Comparison of Modern Versions and their Utilization of Textual Criticism

For those who are curious about how much modern textual criticism has made its way into their translations, I decided to do a little comparison between some of the major modern versions with regard to their treatment of significant indicative textual examples. It is very brief, but I think the results give a good indication. The table can be found below:

Key:
0 - MT retained with no footnote (according to BibleWorks text)

1 - MT retained with footnote (according to BibleWorks text)

2 - MT emended

Thus, NRSV, NIV, and NLT usually incorporate preferred variant readings into their text. NET Bible, ESV, RSV, and NASU only occassionally do so, and they mention variant readings only about half of the time. KJV and NKJV fall at the bottom of the list, hardly ever incorporating or even mentioning variant readings.

Not to get into the Bible versions debate here, but it is important to know the textual character of the translations you are using. I personally prefer those that pay serious attention to the textual issues of the text they are translating.