Understand the question: Why was "tree of life" changed to "book of life?" [If not the other way around.] {By or before the 12th century!}
I lost my sourse for this. I'd take a year to find it!
"19.a. The prep phrase ajpo; tw`n lovgwn tou` biblivou th`" profhteiva" tauvth", lit. ―from the prophetic words of this book,‖ is a partitive gen. (intensified by the prep ajpov, ―from‖), which functions as the obj. of the verb ajfevlh/, ―remove, expunge‖; see BDR § 164.
"An indefinite pl. obj., such as tinav, ―anything,‖ is presupposed.
"The author often uses the partitive gen. (most frequently with ejk or ajpov) as the subject or obj. of various verbs; see Rev 2:7, 10, 17; 5:9; 11:9; 21:6; see Introduction, Section 7: Syntax, under ―partitive genitive,‖ pp. clxxi–clxxiii.
These are some good references from:
Revelation 22:19 - Textus Receptus
The accepted view is a scribe copying the Latin wrote libro while copying a manuscript haviing ligno.
This is also the main banner critics fly under:
"Critics of the Authorised Version and its underlying Greek text have quite often drawn attention to the comparatively small number of manuscripts available to Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, and to Stephens and Beza, and the impression is given that the discovery of many thousands of documents in more recent times makes it imperative to introduce a large number of changes in the Greek text. While it is true that many manuscripts have come to light, it must not be overlooked that the great majority of all these newly discovered copies confirm the reliability of the Greek text underlying the Authorised Version and are of a character very similar to the small number of copies upon which earlier editors had to rely.
"Erasmus has sometimes been criticised for his treatment of the last six verses of Revelation. The state of the copies in his hands made it impossible for him to edit this part of the text directly from the Greek, and he completed this portion by translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. While it may be admitted that he had no alternative if his Greek edition was to be complete, the indirect method of arriving at the Greek text of these verses may cause some to wonder whether the resultant text can be relied on.
"Although the Latin Vulgate is by no means free from error, there are many portions of it which agree very closely with the Greek text found in the majority of the manuscripts now available to modern scholars. In this respect Erasmus was referring to an authority more ancient than the incomplete Greek copy upon which he relied for most of Revelation. A detailed study of the reconstructed Greek of Erasmus, side by side with the Latin and the most recent editions of the Greek text, shows a very remarkable agreement, and in the case of the few significant variations in the recent critical editions, it is not to be assumed that they are unquestionably right and that Erasmus was unquestionably wrong."
Question being does manuscript 2814 really have απο βιβλου της ζωης ?
I don't believe 2814 had the verse in it, did it?
2049 does.
And this says, "the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067"
from:
Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22
"Did Erasmus really translate the Latin back into Greek?
Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position.
[3] Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of
Revelation 22:19.
"To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067"
"Likewise, there is textual evidence for the reading
book of life instead of
tree of life. As noted above, the reading is found in a few Greek manuscripts.
"It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses.
"The phrase
book of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version.
"Finally, it is the reading found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).
"One must also consider the internal evidence. The phrase
tree of life appears seven times in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament.
"In these verses we are told we will be able to eat of this tree, and that this tree of Eden will reappear in Eternity.
"The idea that one can have their share taken away from the tree of life seems abnormal to Scripture.
"However, the phrase
book of life appears seven other times in the New Testament (
Phil.4:3;
Rev. 3:5;
13:8;
17:8;
20:12,
15; and 21:27).
"In each case we find the book of life either contains or does not contain names, or names are blotted out of it.
,"Therefore, the phrase, "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," is extremely consistent with the biblical texts.
Also see: Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 - TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
http://jbtc.org/v16/Krans2011.pdf