Romans 8:1
From Textus Receptus
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
In Romans 8:1, the vast majority of Greek texts, including Sinaiticus correction, D correction, some Old Latin copies like ar and o, the Syriac Harkelian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions, support the KJV/TR reading.
Agreeing with the full reading found in the Majority of Greek texts and the King James Bible are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535... See More, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Luther 1545, Italian Diodati 1649, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, Young's, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Amplified Bible, and the Modern Greek Bible.
However Sinaiticus original, and Vaticanus omit all these words and so do versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.
Manuscripts A and D original have part of the words and omit the others. These include "who walk not after the flesh", but omit "but after the Spirit". The Catholic Douay version reads this way, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the Jerusalem Bible now read like the NASB, NIV, and ESV and omit the last part of the verse.
So, in other words, it is mainly because of the Vatican manuscript that modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV and Holman unite in omitting the whole last phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads differently than them all with: "THERE is therefore no condemnation to them who walk in the flesh after the Spirit of Jesus Christ."
Textus Receptus ouden ara nun katakrima toiV en cristw ihsou mh kata sarka peripatousin alla kata pneuma
Hort-Westcott Critical Text ouden ara nun katakrima toiV en cristw ihsou
So it is missing in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In the footnotes of the United Bible Societies fourth revised edition, the names of Marcion and Origen appear as those who are the ones responsible for removing the above part of this verse. It is interesting to note that a fifth century (maybe earlier in date) manuscript entitled Alexandrinus (A) contains the removed portion, yet the modern scholars of today have chosen to leave it omitted since it does not appear in the two "crowning manuscripts" of modern scholarship.
