What do you think?
Rate this book
Luthers Bibel: Geschichte einer feindlichen Übernahme
Kein Buch wurde häufiger übersetzt als die Bibel; sie existiert in 2817 Sprachen. Karl-Heinz Göttert erzählt in seinem unglaublich spannenden Buch ›Luthers Bibel. Geschichte einer feindlichen Übernahme‹ nun die Geschichte dieser Übersetzungen. Von den Fragen nach den hebräischen und griechischen »Originalen« über die Septuaginta und die Vulgata zeigt er, wie die Bibelübersetzungen die Sprachen prägten, die Kultur beeinflussten und mit welchen Strategien die Übersetzer ihre Theologie durchzusetzen versuchten – bis zur Jahrtausendübersetzung Luthers, die den Prozess der christlichen Vereinnahmung der heiligen Schriften der Juden auf den Gipfel treibt. Nebenbei zeigt sich, wie die Übersetzung der Bibel unsere Vorstellungen von Kritik und Aufklärung, Treue und Fälschung, Rationalität und dem, was Sprache leisten kann, entscheidend geprägt hat.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published February 23, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 31, 2021
First english review!
--
While this book hinges on Die LutherBibel, Professor Göttert backs all the way up to the ancient texts and traces the translation problems all the way back to the Septuagint becoming the vulgate. He details the incredible influence that Die Lutherbibel had on the German language and how it preserved medieval Catholic conceptions into the Protestant world. Göttert digs into the alt Niederdeutscht to show how clever Luther was in slyly adjusting the language to assert his own pre-conceived theological opinions into the text.
Luther and the Vulgate
One of the more bizarre beliefs about Luther which only exists in the Anglosphere is that Luther translated his Bible from the ancient texts. But Luther used the Vulgate as his primary text and only referrenced Erasmus’ Greek NT (Novum Instrumentum omne) with the help of Melanchthon. Even within the Novum Instrumentum omne, Erasmus translated some verses into Greek from the Vulgate (in Revelations, specifically), so it was not a direct translation either. The Vulgate was the foundation of all European translations either directly or indirectly. In fact, we have the specific Vulgate Bible one of his scribes probably used: it’s called the Stuttgart Vulgate (“Die Stuttgarter Vulgata”) and was found in a library in 1995. It is unanimously recognized in academic circles, and in German Lutheran circles, that he used the Vulgate and only referenced the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek occasionally. This makes sense: Luther did not speak any of these languages well, but he was a trained Augustinian who knew Latin well.
According to the Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland), Luther relied heavily on the Vulgate and not on the original Greek: “Luther übersetzte nach dem lateinischen Text.”/ "Luther translated according to the Latin text." The consensus of the Modern Lutheran church is that Luther overlayed pre-existing Lutheran Theology on the text, particularly on the book of Romans, and the 2017 version has added footnotes on Romans 1:17; Romans 2:13, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28 which warn about the deliberate mistranslation. Significant changes correcting Luther’s translations were made in the 2017 version of the Luther Bible.
Luther did not speak Greek fluently, and when he referenced the Greek New Testament, he relied on his friend Melancthon and several other philologists. Luther also developed his theological beliefs from reading the Vulgate translation alone- no German text was available to him in his youth (although they did exist), and no Greek version of the NT existed either.
Examples of the Vulgate completely overriding the original Greek:
Phillipians 4:7 … καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Vulgate: “Et pax Dei, quæ exuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra, et intelligentias vestras in Christo Jesu.”
LB 1545 “Vnd der friede Gottes / welcher höher ist / denn alle vernunfft / beware ewre hertzen vnd sinne in Christo Jhesu.”
LB 2017 “Und der Friede Gottes, der höher ist als alle Vernunft, wird eure Herzen und Sinne in Christus Jesus bewahren.” [Bedeutung: Kanzelsegen im evangelischen Gottesdienst.]
Römer 9:5 “… καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας”
Vulgate: “… ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in sæcula.”
LB 1545 “… aus welchen Christus her kompt nach dem Fleische / Der da ist Gott vber alles / gelobet in Ewigkeit.”
LB 2017 “… aus denen Christus herkommt nach dem Fleisch. Gott, der da ist über allem, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit.”
Römer 6:4 “Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem: ut quomodo Christus surrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita et nos in novitate vitæ ambulemus.”
