A Book or a Tree? A Textual Variant in Revelation 22:
19
Kevin L. Barney
Erasmus
On or about October 28, 1466, a boy was born in Rotterdam to Roger Gerard and a woman we know only as
Margaret, the daughter of a physician. His birth name was Gerard Gerardson after his father, but he later would
take upon himself the name by which he is known to history, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus. Erasmus was both
the name of a saint and the Greek word meaning “desired.” Desiderius was simply the Latin equivalent of Erasmus,
and Roterodamus was Latin for “of Rotterdam,” the city with which he would always be closely associated,
although he only lived there for the rst four years of his life.
Although he was born out of wedlock, he was loved and cared for by his parents until their untimely deaths from
the plague in 1483; Erasmus was only a teenager. Now orphaned, he received from the Catholic Church the nest
education available to a young man in his day. Not only did he become an outstanding Latinist, but he also managed
to learn Greek by studying day and night for three years. He constantly begged his friends in his letters for books
and for money to pay his teachers.
Erasmus was the rst to publish the New Testament in Greek, something he did in 1516. (The New Testament had
already been printed in Greek two years earlier as part of the Complutensian Polyglot, but that work was not
actually published until 1520 because the editors had to wait for the Old Testament portion to be nished and
sanctioned by Pope Leo X.)
1
Erasmus’s project began in 1512 when he undertook a new translation of the New
Testament into Latin, declaring, “It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin.”
2
Erasmus was a superb Latin stylist, and he knew it (only one with tremendous condence in his Latin skills would
dare to emend Jerome’s Vulgate, the established Bible at the time). In 1516 his translation appeared under the
odd title Novum Instrumentum Omne (“All the New Teaching”). In addition to giving his new Latin translation, he
included the Greek New Testament in a parallel column. Many have assumed that he included the Greek text
because he was intent on beating the Complutensian Polyglot to publication, but there is no evidence for this. It
appears, rather, that his motive for including the Greek was simply to make it easier for readers to check—and
presumably admire—his Latin translation. His focus and interest were less on the Greek than on the Latin text, but
he considered the two together to constitute the whole of the New Testament tradition (thus his use of the word
omne, “all,” in the title).
The rst edition was riddled with errors since, as Erasmus himself acknowledged, it was praecipitatum verius quam
editum (“thrown together rather than edited”).
3
Consequently, in 1519 he produced a corrected second edition,
this time with the more customary title Novum Testamentum Omne (“All the New Testament”). Martin Luther used
this edition to translate the New Testament from Greek into German. Together the rst two editions sold 3,300
copies, while only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were even printed. A third edition followed in 1522,
which edition became the basis for William Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament and for Robert
Stephanus’s 1550 edition of the Greek text, which was used by the translators of the Geneva and King James
Bibles. Erasmus would go on to publish fourth and fth editions (1527 and 1535), and these would be followed by
a line of subsequent editions during the remainder of the century and beyond, all grounded in Erasmus’s
publications.
The term Textus Receptus or “Received Text” comes from the publisher’s preface (a sort of advertising blurb) to
the 1633 edition: textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus
(“Therefore you hold the text, now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted”). The words for
“text” (textum) and “received” (receptum) were changed from the accusative to the nominative case, textus receptus,
“received text,” and this term was then applied retroactively to the entire line of printed Greek New Testaments
that derived ultimately from the early editions of Erasmus.
The last six verses of Revelation
Erasmus drew his Greek text from seven late manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition. Only one of these
manuscripts contained the text of the book of Revelation, and that manuscript happened to be missing the last
page of text, a page that contained the nal six verses of Revelation 22. Undaunted, Erasmus reverse-translated
the nal six verses of the Latin Vulgate into Greek to complete the manuscript for his rst edition.
This famous story is included in every introduction to New Testament textual criticism. When I rst heard it, I was
abbergasted. I thought to myself that if I were to look up the denition of chutzpah in a dictionary, I would nd an
account of Erasmus’s bold move. But what Erasmus did was not quite as unusual as it appears at rst blush.
Erasmus was engaged in producing strict consistency between the Greek and Latin texts. Today we might assume
that this ideal consistency would always demand modifying the derivative Latin to conform to the original Greek.
But the Vulgate had tremendous religious authority, and consistency as often as not meant revising the Greek to
accommodate the Latin. Erasmus felt perfectly free to modify the Greek text to match the Latin if he preferred the
reading of the Vulgate. The story of the last six verses of Revelation is only the most dramatic illustration of this
tendency on Erasmus’s part; the reality is that he made similar moves throughout his work on the text.
