For more information on the Logos Bible Software’s digital edition of Moulton, Howard & Turner's Grammar of New Testament Greek (MHT), go here and here. For a discussion of the significance of this publication in the history of New Testament research, go here. Below the fold, Part 2 of Michael Aubrey’s review.
Part 1 of my review dealt with abstract grammar and linguistics. But I do my share of exegesis as well. As those who frequent my blog know, I regularly post on my studies of Ephesians. Every time I start working on a post, the Logos suite and the Greek grammars available, now including MHT, are part of the process.
Right now, I'm working on Ephesians 4.20-23. Each time I begin a new section, I first copy the Greek text into Word and turn it into a block outline - no English yet. From these I write as much as I can on each clause describing what I see in terms of syntactic relationships - still no English. Finally, I go to Logos. I pull up the Exegetical Guide, punch in my passage, and see what it spits out. Every single reference to 4.21 pops up right (click to enlarge):
As much as I love real books, forget digging through a scripture index, this is real service! It is here that I can double-check any of the more unusual constructions that might appear as I go through the text. Because MHT is such a thorough and extensive resource, more often than not, there are one or two links to it in the grammar section of the exegetical guide.
In terms of capability and practicality of the digital edition of MHT, my only significant disappointment was the lack of topical tagging. Here is a screen shot of MHT's "About this Resource page" on the left and Robertson's "Big Grammar" on the right (click to enlarge):
You can see that while Robertson is tagged with Topic Indexes, MHT4 is not, and nor are the rest of the volumes. I found this to be rather strange since the Topic indices are provided at the end of each volume. Hopefully at some point this unusual lapse will be rectified and we'll be able to have complete integration of topic searches throughout all of the grammars available for Logos Bible Software.
The Very Practical...
Now we get down to brass tacks. Is it worth the $240 price tag? I think it is, if you intend on continuing to develop your knowledge of the Greek language - and especially if you're able to take advantage of Logos' generous Academic Discount Program. But even if you're not, I'd still say it’s worth it to save your pennies and purchase this product. If it’s not so much that you don't have the money, but that you don't have that much money at a given time to spend on books, Logos also has a decent payment plan available for the more expensive collections.
Besides, it’s impossible to build this set in print for less than $240 unless you are extremely lucky. Continuum, the publisher, presently charges over $100 for each of the volumes individually.
So, at $240, it is still a good deal. To summarize, these volumes still hold their own in grammatical and linguistic description. They are incredibly helpful for the study of specific passages of the New Testament because of Logos' incredible Exegetical Guide. And you get Nigel Turner's Grammatical Insights into the New Testament thrown it with it!
 The closest thing we have to an exception to this is Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek New Testament (1996) and perhaps also Robert W. Funk’s A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. But both of these are probably better considered intermediate grammars. Wallace lacks any discussion of phonology & morphology, which are necessary for a complete reference grammar and many believe does little to advance the discussion of Greek grammar in a holistic sense. And while Funk is comprehensive and surprisingly up-to-date for a book published in 1977, it lacks the references to the text one would expect from a reference grammar and is thirty-one years old.
 The reason behind this is simple. These are terms that originally were used to describe Russian aspect, where the only aspectual distinction was the derivational application of a preposition (and thus Lexical Aspect, i.e. Aktionsart). For that reason, one could say that Porter is just as wrong in using the terms perfective and imperfect since they historically referred to lexical rather than morphological aspect.
Thank you, Logos Bible Software and Phil Gons, for giving me the opportunity to review this excellent Greek Grammar collection and also Nick Norelli and John Hobbins for being willing to help host this review on their blogs as well.
This review is hosted by the following blogs: