1 John 5:7-8

[John Reece]

From the standpoint of New Testament Greek, which is the area of Greek studies I am most familiar with, the semantic explanation of this phenomenon seems sufficient. A. T. Robertson, for instance, in _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, says "The agreement of the relative with antecedent in person, number, gender, and sometives case, is just the natural effort to relate more exactly the two clauses with each other" (p. 711). This explanation would seem to be borne out by the also-often-occuring inverse attraction of the antecedent to the relative (J. H. Moulton,._Grammar of New Testament Greek_, Vol. III, _Syntax_, by Nigel Turner, p.324), and by certain exceptions to the rule of attraction according to semantic considerations (Blass, DeBrunner, _A Greek Grammar of the New Testament_, #294, 1).

Perhaps the problem is in the fact that my memory has become impaired and my mental energy diminished in my old age; however, I do not understand the relevance of the above quote to the text of 1 John 5:7-8.

The quote from Robertson’s Grammar is from a paragraph on how the relative pronoun becomes the chief bond of connection between clauses. How does that relate to 1 John 5:7-8, wherein there is no relative pronoun serving as a bond between clauses?

The quote from Moulton’s Grammar has to do with “inverse attraction of the antecedent to the relative”. Where in 1 John 5:7-8 is there an antecedent that is inversely attracted to a relative?

Paragraph 294 in Blass-Debrunner-Funk is titled “Attraction of the relative”, wherein the subject is the “simple relative ος, η, ο…”. How does that relate to 1 John 5:7-8, wherein the “simple relative ος, η, ο…” is not present? Subsection (1) is cited in the quote above, which I quote in full: “Exceptions are permissible, as in classical (Thuc. 2.70.5), if the relative clause is more clearly separated from its antecedent by additional nominal modifiers and the importance of its own content: Hebrews 8:2 της σκηνης της αληθινης ην επηξεν ο κυριος και ουκ ανθρωπος”. Note the presence of the relative pronoun ην (hēn) in the cited text of Hebrews 8:2, which corresponds to nothing in 1 John 5:7-8.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks John. I don't have access to Robertson's Grammar and I almost posted a query about whether Old Shepherd was applying it correctly, but I let it slide since I couldn't check. It's clear from your post that he has misunderstood the grammatical principle in question.

As far as I know there is no precedent whatsoever in koine Greek or in the NT anywhere for what he is claiming. So I don't see that he has any argument left.

[John Reece]

So I don't see that he has any argument left.

None that is valid or that can withstand exegetical scrutiny.

[OldShepherd]

Addendum: One other error in your posts that I didn't specifically address. In post #57 and again above, you said this:

In fact, as alluded to above, the participle MARTUROUN is singular, not plural as you have translated it "the witnesses". It's the same verb but is not the same in number. You say you have Grad level Greek, but you can't tell the difference between a singular and a plural participle?

Why do you address it now? How is it relevant to my core discussion, trying to muddy the water in any way you can?

[OldShepherd]

Thanks John. I don't have access to Robertson's Grammar and I almost posted a query about whether Old Shepherd was applying it correctly, but I let it slide since I couldn't check. It's clear from your post that he has misunderstood the grammatical principle in question.

As far as I know there is no precedent whatsoever in koine Greek or in the NT anywhere for what he is claiming. So I don't see that he has any argument left.

"Misunderstood?" Thank you, a post that didn't launch into mindless accusations of "ignorance" and "dishonesty."[/size]

[Rupert Pupkin]

Why do you address it now? How is it relevant to my core discussion, trying to muddy the water in any way you can?

It's actually quite relevant, and there are two other related points which are important as well. Remember, your whole argument against the masculine participle in verse 7 or 8 being a Semitism is that it occurs to close to a correct neuter participle in verse 6. But if there are important differences between the neuter participle in verse 6 and the masculine one in verse 7, then this undermines your claim.

