Check out this new exciting project from the International Bible Society!! It’s called “The Books of the Bible” and it features the entire text of the TNIV in a more theologically and chronologically sensitive order without chapter or verse numbers, footnotes, or multiple columns. Basically they want you to just read and pay attention to the Bible.In the new format, the books of the Old Testament (called the First Testament in the new format) are grouped in a similar way to the traditional three sections of the Hebrew Bible, but the sections are now labeled as "Covenant History" (which includes not only the Hebrew Torah, but also the "former prophets", Joshua-Kings), "The Prophets," and "The Writings." The order of books within a section, however, differ from their order in the Hebrew Bible. The IBS format emphasizes chronology for its arrangement of the books. It does so also for the books of the New Testament.
The Books of the Bible will display the biblical text in a single column format, which I prefer.
Several books of the Bible in the new format are available now as free pdf downloads.
According to IBS, the new format will be available for purchase in August 2007. It can be pre-ordered after July 1 at the IBS phone order (1-800-524-1588) or online.
Click here to read more about the Books of the Bible. I plan to pre-order a copy.
Posts
13 comments:
Interesting. The idea of structuring the books in the (purported) order of authorship reminds me of several other works, including Mason & Robinson's Early Christian Reader (which includes the NT books) and Taylor & Wells' Oxford Shakespeare.
I'm looking forward to your review.
(1) Did you notice that the project has a blog?
(2) The endorsements page is a lot of fun -- there are even two graduate students quoted in it! It is certainly preferable to the Zondervan endorsements page which appears to only contain endorsements from white people.
Iyov asked:
(1) Did you notice that the project has a blog?
No, I didn't. Thank you for that info. I've added the blog to this blog's blogroll. I hope that the blogger will continue to keep that blog active.
Looks like an intriguing project... a couple of quick observations:
[1] Interesting that they've put Mark as the last of the three synoptic gospels. Evidently they don't believe that Mark's account was the starting point for both Luke and Matthew.
[2] And quite clearly, they've chosen a late date for Revelation. As a partial preterist, I think there's a significant enough argument out there for pre-70 AD authorship, but I have to assume they're in the ~95 AD (or later) camp. Personally I think that the Gospel of John was written after Revelation, but that's just me...
[1] Interesting that they've put Mark as the last of the three synoptic gospels. Evidently they don't believe that Mark's account was the starting point for both Luke and Matthew.
Why don't you mention this on the TBOTB blog that Iyov mentioned in his second comment on this post?
Why don't you mention this on the TBOTB blog that Iyov mentioned in his second comment on this post?
Done (well, pending blog posting approval...). On second glance, I really like this approach. One of the things that I cherish about my REB from Cambridge is that the pages just read like literature because the page layout and typesetting are so clean - it's the most "readable" Bible I have in terms of not being distracted by information overlays like chapter/verse markings, study notes, references, etc. The old NEB was actually even better with the verse numbers moved to the side column.
This *may* give the forthcoming TNIV Reference Bible a run for my pocketbook... especially since I have other reference and study Bibles. This could be a great 1-2 combo with my NASB Reference Bible... I'll have to think about that some more.
I notice that the images (1, 2) are of a paperback book. (Although the second image is suspect -- it doesn't show the translator's notes at the end of the book.) I wonder if there are any plans for a hardcover (or other durable cover) edition. The problem with most paperback bindings is that while they are fine for reading a book once or twice, they rarely stand up to repeated long-term use.
It is odd to me that they decided to combine Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah into a single book. This is known as the "Chronicler's History" theory and has generally fallen out of favor (although Blenkinsopp still defended it as recently as twenty years ago.)
Indeed, as E. Edwards notes, the ordering of the books is a little odd -- reflecting an old-fashioned way of thinking about the Scriptures. There is nothing wrong with this, of course.
I do wonder if Zondervan will pick this up anytime soon. There is certainly no mention of Zondervan in the Press Kit. If Zondervan had any plans to pick this up, I would have expected to see its name prominently mentioned. In fact, I am a little confused since I understood that Zondervan focused on the commercial market and IBS focused on serving bulk sales. It appears from the marketing material that the focus of IBS for the TBOTB format is individual sales -- and I have to wonder if IBS has access to those distribution channels.
Actually page 2 of the press kit mentions that it will be available (only) in "flex cover" (with colors of black, "sage", or "orange peel").
It will be "perfect bound" and as I understand that term, it means it is glue bound and not sewn. Based on the information in the press kit, I very much doubt that this is a physical copy that will stand up to regular use.
It will be "perfect bound" and as I understand that term, it means it is glue bound and not sewn. Based on the information in the press kit, I very much doubt that this is a physical copy that will stand up to regular use.
That's unfortunate, because this is exactly the type of volume that I could see using on a regular basis. It will be interesting to see what distribution channels this will be available in other then www.ibsdirect.com - certainly their marketing copy is very ambitious.
This is a great idea!
I think you may be presuming too much to suggest a claim that Mark or Revelation is chronologically late. There doesn't seem to be a claim that the Bible has been ordered according to date of authorship, but only in "an order that
provides more help in understanding their literary genre,
historical circumstance and theological tradition. ... We have selected this order to highlight the genre, and at times the chronology, of the books." (from the Questions and Answers page)
I guess Mark, 1&2 Peter and Jude have been put together as a "Petrine" group of writings, distinct from the other NT groups which are "Pauline", "Johannine", and the perhaps more Jewish group of Matthew, Hebrews and James. This is an order which makes good (if debatable) sense.
I note by the way that Ruth has been included with the historical books according to subject matter, not with "The Writings" as is traditional in the Hebrew Bible.
Elshaddai, having the verse numbers in the side margin is by no means unique or even novel to NEB. It was in fact quite popular at one time, at last here in the UK. I have on my bookshelf in this format an RSV from about 1971, Jerusalem Bible NT from 1967, NEB NT from 1961, JB Phillips NT from 1959, KJV from 1954, and Moffatt NT from about 1939 (some of my copies are later reprints). I also once had a Greek NT printed in this way.
Yes, I think you're right, Peter. I must have read something extra into the Preface text late at night when I should have been sleeping. And thanks also for the notes on the verse numbering - the NEB is only one I have that does that, but interesting to know there was a broader tradition.
Personally, I don't see the point. Less is more, it seems. We even lose the parallelism indentations in poetry, such as the Psalms. In my view, one of the most annoying things about the original editions of the Message was the *lack* of verse numbers.
So here we go again:
"I read something really incredible in John's Gospel this morning."
"Oh yes, where was that?"
"Oh, in the middle somewhere.
Really helpful.
And just why having to turn to endnotes at the back of the book is better than footnotes, I've no idea. So much for the notes being an integral part of the translation.
As I see it, just because there’s a verse number or footnote marker, it doesn’t mean you can’t just *ignore it* if you want to. But at least they’re there if you *do* want to refer to them.
But each to their own I suppose . . .
_________________________
On the other hand, now that scrolls are long gone, I’ve never understood why we have (for example) 1st and 2nd Kings. Why not just a single book, called “Kings”, and just change the page heading halfway through (so we can keep the traditional referencing)?
http://www.ibsdirect.com/pc-574-100-tniv-the-books-of-the-bible-paperback-bible-classic-black.aspx
ibs link
Post a Comment