LB 2017 “So sind wir ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe in den Tod, auf dass, wie Christus auferweckt ist von den Toten durch die Herrlichkeit des Vaters, so auch wir in einem neuen Leben wandeln.”
EÜ 2016 “Wir wurden ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe auf den Tod, damit auch wir, so wie Christus durch die Herrlichkeit des Vaters von den Toten auferweckt wurde, in der Wirklichkeit des neuen Lebens wandeln.”
Romans 12:18 “Si fieri potest, quod ex vobis est, cum omnibus hominibus pacem habentes.”
LB 2017 “Ist’s möglich, soviel an euch liegt, so habt mit allen Menschen Frieden.”
EÜ 2016 “Soweit es euch möglich ist, haltet mit allen Menschen Frieden!”
Galations 2:20a “Vivo autem, jam non ego: vivit vero in me Christus.”
LB 2017 “Ich lebe, doch nun nicht ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir.”
EÜ 2016 “Nicht mehr ich lebe, sondern Christus lebt in mir.”
There were also many understandable translations due to a lack of knowledge, such as Psalms 104 where he mistranslated Chamois to "Rabbit" because he did not know what a Chamois was.
The second common misconception I see in the English-speaking world is that Die Lutherbibel is the first low German-language Bible. Not really: there were at least 18 German-language Bibles before Luther was written in High and Low Dialects. Gothic and medieval translations ranging from the translation of Wulfila of 311 to the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Wenceslas Bible of 1389 existed in high-german. Johannes Mentelin printed a complete high-german bible in 1466. Günther Zainer printed two German editions of the Bible in the 1470's- both in Niederdeutsch (more specifically in the Low Rhenish and Low Saxon dialects). Anton Koberger used these prints to reproduce more in the 1480s including the famous Nuremberg Bible of 1483. The Lubecker Bible of 1494 was written in the dialect of Lübeck and the 1522 Halberstadt Bible in Low-Saxon. Zainer's 1475 and 1477 versions were instrumental for Luther’s translation. These were rough translations from the Vulgate. And Zwingli technically published his translation into Swiss German (the Froschauer Bible/ Zürcher Bibel/ Zwinglibibel) before Luther did in 1525, although he stole some of Luther’s translations to do so. And again, Luther did not have access to these until much later in his life, and he developed his theological beliefs from the Catholic Vulgate he studied.
Accuracy & Subtle Manipulation
Göttert noted in an interview “Luther developed a certain theology and now he wants to prove this theology. He wants to show it… You can call that awesome and you can call it wrong. In any case, it does not offer a philologically clean translation of the Bible.”
Anglican apologist Alister McGrath writes on this more broadly: "Luther insisted that Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith” was definitive for Christianity. And to make sure that there were no understandings about this, he added the word “alone” lest anyone see faith as one among a number of causes of justification-including works. This addition caused a furor. Catholics pointed out that the NT nowhere taught “justification by faith alone”; indeed, the Letter of James explicitly condemned the idea. Luther responded by making the point that his slogan encapsulated neatly the substance of the NT even if it did not use precisely its original words. And as for the letter of James, was it not “an epistle of straw” that ought not to be in the NT anyway? This second argument caused considerable unease within Protestant circles and was not maintained by Luther’s successors."
As McGrath notes, Luther openly challenged the canonicity of many books of the Bible (James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations), as did John Calvin, and sought their removal, so it is not surprising he is willing to add words into the scriptures to ensure the text says what he is convinced it says.
Luther’s Defense: A Sola Scripture Tautology
Luther explicitly states that he added the word not based on the text, but his interpretation of the text:
“However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”
Luther argued that tradition allowed him to add this word into the scripture. “Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine, and many others who said it before me.”
Luther was cherry-picking when making these references; taking them out of the broad conversation these were made in, but it is interesting how he appeals to tradition to justify his Biblical interpretation. Despite the core teaching that a literal interpretation trumps tradition, he immediately appeals to tradition to justify his deliberate mistranslation. Even if this translation error was made a thousand times before Luther in other texts, it does not justify the intentional infidelity to the text.
