Commentaries based on the Majority text

depends of what you ar looking for and what you mean by "Majority Text" Based on Textus Rezeptus, based on Codex Sinaiticus aso? Do you mean a Commentary on this Text who has the missing Parts of TR inside, or a Commentary who explains the different Variants?

1. Not shure about the Orthodox...but far as I know they based on the Byzantine Text

2. Any Commentary using the old Bibles like Luther 1545,1912 King James (of Cource) are using the Textus Rezeptus

3. Commentary working with the Variants are Westcott, Lightfoot, Meyer, Zahn, Metzger.

hope this gives you some help

Milkman said:

does anyone know of any NT commentaries/series based on or that use the MT in their "comments" section or explanations of divergent readings or do most use the Critical text such as the NA resources do?

Someone wiser and more dedicated to textual criticism might be of better assistance, but here are the thoughts of one MTh, quite fluent on Greek:

Philip W. Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary is a commentary that concentrates solely on the textual variant readings between the critical apparatuses and the Textus Receptus. As a test case, here’s a screenshot on Revelation 22:19 (a famous textual variant between Textus Receptus and the Majority Text):

Then there’s Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. A screenshot of the same Revelation test case passage.

Metzger isn’t as verbose as Comfort in his comments.

Scrivener's is not a type:commentary per se, but rather type:Bible, but according to the sales pitch on logos.com page "the base text of this edition is Theodore Beza’s Textus Receptus of 1598, but included are comprehensive notes detailing the changes made in the production of the Revised Version of 1881." A screenshot on the same test case passage while hovering mouse above the word βίβλου/ξύλου (“book” vs. “tree” on Revelation 22:19):

Summa summarum: As I've observed, commentaries or commentary series rarely focus exclusively on textual problems. Of course, they must take them as the starting point and then move forward to application etc. For textual problems you need something like Comfort or Metzger or a good original language text. One based solely on Textus Receptus? Probably not, at least not the modern ones. One taking Textus Receptus into consideration? Definitely!

Sascha, I couldn't agree more! [Y]

Are you familiar with this resource? I imagine Hodges gives reasons why he felt it worth his time to author and edit this book, which would be a kind of commentary. It is split up into multiple resources in Logos. Also, as the link shows, there is the Pierpont and Robinson edition of the Byz/Maj text, which may also have some commentary. Don't own it so I can't say for sure.

David Thomas said:

If I recall correctly, John MacArthur remained committed to the TR manuscript tradition while many other commentators were moving toward NASB and NIV. He may be a North American Evangelical who is strongly committed to word-for-word accuracy.

The question, of course, is which words...those of the Alexandrian or Byzantine traditions? The NASB, as was covered in this post, is even more word-for-word in its translational execution than the KJV...but to a different template.

I got another epiphany. What I think FL should add to Logos is a "turn on/turn off" visual filter that indicates with a symbol (something like [A/B]) at the beginning of each affected verse that there is a textform (I'm going with this spelling) variation in play. Rather than having to create a dataset (which some may well find helpful nonetheless--an accessible index listing of verses would be sweet), it would be an ever-present aid to help users identify which verses are affected by variations. I would pretty much turn mine on and leave it on.

Denise said:Initially, your epiphany sounded bizarre (there's no Alexandrian, and no majority text per se; rather, a whole bunch of this and that ... Western Text, anyone?)

My use of those terms is generic and based upon the description of the NKJV's markings. The following is part of the NKJV's introductory material:

Popup Notes

Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied as popup notes.
Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.
The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present facts without such tendentious remarks as “the best manuscripts omit” or “the most reliable manuscripts read.” Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.
Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text
These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-seventh edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ fourth edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”

2. M-Text
This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).

In some verses, the discrepancy between the two is stark. It would be helpful to have access to these differences, which are noted in the NKJV, available in all Logos Bibles.