Why Bible Typography Matters

[Dan McClellan]

With a new translation of the New Testament, a new study edition of the Book of Mormon, and other resources being released to supplement our scripture study, I'd like to highlight the role of typography. I think this video (around 45 minutes) does a great job of showing how typography can influence our experience reading the scriptures. I recently published a paper in the Religious Educator that discusses, in part, the typography of the KJV and of Wayment's New Testament and how it influences the accessibility and utility of each. After watching this video, do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about how we approach typography as a Church and as a membership?

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Dan McClellan

[Robert F. Smith]

I enjoyed the video, Dan.  Thanks.

I agree with nearly everything he said.  What he did not deal with, however, is equally important:  Translation.  The best type face on earth will not help a bad translation, and I noticed that virtually all the suggested translations he mentioned fail to get Gen 1:1-3 right.

That aside, I do like the type face and kerning used by the LDS editions of Scripture.  I find them easy to read.  Some very expensive editions seem to have a predilection for soft tones even though in an admittedly nice type face, thus making it difficult to read (Skousen's Earliest Text is too light, even though his brother placed it in a nice type face).

The Restored Covenant Edition (edited by my friend Shirley Heater) of the Book of Mormon not only has a good type face, but the layout is excellent as well.  Could be used as both a study edition and  a reader's edition.

The LDS Church Scriptures Publication Committee could do itself a real favor by bringing in non-member Cory Howell from Nashville to give them his finely honed opinion on what a good edition of Scripture entails -- from the POV of a connoisseur of Books of Mormon.

[Vance]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I enjoyed the video, Dan.  Thanks.

I agree with nearly everything he said.  What he did not deal with, however, is equally important:  Translation.  The best type face on earth will not help a bad translation, and I noticed that virtually all the suggested translations he mentioned fail to get Gen 1:1-3 right.

Out of curiosity, how should Gen 1:1-3 be translated?

[caspianrex]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I enjoyed the video, Dan.  Thanks.

I agree with nearly everything he said.  What he did not deal with, however, is equally important:  Translation.  The best type face on earth will not help a bad translation, and I noticed that virtually all the suggested translations he mentioned fail to get Gen 1:1-3 right.

That aside, I do like the type face and kerning used by the LDS editions of Scripture.  I find them easy to read.  Some very expensive editions seem to have a predilection for soft tones even though in an admittedly nice type face, thus making it difficult to read (Skousen's Earliest Text is too light, even though his brother placed it in a nice type face).

The Restored Covenant Edition (edited by my friend Shirley Heater) of the Book of Mormon not only has a good type face, but the layout is excellent as well.  Could be used as both a study edition and  a reader's edition.

The LDS Church Scriptures Publication Committee could do itself a real favor by bringing in non-member Cory Howell from Nashville to give them his finely honed opinion on what a good edition of Scripture entails -- from the POV of a connoisseur of Books of Mormon.

"My blushes, Watson!" -Sherlock Holmes

I really like the typeface and layout of the LDS editions of Scripture, too. Looking at the regular sized Quad Combo, even though the type is small, it's quite easy on my eyes. (I also agree with what you wrote about the type in the Skousen BOM: it would be nice if it were a bit darker, but his arrangement of the text in "sense lines" is a great idea. It's actually similar to a lovely edition of the KJV called the Washburn College Bible, published in 1979. Unfortunately, the Washburn College Bible is huge, so it's impossible to carry to church (or anywhere else)! The Preface to the Washburn College Bible describes their rationale behind their typesetting, and it's remarkably similar to Skousen's approach: "The setting of the type is directed not to the achievement of rigid regularity in length of line and column, but rather to the rounding out of sentences and phrases, so that the eye readily perceives and the voice readily conveys the meaning."

Some Bible publishers are starting to pay more attention to typography, and making it comfortable to read. Zondervan recently began releasing some of their Bibles in what they call Comfort Print: you can find out more here.

I will definitely watch the rest of the video Dan shared above: I always find Mark Ward to be an intelligent, articulate scholar. (In fact, he checks in from time to time at the Bible Versions Discussion group I help run on Facebook, so I'm familiar with some of his work.)

Oh, and I don't know if everyone is familiar with this video, but it's about the making of the 1979 LDS King James Bible, as well as the rest of the Standard Works that were released shortly after that. I just watched it for the second time a couple nights ago, and it's fascinating. And they cover typeface a bit, too.

[caspianrex]

Here's an example of the typeface in the Washburn College Bible that I mentioned above... (My phone doesn't take great pictures, so my apologies for the picture quality. Still, I hope it gives you an idea of how the lines are laid out.)

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Out of curiosity, how should Gen 1:1-3 be translated?

Don't know if it's what Robert is referencing, but verse 1 is a temporal clause, not a complete sentence. A better translation of the first two verses is, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was desolate and deserted, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the divine spirit brooded upon the face of the waters."

