My Thoughts on the Textual Variation of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 in the KJV vs. Other Versions

The KJV translation of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13  says "the brother of" while other variants say "the son of". Although, one must notice the italics used in the KJV. The KJV translators used italics if they had to either emphasize something or to put what words they thought were missing from the manuscript they found. 

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.

Meanwhile, you may notice that other translations such as the NIV or ESV use "the son" instead of "the brother" of James in respect to Judas Thaddeus. Wait, the brother can't be the father? The Tecarta Bible footnote for the KJV says "the son of" which may say that Judas here is the son of another person named James and not James the brother of John. James the Lesser is the son of Alpheus. Without the italics, we will read Judas of James instead. This could be a curious case that maybe, the KJV translator wanted to specify that there were more than two Jameses. Matthew 10:3 in the KJV also has the name Lebbaeus whose surname is Thaddeus. 

So, why the KJV translator placed "the brother of" in italics was in doubt. It seems that this was another editing process that overlooked in the process. It seems that Judas Thaddeus' father was known as James or also known as James. It seemed that the KJV translator was probably best left not putting "the brother of" and wrote Judas of James instead. I also feel the newer translators could've also left that out. Though, it seems that Judas Thaddeus' father was really another James who is only mentioned once. Neither James the brother of John or James the Lesser was the father of Judas Thaddeus. Probably, Judas Thaddeus' father was also known as James. So we probably have three Jameses - something that the KJV translators may have failed to do.

This would be to prove one thing. the KJV is considered an excellent translation and the version Charles H. Spurgeon loved the most. Some are KJV Only because they have their concerns about the Bibles translated in this day and age. Yet, the RSV which Spurgeon also used called Judas (not Iscariot) as the son of James. Were the words "the son" actually meant to tell us that the KJV translators' italics were wrong and that Judas of James means Judas the son of James?