The TR and the majority text are 99.9% the same. One is the Byzantine text as edited by Erasmus, Stephanie, and Beza and the other is a modern edition of the Byzantine text with a little different comparative method. Given that there's already some variation between the TR editions, I tend to group the majority text with the TR.
They are largely the same, but there are some major differences in the later Johannine literature, especially Revelation. In many places in Revelation, the TR agrees with neither the MT or CT.
No the 1901 ASV, like the 1886 RV were translations of the critical text.
This is s good plan for what you are seeking. The NKJV editors were Majority Text guys so even though it is TR in the main they pointed out Majority deviations.
I would disagree with this primarily because the methodology, at least as it is expressed today, is different. I'd also distinguish between the Majority Text (which I believe limits itself to Byzantine texts) and the Byzantine Priority, which, as the name suggests, prioritizes the Byzantine text but considers all textual evidence. TR methodology is significantly different in practice.
I think that the NKJV you can read online at Bible Gateway has those textual notes. Unless there's a hard copy reference Bible with greater detail that I'm not aware of, that's primarily how I try to catch any text critical issues significant enough that I ought to be aware of them when I'm preparing.
I wouldn’t get the WEB in physical copy. It is still something if a work in progress (thought not near as much as it was), as little edits are being suggested and made regularly.
Yes, I was just researching them and the report did not look great at the moment. Thanks for the heads up.
Anything from Cambridge or Schuyler would be good, but you’re going to pay for it.
There is an English Majority Text Version based on Robinson-Pierpont. As far as I know, it is only digital. But it is “Byzantine Priority” not strictly Majority
Green translated from the TR fyi. But as you pointed out, while methodologies leading to the finished texts differ greatly, the text of the TR and the majority/Byzantine text are largely the same.
Oops! Yes, you're right. I was mistaken about Green's translation. I think I may have been confusing it with Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal New Testament, which is based on the Majority Text.
This thread is adding all kinds of Bibles to my to buy list and to my translations to compare document for sermon preparation! Do you know of any free electronic version for Zeolla's translation?
I don’t think I know where you can get his translation for free. I looked a while back and came up empty.
It’s just not a well-known position or well-advocated-for position. Add to this that there is, in my estimation, a technocratic elitism surrounding the CT, which pressures many people to shy away from even questioning it. There is also such a large number of fruit-loop knuckleheads on the TR side that many of the more militant CT advocates, like James White, use it to their advantage, further bolstering CT elitism and, with it, greater fear of departure from the CT. These two groups usually take up so much air time that balanced voices such as Maurice Robinson get drowned out.
Bingo.
Jason, this is the ISBN for a NKJV such as you mentioned, though you'll have to hunt for a decent low-priced copy: 9781558196520
I agree. If you have the NKJV, you have a faithful translation with essentially a picture of the entire textual landscape. In the main body you have the text of the TR, and in the footnotes the places of difference in the critical and majority texts. A very useful too.
