The Interlinear Bible Hebrew-Greek-English

I have The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English by George Ricker Berry, first published in 1897.

This interlinear is based on Stephens 1550 Greek Text commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus . This Greek text differs very little from the 1588-89 Beza edition of the Greek text that the KJV Translators used as a basis for their work.

 

It may be but I am not aware of it. The following link may be interesting in that it shows the differences between Stephens 1550 and Beza's 1588-9 Greek texts.

http://www.kjvonly.org/other/jdprice_greek_text.htm

 

Well, no. About 70% of the KJV comes from the translation of William Tyndale (both editions, 1525 and 1534). Another 15% comes from Tyndale as filtered either directly or indirectly through the Coverdale bible (editions of 1535, 1537, 1550, 1553), The Matthew's bible (editions of 1537, 1549, 1551), The Great bible (editions of 1539, 1540, and Cranmer's edition of 1541), the Bishop's bible (editions of 1568 for the NT and 1606 for the OT), and the Geneva Bible (editions of 1557 [essentially Tyndale], 1560). Tyndale based his translation on the Greek of Erasmus's edition of 1522, so, about 85% of the KJV is either directly or indirectly based on that edition. Of the remaining 15% not from the above sources, the KJV translators also relied on the 1550 edition of Stephanus's Greek New Testament. When they departed from that edition, they sometimes resorted to the 1598 edition of Beza.

The only Greek New Testament which even comes close to substantial agreement with the KJV is the text of Frederick Scrivener (1880-1894). But Scrivener's text is a composite of every Greek source available to him by which he attempted to reconstruct the text followed by the KJV translators, and even then he was forced to admit there are about a dozen readings he could find no Greek manuscript or textual evidence at all in support of the reading.

If you are looking for a good Greek Text which follows the Byzantine text type I would recommend either the text with interlinear by George Ricker Berry as already mentioned, or the Scrivener text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

If you are looking for a new text, I would recommend "The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine/Majority Textform" by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. I find it to be more accurate than Hodges and Farstad's "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." However, bear in mind that both works are based on the manuscript collations made my Hermann von Soden of Matthew through Jude (1913) and Herman Hoskier's work on the Revelation (1929). Even though von Soden's work was a wonderful endeavor, not to mention a massive effort, and provides us with more manuscript evidence than any other collation of Greek manuscripts, it is, nevertheless, incomplete, and can even be said to be "honeycombed" with error (according to Hoskier).

Even though the Greek New Testaments based on von Soden and Hoskier's work are called "Majority" texts, they are, in fact, not necessarily so.

For example, in Luke 22:30 von Soden consulted 13 Byzantine manuscripts to make his determination what the majority reading should be. But, there are over 300 Byzantine manuscripts containing Luke 22:30! So von Soden came up with a "majority" reading by consulting only 4.33% of the evidence available to him. That is hardly a "majority!"

Another example would be Luke chapter 1. Von Soden cites 120 manuscripts, but Wisse profiled 1385 manuscripts containing Luke 1! That is a mere 8.66%, hardly a "majority." (See "The Profile Method For Classifying And Evaluating Manuscript Evidence," Frederik Wisse, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.)

I have no doubt the tiny percentages cited by von Soden are representative samplings of the Byzantine whole, but until we actually look at, and collate those manuscripts, we are dealing only in the realm of speculation. The only facts we can be dogmatic about is that out of the 88 papyri, 274 uncials, and 2700 minuscules currently known to exist (he does not list any of the 2143 lectionary manuscripts known to exist today), von Soden cited and classified only about 414 of them.

Von Soden divided his manuscript evidence into 3 categories which he labeled H, I, and K. "H" is what we call the Alexandrian text today, "I" was what he called "the Jerusalem" text and represented a basically Byzantine text with varying amounts of variants. The "K" text was a pure form of the Byzantine text lacking the many variants of the "I" text.

When we again look at the manuscripts von Soden lists we find something very interesting. Of the 414 manuscripts he cites, only 55 are the pure Byzantine texts which he called "K" even though they are in the vast numerical majority.

So, in my opinion, of the two Greek texts currently available purporting to be according to the "Majority Text" the latter, by Robinson/Pierpont is superior to that of Hodges/Farstad, but both suffer from the same flaw of relying too heavily on the work of Hermann von Soden.

 

Software:

With BibleWorks 4.0 I have Friberg (UBS 3/4); Scrivener 1894; Robinson-Pierpont MT (1995); Stephanus 1550; Wescott and Hort (1881); Tischendorf 8th Edition and something called BibleWorks (NA27) which is actually the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition.

BibleWorks 4.0 can be had at a discount ($150) because the next version 6.0 ($300) is out which now includes the critical aparatus for the Tischendorf among several other things.

http://www.discountchristian.com/bibleworks6.html

HankD