tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post2861715939017420598..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: In Defence of Red Letter BiblesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38455510170532742572011-10-14T21:44:26.764+01:002011-10-14T21:44:26.764+01:00Are we saying that all Jesus' words apply spec...Are we saying that all Jesus' words apply specifically, literally and equally to all humanity. If not then we need to take especial care to take them in context. To whom were they spoken, in what situation and under what prevailing circumstances (which covenant for example!) I think a red letter Bible might detract from such a dispassionate study. What do you think?neilcolombénoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47866299661795690092009-06-12T01:34:25.226+01:002009-06-12T01:34:25.226+01:00I believe that Jesus words are the words of God an...I believe that Jesus words are the words of God and should be acknowledged. I remember the first bible I recieved with red letters. After receiving Christ's in my life, my first goal was to get to know him by reading his word. I believe that it makes it easier to study. I think this was an awesome idea. One I have relied on since recieving him in my life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34652942074380666572008-05-19T20:03:00.000+01:002008-05-19T20:03:00.000+01:00to Peter:Yes. Gentile believers have a priviledge/...to Peter:<BR/>Yes. Gentile believers have a priviledge/allowance of a non-binding Leviticus. And if "Peter, Paul, and Mary" show up for a weekend, we can serve smoked goose breast with the waffles.<BR/><BR/>to Malcolm:<BR/>Yes, Nathaniel may have had a 'circumcision of the heart', a great spiritual metaphor from Deuteronomy. As Jesus says in John 3, teachers of the Hebrew Bible are supposed to know what a spiritual newbirth is.Randall Buthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07790556357991321207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53199377647417934942008-05-19T15:26:00.000+01:002008-05-19T15:26:00.000+01:00Peter and Randall, we all know the Scriptures are ...Peter and Randall, we all know the Scriptures are a progressive historical revelation from God. The authority and relevance of all Scripture abides continually, and contra Semler (not a mere establishment of historical continuity - although this is an important aspect of it), its profitableness is always found PROS DIDASKALIAN, PROS ELEGMON, PROS EPANORQWSIN, PROS PAIDEIAN THN EN DIKAIOSUNH. (2 Tim 3:16; Rom 15:4-6) <BR/><BR/>Randall, you know very well what differentiates "an Israelite indeed" (Jn 1:47) and a mere ethnic Jew or the circumcision of the heart and merely that of the flesh (Rom 2:29).<BR/><BR/>In fact, the whole purpose of the APOSTOLH was the further authoritative didactic unfolding as well as establishment of the faith comprised of Gentiles and Jews as one NAON/LAOS/Israel/Kingdom (cf Eph 2:20-22, 4:11-16; Tit 2:14; Col 1:13 passim).<BR/><BR/>"God is canon," not Sadduccees, Pharisees, Nicoliatians, Judaizers, Antinomians et al.<BR/><BR/>But nowadays, the objective moral structure as well as socio-Christian relational differentiations are challenged.<BR/><BR/>Consequently, such issues as homosexual lifestyles as tolerable behaviour within the Church; the ordination of woman into Church offices; the conflict between Church and state on children's rights and behaviour models, have all worked to undermine the abiding in/ex-spirated nature and consequent authority of Scripture in toto.<BR/><BR/>MalcolmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45012836335037082792008-05-19T12:26:00.000+01:002008-05-19T12:26:00.000+01:00Thanks RB,Just to be pedantic, if I said that "Lev...Thanks RB,<BR/>Just to be pedantic, if I said that "Leviticus -... it is NOT directly authoritative for the Christian"; that would not necessarily put me in conflict with "James, John, Peter, Paul and Mary" if they "thought that Leviticus remained directly authoritative for all Jews, including Messianic Jews."<BR/><BR/>And if I had said (as I almost did): "just think about Leviticus -... it is NOT directly authoritative for the GENTILE Christian", then that would be OK (on your view of things), yes?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7556914485192442742008-05-18T12:57:00.000+01:002008-05-18T12:57:00.000+01:00on red-letter Leviticus and redherrings.for Trierr...on red-letter Leviticus and redherrings.<BR/>for Trierr-<BR/>Strange quoting Gal 5.6. How does universal, unpriviledged access to God through Christ change the need for good works? It doesn't change Gal 5:3, or abrogate the words of Jesus? (remember the red herring-the Law never saved, for Paul or anyone, ever.) It sounds like one of us is promoting the false Paul alluded to in Acts 21:21 "teaching the Jews in the diaspora to abandon the Tora and to stop circumcizing their kids." One of these views probably comes under the warning of 2Pet 3.16 about mis-reading Paul. So was Peter happier with the Paul in Acts 21:24 obeying the Law because he was Jewish, or was he happier with the implied false rumor of Acts 21:21 where Jews were "free" to abrogate vayyiqra? There are alot of scriptures read thru gentile eyes (like Mark 7) that never crossed the minds of Jewish hearers as a correct reading. (Peter in Acts 10 certainly didn't understand Jesus teaching on temporary purity states to abrogate food laws. The motherchurch didn't even think that Peter's afternoon vision had anything to do with the eternal validity of word of God.) On the otherhand, since the Tora was an eternal covenant for the Jewish people, in the eyes of the Hebrew Bible the Paul of the rumor in Acts 21:21 would be a false-prophet. I'm not sure red-ink or black ink could fix that. And the more I think about it, the more likely it seems that evangelicals will take red-letter gospels to subliminally abrogate the Tora. I love the words of Yeshua in any color, and I love Tora.Randall Buthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07790556357991321207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55441504983392180042008-05-18T02:12:00.000+01:002008-05-18T02:12:00.000+01:00I doubt that Paul considered Leviticus as still au...I doubt that Paul considered Leviticus as still authoritative (in a literal sense) for the Jew since Paul himself was a Jew and he did not consider them binding on himself. We see in Galatians that he no longer considered the law as the way to relate to God (5:6).<BR/><BR/>I see nothing theologically amiss when it comes to red letters and any particular high-lighting it might give to Jesus words. In Paul's argument for the right to support in 1 Corinthians 9, he appealed to the command of the Lord as the highest authority over and above other scripture. So the sayings of Jesus that Paul was acquainted with, he gave (at times) higher authority.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>TrierrAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48698446414882988312008-05-17T23:26:00.000+01:002008-05-17T23:26:00.000+01:00Peter Head wrote: (just think about Leviticus - it...Peter Head wrote: <BR/>(just think about Leviticus - it sure is profitable for teaching etc., but it is NOT directly authoritative for the Christian)<BR/><BR/>James, John, Peter, Paul and Mary <BR/>disagreed with Peter Head. (At least the Paul in Acts 21:18-26. Though the Paul of Gal 5:3 probably thought that Timothy needed to follow Leviticus, too, after being circumcised.) They thought that Leviticus remained directly authoritative for all Jews, including Messianic Jews. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have had to even ask about what to do with the gentiles. <BR/>(And to avoid the red herring: they didn't get 'saved' by following directly authoritative scripture any more than any christian gets 'saved' by going to church, reading the scriptures, or doing all the other things directly authoritative for them. [Red-herrrings do not get special ink.])<BR/><BR/>So you or someone can respond for comment 50.Randall Buthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07790556357991321207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51441361878790072622008-05-17T17:21:00.000+01:002008-05-17T17:21:00.000+01:00Interesting discussion, to be sure."Thirdly, The u...Interesting discussion, to be sure.<BR/><BR/>"Thirdly, The use of red letters, or anything setting apart the words of Jesus from the other words of God, is an invention of man."<BR/><BR/>Some have mentioned punctuation, but what about chapter and verse designations?<BR/><BR/>We all know (a) those weren't original and (b) they can sometimes be distracting or misguided.<BR/><BR/>But, I've never heard a campaign against them.<BR/><BR/>Sure, a person who only reads the red will be lacking, but it can be a handy bit when skimming through the gospels looking for something in particular ... much as the chapter and verse markings.GUNNYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422524342398284973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43919686098470647082008-05-16T22:12:00.000+01:002008-05-16T22:12:00.000+01:00I tend to agree with Peter Head on this issue.(Nor...I tend to agree with Peter Head on this issue.<BR/><BR/>(Normally, I don't make a comment merely to agree, but I'll make an exception to hit the fifty comment goal!)Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53501844393502118552008-05-16T20:15:00.000+01:002008-05-16T20:15:00.000+01:00Peter Head wrote:"I also think some folk are a lit...Peter Head wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I also think some folk are a little confused about the implications of the inspiration of Scripture. All Scripture being inspired by God does not mean that any one bit of this inspired Scripture is just equally as important as every other bit (compare 1 Chron 1-9 with John 1-9) (and that is NOT to say that 1 Chron 1-9 is unimportant).