110. Why would “by his blood” be left out of Colossians 1:14 in modern versions?

The statement “through his blood” in Colossians 1:14, is not found in most modern versions of the Bible. What would be the reason that such a Biblical truth could be removed?

(KJVR) “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:“

(NIV) “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Let us first look at the manuscripts to our disposal. The oldest Greek manuscript we have containing the words “through his blood”, is Ms. 1912 dating ±950 A.D. and then again in Ms. 35 of ±1050. After that most minuscule manuscripts do have these words.

Of all the Antique translations available only one, the Harclean Syriac translation of ±600 A.D. contains these words! The first time we again find these words in a translation of the Bible, is the Clementina edition of the Roman Vulgate, printed during 1592. That was 76 years after Erasmus printed these words in the first published printed edition of a New Testament, and could just as well have been adapted accordingly. Erasmus’s printed edition of the New Testament (1516) later became known as the Textus Receptus and due to its availability and ease of reading had been used as source text for many translations, including the King James Version.

The manuscript evidence leaves no doubt that these words had never been part of the original autograph.

But we all know this statement so well. Where then is it really found in the Bible?

It is written in Ephesians 1:7: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins…” (NIV)

Nobody needs to correct Paul as though he didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit when he wrote this letter to the Colossians, just because the Holy Spirit let him elaborate in the letter to the Ephesians.

Redemption through the blood of Jesus is a sound Biblical truth, written for us in Ephesians one. Yet that does not necessitate it to be added to every verse talking about our salvation. As the Holy Spirit guided Paul to write to the Colossians is good enough. Nothing needs to be added.

Of course Paul spoke about the redemption through the blood of Jesus earlier in his epistles: 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:25,27 concerning the Holy Communion; Rom 3:24-25; 5:9. and also in Ephesians 2:13.

In Colossians 1:20 he pertinently mentions the blood on the cross.

Comments at the bottom of this page or to me by e-mail at bibledifferences@gmail.com are welcome.

God bless,

Herman.

About Herman of bibledifferences.net

The reasons for the differences between older Bibles like the King James Version and newer Bibles like the New International Version have fascinated me ever since my studies in Theology at the University of Pretoria in the seventies. I have great respect for scribes through the ages as well as Bible translators, so there must be good reasons for the differences. With more than 5600 Greek manuscripts and more than 19000 manuscripts of ancient translations to our disposal, the original autographs of the New Testament can be established without doubt. I investigate the reasons behind the differences and publish the facts in a post on my blogs www.bibledifferences.net (Afrikaans: www.bybelverskille.wordpress.com) to enable my readers to judge for themselves. Personally I love to make an informed decision based of facts. That is why I endeavor to provide that same privilege to the readers of my blogs. Since 1973 I am married to my dear wife and greatest friend, Leah Page, founder director of Act-Up Support (www.actup.co.za) a prayer ministry for families struggling with drug-, occult- and other dependencies. We are blessed with two daughters and two sons, four grand sons and two grand daughters. God is alive and omnipotent! Glory to His Name! Herman Grobler.

View all posts by Herman of bibledifferences.net →

2 Responses to 110. Why would “by his blood” be left out of Colossians 1:14 in modern versions?

Daniel says:

May 28, 2019 at 4:56 pm

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or “Through His blood,” in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to 200 A.D., when there lived one of the world’s foremost theologians whose name was Origen. Being a TEXTUAL CRITIC, he is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain original MSS. became corrupt and it is evidently from this source the revised Bibles of this generation have come. Read pages 900-902, Vol. 16, 1936 edition Encyclopedia Britannica and you will see that Origen taught the “LOGOS” is “KTISMA,” meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being. Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ’s deity.

- Herman of bibledifferences.net says:
  
  May 28, 2019 at 5:34 pm
  
  Dear Daniel,
  Thank you for stopping by and giving your opinion.
  If what you are saying is true, and all manuscripts that do not contain “through His blood” in Colossians 1:14 are corrupt, then we really have a problem.
  That would mean that all Greek manuscripts prior to 950 A.D. are corrupt! And all manuscripts that were used to translate the Ancient Translations, dating from 250 A.D., except for the one used to translate the Harclean Syriac, in 600 A.D. were all corrupt!
  And you base that on the idea that Origen did this without any real evidence? And your source is the Encyclopedia Britannica? One must have great faith to believe this!
  No brother, face the facts. If it had been part of the original autograph, at least some Greek manuscripts prior to 950 A.D. must have had those words!
  But as I explained, those words were transposed from Ephesians 1:7 into Colossians 1:14.
  As for Acts 8:37, do read my explanation carefully and you will understand why it had not been part of the original autograph, and the effect is=t has when we add it to the text.
  We need nothing more than the Word as it had been inspired by the Holy Spirit in the beginning.
  God bless,
  Herman.