Does anyone know about the new St. John’s Bible? If so, what is your opinion of it?
Remarkable pictures, and penmanship,
but what text did they use to copy from? the DR bible, or a new translation from the Latin??? I checked their site, couldn’t find anything.
I found, for the Book of the Gospels they use NAB
Thirty major illuminations from the pages of The Saint John’s Bible in full color
Monumental 12 x 18 inch format
Seven-color, foil-stamped cover, available in genuine or bonded leather
Easily readable 17-point Golden Cockerel typeface
Full color throughout
Large grosgrain ribbon
New American Bible translation
According to Wikipedia, it’s the NRSV-CE.
so the 7-volume set is NRSV-CE
and a separate issue, ‘The Book of the Gospels’ uses NAB saintjohnsbible.org/Detail.aspx?ISBN=9780814690642
I’m sorry, I’m about to sound more blunt than I usually do. But no one’s reply means anything to me. Does the bible in question square with the traditional church or are there problems with it? I have reason to ask this I just don’t want to share it. Please if you don’t know, don’t reply. I can look it up on the internet. I need someone who is knowledgeable about these things to reply. I mean no disrespect to anyone, I realize that this forum is open to many people with varying degrees of knowledge, but I need a reply from someone who is more familiar with the version of the bible in question. Actually more than familiar, someone who knows if there is a problem with its orthodoxy or lack of same.
no, they’re both (NRSV-CE and NAB) Catholic Bibles, see:
What do you want? you want indepth information about these two English translations with respect to their:
- Greek/Hebrew manuscripts used or
- if they are more formal or more dynamic, or
- if they have inclusive language
is this what you want??
Also use CAF ‘search’, there are a lot of threads about NAB, NRSV-CE
It is beautiful.
Indeed it is. I have the currently-available 5 volumes. What seems to have been missed in the prior responses is that the St. John’s Bible is all about calligraphy and illumination - keeping alive the skills and tradition of manuscript illumination and hand-written text as it was done by monks in ages past. It’s not a new translation, not a study Bible, no footnotes or study guides. In my opinion, its physical beauty makes the beauty of the Word shine even more brightly. It’s not at all a question of “orthodoxy.”
In the 7-volume set of the St. John’s bible the NRSV-CE is used and yes it has gender issues ie inclusive language. I got the following from EWTN
- New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary). ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
here’s part of a small article by R. J. Grigaitis, S.F.O.
Mark 1:17 uses the poetic term “fishers of men,” which the RNAB retains, but the NRSV replaces with “fish for people.” The poetic and aesthetic qualities are obviously lost, but so is the translation. The NRSV replaces a title with an action, which is not a translation but an interpretation, and does not reflect the words of Christ.
Romans 8:29 uses the term “first-born among many brethren,” which the RNAB again retains, but the NRSV replaces with “firstborn within a large family.” Again, the poetic and aesthetic qualities are lost, as is the translation. The word “brethren” implies that we are Christ’s brothers and sisters, whereas “a large family” looses the close relationship we have with Christ. The correct interpretation of the word “brethren” is brothers and sisters, but this is the interpretation and not a translation. To avoid adding words to Sacred Scripture to convey a correct interpretation, the NRSV uses an incorrect translation, which is contrary to the goal of translation.
Psalm 1:1 uses the term “man,” which both the RNAB and the NRSV replace with “those.” This is obviously an incorrect translation, an incorrect interpretation, and introduces a major doctrinal and theological error. The Church has always interpreted the word “man” in this context to have four equally important interpretations: the plural interpretation representing all humanity that seeks to do God’s will, the singular interpretation representing the one reading this passage, the singular interpretation representing David, and the singular interpretation representing Christ. The RNAB and the NRSV present only one of these interpretations, and is therefore presenting a doctrinal and theological error.
Galatians 4:1-7 equates the term “child” with “slave,” and the term “son” with “heir.” The RNAB and the NRSV equate the terms “not of age” and “minors” with “slave,” and the term “child” with “heir.” The original intention is not only lost, but reversed. A slave becomes an heir through adoption, which is to say a child becomes a son or daughter through adoption. The RNAB and NRSV lose this concept, and replace it with the alien and illogical concept that a minor becomes a child through adoption. The terms “minor” and “child” commonly share the same definition, which would then equate the term “slave” with “heir,” which is not only an incorrect interpretation, but another doctrinal and theological error.
So-called “inclusive language” does nothing except produce ambiguity and confusion, both of which have no place in scriptural translation. Sacred Scripture should be translated in the common language of a people so they can easily understand and interpret it. So-called “inclusive language” defeats the basic goal of scriptural translation, and is therefore anti-Christian.
If I were in charge of St. John’s Bible I would have used DR or RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, but kept the pictures and the handwriting
could start an ‘Inclusive language’ thread, you’d probably get more posts and varied opinions.
Thank you this helps quite a bit. I can now do a bit more research on it. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am appalled that any Catholic would think that inclusive language is okay so would probably not even read a thread like that let alone start one.