The red letter edition of the New Testament was first published in 1899. Since then the practice of printing the words of Jesus in red has become a staple among American Protestant Christians. The idea first came to Louis Klopsch, as Crossway Publishers explains:
“Klopsch conceived the idea of printing some of the biblical text with red ink. When reading Jesus’ words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20), he thought of printing all of Jesus’ words in red, the color of his blood.” (source)
While these Bibles have been enormously popular among the laity, they have been less so with academic theologians and Bible scholars. The reason commonly given (at least the one I’ve heard) is that the practice threatens to create a Bible within a Bible, a practice which undermines the plenary inspiration of scripture.
However, there is another reason to object. If you’re going to render the words of one character in an alternate color because that character happens to be divine, you should consistently do so for all divine characters. That includes God the Father (Matthew 3:17) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2). Thus the Father and Spirit should each get their own colors (gold and silver, perhaps?).
And don’t forget those ambiguous examples where it is not clear which divine speaker has entered the narrative (e.g. Genesis 1:3, 26; Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4). Perhaps those could be rendered in a multi-colored font?
Of course, you might well ask: why limit coloring to divine words? Perhaps you could render angelic words in green and demonic words in charcoal grey.
Don’t forget the animals, of course. I suggest Balaam’s donkey be brown.
To be honest, I’m not sure about the theological value of my multi-colored font Bible proposal. But regardless, my bet is that if you print it, they will buy (with apologies to “Field of Dreams”).
Just remember, you heard it here first.