Legal Terminology
Being downstream from Anselm, who used European Legal terminology to interpret the scriptures for the first time, Luther also inserted legal terminology into the text. For instance, he used a german legal term “Denkzettel” in Matthew 23.5 for the translation of the Greek word φυλακτήριον (A Phylacterie or Prayer Box): “Alle ihre Werke aber tun sie, daß sie von den Leuten gesehen werden. Sie machen ihre Denkzettel breit und die Säume an ihren Kleidern groß.“ This legalistic language does not exist in the Vulgate or any ancient text.
--
While this book hinges on Die LutherBibel, Professor Göttert backs all the way up to the ancient texts and traces the translation problems all the way back to the Septuagint becoming the vulgate. He details the incredible influence that Die Lutherbibel had on the German language and how it preserved medieval Catholic conceptions into the Protestant world. Göttert digs into the alt Niederdeutscht to show how clever Luther was in slyly adjusting the language to assert his own pre-conceived theological opinions into the text.
Luther and the Vulgate
One of the more bizarre beliefs about Luther which only exists in the Anglosphere is that Luther translated his Bible from the ancient texts. But Luther used the Vulgate as his primary text and only referrenced Erasmus’ Greek NT (Novum Instrumentum omne) with the help of Melanchthon. Even within the Novum Instrumentum omne, Erasmus translated some verses into Greek from the Vulgate (in Revelations, specifically), so it was not a direct translation either. The Vulgate was the foundation of all European translations either directly or indirectly. In fact, we have the specific Vulgate Bible one of his scribes probably used: it’s called the Stuttgart Vulgate (“Die Stuttgarter Vulgata”) and was found in a library in 1995. It is unanimously recognized in academic circles, and in German Lutheran circles, that he used the Vulgate and only referenced the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek occasionally. This makes sense: Luther did not speak any of these languages well, but he was a trained Augustinian who knew Latin well.
According to the Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland), Luther relied heavily on the Vulgate and not on the original Greek: “Luther übersetzte nach dem lateinischen Text.”/ "Luther translated according to the Latin text." The consensus of the Modern Lutheran church is that Luther overlayed pre-existing Lutheran Theology on the text, particularly on the book of Romans, and the 2017 version has added footnotes on Romans 1:17; Romans 2:13, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28 which warn about the deliberate mistranslation. Significant changes correcting Luther’s translations were made in the 2017 version of the Luther Bible.
Luther did not speak Greek fluently, and when he referenced the Greek New Testament, he relied on his friend Melancthon and several other philologists. Luther also developed his theological beliefs from reading the Vulgate translation alone- no German text was available to him in his youth (although they did exist), and no Greek version of the NT existed either.
Examples of the Vulgate completely overriding the original Greek:
Phillipians 4:7 … καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Vulgate: “Et pax Dei, quæ exuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra, et intelligentias vestras in Christo Jesu.”
LB 1545 “Vnd der friede Gottes / welcher höher ist / denn alle vernunfft / beware ewre hertzen vnd sinne in Christo Jhesu.”
LB 2017 “Und der Friede Gottes, der höher ist als alle Vernunft, wird eure Herzen und Sinne in Christus Jesus bewahren.” [Bedeutung: Kanzelsegen im evangelischen Gottesdienst.]
Römer 9:5 “… καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας”
Vulgate: “… ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in sæcula.”
LB 1545 “… aus welchen Christus her kompt nach dem Fleische / Der da ist Gott vber alles / gelobet in Ewigkeit.”
LB 2017 “… aus denen Christus herkommt nach dem Fleisch. Gott, der da ist über allem, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit.”
Römer 6:4 “Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem: ut quomodo Christus surrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita et nos in novitate vitæ ambulemus.”
LB 2017 “So sind wir ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe in den Tod, auf dass, wie Christus auferweckt ist von den Toten durch die Herrlichkeit des Vaters, so auch wir in einem neuen Leben wandeln.”
EÜ 2016 “Wir wurden ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe auf den Tod, damit auch wir, so wie Christus durch die Herrlichkeit des Vaters von den Toten auferweckt wurde, in der Wirklichkeit des neuen Lebens wandeln.”
Romans 12:18 “Si fieri potest, quod ex vobis est, cum omnibus hominibus pacem habentes.”
LB 2017 “Ist’s möglich, soviel an euch liegt, so habt mit allen Menschen Frieden.”
EÜ 2016 “Soweit es euch möglich ist, haltet mit allen Menschen Frieden!”
Galations 2:20a “Vivo autem, jam non ego: vivit vero in me Christus.”
