King James Wordings Found In Early Greek Papyri New Testament Manuscripts
The issue of whether the verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek texts left them out depends on some scholarship. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is based largely upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts which are associated with Alexandria, Egypt and
the Christian and gnostic theology going on there in the early Church period.
But scholarship is not the only test of the authenticity of the verses in the King James Version which are not in the new Bible versions. In addition to the many omissions in the New Bible versions, the new versions also, for some verses, are abbreviated and present different emphasis upon doctrines than do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. I John 5: 7 is one very clear example of a dfferent "spin" on the important doctrine of the trinity when the new versions are compared to the King James Version.
If you believe in a supernatural God who is there and active now in all things, then you can see that God honored the King James Version by allowing it to have the fruit that it has had in the centuries since it appeared. The new Bible versions have not had such fruit and have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the church Christians in America and in other parts of the world. I believe the new versions are, in part, the cause of this falling away from the truth.
Those who have the Holy Spirit can also have some discernment about whether the King James and Textus Receptus are more authentic than the new versions.
But - many people think they are acting under the inspiration of the Spirit but are not doing so.
There is evidence that Byzantine or
Textus Receptus type verse wordings are found in early Greek papyri
New Testament fragments. This also means that the verse wordings of the King James Verson are found in early versons of the New Testament on paper known as papyri.
Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings
Text-Types Of The New Testament Manuscripts: Alexandrian ("Neutral"), Western, Byzantine & Caesarean
..."Byzantine Text
The Byzantine text, otherwise also called the Syrian text (so Westcott
and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical text (so
Lake), and the Antiochian text (so Ropes) is, on the whole, the latest
of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament. It is
characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of
this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine
two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called
conflation) , and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. This
conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to
Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the
Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus
(in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later
uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. Thus,
except for an occasional manuscript that happen to preserve an earlier
form of the text, during the period from about the sixth to seventh
century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A.D.
1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the
authoritative form of text and was one of the most widely circulated
and accepted."
http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html
Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings,
that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek
text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for
their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament
versions were translated.
"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."
"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."
"Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri,
"They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of
the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e.
geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are
opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). "
What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.
"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."
"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."
The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."
Translations and the Greek Text
"King James Version
The KJV is based on a Greek text (Robert Stephanus's third edition
published in 1550) known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]).
This text is a Byzantine type; that is, it represents a family of
manuscripts that are mostly associated with the Constantinople area of
modern Turkey. This text represents the majority of the existing Greek
manuscripts."
"The Greek manuscript basis for the Textus Receptus (i.e. TR} is
younger than the other text types. This does not necessarily mean the
text itself is younger. "
"Another reason the KJV is held in high honor is because it is based
...on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (a Latin term
translated Received Text). All major translations since 1881, except
the New King James Version, are based on the Alexandrian Greek text
first published in 1881-82."
"Westcott and Hort considered the Alexandrian text-type to be those
early Non-Western and Pre-Syrian uncial manuscripts that preserved the
text used by Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and a few other Alexandrian
Fathers, and the two Egyptian Versions used in Lower Egypt. They
considered its chief representative to be the Vaticanus manuscript."
"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after
Westcott and Hort's time."
This site quotes Sturz as saying "Papyrus-supported longer Byzantine
readings show their early age. The Byzantine text also has readings
shorter than the Alexandrian text. "Instead of finding (as was
anticipated) the greater number of papyrus-confirmed variants in K
where the Byzantine reading was the shortest, the greater proportion
was of longer papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. This underscores
the danger of making it a rule 'to prefer the shorter reading . . . .'
long readings are old and short readings are old. Both are attested by
manuscript evidence that places them deep in the second century. The
criteria for judging between them must be something other than their
respective lengths."
Westcott and Hort claimed that a criteria for selecting a Greek text
was its shortness, that is, shorter verse wordings, they claimed,
meant the text was older and therefore more 'authentic."
"The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in
1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in
1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300
a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New
Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several
thousand percent increase as far as their importance."
"The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth
century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus
Receptus, has very early support."
"Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine
readings in the second century."
That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.
"Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after
around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text
which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine
manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings
"are far older than the manuscripts which attest them."
The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."
"Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text
either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR.
(Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing
about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort
'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the
earliest fathers."[117]
The issue of whether the verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek texts left them out depends on some scholarship. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is based largely upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts which are associated with Alexandria, Egypt and
the Christian and gnostic theology going on there in the early Church period.
But scholarship is not the only test of the authenticity of the verses in the King James Version which are not in the new Bible versions. In addition to the many omissions in the New Bible versions, the new versions also, for some verses, are abbreviated and present different emphasis upon doctrines than do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. I John 5: 7 is one very clear example of a dfferent "spin" on the important doctrine of the trinity when the new versions are compared to the King James Version.
If you believe in a supernatural God who is there and active now in all things, then you can see that God honored the King James Version by allowing it to have the fruit that it has had in the centuries since it appeared. The new Bible versions have not had such fruit and have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the church Christians in America and in other parts of the world. I believe the new versions are, in part, the cause of this falling away from the truth.
Those who have the Holy Spirit can also have some discernment about whether the King James and Textus Receptus are more authentic than the new versions.
But - many people think they are acting under the inspiration of the Spirit but are not doing so.
There is evidence that Byzantine or
Textus Receptus type verse wordings are found in early Greek papyri
New Testament fragments. This also means that the verse wordings of the King James Verson are found in early versons of the New Testament on paper known as papyri.
Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings
Text-Types Of The New Testament Manuscripts: Alexandrian ("Neutral"), Western, Byzantine & Caesarean
..."Byzantine Text
The Byzantine text, otherwise also called the Syrian text (so Westcott
and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical text (so
Lake), and the Antiochian text (so Ropes) is, on the whole, the latest
of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament. It is
characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of
this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine
two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called
conflation) , and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. This
conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to
Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the
Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus
(in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later
uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. Thus,
except for an occasional manuscript that happen to preserve an earlier
form of the text, during the period from about the sixth to seventh
century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A.D.
1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the
authoritative form of text and was one of the most widely circulated
and accepted."
http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html
Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings,
that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek
text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for
their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament
versions were translated.
"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."
"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."
"Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri,
"They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of
the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e.
geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are
opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). "
What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.
"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."
"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."
The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."
Translations and the Greek Text
"King James Version
The KJV is based on a Greek text (Robert Stephanus's third edition
published in 1550) known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]).
This text is a Byzantine type; that is, it represents a family of
manuscripts that are mostly associated with the Constantinople area of
modern Turkey. This text represents the majority of the existing Greek
manuscripts."
"The Greek manuscript basis for the Textus Receptus (i.e. TR} is
younger than the other text types. This does not necessarily mean the
text itself is younger. "
"Another reason the KJV is held in high honor is because it is based
...on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (a Latin term
translated Received Text). All major translations since 1881, except
the New King James Version, are based on the Alexandrian Greek text
first published in 1881-82."
"Westcott and Hort considered the Alexandrian text-type to be those
early Non-Western and Pre-Syrian uncial manuscripts that preserved the
text used by Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and a few other Alexandrian
Fathers, and the two Egyptian Versions used in Lower Egypt. They
considered its chief representative to be the Vaticanus manuscript."
"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after
Westcott and Hort's time."
This site quotes Sturz as saying "Papyrus-supported longer Byzantine
readings show their early age. The Byzantine text also has readings
shorter than the Alexandrian text. "Instead of finding (as was
anticipated) the greater number of papyrus-confirmed variants in K
where the Byzantine reading was the shortest, the greater proportion
was of longer papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. This underscores
the danger of making it a rule 'to prefer the shorter reading . . . .'
long readings are old and short readings are old. Both are attested by
manuscript evidence that places them deep in the second century. The
criteria for judging between them must be something other than their
respective lengths."
Westcott and Hort claimed that a criteria for selecting a Greek text
was its shortness, that is, shorter verse wordings, they claimed,
meant the text was older and therefore more 'authentic."
"The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in
1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in
1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300
a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New
Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several
thousand percent increase as far as their importance."
"The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth
century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus
Receptus, has very early support."
"Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine
readings in the second century."
That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.
"Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after
around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text
which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine
manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings
"are far older than the manuscripts which attest them."
The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."
"Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text
either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR.
(Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing
about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort
'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the
earliest fathers."[117]
