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?
mm.
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
by the Way all the Church Father Commentaries...
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!
Thats what I say in Point three ;-) these Commentaries focused spezial on the Textual Variants also the ICC Serie is good Point.
Metzger, Commfort, Omanson or Lexham Textual Notes don't coment the Text they diskuss the Variants...it's helpfull if you study Textual Variants but its not a Commentary.
As you say just the older Commentaries have TR as Base....but it could be that the Orthodox have new Commentary based on the Byzantine Text
Sascha, I couldn't agree more! [Y]
Taking a literal reading of your question, the above seem to answer quite well. But if you're looking for a 'pro-Majority' (vs simply using the KJV, or whacking the Majority), good luck ... few and far between (talking about a solid pro-Majority, not a prefer-Majority).
Many moons back, somehow the KJV Commentary arrived in my Logos. I turned my nose up (a little thin), but you might have it:
https://www.logos.com/search?query=kjv%20commentary%20-standard&ssi=0&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=all
The best general discussion (my opinion) is the intro to Robinson/Pierpont's NT Byzantine Textform.
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.
NT commentaries/series based on or that use the MT
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. Since my comment is based upon general recollection, I am open to correction from others who follow MacArthur more closely.
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 am going to suggest something in this thread that is thematically similar to what I suggested FL should create in the NASB thread I linked to above. In the same way I said I would like a resource listing all of the verses variations of the '77, '95, and '20 versions of the NASB, I would like to have a similar kind of dataset with regard to the variations between the Byz. & Alex. text traditions. I commend Nelson (the NKJV publisher and owner) for indicating in the NKJV's marginal notes where the variations in the two text forms takes place. However, in terms of being able to conduct a direct and specific study of this important subject, it would be wonderful for FL to create a dataset that specifically lists the verses that have textual variations between them. I personally would like to see something like the following: a heading giving the verse(s) presently being discussed, with a brief explanation of what the particular variations are and what considerations may account for the divergence; a two-column presentation of the Greek; followed by an English representation of each, which I suggest should be KJV & NASB.
This resource would make identifying which verses have text form variations easy for those who wish to account for those variations in sermons, presentations, and the like. As I said in the NASB thread, I would be happy for someone to tell me such a thing already exists in Logos.
Q: Is "textform" one word or two? Hyphenated? Seems like it should be one or the other, as opposed to just "text form", but the spell-checker is screaming at me.
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.
Hey David, I just picked it up a couple of days ago. I actually bought both volumes since it was cheaper than just one vol. I've just just started reading the intro this morning. I also picked up the Pierpont vol., too. Actually saw a couple of good vids on these three books
thanks again.
Hey D
Got them both.
Didn't actually realize how deep the rabbit whole is.
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? Taking a literal reading of your question, the above seem to answer quite well. But if you're looking for a 'pro-Majority' (vs simply using the KJV, or whacking the Majority), good luck ... few and far between (talking about a solid pro-Majority, not a prefer-Majority). Many moons back, somehow the KJV Commentary arrived in my Logos. I turned my nose up (a little thin), but you might have it: https://www.logos.com/search?query=kjv%20commentary%20-standard&ssi=0&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=all The best general discussion (my opinion) is the intro to Robinson/Pierpont's NT Byzantine Textform.