LB 2017 “Ich lebe, doch nun nicht ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir.”
EÜ 2016 “Nicht mehr ich lebe, sondern Christus lebt in mir.”
There were also many understandable translations due to a lack of knowledge, such as Psalms 104 where he mistranslated Chamois to "Rabbit" because he did not know what a Chamois was.
The second common misconception I see in the English-speaking world is that Die Lutherbibel is the first low German-language Bible. Not really: there were at least 18 German-language Bibles before Luther was written in High and Low Dialects. Gothic and medieval translations ranging from the translation of Wulfila of 311 to the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Wenceslas Bible of 1389 existed in high-german. Johannes Mentelin printed a complete high-german bible in 1466. Günther Zainer printed two German editions of the Bible in the 1470's- both in Niederdeutsch (more specifically in the Low Rhenish and Low Saxon dialects). Anton Koberger used these prints to reproduce more in the 1480s including the famous Nuremberg Bible of 1483. The Lubecker Bible of 1494 was written in the dialect of Lübeck and the 1522 Halberstadt Bible in Low-Saxon. Zainer's 1475 and 1477 versions were instrumental for Luther’s translation. These were rough translations from the Vulgate. And Zwingli technically published his translation into Swiss German (the Froschauer Bible/ Zürcher Bibel/ Zwinglibibel) before Luther did in 1525, although he stole some of Luther’s translations to do so. And again, Luther did not have access to these until much later in his life, and he developed his theological beliefs from the Catholic Vulgate he studied.
Accuracy & Subtle Manipulation
Göttert noted in an interview “Luther developed a certain theology and now he wants to prove this theology. He wants to show it… You can call that awesome and you can call it wrong. In any case, it does not offer a philologically clean translation of the Bible.”
Anglican apologist Alister McGrath writes on this more broadly: "Luther insisted that Paul’s doctrine of “justification by faith” was definitive for Christianity. And to make sure that there were no understandings about this, he added the word “alone” lest anyone see faith as one among a number of causes of justification-including works. This addition caused a furor. Catholics pointed out that the NT nowhere taught “justification by faith alone”; indeed, the Letter of James explicitly condemned the idea. Luther responded by making the point that his slogan encapsulated neatly the substance of the NT even if it did not use precisely its original words. And as for the letter of James, was it not “an epistle of straw” that ought not to be in the NT anyway? This second argument caused considerable unease within Protestant circles and was not maintained by Luther’s successors."
As McGrath notes, Luther openly challenged the canonicity of many books of the Bible (James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations), as did John Calvin, and sought their removal, so it is not surprising he is willing to add words into the scriptures to ensure the text says what he is convinced it says.
Luther’s Defense: A Sola Scripture Tautology
Luther explicitly states that he added the word not based on the text, but his interpretation of the text:
“However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”
Luther argued that tradition allowed him to add this word into the scripture. “Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine, and many others who said it before me.”
Luther was cherry-picking when making these references; taking them out of the broad conversation these were made in, but it is interesting how he appeals to tradition to justify his Biblical interpretation. Despite the core teaching that a literal interpretation trumps tradition, he immediately appeals to tradition to justify his deliberate mistranslation. Even if this translation error was made a thousand times before Luther in other texts, it does not justify the intentional infidelity to the text.
Legal Terminology
Being downstream from Anselm, who used European Legal terminology to interpret the scriptures for the first time, Luther also inserted legal terminology into the text. For instance, he used a german legal term “Denkzettel” in Matthew 23.5 for the translation of the Greek word φυλακτήριον (A Phylacterie or Prayer Box): “Alle ihre Werke aber tun sie, daß sie von den Leuten gesehen werden. Sie machen ihre Denkzettel breit und die Säume an ihren Kleidern groß.“ This legalistic language does not exist in the Vulgate or any ancient text.
July 24, 2017
Luthers Bibelübersetzung spielt zwar die Hauptrolle in Götterts Buch, aber korrekterweise sollte die Abhandlung eher den Titel "Geschichte der Bibelübersetzung" tragen. Der Autor holt sehr weit aus und beginnt mit der ersten Übertragung der alttestamentarischen Schriften ins Griechische (Septuaginta). Er erzählt von der Vereinnahmung bzw. »feindlichen Übernahme« dieser Übersetzung durch die junge Christensekte, erzählt u.a. von Hieronymus' Übertragung ins Lateinische (Vulgata) und kommt schließlich zu den Übersetzungen in die Landessprachen Europas. Besonderer Wert wird auf allgemeine Fragen des Übersetzens und die mit dem Übersetzen verbundenen Schwierigkeiten gelegt.
