|
22 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good Idea -- Could be Improved., May 23, 2001
I first reviewed this Bible last May, and after continued use I found one of my critcisms unfair.Strong Points: 1. Single column to the page. This makes the text much easier to read. I do not understand why so many printings of the Bible insist on using double or even triple columns to the page. The page layout alone almost justifies the price. 2. Division of prose into paragraphs. Too many printings of the Bible are formatted with all the verses beginning on a new line with the verse number on the left. This implies that the Bible is like the dictionary--a little used reference book--instead of a book that is meant to be read. 3. Consistent spelling of proper names. The translators of the Authorized Version were divided into six companies. Passages translated by one company often used a different spelling for a proper name than members of another company. This causes confusion for Bible readers. Consistent spelling is long overdue. 4. Introduction of quotation marks. In the early seventeenth century quotation marks were not in use. Now we expect to see them. 5. Based on traditional form of text. The Authorized Version was based on the form of the Hebrew Old Testament that has been used in the Synagogue for some time. The New Testament was based on the form of the text that had become standard in the Eastern church, with a few accommodations to standard text of the Western church. Modern translations are based on modern scholarship's best guess at what the original text read. Weak Points: 1. Words of Christ in italics instead of red. Traditionally italics were used in Bibles to indicate words that were supplied by the translators and not the author. Words of Christ were printed in red ink for emphasis. While I understand dropping the use of italics for supplied words, I see no reason to abandon the use of red ink. For the price being charged the publisher can certainly afford to print in two colors. 2. Did not consider similar work of Noah Webster in 1833. It's amusing that words that were considered obsolete by Noah Webster 170 years ago were retained in this 1998 revision. It's funny that use was made of Webster's dictionary but not his printing of the Bible. 3. Inconsistent spelling of third person singular verbs. Verb forms ending in 'th' were used in the seventeenth century where we now use forms ending in 's' (They used "he hath" where we use "he has" with no change in meaning). This printing of the Bible alternates between the forms for no reason within adjacent paragraphs. Consistency is needed. [Actually the translation is consistant, I just happened pick a rare passage where they slipped up when doing my review.] 4. Elimination of Translator's preface and footnotes. In 1611 the translators felt it important to include a preface and footnotes to better explain their translation. This Bible, while claiming to be the complete Bible of 1611, eliminates them. 5. Does not contain all books of the Septuagint Canon. In 1611 there were no Eastern Orthodox Christians that spoke English as their mother tongue. Now many do. Third and Fourth Maccabees and Psalm 151 should have been included at least as an appendix to the Apocrypha. In Summary. I think this is a very good printing of the Holy Bible, I also believe it can be improved upon. I recommend this Bible while looking forward to the second edition.
|