I just added a translation of the bible, and now I have some questions. Who or what should be listed as the author? I categorized it as having 'Various Authors'. And, question number 2: Should all translations and editions of the bible be combined? There are major differences between different translations and editions.

When you say "the bible", which one did you mean? Catholic, Protestant, Mormon? Or maybe what the Christians call the OT and Jews call TaNaCh?

I think this is one time when combining the various translations/editions would NOT be a good idea.

As for the author, that's a theological question. ;) "Various" does seem to be a popular choice on GR though.

Somebody needs to tackle the Bible.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10922...
as an example has an author instead of various. I was working with R.C. Sproul and all of a sudden, "Holy Bible" appeared if I use the term bible in the search field on the combine page. The book is not listed if I do not use the filter. Do you have any idea what is going on???

One (or more) of the 1500+ editions must have him listed as primary author.

1500+ editions? It really is a category all to itself.

1891, as currently merged. ;)

So I should assume that if I can identify it, I should seperate it and then keep him as primary, or should I put various as primary and him as secondary - similar to an editor?

1500 hundred editions that have been combined into this version alone, plus hundered of uncombined versions and other combined versions with just a few dozen per version!

I'm sticking with easier authors and titles. Don't even know where to begin with this one!

I've been going with that second option, for consistency's sake. He's not the only one, BTW, currently listed as primary on one of those 1500+ editions. I fixed a few before I gave up on the whole mess. ;)

rivka wrote: "One (or more) of the 1500+ editions must have him listed as primary author."

But I thought you could only combine when the primary authors were the same? Was the author changed after the combining?

I assume so.

mlady_rebecca wrote: "1500+ editions? It really is a category all to itself."

This will have to be a category someone else has to fix. :)

Right. I just had a look at the anonymous page, and it struck me as somewhat odd that the editions were pretty much divided by translation team/religious denomination. While I'm sure that's very handy for people who aren't sure at all which edition they have (who cannot search by ISBN), I'm not really sure what it adds otherwise. Books with 300+ editions are pretty much impossible to search through manually for your version, so why divide them? The practice seems arbitrary to say the least..
Sure, the deuterocanonical and NT-apocryphal books probably won't be present in Protestant translations, and other things might apply to orthodox works, but I don't really see any other reason to separate different translations, so why are they separated so neatly? Intra-faith rivalry? ;) Protestant pride? (Sorry, just being cheeky.)
In any case, I was wondering what to do with all these different versions, so if anyone would be willing to tell me the current policy on bible translation combination, that'd be wonderful.

zerospinboson wrote: "Books with 300+ editions are pretty much impossible to search through manually for your version"

Not true. They can be sorted by publication year, popularity, and other sorts.

I vote for leaving them as is. I don't see the benefit of combining them further.

(Also, I've been wondering this for a while. How can a boson have no spin? Then it's not a boson!)

('tis a mystery. It's postulated to exist, anyway. (Laws of) Nature act(s) in wonder-inducing ways, I suppose. ;))

zerospinboson wrote: "Right. I just had a look at the anonymous page, and it struck me as somewhat odd that the editions were pretty much divided by translation team/religious denomination. While I'm sure that's very ha..."

I think more information should be in the guides about how these should be combined. I generally agree with the decision that was reached before I joined the librarian group, that for the most part translations of books should be combined with each other. In the case of the Bible I believe it should have special treatment in this regard. Not because it should be considered "special" but just for the fact of the volume of translations and the volume of editions in each translation. What makes the most sense to me is that Bibles be combined only with the general translation i.e. KJV with KJV, NKJV with NKJV NIV with NIV, etc. It is the most useful to people who actually want to shelve and read and talk about multiple versions of the Bible. Obviously people can note all the information about the particular edition of that version in the reviews. many people believe it is the same book and they want to just lump them all together but obviously many people do not agree or else there would not be so many translations. If there was a way to have "levels" of combinations like Bibles with a sub category of "translations" it would serve the purpose. For other types of books there could be sub-categories for children's versions or other authors abridgments and so forth. But for now I think the general translations should be grouped together.

I agree. When I look for a Bible, I like to find a specific translation (ex: New King James). Others like other versions, e.g., Catholic version, etc.

It would make finding what you specifically want easier.

Mikey wrote: "If there was a way to have "levels" of combinations like Bibles with a sub category of "translations" it would serve the purpose. For other types of books there could be sub-categories for children's versions or other authors abridgments and so forth."

