Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Just curious, which manuscripts did the KJV translators follow in this verse? The main issue is: does the original Greek text read: "Joseph and his mother" or "His father and mother"?
Well, let's check the manuscript evidence. (Unfortunately we cannot write Greek and superscripts here, so I will have to write out some of the notations)
1. hO PATER AUTOU KAI hH MATHR
Literal translation: "the father of him and the mother"
Sinaiticus (1st corrector), Vaticanus, D, W, f(1)[=1, 118, 131, 209], 700, 1241, italia(4th corrector), georgian (2), Origen (Greek, Latin), Jerome, Augustine
2. hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MATHR AUTOU (difference is addition of "his" after mother)
Literal translation: "the father of him and the mother of him"
Sinaiticus (original), L, syriac(1st corrector), coptic (sahidic, boharic), armenian (omits first AUTOU), georgian (1st corrector), Cyril
3. IWSEF KAI hH MHTHR AUTOU
Literal translation: "Joseph and the mother of him"
K, X, Delta, Theta, (A, Pi, Psi, add definite article hO before Joseph), 053, f(13)[=13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689], 28, 565, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, Byzantium (majority), Lectionary (majority of Meologion), it(Vercellensis, Aureus, Veronensis, Carinthianum, Colbertinus, Palatinus, Brixianus, Corbeiensis II, Rehdigeranus, Monacensis, Usserianus I), Syriac (Pe****ta, Harclean, Palestinian [many], coptic (many boharic), gothic, Diatessaron of Tatian (Arabic, Old Dutch, Tuscan).
4. IWSEF hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR AUTOU
Literal translation: "Joseph the father of him and the mother of him"
157, ethiopic
5. IWSEF KAI hH MHTHR
Literal translation: "Joseph and the mother"
33
6. hOI GONEIS AUTOU
Literal translation: "the parents of him"
vulgate (a few)
7. hO PATHR AUTOU
Literal translation: "the father of him"
syriac (Harclean, marginal reading)
8. IWSEF
Literal translation: "Joseph"
syriac (Palestinian, some)
So, now based on this limited listing, which is the closest to "original" reading? And just as important: why is that the closest?
I hope you can see that it is not a simple case of claiming that "the KJV/TR is the original text," because there are at least 10 variant readings. No one made this up - this is the reality of textual criticism.