All things considered, Erasmus deserves praise for his reverse translation. He did an outstanding job. If a third-
year Greek composition student were asked to reverse-translate into Koine Greek six verses selected at random
from the Latin Vulgate and to match as closely as possible the New Testament text, few would do nearly as well as
Erasmus did. The Textus Receptus of these six verses contains 136 Greek words and the standard critical text 132,
but there are only eighteen variations between them. That, to me, is rather remarkable.
Standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament completely ignore these variants. They are not reected in
the critical apparatus of either Novum Testament Graece (27th edition) or the United Bible Society’s Greek New
Testament (4th edition), nor are they mentioned in Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament. I suppose the rationale for this omission is that these variants were created in print rather than derived
from pre–printing-press antiquity. Modern translations of the New Testament generally follow the standard
critical text and so ignore these variants. Contemporary Mormons, however, continue to read the King James
Version (KJV), translated from the Textus Receptus, and therefore understanding and deciding on the correctness
of these variants is still a relevant task for us—even if we are somewhat unique in needing to do so.
Most of the variants in question affect the Greek text but would not be apparent in English translation. Erasmus
spelled the name David differently and prefaced it with the denite article. He used a different verb for the word
come in verse 17. But however he rendered the name David in Greek, we would still render it in translation as
“David.” And whichever verb we follow in verse 17, it would still be best translated as “come” in English. In a few
places the Erasmus variants would affect the English translation, but not drastically, adding an “and” here and a
“for” there.
Only one variant substantially affects the meaning of the passage, and that is in verse 19. The KJV reads: “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” (emphasis added). In lieu of
Erasmus’s “book of life” (biblou tēs zōēs), the modern critical text reads “tree of life” (xulou tēs zōēs). This difference
does have an impact on the meaning of the passage. How might we decide between these two readings?
A good place to start would be a survey of the two phrases—book of life and tree of life—in scripture more generally.
What can we learn from scripture about the book of life and the tree of life?
Book of life
When I was young, I imagined the book of life like an old “book of remembrance”—one of those manufactured
binders for genealogical records once popular among Latter-day Saints, with their long 8½€³ × 14€³ hard covers
connected by expandable metal rods—engraved with the words book of life. (I imagined it much bigger than those
binders.) Now, of course, people do genealogy with a computer, but I confess that I still imagine the book of life in
that way, to some extent. My imagination aside, what do the scriptures teach us about the book of life?
Apart from the contested passage in question, Revelation 22:19, the expression book of life has the following
distribution in the scriptures:
Note that six of these twelve occurrences appear within the book of Revelation, and three of the occurrences in
the Doctrine and Covenants appear in a commentary on the use of that expression in the book of Revelation. All in
all, three-fourths of all instances of the phrase book of life appear in or in connection with Revelation. Obviously,
these references should prove helpful in determining if the expression book of life in Revelation 22:19 is the better,
or original, reading.
The main thing we learn from these passages is that names are written in the book of life—specically, the names
of those who are to inherit eternal life. (To continue with my childhood imagination, this sounds a bit like Santa’s
“nice list.”)
First, for example, Revelation 3:5 afrms: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I
will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his
angels.” This passage suggests that it is one’s name that is entered in the book of life. One’s name remains in the
book if one “overcometh” (though what overcome means is not indicated), and a blessing parallel to this overcoming
is being clothed with white raiment, which, the previous verse suggests, is an indication of worthiness. Revelation
13:8 suggests the converse: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast; see v. 4], whose names
are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” In other words, while those
whose names are written in the book of life worship the Lamb, those whose names are not written in the book
worship the beast. Revelation 17:8 is of similar import, but Revelation 21:27 deserves individual attention: “And
there shall in no wise enter into it [the New Jerusalem] any thing that deleth, neither whatsoever worketh
abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” The phrase they which are
written, without any mention of names, may seem odd at rst glance, but the idea that names were written in the
book of life was so pervasive that “they which are written” is simply meant to be a short formation of “they whose
names are written.” It is only those whose names are written in the book who will enter into the New (or heavenly)
Jerusalem.
Such references call to mind a particular adaptation of the judgment of the dead in the Hall of Maat as depicted in
the vignette associated with chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The god Osiris, sitting upon his
throne, presides over the proceedings while the jackal-headed Anubis, guardian of the underworld, leads the
deceased forward by the hand to the scales of Maat, goddess of truth and justice. The deceased’s heart is weighed
against a Maat feather that represents truth: if his heart is heavy with misdeeds, it is promptly devoured by the
demon Ammut, and the deceased ceases to exist; but if he lived a good life and his heart is light , he continues on
his journey in the afterlife. The god Thoth stands by and records the results of the judgment in a papyrus book.