There is indeed a further important difference, which I think is even more significant than the fact that it is singular whereas the one in verse 7/8 is plural. While the verbs in both verse 6 and 7 are participles, grammatically they are functioning quite differently. In verse 6, the participle is functioning as a noun and has no subject. In verse 7/8, the participle is functioning as a verb and takes the spirit, water and blood as the subject. This difference in grammatical function could be a important in explaining why John lapsed into a Semitism in the second case but not in the first.

And one more point: another interesting factor, once we recognize the singular/plural difference, is the difference in the gender of the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic words. The word for "spirit" in Hebrew is ruach, which is feminine. The words for water and blood are mayim and dam, and these are both masculine. In Hebrew, the corresponding participle in verse 7/8 would be masculine, whereas in verse 6 it would be feminine, which might also be a factor in why the John uses different genders. This combined with the difference in function of the participle noted in the previous factor, is more than sufficient grounds to refute Old Shepherd's argument against a Semitism occurring at this point, I think.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Correction - the previous post contains an important error. I've re-checked 1 John 5:7 and the participle MARTUROUNTES there is acting as a noun also. So that invalidates one of the points I made.

Sorry. It pays to double check before speaking!

[John Reece]

Thanks, HB.

The consensus of scholars is that the Comma Johanneum originated in Latin texts rather than in Greek NT manuscripts.

The contrarian view — that the Comma originated in Greek manuscripts prior to its incorporation into Latin texts — is asserted with claims that do not fare well in terms of exegesis or historical documentation.

The argument that there is a grammatical error in the text if the Comma is omitted was introduced into this thread by a quote from “Dr. P.S. Ruckman, Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 129” in a web link in OldShepherd’s post #36 on page 3 of this thread.

Another version of ‘the grammatical argument’ was presented by OldShepherd in post #45 on page 3 of this thread.

If there remains any doubt in anyone's mind that the grammatical argument is not valid, I will be happy to review the exegesis that has been produced in response to those two versions of ‘the grammatical argument’.

The assertion that Erasmus added the Comma to the third edition of his Greek NT because ‘he believed "the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome."’ — quoted by OldShepherd in post #18 on page 2 — is not supported by any translation of Erasmus’ words.

On the contrary, Erasmus included the Comma in the third edition of his Greek New Testament under external duress, for reasons indicated in quotes from books written by Professor Erika Rummel that I transcribed in post #74 on page 5 of this thread.

[Jim1]

Hi John Reece,


Whereas the rule without exception for an adjective is grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE noun in the text that the adjective modifies, the rule for a substantive (a word or phrase functioning as a noun) is constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense), in which the gender of the substantive conforms to the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which a word or phrase refers) of the substantive, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons.

There are only two exceptions to this constructio-ad-sensum rule: (1) If the referent of a pronoun or a substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is represented in the text by a SINGLE noun, then the gender of the pronoun or the substantival participle often (but not always) conforms to the grammatical gender of the SINGLE referent noun in the text. (2) If there is a SINGLE omitted noun that a substantival adjective would modify as an adjective IF the SINGLE omitted noun were present in the text, then the gender of the substantival adjective sometimes (but not often) conforms to the grammatical gender of that SINGLE omitted noun.

That’s it. That’s how gender is determined in the Greek language, as dictated by common sense and as corroborated by what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

This is why the NON-grammatical-gender-agreement between the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” and the MULTIPLE nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in 1 John 5:8 (MT) is NOT the “grammatical difficulty” that Nolan (1784-1864) and Dabney (1820-1898) say it is. There is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with MULTIPLE nouns. It NEVER happens.

Neither is there any such thing as gender attraction either between substantival participles (as Nolan suggests) or between nouns (as Dabney suggests). Rather, gender attraction is confined to a relative pronoun which is divided between an antecedent referent noun in the text and a postcedent referent noun in the text, in which the gender of the relative pronoun sometimes conforms to the grammatical gender of the postcedent noun instead of conforming to the grammatical gender of the antecedent noun, that is, unless it conforms to the natural gender of the referent (constructio ad sensum).

Thus, the substantival participle in 2 John 1:4 is masculine in accordance with the constructio-ad-sensum rule for substantives, whereas the adjectival (functioning as an adjective) participle in 3 John 1:4 is neuter in accordance with the grammatical gender agreement rule for adjectives.

