I don’t know if that’s an entirely fair description –hence the question mark – although I’ve only ever come across it in evangelical circles, and it’s several heresies wrapped up together really. And there might wel be competition for a worse one.
Oh, yes – what is it, you ask. I answer “Bibles with the words of Jesus in red”.
This is so wrong for three reasons.
- It lies about the nature of the books we have – reports and narratives by witnesses of words (most of them anyway) spoken in another language, and already someone else’s words by the time they reach us.
- It overthrows the nature of scripture. The whole canon is the locus of inspiration and witness to revelation.
- It denies the incarnation. The whole point about the nature of gospel as witness to the Word made flesh is that Jesus’ deeds do God’s work, and his words are one part only of the story. Story is the category through which we know Jesus, not dictation, because we need to see and know God’s life lived out in human flesh and not simply instructions dictated in a vacuum. The stories are not just a rather unimportant framework for the words; the stories are the essence of the god news of the incarnate Word.
{ 16 comments }
Amen, Doug, amen. I am sure you have heard of the “Red Letter Christians?” They seem to focus only on those red letters of recent invention. My preference is for the black-letter edition, however, many translation solely utilize the black-letter for their big books.
I don’t think it’s a heresy nor a bad thing that Bibles have the supposed words of Jesus highlighted in red. Not only that but I don’t see a problem with giving the words and actions of Jesus priority in Biblical theology and ethics. That doesn’t mean that only his words and actions matter, though.
Bryan L
Ah – but you say “words and actions” which is exactly what red letter Bibles don’t do.
My point was in response to #2 in that I can see why Jesus words would be highlighted and given priority. I just added his actions in there as well to point out that those are important as well. I don’t think it would be helpful to highlight them though since often people like the word highlighted because it’s easier to find and quote.
That would be too much red then. Plus people like to quote Jesus’s word not his actions so it makes it easier to find when they’re in red.
Sorry I didn’t mean to post twice and I only intended the 2nd comment
I don’t know if it’s the worst heresy (in fact, I’m not sure it’s a heresy). I do know that I don’t own any “red letter bibles” and I recommend/caution against them (reasons #2 and #3 being primary in my mind).
I guess it depends whether you think 2 & 3 are heresies. On balance I do, but the “H” word always encourages readers!
Complete rubbish. See here http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-defence-of-red-letter-bibles.html
Peter, I think you need to reverse the order of the sentences in your comment.
Hahaha.
OK: ‘Rubbish, complete. Here, see http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-defence-of-red-letter-bibles.html‘
I had in mind: “See here http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-defence-of-red-letter-bibles.html. Complete rubbish.
I was resisting the intentional fallacy.
I’m afraid these reasons also argue against the modern practice of using quotation marks in the narrative. How would you distinguish the use of quotation marks from the use of red-letter? Or are both bad?
Personally, I think the Message paraphrase is hands-down the worst evangelical heresy I’ve ever read recently.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 5 trackbacks }