Lexham Bible Guide Suggestion

There has been much discussion on the
forums regarding the Lexham Bible Guides. 
In criticising
the Guides, I commented that there was a really useful set waiting to be
published by Logos, but that this was not yet it, so I decided that I should
consider how the Lexham Bible Guides could be improved, by answering the most
common criticisms.

Criticism 1: High Cost

Many of the criticisms regard the
cost.  At the price that the early
volumes are shipping for, the series will cost more than most, if not all,
series of commentaries available through Logos, including their own Evangelical
Exegetical Commentary series.

Potential Solution 1: Pile ‘em high,
sell ‘em cheap

Many authors (and publishers) of electronic
books have realised that they can earn more from selling many volumes cheaply
than they can from selling a few volumes at a high price.  As more sales will likely lead to a greater
interest in linked resources, this should be even more profitable for Logos, though
the extra sales may not be easy to trace.

I’m sure that Logos must have already
considered this, but it still seems to be the best way forward to many of
us.  Without it, the Guides will have a
very small readership, and some may never be published.

Criticism 2: Limited Number of Linked
Resources

The Ephesians guide had a limited range of
linked resources, so those who do not own many of the linked resources do not
gain much.

Potential Solution 2: Link all
commentaries, as a minimum

Presumably Logos have chosen the resources
that best defend the perspectives they represent.  This is helpful, but many users own different
resources that also defend or prefer the perspectives represented.  It would be helpful to add two lists to each
perspective, one for other commentaries that defend the perspective and one for
commentaries that take that view without really defending it.  For each issue discussed, it would also be
helpful to add a list of commentaries that do not state a preferred
viewpoint.  This would make the guides
far more comprehensive, while giving users much more likelihood that their
resources would be linked and suggesting resources they might like to own.  Ideally, it would include every commentary
available in Logos, books other than commentaries, as the Genesis
1-11 volume does, and Bibles that express a
preference in their translation, with each resource mentioned linked to the
relevant place.

Criticism 3: Limited Depth of Coverage

The issues are treated so briefly that
there is little depth, especially as there are often far more views represented
than the guides suggest.  They try to
focus on the main views for the key issues.

Potential Solution 3: Add a section for
Other Views

Each issue could have the current list of
main viewpoints, followed by a list of other views, such as the greater detail
in the Exegetical Summaries series.  This
may be a shorter section with less detail for each view, though ideally each
view would be handled comprehensively, as suggested above, with all
commentaries, as well as Bibles and other books listed under the different
perspectives.

Criticism 4: Limited Number of Issues
Covered

The Guide authors have highlighted and
focussed on what they see as the main controversies.  This is helpful, but it means that many
controversies are not discussed, especially compared to the Exegetical
Summaries series.

Potential Solution 4: Add a section for
Other Issues

Each passage could have the current list of
key issues, followed by a list of other issues, such as those in the Exegetical
Summaries series.  This may be a shorter
section with less detail for each issue, though ideally each issue would be
handled comprehensively, as suggested above, with all commentaries, as well as
Bibles and other books listed under the different perspectives.  It may even cover introductory issues,
discourse units, textual variants, lexical choice, etc. as the Exegetical
Summaries series does, and could even be expanded to include more popular
applications given in commentaries.

Criticism 5: No Guarantee Against
Becoming Outdated

Even if every commentary and a large
selection of other books available in Logos were linked, the guides would date
as new resources became available in Logos.

Potential Solution 5:

There could be a commitment to keep these
guides up-to-date as new resources are added. 
Of course this would mean yet more work, but it would also guarantee an
interest in the resource well into the future, with more and more new users
investing in the resource.

Still Dreaming

With so many issues itemised and so many
linked resources categorised, it might seem that there would be too much
information here.  Currently Logos
resources are largely designed round paper format books.  However, sections could be hidden, using a
Show/Hide Details (for Other Resources/Views/Issues) and Show/Hide All feature.  This would improve readability and efficiency
in focusing in on particular topics.

It would be even more helpful if links were
colour-coded to show whether they are internal glossary-type links, internal
section links, external owned resources or external un-owned resources, so that
all links display this information and not just the main curated links, such as
in the current Genesis 1-11
guide.

With the data collected for these guides,
it would be possible to map out the resources versus the viewpoints that they
take on each of the issues.  As resources
have publication dates, authors and publisher details attached, it would be
possible to add a spreadsheet/graphing feature, allowing patterns to be seen.  For example, it could make clear how viewpoints
change over time, and visibly display a comparison of authors’ views on a range
of issues or views available from a particular publisher.  In fact, if other categorisation were added,
such as that already available through faceted browsing of the Logos website,
then it would also be possible to show graphically how theological frameworks,
denominational bias and even methods of interpretation affect the viewpoints
being taken.  I’m imagining the kind of
graphing available through the
UN Development Programme’s Public Explorer data facility.  Different viewpoints could be selected and
graphed against dates and the different classifications of resource.

Summary

This is suggesting a series of fairly
comprehensive Bible Guides, the like of which has never been written before, as
far as I am aware.  Many of us have done
detailed exegesis and can imagine what the resource would look like, but we do
not have the time to produce this level of detail for the whole Bible.  Logos is at the cutting edge of providing
tools for Bible study and is well-equipped to take on a project of this size.  The graphing feature discussed above could be
created without Logos writing comprehensive guides, based on SIL’s Exegetical
Summaries series, for example, but it would be better for Logos if they owned
the raw data.  The clarity and readability
of the initial Bible Guides, added to the comprehensiveness and full linking suggested
here would make the Lexham Bible Guides must-haves for exegesis in the
future.  That said, even if only a
selection of these features was implemented, then the series would be greatly
improved, and probably much more popular, though price will always be a key factor.