That kind of general structural suggestion would need to be brought up in the Feedback group. Although, I imagine it would be too big of a change given that it only affects a small portion of the overall database.

mlady_rebecca wrote: That kind of general structural suggestion would need to be brought up in the Feedback group. Although, I imagine it would be too big of a change given that it only affects a small portion of the overall database.


Actually, I wasn't really intending to make a suggestion about a database change however I did read something elsewhere along the lines of what I mentioned and so it was actually a general comment about what is already being discussed elsewhere. I know I didn't make that clear.

Someone has done a good job to begin to "combine" the Bible separated by Translations but obviously it is still far from perfect. My main point was in response to

The practice seems arbitrary to say the least.

I personally don't want to see every version and translation of the "Bible" combined together. It appears former librarians were trying to combine any and every "Bible" translation with any other. My point is with the current Goodreads system it does make sense to "combine" them according to general translation version. The bottom section of the edits page applies to all books in that "grouping". Each edition of a particular translation would have a Common "Original Title" and "Original Publication date".

I tried to continue in the way it currently appears and continue to group "general translation versions" together. Obviously, there are still plenty that are "wrongly" combined according to this method or just not yet found and "combined" but I still feel this is the right way to do it. I started adding librarians notes on the top book of the particular "grouping" mainly so I could easily differentiate between the ones I've looked at from other "groupings" that still probably should be divided out accordingly.

I have a few questions so far that I would like answered:

1. Should we remove "Various" when we come across it or should we just add Anonymous as the first author?
apparently before I joined, there was a discussion and poll and so forth on the first Author field for "Sacred texts". According to the forum and the subsequent "librarian manual" "Anonymous" was decided on however as stated above "Various" is also commonly used.
2. How should we deal with other then English Translations?
If it is say, the king James Version translated into French or Spanish, it should probably go with the King James *(or whatever) If it has the generally known and widely used version name or abbreviations for the translation version included in the title or description, that is what I've done. There are a lot that I don't really know where they belong so I left them alone.
3. Should the LDS version of the King James be listed with the larger King James/Authorized version?
this is not a theological/religious question and I don't really care either way but I noticed that some have LDS version in the bottom "original title" field and a publication date in the 1920s (which is not correct). If we are talking about the The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST), also called the Inspired Version of the Bible (I.V.), it was actually originally published and copyrighted in 1867. However, the Authorized King James Version (LDS edition) was originally published in 1979. I assume it should likely be combined with the rest of the Authorized/King James Versions, but I didn't know how the "original title" and "publication date" would be affected. If I am not mistaken the "LDS version" has been "added" way more times then any other "edition" of the 600 plus other editions. But if it is combined with the rest of "Authorized/King James" the information in the bottom fields needs to accurately reflect the whole of the larger category.
4. Should I combine ones that were previously grouped together under say the name of the editor of that particular edition with the actual translation version that was used? Here is an example of what I mean: MacArthur Study Bible. All the editions in this grouping are of the NKJV. I think the answer is or should be a yes. Since I have not seen any official policy on how the "Bible" should be dealt with I left it separate for now. MacArthur also did other translations such as the NASB so I would be careful to put it under the correct translation version but otherwise it does seem pointless not to add them to the corresponding translation version. Some of his editions are already combined with the translation versions and I would certainly never bother to "separate" them. So for consistency I think they should all be combined according to translation version and not by editor or any other "classification".

Mikey:

I made a stab at Bibles some time ago and began to separate them by versions, e.g., King James, etc.

I felt that people would want to look for a specific translation as well and began grouping by KJV, Catholic version, LDS version, etc.

I was putting the foreign language versions of any of these under the main header, e.g., KJV.

I have been using "anonymous" as that is what I was instructed to do late last year. Also, that's what is listed under the "author page" for anonymous. For me personally "Bible" made more sense because there are people who argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. are "authors" but it's not important really.

I agree with your point #4 as well. There were no stated opinions anywhere that I could find on how to handle Bible, so these are the things I have done.

They seem to be in agreement with your approach, as far as I can tell.

I pooped out on editing the Bible a few weeks back but am getting back into it again. It's a long term project for sure.

If there are any other groupings that make sense to you, please let me know so we can be consistent--I'm willing to go along with whatever you think up.

Regards

Vickie

Mikey: ]

I forgot to mention, I have been putting all the descriptive things such as leather type, color, blah blah blah under "edition" and taking it out of the Title Bar as I don't think "duct tape camoflague color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example).

vt

This isn't really a definitive answer on combining, other than the general rule of thumb that's "combine things containing the same text in any language". There's a "combine across minor adaptions" rule as well, but it hasn't to my knowledge been discussed in the context of sacred texts, so what constitutes a "minor" adaption hasn't been settled.

