.
Furthermore, the discovery by Franz Delitzsch was nearly 350 years after Erasmus had used his manuscript. Even if manuscript 2814 is the very manuscript that Erasmus used, it is completely improper, and quite disingenuous, to claim that because it was missing its last leaf when it was discovered by Delitzsch that this must be the same condition as when Erasmus had used it nearly 350 years prior and that this would mean that Erasmus was mistaken regarding the reason why it did not contain the words. Erasmus explicitly stated the words that were not found in the manuscript. They were the words between the word book (first use) and book (last use). Erasmus does not mention any of the other words contained in the last 6 verses, he makes no mention of these words having been missing from the text and he makes no mention of back translating any other words than the words he explicitly stated were missing. Erasmus makes no mention of a leaf missing, which had Erasmus had to back translate the entire last 6 verses he would have been well aware of. He would have known that the manuscript he was using did not contain those last words. Yet Erasmus makes no mention of the missing words beyond the ones he states were missing, nor does he mention a missing leaf.
Jan Krans is thus demanding that a manuscript be in the same condition 350 years after it was used by Erasmus and then accusing Erasmus of being incorrect in his evaluation of the manuscript because the manuscript, if it is the one Erasmus used, is not in the same condition 350 years later. This is nonsensical. Manuscripts deteriorate over time. There is no requirement that the manuscript must be in the same condition, nor should it be expected that it would. It is perfectly plausible that the last leaf would have been lost during the time of use by Erasmus in 1516 and its rediscovery in 1861.
It is quite an accusation, and one entirely unmerited, that Erasmus was mistaken.
Stephanus and Beza
Doug Kutilek claims that any text that reads as Erasmus must have been copied from his text. He states that the texts of Stephanus and Beza must have been slavish reprints.
“any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus’ text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read “tree of life.”
Doug Kutilek Westcott & Hort Versus the Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
As we know both Stephanus and Beza both further edited the Textus Receptus, Stephanus creating 4 editions and Beza 5 editions. Both the texts of Stephanus and Beza also read book of life. They did not create new independent texts but rather they continued and updated the work started by Erasmus.
If the Greek manuscripts utilised by Stephanus and Beza would have read tree of life, then this would mean that neither Stephanus or Beza would have checked and confirmed the reading book of life and would have simply utilised the reading of Erasmus or even worse they would have ignored the Greek reading tree of life and went with Erasmus. It is simply naive to assert that neither Stephanus or Beza would have checked this reading or would have simply gone with Erasmus contrary to the Greek reading. They updated and changed many readings in their editions. This assertion would require three studied men, Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, all working on creating an accurate Greek text to have been inept or dishonest in their translation of book in Revelation 22:16.
Neither Stephanus or Beza read exactly the same as Erasmus in this verse which clearly shows that they did not simply utilise Erasmus but in fact updated the reading of Erasmus in this verse.
Revelation 22:19Καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βιβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βιβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.
Erasmus 1516
Revelation 22:19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ
Stephanus 1550
Revelation 22:19 Καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βιβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βιβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.
Beza1598
If then the reading book of life would have been incorrect it would not at all make any sense for Stephanus and Beza to not have corrected it.
So, while book of life is not found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts, we must note that there really isn’t much Greek evidence at all. The reading does have early support and should not simply be dismissed on the incorrect assertion that the reading book of life comes to us from Erasmus without any further testimony
We must also note that there are differences between the first and second Editions of Erasmus’ TR in the last 6 verses of Revelation.
Did Erasmus have a low view of Revelation ?
It again was Bengel who made this accusation against Erasmus
“and he did this without great care, since he did not very highly esteem this prophecy”
Johann Albrecht Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament page 174
This has clearly influenced the way in which Jan Krans has rendered Olim in his translation of Erasmus.
Jan Krans:
- There was no doubt that some things were missing, and it was not much. Therefore we completed the Greek from our Latin texts, so that there might be no gap. We did not want to hide this from the reader, however, and acknowledged in the Annotationes what we had done, in order that, if our words differed in some respect from those that the author of this work had provided, the reader who obtained a manuscript could restore them. … And even this that we did here we would not have dared to do in the case of the Gospels nor indeed in the apostolic Epistles. The style of this book is very simple and its contents are mostly narrative, let alone the fact that its author has long since been unknown. Finally this place is only the ending of the book.
- There was no doubt that the words had been omitted, and they were only a few. To avoid leaving a lacuna in my text, I supplied the Greek out of our Latin version. I did not want to conceal this from the reader, however, and admitted in the annotations what I had done. My thought was that the reader, if he had access to a manuscript, could correct anything in our words that differed from those put by the author of this work. … And yet I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the apostolic Epistles what I have done here. The language of this book is very simple, and the content has mostly a historical sense, not to mention that the authorship was once uncertain. Finally, this passage is merely the conclusion of the work.
- at that time, some time ago, once upon a time, once, formerly, of old: ut fuit olim Sisyphus, H.: sic olim loquebantur: ut erant olim: Alium esse censes nunc me, atque olim, T.—Once and again, now and then, at times, customarily, frequently, ever: saxum tunditur olim Fluctibus, etc., V.: ut pueris olim dant crustula Doctores, H.: ut olim vagantur apes, O.: Vestra meos olim si fistula dicat amores, if ever, V.—This long time, this good while: Audio quid veteres olim moneatis amici, Iu.—Of the future, one day, some time, hereafter: utinam coram tecum olim, potius quam per epistulas!: non si male nunc et olim Sic erit, H.: forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit, V.
- olim at that time, some time ago, once upon a time, once, formerly, of old (Lewis & Short Elem. Lewis)
But Krans simply says he would prefer a different nuance of the word
In krans’ bookErasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 footnote:
- Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 ll. 35-39 and 39-43; cf. p. 120 ll. 303-304: “… quod in fine Apocalypsis paucula verba adiecerim Graeco codici ex nostris Latinis” (“… that at the end of Revelation I added some words to the Greek book on the basis of our Latin ones”). Translation Erika Rummel, CWE 72, p. 344. Instead of “the authorship was once uncertain”, I would prefer, with another nuance of “olim”, “the authorship has long since been uncertain”.
Here we see yet again that Bengel is the influence of the claims made against Erasmus that have since become accepted as “facts”.
A last note to take into consideration. Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7 in his first 2 editions because he did not have a Greek manuscript containing the verse as it is found in his next 3 editions. This shows that Erasmus was not simply willing to back translate from the Latin and demonstrates his respect for the Greek and his desire to include only that which was found in the Greek manuscripts.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal
0 Comments