A few years ago a Kickstarter project raised over a million dollars to produce a high-quality, multi-volume Bible without chapter or verse numbers. The idea was to create a distraction-free reading experience. I was taken in and ponied up $25 for the volume on the New Testament. Then I waited. And waited. And Crossway was able to get out a single-volume ESV Reader’s Bible, so I bought that and read through it a few times in a couple of years. (I did eventually get my New Testament and read that too).
I recently saw that both Zondervan and Broadman and Holman had released their own reader’s Bibles, so I obtained review copies of the new NIV and CSB Reader’s Bibles to compare the three for our readers. Below is the table I created:
| Feature | ESV | NIV | CSB |
| Cover options (bold for review copy) |
|
|
|
| Release (cloth over board) | June 2014 | October 2017 | September 2017 |
| Dimensions | 8.00 x 5.5 x 1.7 in. | 8.75 x 5.5 x 2.0 in. | 9.25 x 5.5 x 1.7 in. |
| Font | 0.131 in. | 0.145 in. | 0.135 in. |
| Line spacing | 0.09 in. | 0.12 in. | 0.09 in. |
| Margins | 0.675 in. | 0.50 in | 0.75 in. |
| Slipcase? | Yes (cardboard) | No | Yes (cloth over board) |
| Ribbon marker | 2 (brown) | 1 (silver) | 1 (white) |
| Other features |
|
|
|
ESV’s Best Features
- Multiple cover options
- Two ribbon markers
- Compact size (compared to the other two)
The ESV was the first of the three to market, but it still has a few bells and whistles not available in the NIV or CSB. Its spine is rounded with ribs, and the additional protection offered by a slip-case gives it a high-quality look. Two ribbon markers allow you to follow a reading plan with readings in the Old and New Testaments.
NIV’s Best Features
- Bigger font and wider line spacing
-
NIV Textual notes retained as endnotes
The larger bigger font size and wider line spacing of the NIV reduce eye strain and make it easier to keep your place as you work your way down the page. Textual notes are nice when you want them (Isaac means “he laughs”), but they are pretty useless as endnotes unless you want to completely disrupt your reading experience.
CSB’s Best Features
- Cloth-over-board slipcase
- Wide margins
- 8 full-color maps
The CSB is probably the best designed of the three. Although it doesn’t have the largest font or widest line spacing, the wide margins mean fewer words per line, which
makes for the best reading experience. The margins also leave more room for handwritten notes. Add in the matching cloth-over-board slipcase, and you have a high-quality book to put on the shelf or end table. I expected the “poppy” color to be red, but it is definitely a pinkish hue. I also would have preferred keeping the Psalm numbers in the text since they are individual compositions.
To sum up…
All three make extended Scripture reading much easier. I’ve used each of these translations at various points and places in ministry. I’ve found them all pretty readable on their own, but the larger font and lack of verse numbers, chapter numbers, and footnotes in a reader’s edition make the reading experience much smoother. And quicker.
Reading the Bible through in a year used to be a challenge for me. With a reader’s Bible I can get it done by September, no problem. It’s not a race, but reading through the Bible at a quick pace it just one more way of growing your familiarity with all of Scripture. I also find it easier to see the narrative flow of each book.
Your thoughts
Do you have a reader’s Bible? If so, what do you like about it and how much do you use it?
This is the post that wouldn’t post.
Honestly, the last two evenings I set this up to post the next morning and my WordPress said it was scheduled, and then when I woke up, it was back as pending.
I don’t know if someone’s messing with me – honestly, I suspect Leake. But I decided not to schedule it again, just post it.
I have a copy of the readers Bible – ESV.
If you have them could you post the ISBN or EANs of the editions?
It makes hunting for them easier.
I have a review of the NIV Reader’s Bible posted here: https://thechristianbookreviewblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/niv-readers-bible/.
It’s a good Bible to sit with in your easy chair and read.
I use the ESV reader’s Bible. The nice thing about the slip cover is that it can stand up on its own without falling open and damaging the leaves, so I stick it between a couple of things so it doesn’t take up much room on my desk and can be at hand without being in the way.