Here's the discussion of authorship of sacred texts where "Anonymous" was decided on. ("Various" should be removed as a secondary author. In general, "Various" or any variation thereof is not a preferred authorship.) The question of combining wasn't really touched on there, so it should probably be raised now.

I suppose the question for combining sacred texts should really be: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books? Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?

Vickie wrote: "I forgot to mention, I have been putting all the descriptive things such as leather type, color, blah blah blah under "edition" and taking it out of the Title Bar as I don't think "duct tape camoflague color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example)."

Oh my! Yes, I think the camo duct tape is probably not a biblical subtitle. :)

Cait wrote: "I suppose the question for combining sacred texts should really be: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books? Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?"

I would say that the various versions or translations for the Bible should be kept separate, just because of the sheer volume. There are currently over 600 editions of the King James Version and over 800 editions of the New International Version. I had to try to find an edition (w/o ISBN) just in the KJV, and was overwhelemed by the 600 editions. Having thousands under one edition would be impossible.

It does seem to make sense to clump the bible editions by specific translation.

Cait wrote: "Combined editions share reviews; across what differences are reviews useful? Combined editions can be sorted and browsed in the editions page; what commonalities make this useful?"

I appreciate all the responses and the effort of others to make it nicer for all. I obviously can't speak for everyone but as far as the reviews go as I said in my first post
What makes the most sense to me is that Bibles be combined only with the general translation... It is the most useful to people who actually want to shelve and read and talk about multiple versions of the Bible.
and so far everyone weighing in on this seem to be in agreement. There are two features currently on the review page of any particular book all editions and this edition only I may want to read about what others are saying about a particular edition or I may want to read what people are saying about a particular translation. Either way works well if they are separated/combined this way. Obviously there will be plenty of comments about the "bible" in general under any grouping and especially under the most popular grouping in the all editions field Yet it seems people would still be the most accustomed to finding them in this way. If one goes to any bible retailer, online or otherwise they would be separated or shelved or linked first and foremost under the "general translation version". Then of course they all have individual "grabbers" or "selling points" or whatever which for goodreads would be contained in people's actual opinions in the "review box".

Cait wrote: "Here's the discussion of authorship of sacred texts where "Anonymous" was decided on. ("Various" should be removed as a secondary author. ..."

Thanks for the clarification I will begin to remove "various" and replace with "Anonymous" I did read that before I began with the "Gita" the other night and continued with the "Bible" yesterday. I was just double checking that "various" should be deleted

Vickie wrote: For me personally "Bible" made more sense because there are people who argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. are "authors" but it's not important really.

I didn't get a chance to weigh in on this and obviously I am fine with whatever as long as it is consistent. So I am just glad at least this is definitive.

Although I generally agree that translations should be grouped together, I also think we should be more specific, when there are hundreds of editions that fall under the same basic translation. My copy of the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, for instance, is the New Revised Standard translation. However, given the amount of additional critical material in the Oxford editions, I think it should only be combined with other Oxford Annotated bibles. The last time I checked, there were around 62 editions (which seems like more than enough to me). I see there are now 156.

I honestly think it's a cataloging mistake to combine all copies of a given translation. Some are radically different works, with hundreds, if not thousands, of additional pages, in some cases.

Just to throw more on the fire, to properly combine different translations, you'd have to compare versions to see if they used the same source texts, and same critical apparatus to make the translation, otherwise they aren't really different versions of the same text translated...

Though I doubt that most users are looking for that level of comparison, it would be the 'right' way to combine versions and translations.

Phil wrote: "Just to throw more on the fire, to properly combine different translations, you'd have to compare versions to see if they used the same source texts, and same critical apparatus to make the transla..."


That is the main difference between the translation versions. Each new or different attempt to translate would of been a specific task that was undergone at a specific time and published on the same specific date. The method and source texts, and purpose of the task would be common to the translation version.


Abigail wrote: "...My copy of the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, for instance, is the New Revised Standard translation. However, given the amount of additional critical material in the Oxford editions, I think it should only be combined with other Oxford Annotated bibles."