Likewise, the substantival participle “the thing bearing witness” in 1 John 5:7 (MT) is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, or (3) both.

Likewise, the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in 1 John 5:8 (MT) is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (the two or three witnesses [“men”] in “the witness of the men” [the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter and cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT)]), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, or (3) both.

In 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), John comparatively equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” which comprise “the witness of the God ... regarding the Son of Him,” to “the ones bearing witness,” who comprise the traditionally accepted “witness of the men,” hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness.”

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:6-9 (MT). Everything is written exactly as it should be written.

The pro-Comma grammatical argument is nonsense. Nolan and Dabney simply made it up in their own imagination. Their assertions regarding grammar in this argument bear no resemblance whatsoever to what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament. They simply said whatever they had to say in order to get what they wanted. Some people call it being creative. Other people call it something else.


Jim

[Weboh2]

Do you think that perhaps the reason the "comma" isn't in most greek manuscripts is due to the entire 1st Epistle of John being poorly represented in greek manuscript evidence in general?

[Jaltus]

Do you think that perhaps the reason the "comma" isn't in most greek manuscripts is due to the entire 1st Epistle of John being poorly represented in greek manuscript evidence in general?

No.

[Weboh2]

There aren't many early manuscripts which have the 1st Epistle of John.

[Jim1]

OldShepherd (message #67):

I said that the personification argument was used to counter the grammatical argument. No less a personage than Dan Wallace proposed the personification argument, as accounting for the masculine participle v.8, I quoted him. ... The counter to that is, again as I understand the article, “The ‘personification‘ argument is not valid because ... John used the correct neuter gender in [v.6].” ... I assume those who use the “personification” argument, do so, not because of the ungrammatical masculine “witnesses,” vs. 8, but because inanimate objects, i.e. blood and water are characterized as performing a human action, “witnessing.” ... I too think the “personification” argument is weak, but Dan Wallace doesn’t seem to think so ... I think the argument is that the masculine participle is used in vs. 8, because John wanted to personify the blood, water, and spirit. ... if the comma is present, then the masculine participle would be valid due to the principle of attraction. Without the comma there is no reason to switch from the neuter, vs. 6, to the masculine, vs. 8.


Rupert Pupkin (message #71):

... there is no such "principle of attraction" that justifies the use of incorrect gender for a participle. ... I have given an example of precisely the same error elsewhere in the epistles. In 2 John 1:4 we have exactly the same grammatical error, with a masculine plural participle but neuter plural subject. But you cannot explain this on the basis of a "principle of attraction". So what is your explanation for 2 John 1:4?


OldShepherd (message #72):

... it defies logic that John, or anyone else, would use the correct gender in one sentence, and, only ten words later, use the wrong gender with the same word.


Jim (this message):

The argument that is countered by the fact that “the Spirit” does NOT cause “the thing bearing witness” to be masculine in 1 John 5:7 (MT) is that the personhood of “the Spirit” in the “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” CAUSES “the ones bearing witness” to be masculine in 1 John 5:8 (MT), that is, that “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” PERSONIFIES “the ones bearing witness.” What Dr. Wallace says is the OPPOSITE of that. Dr. Wallace says that the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” PERSONIFIES “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” NOT the other way around. According to Dr. Wallace, “the ones bearing witness” does NOT take its masculine gender from “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” but simply from the idea to which it (“the ones bearing witness”) refers (the two or three witnesses [men] prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter), and John uses this masculine phrase “the ones bearing witness” to PERSONIFY “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” that is, to compare “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, to which “the ones bearing witness” (M) refers.

