Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament-PR (Ancient Greek) Hardcover – 1 Mar 1997

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Hardcover, 1 Mar 1997
"Please retry"
£435.70 £47.90
click to open popover

Special Offers and Product Promotions

Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product details

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0x8eaf6c60) out of 5 stars 3 reviews
81 of 89 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x8ed125c4) out of 5 stars Takes issue with bad review 14 Dec. 2002
By Scott L. Adams - Published on Amazon.com
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.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x8f02c7f8) out of 5 stars Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (leather) 20 April 2000
By Eric - Published on Amazon.com
Verified Purchase
If you are interested in knowing what the underlying Greek would be from the KJV (as reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894), this is a good resource. I found that the leather bound (black) edition to be most helpful for class work. The print quality, for the most part, is good with the exception that printing the verse numbers in bold so that they stand out from the rest of the text would have made searching easier. Of merit is the wide margins which leave ample room for commentary. With the student in mind, it is well worth the additional money to purchase the leather versions of your study guides--unless you enjoy suffering through the process of transferring notes from one book to another. Your brother in Christ.
6 of 11 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x8e8f1900) out of 5 stars Good but - not THAT good :-( 9 April 2005
By Nicholas M. Vester - Published on Amazon.com
Too many typos and missing words in the interlinear text. Literal text does not always follow interlinear text, and is not always literal but exactly what the translator claims to be against - an interpretation of the text. But thank God no silly historistic and/or outright blasphemic notes, as can be found in other Western editions.
But honestly - I have never heard of "The General Epistle TO James" before reading this edition :-p
Spine is too soft and bends, print is nice, but book does not lay open easily.
All in all too expensive and with too many editorial opinions and sloppy proof-read. Two stars because of the Strong concordance numbers.
And to that reviewer who obviously doesn't know any Church History nor Theology - thank GOD that the Holy Orthodox Church has preserved the True Faith and Scriptures unaltered since the founding of the Church! Thank God that we have absolutely no use for innovators or modernizers. We have witnessed against the heretics since the First Ecumenical Council 325AD, and shall continue to do so. They have only accomplished to create their own man-made tradition based on their own editions of the scriptures.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know