Words of Christ in red just makes them hard to read

[danbuter]

There have been a number of Bibles I was going to pick up, until I see that they have the words of Jesus in red. At least for me, red print is really hard to read. I have seen some where the red is dark, so it's not as much of an issue, but most seem to think that bright red is acceptable. Maybe it's just because my eyesight isn't that great anymore, but I strongly prefer Bibles with Jesus' words in black print.

 

[Theophilus2019]

Bibles where the words of Jesus are in red or otherwise highlighted have got it completely wrong. All of the Bible is the word of God. Obviously it isn’t all verbatim what God said verbally. Some of it even quotes the Devil e.g. in Job or the temptation of Jesus. But it’s all the message God wants to say to mankind.

 

[Sabertooth]

All of the Bible is the word of God.

But the Words in red have no middleman. Consequently, they are less subject to debate.

 

[paul1149]

I find them distracting, visually and editorially. I constantly check the context to see if I agree with the editors on where the words of Christ begin and end. This is not so clear-cut in the Gospel of John especially.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

It could be worse. They could be in yellow.

 

[Theophilus2019]

But the Words in red have no middleman. Consequently, they are less subject to debate.

Don’t assume they have no middleman. The middleman is the gospel writer. There’s no absolute guarantee the words attributed to Jesus are literally what Jesus said. Remember Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the gospel writers wrote in Greek. Moreover the writers may have paraphrased, clarified or condensed what Jesus said, hence the small differences between the gospels. However none of that is inconsistent with it all being the word of god, who infallibly inspired godly men to write it.

 

[Hammster]

But the Words in red have no middleman. Consequently, they are less subject to debate.

Did Jesus actually write them?

 

[timothyu]

If we were to focus only on the words of Jesus, religion as we know it would not exist.

 

[Lady Bug]

The words in red don't bother me as long as they are dark enough to read. Like the OP has said, I've found it burdensome in some of my Bibles because my eyes have to work harder to read the color. I enjoy seeing Jesus' words singled out though, even if it's not absolutely necessary.

 

[timothyu]

Wonder if bold or italic would work ( no... never mind the italic)

 

[Sam91]

I have one Bible like that and I didn't use it for about two years, I found it distracting. Since picking it up by accident the other week I'm really enjoying the red words. It makes it easier to find certain verses in John. It's refreshing too when tired in this world to look at see the words your Saviour said. (Or at least a translation of what somebody reported him saying.)

 

[hedrick]

There's another issue. Words in red emphasize a feature that isn't actually present in the original. 1st Cent Greek didn't have quotation marks. It's often clear which words are quoted, but not always. In John statements by Jesus often turn into long reflections by the author. The boundary isn't always clear.

 

[danbuter]

I never really considered that what Jesus actually said got blurred in John. Interesting.

 

[FireDragon76]

There have been a number of Bibles I was going to pick up, until I see that they have the words of Jesus in red. At least for me, red print is really hard to read. I have seen some where the red is dark, so it's not as much of an issue, but most seem to think that bright red is acceptable. Maybe it's just because my eyesight isn't that great anymore, but I strongly prefer Bibles with Jesus' words in black print.

The irony is that the whole idea of the "Red Letter" Bibles was started by more liberal Protestants. In some ways the quest for the historical Jesus is just an extension of that.

 

[hedrick]

The irony is that the whole idea of the "Red Letter" Bibles was started by more liberal Protestants.

Are you sure? Red letter edition - Wikipedia

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you sure? Red letter edition - Wikipedia

I think that's focusing too much on the medieval context. The modern movement started with ministers emphasizing the Social Gospel and the actual words of Jesus himself.

I've been reading about the quest for the historical Jesus , and that's something I came across some time ago, in defense of efforts like the Jesus Seminar.

 

[hedrick]

I think that's focusing too much on the medieval context. The modern movement started with ministers emphasizing the Social Gospel and the actual words of Jesus himself.

Here's a more detailed history: The Origins of the Red-Letter Bible

 

[timothyu]

You can go back to Jefferson who whittled the NT down to Jesus' words.

 

[Knee V]

I don't like the red letters, and that is primarily for asthetical reasons, but also for what others have pointed out about examples such as the Gospel of John.

 

[pescador]

The irony is that the whole idea of the "Red Letter" Bibles was started by more liberal Protestants. In some ways the quest for the historical Jesus is just an extension of that.

What is the basis for saying this?