<BR/><BR/>As a Catholic I would have to agree with the above statement.<BR/><BR/>124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament" which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance. <BR/><BR/>125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior". --- Catechism of the Catholic Church<BR/><BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm a little bemused that the existence of a Red Letter Bible could cause such a fuss. When I was a Protestant, I had one and liked using it. And the notion that there is not, and should not be a functional hierarchy among the Scriptures, doesn't reflect any reality I've ever known. <BR/><BR/>I think everyone of us would have to admit that we all value some portions of the Scriptures, more highly than others.<BR/><BR/>Pax,<BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37260973353276864762008-05-16T15:02:00.000+01:002008-05-16T15:02:00.000+01:00Towards fifty posts, I might as well confess that ...Towards fifty posts, I might as well confess that I thought D. Carson's presentation of the concept of the "Kingdom/Reign of God" a remarkable and able exposition in 500 pages or less.<BR/><BR/>And yes Peter this topic has proven to be a good salutory issue for discussion.<BR/><BR/>MalcolmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87947029136193820912008-05-16T13:32:00.000+01:002008-05-16T13:32:00.000+01:00Doesn't it seem like this all stems from certain p...Doesn't it seem like this all stems from certain people having too much time on their hands? Aren't there enough issues floating around?<BR/> I like knowing where my savior's words are, and I don't believe they are more inspired than the rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-25839299905677977092008-05-16T11:36:00.000+01:002008-05-16T11:36:00.000+01:00We can but try... only seven to goWe can but try... only seven to goAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49048571580411826412008-05-16T11:00:00.000+01:002008-05-16T11:00:00.000+01:00Can't we make this up to fifty comments? I always ...Can't we make this up to fifty comments? I always feel better when a post gets fifty comments.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53393456011365885482008-05-16T10:59:00.000+01:002008-05-16T10:59:00.000+01:00And of course Paul is not the only apostle in the ...And of course Paul is not the only apostle in the canon!Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75805471805894314332008-05-16T10:58:00.000+01:002008-05-16T10:58:00.000+01:00Matthew,I agree with your two first points. I have...Matthew,<BR/><BR/>I agree with your two first points. I have no idea about your third point. I myself have never owned or used a red letter Bible. I can see that there are potential problems. But I read somewhere that red letter Bibles make up 50% of all Bibles sold, and I know that when I meditate on the Gospels I am more drawn to what Jesus says than what says.<BR/><BR/>I see another problem in the focus on words alone and that this could unbalance the carefully balanced word and deed presentations of the evangelists. <BR/><BR/>But I am no longer willing simply to condemn or mock them as I used to do.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52653377385183017132008-05-16T10:31:00.000+01:002008-05-16T10:31:00.000+01:00Thanks Peter - I can see that you're not claiming ...Thanks Peter - I can see that you're not claiming that the words of Jesus are any more 'Scripture' than the rest of the Bible; and it's certainly true, as you've said, that not all of the Bible has equal governance over Christians' lives.<BR/><BR/>I guess I have three problems though:<BR/>1) I think that Paul's argument in 1 Cor 14 is that those who have the Spirit of Christ will hear the voice of their shepherd in Paul's writings<BR/>2) The sayings of Jesus in the Gospels are mediated through the Gospel-writers: eg. Mark says that Jesus' preaching consisted of "Repent and believe the gospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand." This is a Markan summary of Jesus' teaching, just as much as a Pauline letter is a Pauline encapsulation of "the Lord's command".<BR/>3) Will the average red-letter-Bible user really adopt your carefully nuanced understanding of the issue, or will the demarcation of Jesus' sayings imply a more significant division?