Any proof of this?
The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX (proof that it was a fraud came out a few years after the publication of the King James), but their primary reference was to the Masoratic Hebrew Text comparing various other translations, including the LXX (3rd century AD)
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.
And like those other cases (Acts 8:37, 1Jn.5:7), the Latin preserved the correct reading.
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 TR is not a majority text, it is the Received text one considered the pure text, put together by Erasmus, Stephenus, and Elizer (who coined the term) and Beza.
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.
Jerome got this one right, like he did with 1Jn.5:7.
However, the Douey Rheims left the blood out despite it being in the Vulgate.
My guess is that the Jesuit Bible was just referring to a different Greek manuscript -- one that actually was in the majority tradition.
Yes, the Jesuits were following the textual tradition that rejects even the Vulgate if the Vulgate is correct.
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."
No one added anything, someone subtracted the blood.
Like they did in leaving out 1Jn.5:7.
Satan doesn't have to remove every correct verse, only enough to create doubt (Yea, hath God said?).
In any event, with or without the phrase, the theology is the same, since the phrase stands as is in Ephesians.
No, because the verse in Col.1:14 without the blood is incorrect, since there is no redemption without blood without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb.10:22)
"The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX"
That's all I was saying. There are any number of things that in the Hebrew are supposedly ambiguous, but that in the LXX are clear. A good example is the verse in Isaiah that most modern translations use "a young woman will conceive." The LXX is unequivocal -- "parthenos" cannot be translated in any way other than as a physical virgin. As familiar with the LXX as they were, they couldn't have helped but have it assist them in their translation of the Hebrew. It has always been my impression, although I've never made a study of it, that the KJV translators were more likely to look to the Greek to illuminate the Hebrew than they were to look to the Vulgate -- *even though the Vulgate was translated from Hebrew* (except for the Psalms, which remained translated from the Greek for the sake of liturgical familiarity and continuity with the Old Latin versions.)
With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)
I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)
I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.
It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.
I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.
If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?
Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.
But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.
Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!