The Red Letters of Jesus

Why are the words of Jesus in red print? The mother and son Bible translator team of Verna and James Linzey explain the significance of putting the words of Jesus in red letters and how it was supposed to help readers of the Gospels.

Are the red letters of Jesus really that different than the black letters of the rest of the Bible? Why are there diverse font colors, and what is the significance? Red letter Bibles were first published in 1899 by an influential Christian leader named Louis Klopsch, editor of Christian Herald magazine.[1] He was a devout man who deeply desired all people to read, understand, and value the Bible. Although Klopsch’s motivations were sincere and beneficial, the presence of red letter Bibles may actually confuse rather than clarify the reading of Scripture in a couple of important aspects.

First, with more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts and fragments dating from the 2nd century and onward, we only know the earliest and best Greek witnesses for how the Gospel writers set forth their eyewitness account of the Jesus event. We can also observe that the Gospel writers did this in very different ways. For example, we know that Jesus often taught in Aramaic, which is a language similar to Hebrew. In Mark 5:41 he heals a little girl, and Mark records him as saying, “Talitha koum.” Mark writes that this Aramaic phrase means, “Little girl, get up.” So there are some places in the Gospels where we have what is often called the ipsissima verba (the very words) of Jesus. Mark actually gives us the Aramaic words of Jesus.[2] This is a great benefit to us because all the Gospel writers chose to write in Greek and not Aramaic. When having the opportunity to write in the very words of Jesus’ cultural language of Aramaic, the Gospel writers chose not to so that their written witness might have widespread distribution throughout the Greek speaking world. The presence of Aramaic is rare in the Gospels, and we typically only have access to the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus. This is a helpful distinction for dialogue related to Jesus. Very rarely do we have an oral tradition that the Gospel writers preserve for us that reflects what Jesus actually said (his very words), but the norm is that Gospel writers give us Jesus’ words in a literary and theological way that is particular to each of their eyewitness accounts (his very voice).

Matthew uses Jesus’ phrase the “kingdom of heaven” 32 times, whereas Luke, Mark, and John give us “kingdom of God” or “eternal life.”[3] There are a few reasons why the Gospel writers choose different words or phrases to attribute to Jesus depending on the literary and theological intention that the writer has for his audience. Matthew’s Jesus prefers “kingdom of heaven” because this kingdom is opposed to and will be victorious over the kingdoms of earth, especially the Jewish and Roman anti-messiah kingdoms. On the other hand, “kingdom of God” is over and against the strong Greco-roman pantheon structures and worship of the audiences for Mark’s and Luke’s Jesus. John’s Jesus has a strong focus on “eternal life” since his gospel is a post-resurrection reflection on what Jesus has actually provided anyone who follows his teachings.

Another brief example can be seen from a synoptic passage in the Gospels. When Peter confesses who he thinks Jesus’ identity is, each Gospel writer gives us different words regarding Jesus’ initial question.

Who do people say the Son of Man is? (Matthew 16:30)

Who do people say that I am? (Mark 8:27)

Who do the crowds say that I am? (Luke 9:18)

Not in the Gospel of John.

What is interesting here is that although we have three eyewitness accounts (Luke used other primary sources for his Gospel [Luke 1:1-2], while Mark used Peter based on historical tradition), each Gospel writer gives us slightly different “red letters.” Either Jesus only spoke one of these phrases, or there were three separate incidents in Jesus’ ministry where he asked the disciples three distinct times at Caesarea Philippi who people said that he was in three different ways. Since the latter historical account is quite unlikely, it seems best to understand that the Gospel writers had the freedom and inspiration of the Spirit to set Jesus’ words and dialogues in a variety of ways depending on the literary and theological intentions that they want to communicate to their first century readers. This reflection offers us a helpful and insightful way to see how first century Gospel writing (called historiography) was done in a way that accurately reflected their eyewitness interaction with Jesus, the Messiah.

Second, another potential challenge that red letter Bibles provide is the setting up of a canon within a canon; that is, putting Jesus’ words or the Gospel accounts as more authoritative that the other Old Testament or New Testament writings. Since all of the Scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16 originally refers to the Hebrew and Greek Jewish Scriptures as Paul wrote this verse.), it is essential that the Gospel books complement the NT epistles rather than overshadow or usurp them. Although the NT epistles have different audiences and emphases, they extend and unpack the teachings of Jesus to a Gentile world so that all nations can follow God’s messiah.

As we have carefully noted that we rarely have access to the very words of Jesus, and because all Scripture attests to God’s redemptive work through his messiah for all nations, the presence of red letter Bibles is not really helpful and probably misleading. It is the divine task of Bible scholars, translators, editors, and publishers to ensure the meaningfulness, clarity, and coherence of Scripture. Red letter Bibles may compromise these values because it suggests some aspects of Jesus that we simply do not have, and more importantly, the Gospel writers did not see fit to give us.

 

PR

Link to James F. Linzey’s author page.

Notes

[1] https://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/03/red-letter-origin/

[2] He also gives the Aramaic in other passages: 3.17; 5.41; 7.11, 34; 14.36; 15.22, 34.

[3] https://danielbwallace.com/2012/12/28/five-more-myths-about-bible-translations-and-the-transmission-of-the-text/