Als der Autor nach rund 250 Seiten schließlich zu Luthers »Opus Magnum« kommt, wurde einem bereits der Blick für zahlreiche philologische und theologische Details geschärft. Einerseits ist man beeindruckt von Luthers sprachlichem bzw. literarischen Talent, andererseits erkennt man, wie sehr er z.B. das alte Testament christologisiert hat (bspw. durch Verwendung von NT-Wendungen und -Begriffen, die die Urtexte überhaupt nicht enthalten). Auch wird klar, wie geschickt Luther sein eigenes theologisches Konzept, die Gnadenlehre, durch gezielte Formulierungen aus dem Text herausscheinen ließ.
Göttert führt sehr deutlich vor Augen, dass Bibelübersetzung nicht gleich Bibelübersetzung ist. Er zeigt welche Macht dem Übersetzer in die Hände gelegt und vor welche Schwierigkeiten er bei seiner Arbeit gestellt wird. Ein ausgesprochen interessantes und manchmal sehr pedantisches, anstrengendes Buch. Einzig auf die zur Auflockerung des Textes eingeschobenen popkulturellen Beobachtungen hätte Göttert meiner Ansicht nach verzichten können.
Als der Autor nach rund 250 Seiten schließlich zu Luthers »Opus Magnum« kommt, wurde einem bereits der Blick für zahlreiche philologische und theologische Details geschärft. Einerseits ist man beeindruckt von Luthers sprachlichem bzw. literarischen Talent, andererseits erkennt man, wie sehr er z.B. das alte Testament christologisiert hat (bspw. durch Verwendung von NT-Wendungen und -Begriffen, die die Urtexte überhaupt nicht enthalten). Auch wird klar, wie geschickt Luther sein eigenes theologisches Konzept, die Gnadenlehre, durch gezielte Formulierungen aus dem Text herausscheinen ließ.
Göttert führt sehr deutlich vor Augen, dass Bibelübersetzung nicht gleich Bibelübersetzung ist. Er zeigt welche Macht dem Übersetzer in die Hände gelegt und vor welche Schwierigkeiten er bei seiner Arbeit gestellt wird. Ein ausgesprochen interessantes und manchmal sehr pedantisches, anstrengendes Buch. Einzig auf die zur Auflockerung des Textes eingeschobenen popkulturellen Beobachtungen hätte Göttert meiner Ansicht nach verzichten können.
December 14, 2022
Zusammenfassung seiner These: Martin Luther´s Bibelübersetzung bietet ein "grandioses Deutsch mit ungeheurer Fernwirkung" (William Tyndale und die American Bible Society, aber auch Rosenzweig und Buber). Aber sie stellt auch "seine von Paulus geprägte Theologie der Rechtfertigung aus reinem Glauben vor. Diese Theologie aber steht nicht ohne weiteres in der Bibel, Luther präsentiert sie in seiner Übersetzung, drückt sie regelrecht in ihr durch. Die Betrachtung des Ganzen führt so gesehen zu einem Widerspruch. Die grandiose Übersetzung war keine treue Übersetzung. Theologie und Sprache treten gewissermaßen auseinander. Dies aber wird kaum deutlich, wenn man sich auf Luther allein bezieht, schon gar nicht bei Verengung des Blicks auf Fragen des persönlichen Ge- oder Misslingens. Ohne wenigstens in Ansätzen über die hebräische Bibel Bescheid zu wissen, ohne die großen Übersetzungen ins Griechische und Lateinische heranzuziehen und ohne Blick auf die Einstellung der mittelalterlichen Kirche zur Bibel läßt sich ML Bibelübersetzung m.E nicht wirklich würdigen." (S.478f)
ML Übersetzung geschieht im Zusammenhang einer europäischen Kultur - "als Aneignung von anderem und Fremden durch anverwandelnde Übersetzung."
ML Übersetzung geschieht im Zusammenhang einer europäischen Kultur - "als Aneignung von anderem und Fremden durch anverwandelnde Übersetzung."
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews