I assume Bible fonts are generally those faces that performed well at small text size, are condensed yet open, etc.

Are you thinking of the look of a manuscript Bible from the late medieval period? Scriptorium.com?

How did good ole Steelplate Gothic get in that lineup!!!

Gerald

Hate to state the obvious, but I think you need to look at a bunch of Bibles.

Start with Gutenberg and go on up to the Dove's Press Bible, Bruce Roger's Oxford Lectern Bible, and the new Pennyroyal.

trying to find bibles to look it does seem to be my problem John - I've been going round the city sneaking into churches (some still have open doors) but all I get are Psalms & proverb books. Searching online isin't very helpful in trying to get a sense of the faces - well unless I'm going to order them and wait 2 weeks.

I manage to find a copy of the New Testament but its produced by the Canadian Gideons for 1986. Not very bible-y looking. Which is why I'm asking here, hoping a survey of ideas , venues and titles might solve the quintecential bible "look" from worldly typophiles.

Weidemann sounds familiar - thanks. I guess that is what I'm looking for - I had thought that there were a slew of fonts that must have been created specifically for typesetting bibles.

Micheal: the book is a complete listing and viewing of the winners from our areas Advertising and Design Association awards, So cover is important (but I got that done) its black, vertical and horizontal lines reading Advertising and Design....crossed with 2003 Awards" layed out tiny tiny in the upper right hand corner in white. The book will be perfect bound - the cover resembling leather (but fake, no budget here) the inside pages to be 2 columns I'm thinking with that vertical rule in the gutter. the Left side page on spreads will have an image of the piece - the right side text - 1 major dropcap, first line indents on paras. At least this is what I can drum up so far.

I don't think I want medieval - just classic enough. Its going on superwhite Mead silk paper - so I'm not going to fake a traditional bible that technically should be on yellowing pages.

I'm searching out those bibles you mentioned - thanks John. Hopefully I can find text pages in google

tomorrow I will post some scans of bibles I have, including the example of Weidemann.
But now I'm too tired - here in Germany (southern border) it's 11 pm and I had a lot of work today.

If you look for Gutenbergs Bible: www.gutenberg-digital.de you can view fine
photographs as pdf of every page there.
But I think Gutenberg won't really help you for now.

Michael

Hey Nolan, nothing turned up on the Dove's search but I found a great page in image search for the Roger's title you mentioned, jackpot!:

http://www.genescottunivernet.com/books/leaves.htm

it shows some leafs and mentioned:

1935 LEAF FROM THE OXFORD "LECTERN BIBLE" designed by Bruce Rogers and produced in memory of the British dead of World War One. A masterpiece of modern typography; Rogers' "Centaur" font is considered one of the greatest modern designs.
&
1763 LEAF FROM THE BASKERVILLE BIBLE - printed at Cambridge by John Baskerville, the University printer; it is also known as the "Cambridge Bible." It was the last revision of the King James Version. Baskerville became famous for his elegant type faces,
&
1475 INCUNABULA LEAF - LIVES OF THE PHILOSOPHERS, a superb large quarto leaf printed at Venice by the famous Nicolaus Jenson, using his own distinctive roman type (from which some of today's roman fonts are derived).

Anywho - here's what I got so far, your all welcome to pick it apart - Baskerville and Wilhelm Klingspor Gotisch (but I don't think the Wilhelm is quite working)

cover Page 1.pdf (9.6 k)

innerds Page 4.pdf (10.8 k)

I took a peek - thanks for mentioning. I fear that anything too modern won't come as intended and some of the public might be confused.

If only it were a bible I was designing - unfortunately not.

This is all very helpful though - in deciding on various elements that I can make a secret ode to.

i don't know exactly what font should be used, but to add on what M. Butler just said, i guess a Bible font need ligatures, all of them. That we see in the Pleiade french editions

To give Bible look, I first fonts who came to mind, are
http://www.typography.com/catalog/requiem/index.html
http://www.typography.net/type/alchemy/home.htm
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/JENA/F_JENA-10005010.jhtml

and my http://www.typofonderie.com/Alphabets/Apolline.asp
who is used succesfully on a French Catholic magazine for text and some titlings who use ligatures and terminals.

