Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.
Fascinating find. It's that kind of "translation" that gives the game up and shows the true spirit behind most rewrites, whether they are contemporary or centuries old.
The Devil's in the details.
"Fascinating find."
Actually, it's really not a very relevant example, and it doesn't speak against the Jesuits at all -- and mind you, I can bash Jesuits with the best of them.
As you know, I largely disregard the Alexandrian textual tradition as a curiosity that is of academic interest only, since it is very sparse, corrupt, and variable compared to the Orthodox Byzantine textual tradition. It is preferred by modern textual scholars primarily because it is has a number of readings that are less orthodox than those found in the Byzantine textual tradition -- their academic "cover" is that the handful of uncial manuscripts they prefer are quite old.
It is elementary textual scholarship, though, to understand that the oldest manuscript does not equal the oldest reading -- but there is no point trying to disabuse modern textual scholars of their quaint notions. They know exactly what they are doing. (These are the same people who disregard the LXX readings of the OT -- even though our MSS of it are far older than any Hebrew MS. The KJV translators actually made much more use of the LXX readings to clarify Hebrew texts than do modern translations.)
But I digress. This passage is one of those relatively rare examples of where the Textus Receptus does *not* follow the Byzantine majority Greek text -- and where there is no difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts. The phrase "through his blood" is found only in a minority of manuscripts -- the majority of Byzantine miniscules do not contain it.
You will note that the Majority Text compilers place this phrase in Colossians in parentheses -- indicating that it is *not* a Majority text reading, but one they feel it is important to include, whether from theological motivations, out of respect for the Vulgate/TR tradition, or because the reading is found in a sizable minority of Byzantine MSS.
The most influential textual tradition in which "through his blood" was found is actually consistently found is (drum roll please)... the Latin Vulgate. So I find it hard to find any nefarious Catholic machinations at work here. You certainly can't blame Jerome for it, as far as I can tell. I would guess that Jerome was using a variant Greek manuscript into which it had been inserted.
My guess is that the Jesuit Bible was just referring to a different Greek manuscript -- one that actually was in the majority tradition.
The phrase would appear to have been inserted into Colossians (whether accidentally or intentionally) in order to parallel the wording in Ephesians 1:7. If the effect was to minimize the doctrine that is concerned, Ephesians 1:7 would have had to be doctored also -- and I am unaware of any textual tradition of that verse that does not contain "through his blood."
In any event, with or without the phrase, the theology is the same, since the phrase stands as is in Ephesians.