I’ve got the Bibliotheca project from Kickstarter–whole thing, it’s nice. The ASV was their translation of choice, with some updates but not anything shocking. They also laid it out with Pentateuch and Former Prophets, Latter Prophets, Writings, New Testament, and Apocrypha.
ESV hardcover is pretty nice as well.
Both of them feel good in the hand, reading is a pleasant experience with them. I want to get the NIV and CSB ones, but just don’t need more…
Are there any differentiating factors about the text itself of any of these “reader’s Bibles”? By text, I mean translation strategy, use of gender specific pronouns, etc.
Independent of page layout, paragraph, verse, and chapter divisions are these Bibles the “same” as previous English language translations? I ask this because some more recent English language translations sometimes depart from a stone cold literal translation in order to enhance readability. Some say this is going to far — such as: Translating — male nouns as their male and female “equivalent”. Such as “We exhort you brothers . . . ” into “We exhort you brothers and sisters . . . .”.
ESV is the same as the ESV standard translation, just done only with normal-ish paragraphing and no verse markers.
The Bibliotheca ASV had some updates to the language but I think it was mainly archaic phrasings. I don’t think they did the brothers into brothers/sisters thing, but I’d have to check.
Generally, if it has a translation label to it, it’s that translation, just without the verse markings, footnotes, all intended to make for just a smooth reading of the text as a unit.
Roger, there is no such thing as “a stone cold literal translation.” I suppose that what you mean is some versions are closer to the original than others at least as you use the English language, but none are exact and for good reasons. Every language has idioms that make sense in that culture but literally translated, make little to no sense in others. That is true of Hebrew, of Greek, and of English. In order for a translation to be understandable in different cultures and different languages, literal translation must be abandoned. If I am surprised by something and, being Deep South, say, “Well I be John Brown,” others Old School Southerners will understand me. But translate it into French or Russian and it will make no sense. For that matter, an English speaker from a different culture will not comprehend it. Furthermore, there are certain words in Koine Greek (which I am better at then Hebrew, though rusty on both) which have multiple meanings; however, there is rarely an English equivalent that has multiple meanings, so translators have to choose just one–and inevitably that means some of the depth of the original is lost in translation. Add to that the fact that verb tenses in Greek refer to the type of action involved, while in English, they refer to time. The result is that a “stone cold literal translation” just does not exist.
I’m guessing that what Roger means (feel free to clarify, Roger) is not that he is unaware that translators make choices, but that he’d rather that translators make those choices on grounds related to accuracy in translation rather than gender politics. As would I.
There are times, it seems, when what are often seen as “gender inclusive” translations are actually more literal than political. I appreciate that the CSB doesn’t always woodenly translate “man” or “men” as referring only to the male sex. Of course, that gets very tricky.
Dr Bart:
Your interpretation of what I was trying to say is right on. Of course the “semantic range” of any concept in language A will not be equivalent to the “semantic range” of the closest meaning word in language B. Also, some concepts in language A which might be able to be conveyed with a single word may not be able to be expressed in any word or several words in language B. This is the problem with translation.
As it relates with Gender neutral translation: I think some translations go out of their way to read back into the text. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar but I know that both these languages have “gender” — at least for nouns. So I think translating son [Hebrew “ben”] as “son’s and daughters” seems a little over the top.
Of course most idioms just won’t translate literally. In Spanish “Madre de Dios” literally means “Mother of God”. But the meaning is better expressed in English with something like “Holy Toledo”.
I am not taking a stand one way or another on “gender inclusive” translations. But it seems like this whole idea is a relatively new innovation having started up in the last 10 – 20 years or so.
It just doesn’t seem natural in English to say “Concerning the love of the brothers and sisters . . . ” when translating I Thessalonians 4:9. The translation does not adhere either to what the Greek says or to conventional English usage. In English it is not uncommon to use masculine terms such as “mankind” when both men and women are in view. In English we do have some less formal words — such as “guys” which sometimes apply to both men and women. Also, we have “gals” which targets only women. So translation is not an exact science.
I guess, to the extent that the target language, [in our case English] uses masculine nouns to describe both sexes then that is an appropriate translation — especially when the source word in the original language also denotes a particular gender.
Roger
I agree