[caspianrex]

Almost done with the Mark Ward video. I think I have most of the editions of the Bible that he mentions in my own collection, including the ESV Reader's Bible and a couple different editions of The Books of the Bible. I recently sold my set of Bibliotheca, because that edition doesn't actually have quite enough in the way of chapter divisions for my taste. It was nicely laid out, but I just never felt like reading it. Also, Bibliotheca used an adapted version of the 1901 American Standard Version, and it really is not easy to read. It ends up sounding kind of stilted, but without the majestic cadence of the KJV. 

Regarding Gen. 1:1-3, a couple Jewish editions of the Hebrew Scriptures read pretty similarly to the way Dan translated it above. The NRSV kind of splits the difference, opening with, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..."

[caspianrex]

P.S. In addition to being a "connoisseur of Books of Mormon," as @Robert F. Smith so kindly called me above, I also collect Bibles. At the moment, my Bible collection numbers over 250 volumes, so when comes to Bibles, and what makes them tick, I get kind of excited.

[Dan McClellan]

6 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

Almost done with the Mark Ward video. I think I have most of the editions of the Bible that he mentions in my own collection, including the ESV Reader's Bible and a couple different editions of The Books of the Bible. I recently sold my set of Bibliotheca, because that edition doesn't actually have quite enough in the way of chapter divisions for my taste. It was nicely laid out, but I just never felt like reading it. Also, Bibliotheca used an adapted version of the 1901 American Standard Version, and it really is not easy to read. It ends up sounding kind of stilted, but without the majestic cadence of the KJV. 

Regarding Gen. 1:1-3, a couple Jewish editions of the Hebrew Scriptures read pretty similarly to the way Dan translated it above. The NRSV kind of splits the difference, opening with, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..."

I never got a Bibliotheca version. I don't like just the left justification or the translation. Gotta be dual justification. 

[caspianrex]

Back to your original post on this thread, @Dan McClellan...

I only have the Kindle edition of the Wayment's NT, not a print edition. What do you think about the layout and typeface of Wayment's version, compared to, say, the Church's edition of the Bible?

As a non-member, I can tell you that the layout of Grant Hardy's Maxwell Institute Study Edition makes reading the Book of Mormon a lot easier, a very different experience from reading the paperback edition distributed by missionaries. Even though I like the typeface of the Standard Works published by the Church, the double column format can be challenging to the eye. Royal Skousen alludes to that fact in this excellent talk (around the 1:16:15 mark): 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by caspianrex

[Dan McClellan]

1 minute ago, caspianrex said:

Back to your original post on this thread, @Dan McClellan...

I only have the Kindle edition of the Wayment's NT, not a print edition. What do you think about the layout and typeface of Wayment's version, compared to, say, the Church's edition of the Bible?

As a non-member, I can tell you that the layout of Grant Hardy's Maxwell Institute Study Edition makes reading the Book of Mormon a lot easier, a very different experience from reading the paperback edition distributed by missionaries. Even though I like the typeface of the Standard Works published by the Church, the double column format can be challenging to the eye. Royal Skousen alludes to that fact in this excellent talk: 

 

I much prefer Wayment's layout to the official one, though I would like to see a single column. I have a copy of the MI study edition of the Book of Mormon, and it has a lot of great qualities, but there are also some things I don't like. It's not dual justified, for instance. The footnote layout is also a bit jumbled to my eye, as are the numbers and the use of a period instead of a colon between chapter and verse in the references. I also don't like the subscripted numbers for individuals who share a name with someone else. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Vance said:

Out of curiosity, how should Gen 1:1-3 be translated?

The best scholars agree that it is a series of circumstantial clauses ending in a main clause.  Ephraim Speiser rendered it in 1964 (Anchor Bible) as

Quote

When God set about to create heaven and earth--
the earth then being a formless waste,
with darkness over the seas
and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water--
God said, "Let there be light."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

....................................................

. It's actually similar to a lovely edition of the KJV called the Washburn College Bible, published in 1979. Unfortunately, the Washburn College Bible is huge, so it's impossible to carry to church (or anywhere else)! The Preface to the Washburn College Bible describes their rationale behind their typesetting, and it's remarkably similar to Skousen's approach: "The setting of the type is directed not to the achievement of rigid regularity in length of line and column, but rather to the rounding out of sentences and phrases, so that the eye readily perceives and the voice readily conveys the meaning.".............................

Yes, I took strong note of that great Washburn Bible in my intro when I edited the three volume Book of Mormon Critical Text for FARMS (1984-1987).  I was deeply impressed by it.

[caspianrex]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I took strong note of that great Washburn Bible in my intro when I edited the three volume Book of Mormon Critical Text for FARMS (1984-1987).  I was deeply impressed by it.

