Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
52 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Larger print, November 6, 1999
I did not realize that this version has a much larger print than the Hardback edition (1985) of Green's Interlinear Bible. So it is very readable, the font is large and the strong numbers are not a problem any longer. Also the print of the English words has been improved, as well of the Greek words. Green's interlinear used to be superior by the original text it uses (not liberal) and its excellent translation. Now with these typographical improvements (readability of fonts..., etc.) it seems to be unbeatable!
|
|
|
60 of 68 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Takes issue with bad review, December 13, 2002
This is more of a reaction to the strongly biased review, titled "Bad textual choice, bad introduction," dated March 13, 2001, than anything else. That reader felt s/he had an ax to grind, and I fear some innocent soul could be swayed to think there was substance to the largely baseless accusations that were made.
I address those baseless accusations below, on a nearly point by point basis, hoping my comments may prove helpful to some people.
Baseless accusation # 1. "It does not use any known or accepted Greek text as its basis." Answer: Oh? Who is qualified to determine if a Greek text is known or accepted? I have several hardcopies of that "unknown" text, and I also have several software copies. The text is popularly called Scrivener's, and it is still available.
The previous reviewer goes on to say, "it uses a marginal scholar's attempt to reconstruct the Textus Receptus based on the King James Bible. In other words, it takes the English translation and works backwards." Answer: The previous reviewer "seems" to refer to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. as a marginal scholar. I just finished reading one of Dr. Scrivener's works, entitled, "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," published in four editions in the last years of the 19th century. The fourth edition is in two volumes, totaling about 900 pages. The reviewer expects us to accept without support the assertion that Scrivener is a "marginal scholar."
Dr. Scrivener collated many Greek manuscripts and editions personally. The popular "unknown" text the previous reviewer referred to is only one product of Dr. Scrivener's long career. Perhaps an obvious purpose of this edition of the Greek New Testament is to let KJV readers see the Greek text that the translators in 1611 actually used. There was more than one edition of the Greek New Testament available to the translators, and the Scrivener's edition gathers all the texts actually used by the KJV translators together in one convenient place. This quickly allows the inquirer to see that there is a corresponding Greek text underneath the English translation, and that this Greek text was afforded credence by the translators in 1611. This is not what the KJV reads like in Greek. This is what the Greek text underlying the KJV looks like. The KJV translators gave an English translation of the Greek.
I quote the final paragraph of the preface to my hardcopy version of Scrivener's text, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society: "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the "Textus Receptus" underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with the "New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version," edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902."
Baseless accusation # 2. "It reproduces that same scholar's vitriolic and immensely wrong attack on Westcott and Hort in the introduction." Answer: I confess, I have not read the introduction recently, though I certainly have read it. I presume the introduction referred to by the previous reviewer is the Preface in my black leather copy. That was written by the translator of the interlinear translation, Jay P. Green, Sr. I suspect the previous reviewer confused Green with Scrivener. Scrivener was long dead before Green ever thought about using his text as the basis for his interlinear translation.
In Scrivener's "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," he certainly does name Hort by name, but not in a vitriolic fashion. Scrivener names all the principal players of the field of textual criticism in his day and in days prior. He explains their methodologies and he proposes his own. Scrivener insisted on taking the facts of evidence into consideration at all times. It is not vitriolic for Scrivener to point out that Hort did not do this. Scrivener (or perhaps it was the editor of his fourth edition, Edward Miller) did accuse Hort of ignoring evidence and basing his conclusions at times on conjecture that has no historical basis whatever. He provided many examples from Westcott and Hort's Greek text as well as direct quotations from Westcott and Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek" to support this criticism. Many other principals in the field of New Testament textual criticism were also praised and criticized according as Scrivener saw fit. This was not being vitriolic, this was providing informed commentary for the uninformed but interested student.
Finally, let me comment on the previous reviewer's phrase, "It asserts - without any shred of evidence, historical or theological - ...." I'm afraid the previous reviewer combines Green and Scrivener into one person, and then accuses that person of doing what Hort actually did do. I generally fault the reviewer's reasoning, judgment and assertions as expressed in the previous review, and I certainly think the book under review is a good investment.
By the way, I use Green's interlinear constantly. I used a colored felt tip marker and highlighted every single verse identifier to make the verse divisions easier to find. If I want to see what other Greek texts say, then I use other reference works.
|
|
|
28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent study tool and faith builder, October 7, 1999
If you're skeptic about the Bible's "gospel" truth because of man's faults and the many translations out there, then this Bible may help. This gives the Greek version with a literal word for word translation right under the Greek words. It also has a literal translation column on the left with the words in gramatically correct order for the English Language, and the KJV version in the right hand column. I think you'd be suprised how close the translations are!This Bible also enables you to do in depth studies, like the famous "fear" study. This Bible will make it clear to you what is really meant when it says "fear God," or "fear not." Of course, it's good just to look up those passages that you're really not sure what they mean. The literal translation may actually make it clearer for you. I highly recommend this book for anyone who doesn't know Greek, but wants to know more about the Bible, it's translations, and do in depth studies. It's a great personal growth tool.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Wesley J. Perschbacher
by Francis Brown
See all 7 books citing this book
