Readers of this blog are more likely to be interested in the new Zondervan Bible due out in March, so I will do a rare follow-up (and I’m considering being less reluctant to do follow-ups in general).
Though released in November, copies of the promotional calendar for the Bible only reached me this week (despite the fact that I supplied a majority of the photos for said calendar). Being promotional, the calendar naturally has a website listed, which I was unaware of previously: http://www.archaeologicalstudybible.com/. Here you can download a sampler, watch a video, download a poster, see some bonus materials, or get a $10 rebate form. You can even download that calendar and print it out for yourself, should you be so inclined. Back to the sampler, when I looked earlier this week it was about a 10-page deal, but now they are sharing a full 90 pages of it for free! That is the entire book of Genesis. The full color nature of it is very unique for a Bible; for instance, take a look at page 26 with the photo of Beersheba (page numbers refer to numbering in Bible, not Acrobat page numbers). This is a different publishing era than five years ago when color books of this size were prohibitively expensive.
Some of my students might wonder if any of what I wrote is available in this section. Take a look at page 38 and the article on the “Machpelah.” This is my first look at what they did to my writing. I see that the editors altered (improved?) my grammar but the content is the same except for their addition of a sentence about Moshe Dayan (which I think is inappropriate in a study Bible). If there are any English style pros out there, I would like to learn why they changed what they did so I can write better (assuming theirs is better) in the future.
I don’t have time now to look further at the sampler, but I note one problem with this “Archaeological” Bible is the apparent use of the term in the broadest possible way. Note the article on “Paddan Aram” (p. 48) is under the heading of “Archaeological Sites”; I don’t see anything that I would consider remotely archaeological in the article. Maybe it doesn’t matter.
One other thing. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is having an archaeological seminar timed to coincide with the release of the Bible. GCTS is most responsible for the writing of the Bible, as the two editors are/were on faculty and they chose the writers of the individual articles. The conference looks interesting, with some interesting talks by John Monson and Tim Laniak. For the $90 entrance fee, you also get a free Bible. That makes it worthwhile if you’re in the Boston area.
Update: A friend (the “IBEXScribe”) compared my original writing to the final edition and explained to me in detail why their grammar was much better. I am glad to learn, and happy to see the care that the editors took in preparing the notes.
I can’t wait to get mine. It’s on my wish list already.
You’re linked.
I believe this was originally supposed to come out in August of 2006. I have been waiting for it since hearing about it two years ago. Thanks for the update. I had given up watching for it. I am excited to take a look at your sections.
Very nice looking Bible. That picture to which you referred on page 26 is quite nice. I read the article you wrote, Todd, to take a look at its grammar. While I am no grammarian, I am a graduate student, and in my field I have to know how to write! I noticed a couple of instances of the passive voice and a few strings of clauses that I might personally order differently. The grammar of the article was neither shabby nor spectacular, and not having the original manuscript for comparison I cannot say whether I think they made changes for the better. :) You are right, however, that the comment about Dayan and the 12-year-old girl seemed a bit out of place. It almost seemed more like a commentary against child labor or endangerment than anything that might enhance one’s understanding of the Scriptures.
Kim Fox and I already have our Bible’s pre-ordered through a website and are anxiously waiting! Thanks for putting your comments on your page!
I took a look at the inside of the Bible where it comments on Genesis. Todd, doesn’t it bother you at all that these people seem to have no problem with (and actually seem to support) the idea of the days in Genesis equalling long periods of time, or the Noachian flood being a local event? This is a study Bible that Progressive Creationists such as Hugh Ross would be very comfortable with.
Now, of course, it is not advisable to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if the commentators don’t correctly approach the text in Genesis 1-10, why would they approach the rest of Scripture correctly? This study Bible might be a handy tool, but I would approach it with caution and, frankly, without much enthusiasm. I’d recommend it as a good reference, but would never give it my endorsement.