Understanding Translational Philosophy

Why do some translations have differences of wording?  

For example, in Luke 4:44, we read a summary of Jesus ministry and it is characterized as being mainly in synagogues, and regardless if you are holding a NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV you will see a footnote on the location as either Judea or Galilee.  

The NKJV inserts Galilee in the text, and points to alternate reading of Judea.  

The NASB, ESV, and NIV insert Judea, and footnotes Galilee as the alternate margin reading.  

This is a good example of a common, yet insignificant difference between translation philosophy.  

The NKJV was translated under the philosophy, of holding to a majority text position.  In other words, if the majority of the 6000 texts available to us indicate a common reading, they will generally side with the majority.  

However, the NASB, ESV, and NIV generally hold older manuscripts in high regard, and obviously there are less older manuscripts in the collection of 6000 available for comparison, and this is often called a minority text position.  

The comparison of manuscripts is quite an involved science, yet both sides of the gentleman's debate, are actually interested in the same thing...what was the original reading? 

Below are two examples of how a translation committee made a decision one way or another.  While I have simplified the argument, please note that the method is actually quite involved.  

A.  From the minority position (Judea):

1.  The older manuscripts seem to have Judea.

2.  The context makes the inclusion of Judea, harder to explain.  So, it is more likely, that if a scribe considered the word Judea to be a mistake, he may judge the context and change it to Galilee, and start a copy tradition with a new word.  Since the context of the miracles and the conversation with Peter is in Galilee, a scribe might see Galilee the better option, and 'gently correct' the original text. 

3.  Luke's literary style and audience suggests that he might possibly use a larger geographical term that people in Italy would be more familiar with.

B.  From the majority position (Galilee): 

1.  The majority of manuscripts seem to have included Galilee.  And the majority of manuscripts available to us are dated after the 1200s.  Anything older, are fewer in number.  

2.  There is safety in tradition, and a wide geographic audience of copies.  

Either position cannot definitively say they know the original reading that Luke chose; however, some arguments are stronger than others, and boil down to taking the time to carefully think through the choices, and make an educated decision.  

Regardless, of which word is chosen, the sense of the passage is retained, and in the end, nothing significant is lost.  Approximately 98-99% of the differences between manuscripts fall into the category of inconsequential, like this example from Luke 4:44.  

What about the 1% that may be considered consequential? 

In these cases, if the words do not appear to be in the original, the doctrine that is thought to be affected is actually never lost--in fact, it is always found in another location of Scripture.  Typically, these are scribal errors of addition to the original from other similar sounding verses in another gospel account or letter of Paul.  

And at the offset, it is to be remembered that no translation listed above are conspiratorially trying to disrupt God's Word.  All the translations cited above are honest about the 'debate' among scholars by pointing out various options in their margins.