Colossians 1:14, where did “through his blood” go?
Some Bibles print τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν alone, while others add διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ; the supplied evidence records both and does not settle whether the phrase was removed or added. The difference is whether Colossians 1:14 explicitly says “through his blood.”
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Since revision 3.5, the places where the manuscripts disagree are decided before translation by three readers, Grok 4.3, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Fable 5.1, who see the readings and the witnesses by age and class but never a reference or a manuscript name. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, [later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Default wording chosen; evidence is not decisive enough to reach 0.8 confidence.”
The APB 3.5 decision kept the base text in its printed translation of Colossians 1:14. Its note says, “The base text reads (nothing).” It also records the added wording as “later majority tradition” and states, “Default wording chosen; evidence is not decisive enough to reach 0.8 confidence.” The three readers worked from readings and witness classes and dates only. The pericope audit verdict is clean, and no rationale note matches this crux.
The argument for each reading
If the short text
Reading A ends the verse with τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. The SBLGNT with the collated editions reads this form without the additional phrase. Its witness row further states that Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, NA28, and the Byzantine text all lack the phrase at this location, while the SBLGNT apparatus records no variant at the verse. This gives the short text broad support across the editions named in the packet. The question raised by this evidence is whether Colossians 1:14 should contain only the redemption and forgiveness wording found in that text, without an explicit reference to blood in the verse itself.
If “through his blood”
Reading B adds διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, “through his blood,” after the redemption wording. The Textus Receptus prints the phrase, so this is a real printed-text reading rather than a merely hypothetical expansion. Its witness row says that the phrase was carried by a minority of late manuscripts. It also identifies Ephesians 1:7 as a parallel verse where every witness has the phrase, and says that the wording is genuinely Paul's there. For the longer reading, the central case is that this familiar expression may belong in Colossians 1:14 as well. The same row, however, describes Ephesians as the most likely source from which it was drawn into this verse.
The remaining uncertainty concerns the direction of the variation: whether διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ belongs in Colossians 1:14 or entered from Ephesians 1:7. The wording changes whether this verse explicitly mentions blood; it does not change the supplied report that Ephesians 1:7 has the phrase in every witness. No doctrine turns on this single variation, since doctrines rest on many passages.
Common questions
Why do some Bibles include “through his blood” in Colossians 1:14?
They follow a text such as the Textus Receptus, which prints διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. The packet says this wording is carried by a minority of late manuscripts.
Why do other Bibles leave the phrase out?
The SBLGNT with the collated editions reads the shorter wording. Its row says Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, NA28, and the Byzantine text also lack the phrase here.
Was “through his blood” removed or added?
The supplied evidence does not settle that question. The Textus Receptus row says the phrase was most likely drawn in from Ephesians 1:7, while the shorter reading is printed by the listed collated editions.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. The page does not declare which reading is original.
The registry gives no verdict
The registry does not say which reading is original. Each page lists the witnesses, shows what the committee did with the same text, and leaves the judgment to the reader.