I posted my review of ZIBBCOT late last night and earlier today I saw that Peter Enns had posted his and just now I see that James Spinti has posted his. Enns and Spinti are especially qualified to review such a set; I am not. Enns and Spinti share my high praise for the set, and they both, like me, have spent more time in Genesis (so it seems) than the other books. Spinti does not agree with me however that end notes are acceptable in this set. Normally I’d be right there with him in eschewing the horrible little buggers, but as I said in my review, I think they’d ruin the aesthetic. But make sure to read all of the reviews to get three different views that all lead to the same conclusion: this set is fantastic!
B”H
Fantastic, but expensive. I’ve found that fact left out of most reviews.
By: danny on November 9, 2009
at 8:04 pm
Danny: Perhaps because we got ours for free. I really didn’t even consider the price when typing mine up.
By: Nick Norelli on November 9, 2009
at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I understand. I got mine for free, too, but I also write thinking “would I recommend this for people in my church to buy?” Price, then, comes into play.
By: danny on November 9, 2009
at 8:55 pm
Danny: I’ve already recommended it to certain folks in my church. I think that this would be a great resource for a church that has a library that the congregants can use. When priced out individually I think the volumes go for $36 apiece (judging from CBD’s price). That’s not so bad. And you can always build the set over time.
By: Nick Norelli on November 9, 2009
at 9:01 pm
I’ve gotten a set too. I hope to write something up in the next few days.
I’ve had the NT set sitting all lonely on the shelf for a while. Now it will be joined by the OT set, and they’ll be happier together!
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 10, 2009
at 1:42 am
Nick,
Yes, the endnotes really are a pain, but I guess I have to agree. I had a discussion with John Walton about them, too. His argument (and he hates endnotes, too) is that it would intimidate the average user so much that they wouldn’t use the set.
After thinking about it some, I have to agree—and I will amend my review accordingly.
James
By: James on November 10, 2009
at 9:07 am
Kevin: I can’t wait to hear what you think about it. I’m sure whatever you say it will be much more positive than what you said about the NIV Archeological Study Bible! ;-) After using the IT set for a little while I’d like to get the NT set for sure.
James: I don’t find the “intimidating footnotes” argument to be very good. I think you were correct to say that people can ignore them if they choose to. The problem as I see it is in how the page would look with the footnotes. With all the pictures, side bars, and information boxes it would just look clumsy.
But for the record, as someone who LOVES footnotes, I’ve never been a fan of those really long ones that take up half a page or more. I find that many times the information in those really long notes can either be added to the main text or be edited down significantly. Some authors are just too verbose for their own good!
By: Nick Norelli on November 10, 2009
at 11:09 am
Nick, you got that right!
Of the two Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentaries, the OT set is superior, so you might want to look at it in the library first before committing to the loss of another six inches of shelf space!
More on that, on endnotes, and typos, things present and absent, and some other stuff, later this week!
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 10, 2009
at 5:31 pm
Kevin: I can’t wait! One typo I know of is that volume 3 says 1 & 2 Kinds on the cover.
By: Nick Norelli on November 10, 2009
at 5:35 pm
And in volume 4 an endnote says “boy of water” instead of body of water. Gave me a chuckle : )James
By: James on November 10, 2009
at 5:38 pm
James: Yeah, that’s a good one. I hadn’t seen that yet.
By: Nick Norelli on November 10, 2009
at 8:33 pm
Well, Nick, it takes all kinds, doesn’t it?
“Boy of water” is a good one too, James!
There are many typos, unfortunately.
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 11, 2009
at 2:19 am