As for the assertion of the pro-Comma grammatical argument either (1) that “the ones bearing witness” in the Comma takes its masculine gender from the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” immediately before the Comma, that is, by a gender “attraction” between the two substantival participles (Frederick Nolan’s suggestion), or (2) that “the ones bearing witness” in the Comma takes its masculine gender from the masculine gender of “the Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” immediately after the Comma, which (“the Spirit”) in turn takes its masculine gender from the masculine gender of “the Father” and “the Word” in the phrase “the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit” in the Comma through its association with those two masculine nouns in the Comma, that is, by a gender “attraction” between the nouns (Robert Dabney’s suggestion), it is a false assertion. There is no such thing as gender attraction either between substantival participles or between nouns. Gender attraction is a phenomenon which occurs only with a relative pronoun in a specific kind of grammatical construction.

As for 2 John 1:4, this is no more a solecism or a semitism than 1 John 5:8 (MT) is. The participle in 2 John 1:4 functions as a noun referring to persons, hence the masculine gender. John says (literally), “I-was-made-glad, very, because/that I-have-found out-of the children of-you ONES-WALKING in truth ....” It is not “the children” per se who are the “ones-walking” in the truth. Rather, it is SOME of “the children,” certain individuals, who are these “ones-walking” in the truth, and John uses the masculine (in reference to persons) substantival (functioning as a noun) participle “ones-walking” (peripatountaV) in reference to these individuals.

In contrast, in 3 John 1:4, John says (literally), “... that I-would-hear the mine children in the truth WALKING (peritatounta).” The participle in this verse functions, not as a noun, but as an adjective modifying “the children (neuter),” hence the neuter gender; an adjective always conforms to the gender of the noun that it modifies.

In 1 John 5:8 (MT), the phrase “the ones bearing witness” is a substantival (functioning as a noun) participle. It is masculine because it refers to persons (the “men” in “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9). In 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” which comprise “the witness of the God ... regarding the Son of Him,” to “the ones bearing witness,” who comprise “the witness of the men,” hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness.”

There is no expectation of grammatical gender agreement between “the ones bearing witness” and “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in 1 John 5:8 (MT). First of all, the “Spirit” and the “water” and the “Blood” are not referent nouns (nouns that refer to the same thing to which the participle refers). Secondly, even if they were referent nouns, which they are not, there would still be no expectation of grammatical gender agreement, because there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with MULTIPLE nouns. It NEVER happens. Grammatical gender agreement occurs ONLY with a SINGLE noun.

So there is no solecism (bad grammar) or semitism (Jewish influence) here in 1 John 5:8 (MT). The substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” is masculine because it refers to the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men.” John is comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood / the witness of the God ... regarding the Son of Him” to “the ones bearing witness / the witness of the men.” Moses requires two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth of a matter, and God provides these two or three witnesses (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to establish the truth that Jesus is the Son of God.

John makes the same comparison in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) that Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 13:1 and that the author makes in Hebrews 10:28-29.

Everything is written exactly as it should be written.

[he-man]

The purpose of this thread is to present text and commentary related to a variant reading of 1 John 5:7-8.

Here is the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek text:

[v. 7] [greek]treiV eisin oi μαρτυρουντες[/greek] [treis eisin hoi marturountes], [v. 8] [greek]το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα[/greek] [to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima]: ⁷ There are three that testify: ⁸ the Spirit, and the water, and the blood (NRSV).

The Textus Receptus adds — after [greek]μαρτυρουντες[/greek] [marturountes] — the following additional text:

[font=georgia][greek]en tw ouranw, o Pathr, o LogoV, kai to Agion Pneuma, kai outoi oi treiV en eisi[/greek]. (8) [greek]kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh[/greek] [en tō ouranō, ho Patēr, ho Logos, kai to Hagion Pneuma, kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisi (8) kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tē gē]: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth (NRSV footnote).

Bruce M. Metzger — in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) — has this to say regarding the addition in the Textus Receptus: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.”

Metzgar notes that the passage added in the Textus Receptus “is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.”

Here are the eight manuscripts:

• 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.

• 88^v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

• 221^v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

• 429^v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.

• 636^v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

• 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

• 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Romania.

Metzger notes the following facts regarding the passage added in the Textus Receptus:

• The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). It’s first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

• The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716] or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

All those pity points are worth re-reading, especially this fact regarding the passage added in the Textus Receptus: “It’s first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.”