<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for raising the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51312619066416598082008-05-16T10:07:00.000+01:002008-05-16T10:07:00.000+01:00It all depends on what you think the red ink is do...It all depends on what you think the red ink is doing. I don't think that differentiated authority is in view here. It is a symbolic thing - it represents in visual form that in these words the sheep hear the voice of the good shepherd in a uniquely direct manner. <BR/>I also think some folk are a little confused about the implications of the inspiration of Scripture. All Scripture being inspired by God does not mean that any one bit of this inspired Scripture is just equally as important as every other bit (compare 1 Chron 1-9 with John 1-9) (and that is NOT to say that 1 Chron 1-9 is unimportant). Nor does the inspiration of Scripture mean that every bit of Scripture is equally directly authoritative for the Christian (just think about Leviticus - it sure is profitable for teaching etc., but it is NOT directly authoritative for the Christian).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-80073631841533109092008-05-16T07:41:00.000+01:002008-05-16T07:41:00.000+01:00Thanks for this stimulating post. My own hesitatio...Thanks for this stimulating post. <BR/><BR/>My own hesitation about this is that I'm not sure Paul is really making a distinction of 'elevation' in 1 Corinthians; in fact at one point he explicitly equates his own words with the words "of the Lord": "If any think they are prophets or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. Those who ignore this will themselves be ignored." (1 Cor 14:36-38)<BR/><BR/>I can't imagine how Paul could have been any clearer that his commands deserve red-status.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48470052701051031842008-05-16T06:26:00.000+01:002008-05-16T06:26:00.000+01:00First, in response to this: "the primary reason fo...First, in response to this: "the primary reason for treating Jesus’ own words as of particular importance is because this is what Jesus himself says: hearing and doing ‘these words of mine’ are foundational to the faithful life." This begs the question as to what are Jesus' words. You are claiming that only the words in red below to Jesus. I don't think that this is the case. If Jesus is the logos, that is all of the canon. In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich mans tries to appeal to go and warn his brothers. But the response is that his brothers have everything that they need with Moses and the prophets. In Romans, Paul says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. So, if the rich man's brothers can get saved from the O.T., and you only get saved by the words of Christ, the O.T. must be the words of Christ. If any red ink is going to be used, the whole Bible should be red. <BR/><BR/>Second, red ink prompts false English bible exegesis. In Matthew 19:9, "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery," I don't think that "except for sexual immorality" are the words of Jesus, rather the words of Matthew (I hold to the betrothal clause). I think that these words being in red, has caused more advocacy for divorce in the Christian community than any other reason to advocate.Matthew Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04820156368493728495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75954622930871440282008-05-16T02:46:00.000+01:002008-05-16T02:46:00.000+01:00I did find it odd that Carson appealed to Matt 28:...I did find it odd that Carson appealed to Matt 28:18-20 in his response--without noting that it seems to work FOR his interlocutors.J. B. Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074055343675084879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83712142791728549832008-05-16T01:10:00.000+01:002008-05-16T01:10:00.000+01:00Someone alluded to one particular problem which is...Someone alluded to one particular problem which is that a lot of the gospel narrative is along the lines of "He said... then he said... then he said... and he replied...", and it can at times be hard to tell who is saying what.<BR/><BR/>NIV and other modern bibles "solve" this by replacing "he said" with "Jesus said" in hundreds of places. Another solution, which is more true to the original is to use coloured letters. And if someone wanted to have even more colours for more speakers, I would say more power to them!<BR/><BR/>And anyone who says red letters are not original, please read your bible in Greek uncials, scripta continua, with no punctuation. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89978587822529394452008-05-15T23:30:00.000+01:002008-05-15T23:30:00.000+01:00For more info on the history: http://www.esv.org/b...For more info on the history: http://www.esv.org/blog/2006/03/red.letter.originPeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-78908700554125221982008-05-15T23:27:00.000+01:002008-05-15T23:27:00.000+01:00Eric, fair point. Don Carson may have an argument ...Eric, <BR/>fair point. Don Carson may have an argument on this basis against the particular proposals of Campolo, I don't know; but I don't see it as an argument against the principle of the red letter Bible. And of course, there are good and important ways (as well as bad and important ways) of having a canon within the canon (cf. Gal 6.16).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com