In fact many serif fonts with ligatures, swashes and ornaments need to be considered, they give the necessary feeling for such project. Oncials can be interesting and Rotundas too, but not as main face.
Paper, layout (Golden section and such things) and colors play equally with fonts to achieve the Bible look.

Thank you thank you. this has all been very enlightening really.

The font you mentioned Jean - requiem, I never would have thought of it! in retrospect that is what I'm aiming for.

Thanks for the scans Michael - Its good amo. You see suddenly, now that the client and I came to this idea, all this quick research and comp'ing it out (over the weekend I might ad), I went back to the firm and mentioned what had come to the bosses. Over the past few days I've had to kick and scream justifying the look and feel, which the client has already agreed to! my art director has said no. he thinks the entire idea is blasphemus. grrr
was I that wrong? I will not hear no, no isin't an answer at this stage. oooo </end>

"so layout is a component of the Trinity (or is it
Quadsomethingorother)? God has bestowed his deity
upon Biblical layouts. now there's some facinating
theology for ya!"

Not perhaps too far fetched. One "for instance" that I think of: The spacious outer margins that one sees in early manuscript work were there to prevent the reader from placing their fingers upon the word of God.

I agree with John (as I do with his position in the war/peace-thread - very good and important)
As a theologian and pastor I'm (normally) very aware of blasphemian content (and there is a lot of hidden blasphemy in ads, and a lot of things I don't agree with and don't like, as there is blasphemy in political, economical positions and sometimes even in positions of churches as history shows).
If I have had any suspicion of blasphemy I wouldn't have contributed anything here.

I see it as harmless aping. Maybe even - if it's well designed - it recalls a sense for biblical word as a good side effect.
In the bible itself you can find lists of people, families, soldiers, even lists of payment (and lists of sin and sinners ;-) ) and so on, because the bible (in the old testament) keeps track and memory of people - a sign of care. In this sense I can agree with the bible design - some sign of difference, ironical modification provided. And the last points I think can be seen in thee outter form and the context in which the book appears.

On the other hand: The use of the cross on the cover could - if I think twice - bother me a little. Could it be that religious importance is applied to design and advertising ?* I for example don't like books named as "bible" if they aren't - excepted if it's clearly ironic - for example I dislike "The Macintosh Bible", "The Windows Bible" and so on, because the content is not worthy of such high word as "bible" and computers shouldnt get that respect.
For me that spot of bothering would immediately disappear, if the text on the cover wouldn't form a cross. With black/white, the position and so on there is enough reference to the bible-look to keep that concept. And there is no problem for me in the design of the inside pages.


* Perhaps I should say it this way: It is a problem of the direction of sense/meaning. The aping of religious design isn't blasphemic and I don't have any problem/bothering with it (except of sometimes tasteless things you can see). Religion itself and its design should have enough power to stand that and there is no need to be strict. Sometimes even it is good and prophetic to ape forms - for rethinking and changing them. (a sideway thought of me: that black design of bibles for example with the strict white line-cross does'nt show the liveliness of the word inside, see for better the rich and joyful design of old bible manuscripts)
But if - in the other direction - profane things are raised to religious importance that's indeed problematic.

re: aping Bible design...

Ask yourself, would you consider making your project look like the Qu'ran or the Talmud? Apply that answer to whether or not you should make something look like a Bible.

What about respecting the beliefs of others? I may not agree with or understand other religions, but I certainly do not think it is my place to make fun of or ridicule the beliefs of others.

>It isn't the same at all about Judaism, or Islam... Someone not believing in the holiyness of something doesn't make a blasphemy, it's only logical.

I don't think the religion make any difference. It is a question of taste and manners. The fact that we are free to disrespect others' beliefs doesn't mean we should do it.

We can criticise or dismiss the beliefs of all three religions without insulting their believers.

I am not a Christian, but I think using the Cross in a mocking or silly way is in poor taste, including the example in this thread.

The issue is using symbols that are sacred to some in a way that negates their sacred symbolism. There may be a legitimate place for that by, for example, a person offended by the practices of the religion they grew up in. But to do so lightly, whether you are an insider or outsider I think shows a lack of taste and good manners.

I think that the 'Macintosh Bible' etc are fine, and using the 2-column format etc. are no problem, because there is no claim of sacredness or abusing sacred symbols.

making fun of anything can always be taken as a mark of disrespect for someone. If we had to care about everything we said