I understand that but also the "critical material", study helps, and all additional material is what makes an "edition" an "edition". If we separate sometimes by "critical material" in addition to the "Bible" translation it is too subjective to determine which translations belong together. However, if we only combine translations one can easy read reviews of the exact "edition" they are reading or they can easily view all reviews of the particular translation. Although in order to read what everyone is saying about your particular translation and edition, you may have to scan through the other editions page" to find other ISBN listings of the same "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" according to your example, it is pretty quick and easy with the thumbnail pictures and everything on that page. You could also just perform a search New Oxford Annotated Bible I still believe this is the best solution to begin to have a common standard by which to go by. If you object how do you think we should decide which "editions" of a translation should be combined and which ones should be kept separate?

Regards,

Mikey wrote: "I understand that but also the "critical material", study helps, and all additional material is what makes an "edition" an "edition". If we separate sometimes by "critical material" in addition to the "Bible" translation it is too subjective to determine which translations belong together..."

My understanding of the combine function, here at goodreads, is that it is meant to group together works that have essentially the same content. Short story collections, for instance, should only be combined when they contain the same exact list of stories. Thus the question of content goes, not to "edition" (as would alternate translations), but to title.

In the case of something like the The (New) Oxford Annotated Bible, the content is significantly different from other titles, which might also contain the same translation of the bible. We're not talking about a critical introduction here - we're talking a lot of text.

Your argument would be persuasive, if simplicity and database neatness were the only goals. I think accuracy also counts. My review, when and if I write it, will not be of the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, but of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. This is not a theological question (for me, anyway), but a database one. As for who sees what reviews, if people really want that information, they can certainly look around, reading the reviews left on different bibles.

I understand your point Abigail. But from my point of view, if I decide to purchase or examine a Bible, King James Version for me, I would like to see all of KJV's together in one list. Then I can scan down and check the reviews or descriptions until I find the one that suits.

If they are further separated by Critical Notes or whatever, I would have to search around to try and find all the KJV's to do the review, which would be inconvenient and more difficult. Probably I would miss some versions.

I favor simplicity in combining (or clumping in this case) so that scanning thru a version is simplified.

Regards,

vt

Question number four was regarding this issue. If I found a listing that was grouped another way such as by the editor in the case of MacArthur Study Bible, I left them alone for now and am here to find out what the policy should be. I didn't mean to combine your version with the rest of the New Revised Standard Version on Saturday (assuming it was my fault) and had I noticed it was apparently purposely divided separately I would have waited to find the established policy. I found similar New Oxford editions, combined with totally unrelated translation versions and some already combined with the larger NRSV and according to the search I just did some are still not combined with anything. I found the same thing with the MacArthur Study Bible.

I know you are correct in that there is also the same discussion on going with regard to how books should be combined. As far as how much new or different information should constitute a totally different book. One that comes immediately to mind and seems relevant to your example has to do with editions of text books that may differ drastically one to the other. According to the basic guidelines

do combine:
•Different publications of the same book.
•Different formats of the book (hardcover, paperback, audio).
•Editions/translations of the book in other languages. Even though many translations differ significantly, we've made the decision to combine them all, and have people note the differences in their reviews.
don't combine:
•2-in-1 books or boxed sets that include the given book.
•Cliff notes or other works about the given book.


I believe and I assume many others would agree, this basic guideline doesn't work well for the "Bible" as far as combining all translations, if nothing else then because of the volume of translations and editions of each translation. The initial post I was responding to here, gave the impression that the practice of neatly separating them by translation version was laughable or "arbitrary". And of course I am not arguing that it is not somewhat "arbitrary" to not treat all "Bibles" simply as "the Bible" but I am arguing that there is plenty of sound logic to at least divide them by the commonly known "translation version" and then "noting the differences in the reviews" as regard to the specific edition or publication of any particular "translation".

Abigail wrote: ...My review, when and if I write it, will not be of the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, but of the New Oxford Annotated Bible.

I think that is the right idea. When and if you write it you should give all the information and opinion and details you find pertinent or interesting about the exact edition you are using. I read the reviews of the exact edition you have shelved NEW Oxford Annotated Bible. As would be expected some comment on "the bible" as a whole, some comment on the "translation", some comment on the "translation in relation to the "extra material" and some comment on the particularities of this "edition". I also read some of the reviews of the larger (NRSV) category and many of the top reviews were still from reviews of "New Oxford Annotated Bible". But anyway it is still open for discussion....
Regards,

I just want to chime in and say I think that this is a great discussion -- thanks for leading it off, Mikey! I don't feel qualified to offer any advice on the actual issue, but it sounds like those of you who are, are working toward some good guidelines.

Cait wrote: "I don't feel qualified to offer any advice on the actual issue, but it sounds like those of you who are, are working toward some good guidelines."

