A great waste of time, money and talent, to my mind. The explanation for making these handwritten medieval-style Bibles is as nonsensical as the very task itself.
“It’s actually about expressing people’s emotions in a world where emotion is kept to a minimum in public life.”
God wants the Bible in the heart and home. The work of art is in the words that God caused to be written, not in the special effects. Seems to me this whole effort misses the principle of 1 Peter 3:1-6.
Do I sound like Scrooge?
Don Ruhl 11:13 pm on December 4, 2009 Permalink |
Well, no exactly a scrooge, but I would look at it this way. I have seen some of the artwork and calligraphy that is going into the “St. John’s Bible,” and it is beautiful. I saw the Book of Kells in Ireland and admired its beauty. People are going to do artwork, such as the Christmas tree and ornaments that are above in the banner and the snow that is falling down across this blog, so why not create a Bible where someone depicts the events of it in pictures? If someone has talent to write beautifully, I personally cannot think of anything to write beautifully more than the Word of God. It is like Bezalel the Son of Uri (Exo 31.1–11). Moreover, writing out the Word of God could certainly help to implant it in the heart of the scribe.
Randal Matheny 2:23 pm on December 5, 2009 Permalink |
Hey, Don, I can see and appreciate your point, but it just doesn’t apply, for me, to the Bible. I can’t see Paul looking over his amanuensis’ shoulder and saying, “Hey, Tertius, can’t you make your handwriting a bit prettier, so the Romans will be more impressed by the artwork and give the letter a more reverent hearing?”