Note: 1 John 5:7-8 = 1 John 5:8 in some English versions.

Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was based upon copies of the Latin Vulgate, not on any ancient Greek texts. In other words, the corruption of these verses had no support in any Greek texts prior to 1516.

The most erroneous error was 1Jo 5:7-8; When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity.
Rev 22:19; Act 9:5-6;

Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agree agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]

[b][u]The Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England.

The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, all which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text.

Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.

Stephanus' 1550 Greek text was very close to being the same as Erasmus' fourth- and fifth-editions. It was the primary basis for Beza's 1565 edition, which was virtually the same as the Elzevirs' 1633 edition, which became known as the Textus Receptus.

The KJV was a 1611 translation into English from generally sound Hebrew Old Testament texts but considerably flawed Greek New Testament texts. A few parts of the KJV's flawed Greek texts were translated into Greek from a glossed/annotated Latin text of the Vulgate, which contributed to the Greek text's (and KJV's) corruptions. The KJV was revised many times in its first 160 years, with the most major and permanent revision of spelling and punctuation done by Benjamin Blayney in 1769.

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based.

According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516.

The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

The Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem is the current version of the Latin Vulgate that was originally begun by Jerome in 382 A.D. and completed in 405 A.D., with the intent to provide a standard Latin version of the Bible and eliminate the differences in older Latin texts.

It was many years later that Jerome's work was bound in a single volume and called the Vulgate. Jerome did not do all of the translation in that volume.

Only the Old Testament, Tobit, Judith, and the four gospels can definitely be attributed to Jerome. Over the centuries Jerome's text continued to be copied, annotated, corrupted, and revised. The Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem is the best, publicly available, current reconstruction of Jerome's original work.

[Weboh2]

Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was based upon copies of the Latin Vulgate, not on any ancient Greek texts. In other words, the corruption of these verses had no support in any Greek texts prior to 1516.

Actually the complutensian polyglot has the offending verse before Erasmus even corrected his novum testamentum. It is obvious the editor of the polyglot made a mistake based on his belief that the verse supports the trinity doctrine. He puts και between ο πατηρ and ο λογος which is not in the original verse. The story of Erasmus caving into pressure or using a crappy manuscript which had the verse is rubbish. If anything, a crappy copy didn't contain the verse.

The most erroneous error was 1Jo 5:7-8; When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Erasmus was confuted by the verse when he put in his 3rd 1522 edition. It is obvious he got his version of the verse from the Latin. It is missing definitive articles whereas the polyglot does instead have them.

Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agree agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]

Making a good copy is simple process given enough time, but I am skeptical of orthodox clegy's willingness to give accurate copies of the Ecclesiatical Text for mass printing. Older does not mean better, and this is certainly the case when testimony is in favor of the verse which-- by the way, wasn't used in greek form to prove the trinity doctrine 'til the middle ages.

[b][u]The Textus Receptus was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England.

Obviously. Are you copy-pasting?

The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, all which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text.

The texts also included crappy vulgate readings, and imprecise copying and typos.

Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.

Metzger has no proof whatsoever that the Alexandrian text and Egyptian papyri is more Unitarian or less corrupted by dogma. Is the Pericope of the Adultress corrupted by dogma? Maybe Metzger could say it is corrupted by morality.

Stephanus' 1550 Greek text was very close to being the same as Erasmus' fourth- and fifth-editions. It was the primary basis for Beza's 1565 edition, which was virtually the same as the Elzevirs' 1633 edition, which became known as the Textus Receptus.

So are the miniscules, but I can still find significant differences among the various editions of the TR.

copy-paste stuff snipped... Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based.

Oh puhlease, the King James Version is loaded with archaic language and inconsistent rendering. Modern translations work hard to modernize and not copy each AV verse, unless dogma is involved.

...

Does Metzger even credit the other editions by the Aldus and Colinaeus or the polyglot?

{crap about the vulgate}

How was that even relevent? Can anyone prove Jerome didn't have help which translated the entire New Testament? I don't think so.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything Metzger wrote or everything you read.