This Egyptian scene was adapted by a Jewish writer in a rst-century-ad text called the Testament of Abraham. In
this version, Osiris is Abel, and the Egyptian gods weighing the dead man’s soul are angels with new names: Dokiel,
the righteous balance-bearer who weighs men’s souls, and Purouel, who tries the works of men by re. Two
versions of this text, a long and a short one, are called Recensions A and B, respectively.
4
In Recension A, one of
two angels appears on each side of the scales. One records the righteous and the other the wicked deeds of the
deceased. In Recension B, however, only a single scribe (like the Egyptian Thoth but identied as Enoch) records
the results of the judgment.
Elsewhere I have written about this kind of Semitic adaptation of Egyptian sources and suggested that it may help
us understand the explanations to the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham.
5
I mention this here because, at least
according to the Egyptian-Jewish author of the Testament of Abraham, this vignette actually illustrates the
production of the book of life, in which the results of judgment are recorded.
These texts collectively suggest that the expression book of life works well in the context of Revelation 22:19. The
passage, quoted above, records what biblical scholars call a curse formula. The scriptural theme of the book of life
places such a high emphasis on the blessings associated with names being written in that book that the threat of
being removed from it is real and forceful. Moreover, the parallel of having one’s name removed from the book of
life as a punishment for removing words from the book of the prophecy of Revelation reects a certain ironic
justice. All of this is suggestive.
What, though, of the tree of life?
Tree of life
The expression tree of life has the following distribution in the scriptures:
These passages are grouped in several distinctive tranches, each of which deserves individual attention. First are
the references to the tree of life from the well-known creation story (see not only the references in Genesis, but
also those in Moses, Abraham, 2 Nephi, and Alma). This tree of life was in the midst of the orchard of the Garden of
Eden, as was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once Adam and Eve had partaken of the fruit of the latter,
God was concerned that they would partake of the tree of life and live forever. He therefore caused cherubim and
a aming sword that turned every way to be placed at the eastern entrance to the garden so that Adam and Eve
could not reenter the garden and partake of the fruit of the tree of life.
Second and less familiar are the four references to the tree of life in Proverbs. On the surface, the meaning of the
tree of life in these passages is unclear; in context, the tree of life seems to stand simply for “a good thing.” Thus,
Proverbs 15:4 sets forth the following antithetic parallelism:
A wholesome tongue is a tree of life:
but perverseness therein is a breach of the spirit.
I suspect that these references to the tree of life pertain to Wisdom and, as such, might be read as oblique
allusions to our Mother in Heaven. As scholars have begun to realize in recent years, the Hebrews of ancient Israel
worshipped a heavenly mother gure named Asherah. Over time, a reform movement attempted to suppress such
worship, but rather than being eliminated completely, Asherah was simply absorbed into various characteristics of
Yahweh. One such characterization is Lady Wisdom (in Hebrew, chokmah), a prominent gure in the book of
Proverbs.
6
The third set of references to the tree of life comes from the vision of the tree of life Lehi and his son Nephi
experienced—and from passages in which Nephi interprets the tree, whose fruit is precious and desirable above all
and is a symbol of the love of God. (In addition to Lehi’s and Nephi’s visions, the Book of Mormon also preserves
later commentary on this theme, particularly in chapters 5 and 32 of Alma.) As it turns out, this third group of
passages may be related to the second. Daniel Peterson has written a remarkable study entitled “Nephi and His
Asherah” (a play on ancient Near Eastern inscriptions that mention “Yahweh and His Asherah”), in which he
surveys the extensive body of non-LDS Asherah scholarship and outlines how this scholarship may help us better
grasp the text in 1 Nephi 11.
7
Nephi is shown the virgin mother and the babe in her arms. An angel then asks him if
he understands the meaning of the tree, and he responds that he does (though he had responded in the contrary
before seeing mother and child). Why would a vision of the mother of the Son of God make the meaning of the tree
of life clear to Nephi? Peterson, in a brilliant exegesis that places the passage squarely in its ancient Near Eastern
context, points to the profound tree symbolism related to Asherah, the mother of the gods, in ancient Israel.
The fourth and nal group of passages is in the book of Revelation itself. These passages all have to do with the
presence of the tree of life in the New (or heavenly) Jerusalem and thus deserve, given their proximity to
Revelation 22:19, individual attention.
