Error in the Textus Receptus (TR)

In the history of the Greek New Testament, the reading of "book of life" (biblou tēs zōēs) in Revelation 22:19 is one of the most famous examples of a "back-translation" error in the Textus Receptus (TR).

This variant is significant because it lacks any Greek manuscript support prior to the 16th century, yet it remains the reading found in the King James Version (KJV).

1. The Historical Origin: Erasmus and the Missing Leaf

When Desiderius Erasmus was preparing the first published edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), he had access to only one Greek manuscript for the book of Revelation, known as Codex 2814 (or Reuchlin’s Manuscript).

• The Defective Manuscript: This 12th-century manuscript was missing the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of Revelation (22:16-21).

• The Latin Solution: To complete his edition, Erasmus took the Latin Vulgate and translated those final verses back into Greek.

• The Translation Error: In the Latin Vulgate, verse 19 reads ligno vitae ("tree of life"). However, Erasmus’s Latin source apparently had a corruption (or he misread it), reading libro vitae ("book of life"). Consequently, he translated it into Greek as apo biblou tēs zōēs ("from the book of life").

2. The Textual Evidence: Tree vs. Book

The consensus among modern textual scholars and the evidence from the vast majority of manuscripts support the reading "tree of life" (xylou tēs zōēs).

• Greek Manuscript Support: Every known Greek manuscript (over 500 copies of Revelation) reads "tree of life" in Rev 22:19. There is zero Greek manuscript support for "book of life" prior to Erasmus’s printed edition.

• Early Versions and Fathers: The earliest versions (Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic) and early Church Fathers consistently quote or reference the "tree of life."

• Internal Consistency: The "tree of life" appears earlier in Revelation (2:7 and 22:2, 14). The punishment in 22:19 is a reversal of the blessing in 22:14; because they were blessed with access to the tree, the warning is that they will lose access to that same tree.

3. "Fatal" to the Claim of Preservation

For those who hold to the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Textus Receptus (the idea that the TR is a perfect, preserved copy of the original), this verse presents a catastrophic problem:

1. Late Innovation: If "book of life" was created by a Dutch scholar in 1516 through a Latin-to-Greek translation, it cannot be the "original" Greek reading given to John in the 1st century.

2. Latin Over Greek: To defend the "book" reading, one must argue that the Latin tradition preserved the truth while the entire Greek manuscript tradition (the "Majority Text") was corrupted in this specific location for 1,400 years.

3. Human Error: It demonstrates that the TR is an editorial product subject to human limitations, not a miraculous transmission.

Conclusion: The presence of "book of life" in Rev 22:19 is a clear "textual fingerprint" of the 16th-century Reformation editors. It confirms that the Textus Receptus is not a perfect representative of the ancient Byzantine text, but an eclectic text that occasionally reflects the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek manuscript tradition.