The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog has a very interesting discussion going on – Red Letter Bibles Again. Tommy Wasserman, the author of the post, summarizes the reasoning for both the advocates of Red Letter Bibles and for those who oppose them. Red Letter Bibles are simply Bibles that make special note of Jesus’ actual words by printing His words in red ink as opposed to the rest of the Bible’s black ink. Many people find them to be helpful in identifying Jesus’ actual words in the text.
According to Wasserman’s summary of Peter Head’s brave defense of Red Letter Bibles, advocates of Red Letter Bibles do so because:
- In effect, Jesus said hearing and doing ‘these words of mine’ are foundational to the faithful life; allegiance to ‘me and my words’ is announced as a criteria for judgement (Mark 8.38; Luke 9.26). His words are eternal (Matt 24.35; Mark 13.31; Luke 21.33). He is the Word of God, his own words come directly from God, and so the one who loves Jesus will pay special attention to his words (e.g. John 14.23f), abiding in Jesus involves abiding in his words (John 15.7).
- The evangelists themselves place special emphasis on Jesus words with the result that the synoptic evangelists agree much more closely in the wording of the words of Jesus than in the narratives which surround those words.
- Paul too seemed to place special importance in Jesus words as basis for Christian instruction (see e.g., 1 Cor 7.10; 9.14; 11.23ff; cf. instruction not based on Jesus’ words in 1 Cor 7.12, 25).
Wasserman also makes mention of the idea that the red ink is a symbol of Christ’s blood.
Yet there are some who take issue with Red Letter Bibles. Those opposed are credited to find the following reasons for their opposition:
- The words of Christ are not “more Scripture.”
- It is sometimes difficult to determine where Jesus’ words begin and end, e.g., John 3:16 (is it still Jesus speaking?; TNIV does not include v 16 as part of Jesus’ words).
- The red print is distracting.
Interesting discussion. I can see the validity of both positions because I personally appreciate having red ink but also can recognize that some new believers tend to have a high view of Christ’s words (in ink) and a low view for just about everything else, especially the OT since it does not have any red ink!
What do you think? Do you use a Red Letter Bible? Do you have concerns about their use?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I’m intrigued. I had professors who also were strongly opposed to red letter bibles too. They had similar reasons and were coming from strong Fundamentalist / Evangelical backgrounds. They, in a sense, grew up with the depreciation of the Holy Scriptures and sensed that red letter bibles were a subtle way to introduce the concept that some verses were more important than others. Similarly to the way many liberals now view the Bible.
I use a bible that does not have red letter ink, but not on purpose. It’s just the one I purchased.
Well, I have a Bible with and a Bible without red letters, both of which I use for study. I believe both sides have some interesting points, but the bottom line is, it is fruitless to debate it. Perhaps red letters could encourage a simplistic overemphasis of Jesus’ words (it seems strange to even mention the possibility of overemphasizing Jesus’ words!) especially to new Christians. However, it would seem to me that the problem then would not be the red letters, but an improper knowledge of Scripture and how to study it. If people understood the importance of context, original intent, and a theology sculpted by the entirety of Scripture, then we would need not worry about the simplistic approach of overemphasizing the red letters to the detriment of the black letters. And so, I have no affinity for nor objection to the red letters; the bottom line is that people need to understand that the entire Bible is divinely inspired, and that it is all extremely valuable for us today. Of course the words of Christ are central to our faith, but so are the writings of Paul, the words of the Prophets, and even the law! I don’t care if Bibles have red letters or not; I care if people have a low or incomplete view of the Word.
JHolmes, what is a “liberal” to you? What Bible do you read? Is there a version you prefer? Everybody….what version/s do you prefer and why? I have had versions with red letters, some without, and to be honest, never really did it cause me to take the red words more seriously than the black. I actually have a bible now where all of the words are a really pretty shade of blue, and a Bible with Thomas Kinkade paintings in it. (sort of a theme Bible),,, but both really help the visual part of me to calm down and think about what I’m reading better at the time.
i like the message translation.
What is it about the message translation that you like? I have seen bits of it and it has lots of description to it…that is pretty cool.
I like the message for quick reading, or when I need to read large passages at once. Then I like the NASB and NIV for more detailed study. For example, if I want to study a passage or theme in one of Paul’s letters, I will read through the entire book once or twice in the Message to get a good understanding of the message of the whole book and how that passage sits in context, and then study the particlar passage in more depth with the NASB and NIV.
I like the Message because its written in the common venacular and so the text seems to make sense without any internal translating from “Biblical speak” into common language. However, there are definite limitations with it…like the fact tere is often more interpretation going on than just translating, and some of the wording sound corny to me. That’s why for in depth study I like the NASB because it is more literal, even if its sometimes more difficult to understand. Good compliments.
Regarding Red Letter editions…I see this as a non issue. pros and cons.
I spend most of my time online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ as I jump between multiple versions. I use the NIV and ESV a lot, but most of my early memorization of scripture was done in the KJV, so I spend a lot of time searching the KJV and New KJV looking for the verse I can almost remember! I like the Message, as well, but my other favorite is the Amplified version, the one that is enhanced and expanded with more complete, detailed, precise, and specifics for a passage. (Those of you who have ever read the Amplified will recognize the joke here!)
I use the Holman and ESV. I recently purchased the ESV study bible and I’m beginning to use it more often. I also use the NIV too. I like my Holman Baptist version the best, but the ESV study bible is slowly catching on.
Red letter bible means that 80% of the bible was not related to Jesus al all !
OR it could just mean the words of Jesus are a different color. All you have to do is look at it that way. Then you can have a Bible that is 100% related to Jesus with two font colors.