The rst appears early in the book as part of the letter to the church at Ephesus: “He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the
midst of the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7). Note that the fruit of the tree is said here to be given to “him that
overcometh,” phrasing similar to the passage in Revelation 3:5 in which the one whose name is to remain in the
book of life is “he that overcometh.” This similarity of language suggests an interchangeability of book and tree in
Revelation 2–3. There is also a blurred distinction between the tree of life from Eden and the tree of life to be
found only in the New Jerusalem: the tree is described ambiguously as being “in the midst of the paradise of God.”
The description in Revelation 22:2 is much more elaborate: “In the midst of the street of it [the city of the New
Jerusalem], and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and
yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” Here we encounter
predictable number symbolism revolving around the number twelve (twelve months? twelve tribes?), but it is very
difcult to visualize, based on this description, what the tree is supposed to look like or how it is positioned in
relation to the other features of the New Jerusalem. Nonetheless, its proximity to Revelation 22:19 might be
suggestive in certain ways.
The nal occurrence of “tree of life” in Revelation outside our contested passage appears in Revelation 22:14:
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through
the gates into the city.” Interestingly, the KJV rendering of “they that do his commandments” is in error; the correct
wording here would be, rather, “they that wash their robes.” Here again there seems to be a certain connection
with Revelation 3:5, which describes those whose names remain in the book of life as those who are “clothed in
white raiment.” Once more, the images of tree and book seem to come together. At any rate, Revelation 7:14
states that those who “[wash] their robes” are blessed with a right to the tree of life after passing through the
gates of the New Jerusalem.
All these references to the tree of life are just as suggestive as those to the book of life, and there is even some
evidence of a certain blending of the two images. Certainly, references to the tree of life are just as compatible
with the curse-formula setting of Revelation 22:19 as those to the book of life. Being forbidden to eat the fruit of
the tree of life is as much a curse as having one’s name removed from the book of life. What other evidence, then,
might be brought to bear on the interpretation of this text?
Textual evidence
Turning to textual history, one might be surprised to learn that some evidence exists for the reading “book of life,”
although it is not overwhelming. Obviously, since it was from the Vulgate that Erasmus produced his Greek text,
“book” is found in a number of Vulgate manuscripts, but it also occurs in one Greek miniscule (no. 2067, dating to
the fteenth century) and is reected in the Bohairic Version (an important translation in a Coptic dialect). The
word also occurs in a number of the church fathers: Ambrose and Bachiarus (both late-fourth century), Primasius
(mid-sixth century) and Haymo (ninth century). Most of the textual evidence, however, and particularly that of the
earliest Greek witnesses, clearly supports “tree.” And it is certainly signicant that the church fathers who attest to
the variant reading all wrote in Latin.
Another, still more compelling reason suggests that the variant arose in Latin and not in Greek. The Latin for “tree”
here is ligno, while the Latin for “book” is libro, much closer to one another than the Greek terms (biblou and xulou).
Apparently the copy of the Vulgate Erasmus used for his reverse translation had the word book (libro) in the text,
though it is possible that Erasmus himself, whether intentionally or unintentionally, independently replaced ligno
with libro as he translated the verse. But was the change—whether Erasmus inherited or reinvented it—necessarily
a mistake? The fact that textual evidence exists at all for “book” suggests that something more than a bad
translation is at work here.
The lead-in wording to the curse formula of Revelation 22:19, “God shall take away his part out of the [X],” is
awkward. (Further note that the words his part occur nowhere else in the New Testament.) Regardless of the
textual evidence, the wording of the text arguably works better with “book of life” than with “tree of life,” especially
since it is the curse imposed on those who themselves remove words from the book of prophecy. If “book of life”
were original, the expression would simply be an awkward way of saying that God would blot out the offender’s
name in the book of life. If the original expression were indeed “God shall take away his part from the tree of life,”
the text would be at least as awkward as, if not more than, its alternative, apparently meaning something like “God
shall bar him from partaking of the fruit of the tree of life.”
8
The awkwardness of the wording, in either case, may
suggest—as many scholars have in fact suggested—that the curse formula is, ironically, itself a later addition to the
original text.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence adduced in the last section and from a purely text-critical perspective, the original reading
would most likely have been “tree,” not “book” as reected in the King James Version (and in the Textus Receptus
on which that translation was based). Thus, if our sole concern is with the original text, the question asked at the
outset of this study has been answered.
But before rushing to embrace this answer, we might pause for a moment to reect on what can be learned from
the apparently nonoriginal variant. After all, the Latin variant libro is in a sense both a book and a tree. That word is
the ablative case of the lexical form liber, which (as we might guess from such English derivatives as library) came to
mean “book, parchment, paper” but which originally referred to the bark of a tree. Perhaps more important, the
Prophet Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible (often referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation) may
motivate interest in the nonoriginal version of the text. His translation was in large measure a midrashic
commentary on the KJV text (rather than a restoration of the original text).
