Bibles for Reading, or Reference?

I already mentioned the thirty-day test drive on the Literary Study Bible, but Michael Spencer of Internet Monk fame has posted a review, "Ten Reasons to Love the ESV Literary Study Bible," that's worth checking out. He highlights the format's value in the classroom, where he wants to instill in students a big-picture understanding of Scripture, rather than the traditional microscope scrutiny of verses and phrases in isolation. Which prompts the question, how is the Bible meant to be read?

If I had to boil down my perspective on Bible design, I could distill it into one statement: The Bible is for reading, not a reference work. On the inside, the Bibles I grew up with looked like nineteenth century reference books: crusy old fonts, crowded double columns, an alphabet of symbols hovering over every line. Verses were set off one to a line, difficult words divided up syllabically with pronunciation guides. While the importance of reading the Bible was stressed, in everyday use I was more likely to see people grab a Bible to "look something up." The sorts of Scripture knowledge we valued involved being able to recite verses from memory or having a command of obscure trivia. The "Master Story Line" Spencer mentions in his review wasn't much in evidence.

People sometimes dismiss design as frivolous, and I can see where a blog like this one could be seen as an emphasis on the superficial. Who cares what the Bible looks like, so long as it's read? But that's the thing. Design has an impact on use, though we aren't often conscious of it. A Bible that looks like a dictionary or a phone book is going to end up being used that way. If we really want to encourage the reading of Scripture, then our design choices should reflect that fact. Otherwise, it sounds like so much rhetoric, without any real intention behind it.

I'm not calling for the abolishment of the reference-style formats, the disappearance of chapter and verse markers, a law against double-column settings. All of these things serve useful purposes. But I do think it's worthwhile to reserve them for their proper place, and to make sure that they don't get in the way of simple, straightforward reading. Based on what I've seen so far, the Literary Study Bible makes appropriate choices to facilitate this, and I'm always encouraged to see something "outside the box" make it to the shelves.

Comments

[Dave]

Mark,

Have you seen The Books of the Bible from IBS? I know that not everyone likes the TNIV (although I would really encourage someone who doesn't to examine why. Is it someone else's rhetoric or a learned opinion? see tnivtruth.blogspot.com), but this is a neat idea that would also be great to see in other translations.

thebooksofthebible.info

Dave

[J. Mark Bertrand]

I've got a review in the pipeline, Dave, so you will find out my thoughts soon enough. In the meantime, here's that link again for anyone who wants to get up to speed:

http://www.booksofthebible.info

[Dave]

I'm interested to hear what you think about it. Personally, I think it makes a great reading Bible, althought the binding and covers leave a lot to be desired.

[Jesus Saenz]

Although I originally came to your site as resource for the "frivolous", there are two things I have taken away from your blogs. One, is the need for a wide margin Bible, which may be seen as frivolous is a great help for studying the Bible. The second is the need for a readable format such as a single column paragraph setting. I remember you writing that a single column paragraph setting may help ease the propensity for "proof texting" or using verses out of context.

[John]

LOUD Amens on this post! It is probably my singular largest pet peeve that Bible publishers ignore readability in the vast majority of their versions. My favorite two Bibles, the Max Lucado Inspirational Study Bible in NKJV, and the International Inductive Study Bible in NIV, both have single-column text with an emphasis on readability. The Lucado Bible is only available in NCV now, and the two copies I have in NKJV are hardbound with the binding falling apart. My IISB is the older NIV version (current is NASB) and is in perfect condition but isn't the version I prefer to use now. I would rather read in the ESV or NKJV personally.

It just seems so strange that, for instance, USA Today spends millions making sure its paper is eminently readable by everyone. Design and typography are huge influences on the web, on magazines, newspapers, corporate "image," yet they seem to be tossed aside when it comes to the biggest bestseller of all time.

[matt]

Speaking of readability, black on white seems to be the best combo if I am correct. Is red on white considered to be a readable combination or is it just tradition? Sometimes I will underline in my bible with a red pen because it stands out, but I generally for reading prefer black text not red.

[matt]

BTW in the previous post I was inquiring about colors of the text (i.e. red letter vs. black letter)