Agreed. :)

I do understand the arguments for combining all copies of a given translation together - people interested in that translation can then see reviews of it, in one place. If that ends up being the final decision, I won't be desperately unhappy, although I'll still be convinced it is the wrong choice.

The key point, for me, is the volume of different, or "additional" material being discussed. If the critical notes, essays, introductions (for each book in the bible) are so copious that they comprise almost as much material again, as contained in the primary text, then I would argue that this is a different book. It's not just a "critical" edition, it's a combination of text and commentary, published together.

In this specific case, translation is irrelevant. It's like arguing that my copy of Homer's Iliad should be combined with a volume containing both the Iliad and the Odyssey, because both contain Richard Lattimore's translation of the Iliad.

Cait & Rivka: I'm not sure I'm qualified either! Just someone with an opinion... what else is new, eh? ;)

I am trying to do well at helping "clean up" the listings. I am not adamantly opposed to separating them out further by other criteria either and can actually see some potential benefit for people. This will ultimately go back to what
Cait said: what are people looking for in shelving and reviewing these books?

It is a good idea for anyone interested, to post a discussion (or link) on the "Discuss this book" of any Bible they are using.

I have typically found most publications of any particular "translation version" to present itself primarily as a "new" or "different" publication of the Bible in an unambiguous (easily identifiable*) translation, regardless of how much or little "extra material" is included. Therefore, as a general rule it would be desired to have many if not most unique "translation version" combined. *(specifically regarding Translations into English)

Abigail's example may be a very notable exception to this generality. (one of several perhaps)

Synopsis-New Oxford Annotated Bible:"Now a new editorial board and team of contributors have completely updated this classic work. The result is a volume which maintains and extends the excellence the Annotated's users have come to expect, bringing new insights, information, and approaches to bear upon the understanding of the text of the Bible.

Search Results: New Oxford Annotated Bible brings up I think twelve results now. Some are apparently the exact same book but listed with editors, contributors, or what not, in the main Author field. I know author information needs to be corrected and/or standardized, and combined with the others in some way. We would find it to be good policy and consistent with basic guidelines to combine All New Oxford Annotated Bible (e.g. First, second, third) editions together as republications of the New Oxford Annotated Bible rather then other publications of the New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible correct?

I am definitely not qualified nor am I willing to divide the Bible up much further then by the criteria of "translation version" (at least not to start). However, if there are other well established "titles" that are being clumped together I will easily and most certainly comply. I have agreed with the basic strategy I've noticed so far:



when I separate/combine the Bible I watch for:

*Bible by translations (e.g. Abbreviations for Bible Versions, Version List) -- ("Complete Publication of any given version")
with or without Apocrypha/deuterocanonical open for discussion

*Translations "partial" (e.g. "New Testament" only, "Old Testament" only, psalms and proverbs, Apocryphal only)

*Parallel Bibles (two or more translation versions Combined in one book)

*separate works about the Bible", or with Bible in the title (basic guidelines apply)

*special specific titles being combined/separated out


What else? Suggestions, guidelines?........... (btw sorry if my posts are, so far, always too long)

Regards,

I have little to add to the discussion, but want to say that I have found it somewhat fascinating and reasonably impressive how quickly a general and quite reasonable consensus was formed in how to handle this case (unlike, say, when the authorship issue was discussed a number of months ago...that definitely meandered around quite a bit more).

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I have little to add to the discussion, but want to say that I have found it somewhat fascinating and reasonably impressive how quickly a general and quite reasonable consensus was formed in how to handle this case (unlike, say, when the authorship issue was discussed a number of months ago...that definitely meandered around quite a bit more)."

I think that's because only people who regularly read the bible, rather than just own a bible, are speaking up. I never even thought about shelving my bible. I use Goodreads primarily for documenting fiction.

I agree with both of you.

BTW, as soon as y'all are done, if someone can write up something for the manual, I'll go ahead and add it.

Vickie wrote: "I forgot to mention, I have been putting all the descriptive things such as leather type, color, blah blah blah under "edition" and taking it out of the Title Bar as I don't think "duct tape camouflage color" is part of the actual title of the Bible, for example (actual example)."

Basic Guidelines should apply as to the Title field of any Bible. Additional information should be in the "edition Field"


title

Enter in the official title of the book as it is shown on the cover or binding. Use proper capitalization and punctuation (i.e. do not use all-caps or no-caps unless the author specifically formatted the title that way). Make sure to check your spelling since improperly spelled titles may make the book harder to find in the Goodreads database.