Words of Christ in Red Lettering

[Jordan Kurecki]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe_1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This clearly tells us that all of the bible is the words of God, So what then is the point of placing the words of Christ in red letters in bibles?

Are the words of Christ more inspired than the other words?
the subtle implication of putting Christ's word in red letters takes away from the rest of scripture.

The whole bible is the words of Christ are they not?

You're thoughts?

 

[padredurand]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe_1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This clearly tells us that all of the bible is the words of God, So what then is the point of placing the words of Christ in red letters in bibles?

Are the words of Christ more inspired than the other words?
the subtle implication of putting Christ's word in red letters takes away from the rest of scripture.

The whole bible is the words of Christ are they not?

You're thoughts?

Here's a nice little article about red letter Bibles. There is no spiritual implication.

From the article:

Then on June 19, 1899, while composing an editorial, his eye fell upon Luke 22:20: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which I shed for you.” Seizing upon the symbolism of blood, (Louis) Klopsch asked Dr. Talmage if Christ’s words could not be printed in red. His mentor replied: “It could do no harm and it most certainly could do much good.”

 

[JonC]

It is interesting. I had someone tell me a couple of months ago that she believed such and such because Jesus said it – but did not believe the “non-red” words to carry as much significance. She rejected my comment that the same people who penned the red words penned the black ones.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It is interesting. I had someone tell me a couple of months ago that she believed such and such because Jesus said it – but did not believe the “non-red” words to carry as much significance. She rejected my comment that the same people who penned the red words penned the black ones.

Yeah some members of our church were talking and there was mention of a guy who believed only the red lettered words were the words of God.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I like Klopsch's words from this www.crossway.org article in which he makes his case for the red-letter edition:

Here the actual words, quotations, references and allusions of Christ, not separated from their context, nor in a fragmentary or disconnected form, but in their own proper place, as an integral part of the Sacred Record, stand out vividly conspicuous in the distinction of color. The plan also possesses the advantage of showing how frequently and how extensively, on the Authority of Christ himself, the authenticity of the Old Testament is confirmed, thus greatly facilitating comparison and verification, and enabling the student to trace the connection between the Old and the New, link by link, passage by passage.

 

[Jerome]

"In order to distinguish certain details in a text or manuscript the commonest practice was to write them with brick-red ink (minium, red lead). . . .Already in the carolingian period other colours besides bright red were used for display purposes: . . . [FN 62]For the early middle ages see the list in Lesne, Livres, 13ff. In Paris, BN, Lat. 257, s. IX, the words of Christ are regularly written in gold." ---Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, pp. 16-17.


"There is yet another aspect of Paris 54 that distinguishes it from virtually every other Byzantine manuscript: its ink is color coded according to the speaker in the text. Bright red ink was used for the simple narrative text, while a darker red or crimson ink was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ, and the words of the angels. Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while dark brown ink was used for the speech of the Pharisees, people from the crowd, Judas Ischariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds, and the scribes." ---Kathleen Maxwell, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book, Dumbarton Oaks Papers No. 54 (2000), p. 123.

 

[padredurand]

"In order to distinguish certain details in a text or manuscript the commonest practice was to write them with brick-red ink (minium, red lead). . . .Already in the carolingian period other colours besides bright red were used for display purposes: . . . [FN 62]For the early middle ages see the list in Lesne, Livres, 13ff. In Paris, BN, Lat. 257, s. IX, the words of Christ are regularly written in gold." ---Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, pp. 16-17.


"There is yet another aspect of Paris 54 that distinguishes it from virtually every other Byzantine manuscript: its ink is color coded according to the speaker in the text. Bright red ink was used for the simple narrative text, while a darker red or crimson ink was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ, and the words of the angels. Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while dark brown ink was used for the speech of the Pharisees, people from the crowd, Judas Ischariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds, and the scribes." ---Kathleen Maxwell, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book, Dumbarton Oaks Papers No. 54 (2000), p. 123.

Don't quote me on this but this is an interesting and educational thread. :thumbs:

 

[Scarlett O.]

Lots of times, color coding makes for easier reading for just the reasons listed above.

If a person looks at the different colors and makes the decision that only words of "certain" colors are worthy and other words of other colors aren't, then that's not the fault of the Bible having color coded words.

That's the fault of the reader being ignorant of what makes God's Word, His Word. Let's don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

You can't blame someone's faulty logic on the ink color of a group of words. Their thinking about the Bible was skewed before they ever opened the red-letter edition.

Frankly, those same people would cherry-pick certain Bible passages as carrying more weight than others even if reading an all black inked Bible.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Theres no purpose in putting the words of Christ in red!

 

[ktn4eg]

Years ago I was suckered into buying some sort of "color coded" Bible that had about a dozen different colors for certain subjects.

Some verses had up to three different colors within them.

I was amazed that almost every verse in Romans 8 had at least one or two colors for them---all that is EXCEPT for Romans 8:29-30!!

To this day, I still get a chuckle over the fact that nothing in those two verses seemed to fit into their color-coding system!! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[padredurand]

Theres no purpose in putting the words of Christ in red!

Did you read any of the articles? There are plenty of reasons for putting Jesus' words in red. It is a tool - nothing more nothing less. Chapter and verse divisions are tools as well. The red words have no more inspiration than any of the others.

You might not like red letter editions but they have their place.

 

[Rippon]

I'd rather be in the black than the red. ;-)

 

[robycop3]

Theres no purpose in putting the words of Christ in red!

Yes, there IS. Sometimes, a person wants to see if Jesus really said this or that. Placing His words in red doesn't cancel out any other words in Scripture.

"Much ado about nothing."

 

[prophet]

Before the advent of the smartphone with a concordance app, the red letter edition was a helpful study guide, for faster scanning of the general área of the verse you were looking for.
As far as delineating, for doctrine's sake? LOL.
It is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[preachinjesus]

This clearly tells us that all of the bible is the words of God, So what then is the point of placing the words of Christ in red letters in bibles?

Are the words of Christ more inspired than the other words?
the subtle implication of putting Christ's word in red letters takes away from the rest of scripture.

The whole bible is the words of Christ are they not?

You're thoughts?

I'm not a fan of red letter Bibles. If queried I encourage folks to not go out of their way to buy one. Because the truth of the matter is a) all the words of the Bible are equally inspired, b) often different Bibles color different sections red and black, and c) though we can have confidence the sayings of Jesus are accurately communicated (given the Synoptic problem) we can cause issues since some of the sayings are different in different Gospels.

And with that I'll await your slings and arrows.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The whole bible is the literally words of Jesus, Jesus is the word.

Placing the words of Christ in red is dishonest in my opinion.

 

[preachinjesus]

The whole bible is the literally words of Jesus, Jesus is the word.

We need to make careful distinctions about the nature of inspiration. For instance, Jesus isn't the Word in the same way the Bible contains the words of God. The nature of the Jesus being the Word, or better the Logos, stands in contradistinction to the nature of the Flesh, or sarx. There is a significant development in ancient philosophy about the Logos-Sarx Christology which is important in John's first chapter.

Placing the words of Christ in red is dishonest in my opinion.

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is dishonest, I would say that it is ill advised. Most translators, editors, and publishers are attempting to be earnest in their presentations imho.

 

[padredurand]

The whole bible is the literally words of Jesus, Jesus is the word.

Placing the words of Christ in red is dishonest in my opinion.

How is it dishonest?

 

[nodak]

Growing up in the dark ages as I did, I remember when it was the Baptists in our little village encouraging the use of red letter Bibles.

See, we figured if Paul or James or John or Peter wrote or said something that appeared to contradict what Jesus said, we took Jesus at HIS Word and then set out to understand Paul or James or John or Peter or whoever in a way that did not contradict Christ.

And we also figured the NT was the guide by which to understand the OT.

As an example: Jesus elevated the law against murder to include not hating.

Another example: liberals tell us Jesus did not address gay marriage, that that is addressed in the OT. Uh, no sir. Jesus did address marriage as between a man and a woman. The rest of the NT expounded on the roles. And once you understand that, THEN you can see where the OT was going.

But back then the local Baptists considered themselves the NEW Testament church. Of course they accepted the OT. Just didn't figure we still lived in OT times, the way so many seem to think today.

 

[go2church]

I don't like red letters because they are hard to see.