Majority Text and Modern Versions

Gary Zeolla has two lists: Significant Textual Variants - TR vs. MT and Significant Textual Variants - MT vs. CT

 

I would think it is becuase most translators realize the inherent weaknesses of the TR. I do wonder why there are no major English translation of the Majority Text however.

 

There isn't. The NKJV, the KJVII, the MKJV, the KJV for the 21st Century are all TR based bibles, and account for the largest selling segment of the modern version bible market. It was only in the past 25 years or so that bible translation philosophy has thrown off the errors or modernism as espoused by Lachmann, Greisbach, Westcott, Hort, and others, and realize the Byzantine textform is far superior to the Alexandrian textform, and that the most commonly accepted representitive of the Byzantine textform has, historically, been some form of the TR. I find that movement to be very encouraging. Once again bible readers and translators are actually thinking about what they are doing instead of blindly accepting the "conventional wisdom" of the modernists regarding bible translation.

 

I would think it is becuase most translators realize the inherent weaknesses of the TR. I do wonder why there are no major English translation of the Majority Text however.</font>[/QUOTE]Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Seminary is currently working on one. He has finished his Greek NT I believe (he was looking for proofreaders at SEBTS in my last semester there) and he is working on an English translation as well.

 

There isn't. The NKJV, the KJVII, the MKJV, the KJV for the 21st Century are all TR based bibles, and account for the largest selling segment of the modern version bible market. </font>[/QUOTE]That'a somewhat misleading, Doc

Although the KJV and NKJV consistently sell at number 2 and 3 in popularity behind the NIV according to the CBA accounting (and most likely combined sell more than the NIV) the MKJV, LITV and KJ21 are not even a blip on the the Bible sales radar screen

 

Would someone please explain in simple language what the differences are between the texts. There are so many names, i.e. Majority, Textus Receptus, Byzntine, Alexandrian, etc. that I get totally confused (of course, that's not hard to do).

In His Grace
KayDee

 

I don't think the MKJV, KJV21, KJVII, and others are major English translations, certainly not on the level of NIV, NASB, NRSV, NLT, etc. They may have a niche market in places but I think the point of a lack of translations from the TR is underscored by resorting to these translations as proof. The KJV and NKJV are certainly major translations from the TR; the others don't seem to be major translations.

 

KayDee: See Greek Text-types

 

KayDee, there are basically two different types of Greek texts, the Alexandrian and the Byzantine. The presently existing copies of the Alexandrian text tend to be older than the presently existing copies of the Byzantine text, but there are many, many, many more Byzantine text copies than Alexandrian. Also, historically, the churches down through the ages of history have used the Byzantine type copies while the Alexandrian type copies were relegated to gathering dust on library shelves.

Now, to answer your question:

Majority, = An example of the Byzantine text type reconstructing the text by looking at what most of the manuscripts say. As there are more Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrian manuscripts by a factor of about 10 to 1, the Majority text usually represents a Byzantine reading.

Textus Receptus, = Another example of the Byzantine text type departing occasionaly from the Byzantine reading in favor of Latin readings or even, now and then, in favor of an Alexandrian reading.

Byzantine, = The largest witness to the Greek text by a factor of 10 to 1.

Alexandrian = The oldest, but also least attested to numerically. Many of the better textual scholars today believe the Alexandrian text represents a local text type that did not get cross compared and corrected by the Byzantine text due to the dangers of Christians traveling during the first three centuries folowing the Apostolic era. Historically the Alexandrian text was not used (with very rare exceptions) from the 6th century through the 19th century.

[ June 24, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Thank you Chris - it will take me some time to look all that info over - I'm afraid it may be way over my head, though.

DocCas - That is exactly what I was lookig for. Would the Critical Text be the Alexandrian? Why would it be called critical?

I really appreciate your help.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

Yes. The critical text is fundamentally Alexandrian. And it is called "critical" because, according to them it was produced by careful, exact evaluation and judgment, which is the dictionary definition of "critical."

 

Thanks Doc - now I'll go look at the site Chris gave and see if I can understand what they are talking about.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

Its pretty easy to understand. Gary Zeolla speaks in plain, non-KJV English