9
In that very Mormon spirit of
investigation, we might consider what we can learn from the nonoriginal variant before discarding it.
The reading “book of life,” as has already been noted, makes excellent sense in the context of the curse formula of
Revelation 22:19. Indeed, one could argue that “God shall take away his part out of the book of life” is, as was just
pointed out, easier to understand than “God shall take away his part out of the tree of life,” thus making the latter
the lectio difcilior, or “more difcult reading.”
10
As we have seen, the book of life is a register for the recording of
the names of those who will enter the New Jerusalem and therefore inherit eternal life. Those whose names are
recorded in the book worship the Lamb; those whose names are either not recorded in the book in the rst place
or recorded but subsequently blotted out worship the beast. Joseph Smith developed a particularly acute interest
in this theme in his nal years, suggesting a richness in it that remains to be exhausted. At the same time, the usage
of “book of life” and “tree of life” in Revelation is in several respects almost synonymous. Each is a symbol for entry
into the New Jerusalem. Each is achieved only by overcoming. Those registered in the book of life are clothed in
white raiment, while those approaching the tree of life are they that “wash their robes.”
But while “book of life” makes excellent sense in the context of the curse formula, the original reading, “tree of life,”
has rich implications as well. The four tranches of “tree of life” in the scriptures represent a sort of chiastic
ordering. The inaugural usage referring to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden at the dawn of creation is
paralleled by the usage in Revelation, both at the end of the Bible and at the end of days, in which the tree of life is
the most prominent feature of the New or heavenly Jerusalem, a mirror of the original tree of life in the center of
the paradise of God. Between these two groupings of texts representing the beginning and the end are two other
groups of texts that seem related: the Proverbs passages and the Book of Mormon passages featured in the
visions of Lehi and Nephi. Explicitly, the Book of Mormon tells us that this tree represents the love of God, but
both groups of texts can be read as references to Divine Wisdom, either a characteristic of God the Father or a
representation of God the Mother. This latter possibility would of course be a distinctively Mormon reading, and it
is one I nd intriguing. On this reading, when we nally pass through the veil and enter the heavenly Jerusalem, we
will be reunited not only with our Father and his Son, but also with our Mother, as well as our own family from this
mortality.
That would be the paradise of God indeed.
Kevin Barney studied classics at Brigham Young University before obtaining law degrees at the University of
Illinois and DePaul University. He is the managing partner of the Chicago ofce of Kutak Rock LLP, where he
practices public nance law. Kevin has published numerous articles, most of which deal with Mormon scripture.
He and his wife, Sandy, have two children.
NOTES
1. This volume took its name from the city in which it was produced (Alcalá de Henares, Spain, or Complutum in
Latin). Polyglot indicates that the text was presented in multiple languages.
2. Letter to Pierre Barbier, November 2, 1517 (letter 695). See Erasmus, The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters
594–841, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 172.
3. Quoted in Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004),
136.
4. These can be read, along with a helpful introduction by E. P. Sanders, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983–85), 1:871–902.
5. See Kevin L. Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in Astronomy, Papyrus,
Covenant, ed. John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 107–30.
6. The title of a major study of this subject by Bernhard Lang expresses the basic point well; see Lang, Wisdom and
the Book of Proverbs: A Hebrew Goddess Redened (New York: Pilgrim, 1986). I have discussed these issues
elsewhere at length in Kevin L. Barney, “How to Worship Our Mother in Heaven (without Getting
Excommunicated),” Dialogue 41/4 (2008): 121–46.
7. Daniel C. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8–23,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient
World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 191–243. See also Daniel C.
Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000): 16–25.
8. If that is the original reading, then the intended antecedent is Revelation 22:14, just ve verses earlier. God
removing “his part” from the tree of life should probably be interpreted in light of the “right to the tree of life”
described in that verse. Hence, the rendering in the New Revised Standard Version: “If anyone takes away from
the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city,
which are described in this book.”
9. For the concept of much of the Joseph Smith Translation constituting a midrashic commentary on the text, see
Kevin L. Barney, “Isaiah Interwoven,” FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 379–85.
10. All else being equal, textual criticism holds that the lectio difcilior is more likely to be the original reading. This
may seem counter-intuitive, but the fact is that scribes tried to make texts easier to read over time, not harder, and
thus the more difcult reading is more likely to be the earlier reading.