And you know what's great? You can get a used copy in Very Good condition on Amazon for around ten bucks. WELL worth it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0195027868/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1563366908&sr=8-1

 

[Bernard Gui]

What do you think of Donald Perry’s poetic formatted  version of the Book of Mormon?

[caspianrex]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think of Donald Perry’s poetic formatted  version of the Book of Mormon?

I have not encountered that one! I looked it up on Amazon, and it's a little pricey...

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

I have not encountered that one! I looked it up on Amazon, and it's a little pricey...

It is formatted according to parallelistic patterns such as chiasmus, alternative forms, anadiplosis, etc. Seeing it in that format opened up a whole world of understanding. It’s my favorite edition. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

I have not encountered that one! I looked it up on Amazon, and it's a little pricey...

Yeh, Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon (NAMIRS, 2007), at $79.95 softbound used is way too much.  Hundreds of dollars new.

I have asked BMC to archive it, but don't know if they will.

[caspianrex]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon (NAMIRS, 2007), at $79.95 softbound used is way too much.  Hundreds of dollars new.

I have asked BMC to archive it, but don't know if they will.

Actually, I did some searching, and it looks like the complete text of Parry's book is available at the Scholar's Archive at BYU. Just glancing through it, there's plenty of good information relayed in his reformatting of the text, but it's not nearly as easy to read as, say, Shirley Heater's work in the Restored Covenant Edition.

[caspianrex]

@Robert F. Smith, regarding Genesis 1:1-3, I've always thought Robert Alter's rendering was lovely:

"When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said..."

The alliteration of "welter and waste" is, according to Alter's footnote, an attempt to capture some of the Hebraic rhythm of tohu wabohu. Then he continues into another alliterative phrase, "darkness over the deep." Meanwhile, the repetitions of "and" seem to give it a headlong momentum that is generally avoided in English translation, but works quite well here, I think.

Alter's entire Hebrew Bible and commentary recently was published in an absolutely gorgeous slipcased set. Man, talk about typography being pleasant to the eye! Combined with beautiful dust jacket art and sumptuous cream colored paper, the set is a real work of art in printed form. At just over seventy bucks for the entire 3-volume set, it's an absolute steal.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

@Robert F. Smith, regarding Genesis 1:1-3, I've always thought Robert Alter's rendering was lovely:

"When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said..."

The alliteration of "welter and waste" is, according to Alter's footnote, an attempt to capture some of the Hebraic rhythm of tohu wabohu. Then he continues into another alliterative phrase, "darkness over the deep." Meanwhile, the repetitions of "and" seem to give it a headlong momentum that is generally avoided in English translation, but works quite well here, I think.

Alter's entire Hebrew Bible and commentary recently was published in an absolutely gorgeous slipcased set. Man, talk about typography being pleasant to the eye! Combined with beautiful dust jacket art and sumptuous cream colored paper, the set is a real work of art in printed form. At just over seventy bucks for the entire 3-volume set, it's an absolute steal.

I haven't seen it yet, but I love his poetic or literary translation above.  Thanks, Cory.

[clarkgoble]

(Haven't listened to the video yet - at work)

What typeface does the Church use for their scriptures? I've heard some suggest it is Linotype Monticello but I don't think that's correct.

Unfortunately the LDS Gospel Library doesn't give a choice of what font the scriptures are in.  That's particularly glaring in that one can now easily add fonts. I'm a big Garamond fan myself.

Even if the Church never changes translations (although as I've long argued the NKJV is a great middle ground that improves the biggest problems with hte KJV) I do hope that they move away from verse formatting and have an option to do the poetry structurally presented.

Edited July 17, 2019 by clarkgoble

[caspianrex]

In this video about the design of the LDS edition of the King James Bible, there is an interesting section (just after the 36 minute mark) about the printing process: it mentions a Monotype process, but doesn't discuss the actual typeface. Still, pretty fascinating stuff.

[caspianrex]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

(Haven't listened to the video yet - at work)

What typeface does the Church use for their scriptures? I've heard some suggest it is Linotype Monticello but I don't think that's correct.

Unfortunately the LDS Gospel Library doesn't give a choice of what font the scriptures are in.  That's particularly glaring in that one can now easily add fonts. I'm a big Garamond fan myself.

Even if the Church never changes translations (although as I've long argued the NKJV is a great middle ground that improves the biggest problems with hte KJV) I do hope that they move away from verse formatting and have an option to do the poetry structurally presented.

I saw one brief discussion online, where someon suggested that Baskerville might be a better match to the font in the LDS Scriptures.

I compared my 1979 LDS King James Bible to the font on MS Word entitled "Baskerville Old Face," and it's a fairly close match to my (untrained) eye. But I don't think it's exactly a match. I imagine the typeface may be proprietary.

[Traela]

The Kindle app has OpenDyslexic as a font option.  It gives a very different look to the scriptures.