Why are there so few Catholic "red-letter" Bibles?

[VociMike]

I think that they lead, even if unconsciously, to a false notion that there are two levels of scripture, with some words being “more important” than others.

 

[mdstanzel]

universalis.com

liturgyhours.org/

I think you guys answered the question about why not red letter for Jesus words. Talking about the Liturgy of the Hours is not off topic if you are Catholic. However, many Catholics are unfamiliar with the Liturgy of the Hours. It would be a wonderful idea to read up on it just to understand what it is first. It is the prayer of the Church. What I’ve read thus far appears correct about red letters being ignored.

We seem to forget the purpose of scripture. The scripture compiles the Liturgies in the Church, the sacraments. We are liturgical in every way. Placing confusion in the red letter of Christ seems okay if you think like a non-Catholic. But that is a solo scriptura mindset and thus not Catholic/early Church. It seems logical to see it this way. But I personally have no problem with red letter text as long as I’m aware that it is Christ’s words in red. But if the text is inspired, then the entire text is inspired. Therefore, placing more emphasis on “Christ’s words” may take away from the Holy Spirit or the Father even. So why would you do that? That’s like saying Christ is more important than the Spirit or the father…

Catholics believe that the scriptures were written for the Liturgy. I even get irritated over BCV (Book Chapter Verse for those without the Christian non-Catholic or Orthodox background). That is relatively new and anti-Catholic love to beat Catholics over the head with it. What’s worse is that cradle Catholic are so impressed that they think they have to learn to do the same thing. Why? To beat you brothers and sisters over the head with. Yes, you should learn for your own defense. But many Catholics if they pay attention at Mass during the Liturgy of the word will learn the scriptures better than a non-Catholic Christian. Learn the words and what they mean, don’t depend on your own interpretation. That’s why there are over 30,000 denominations in the world today.

Try to do a joint bible reading with the Catachism. Sorry about the tangent, but as a returning Catholic that went down that road for 17 years I feel obligated to educate what I’ve learned and learn what I don’t know as I go.

Pax tecum

 

[lak611]

I highlighted a red-letter bible (hmm doesn’t sound quite right) once - it was impossible to read - even for my young eyes the red on yellow hurt.

might be why I can’t see now…

The same thing happened to me.

Anyway - the Office is a set of books also called Christian Prayer or Shorter Christian Prayer in the one book format. It’s a series of prayers to be said 3-8 times throughout the day - every religious (or nearly so) says them. They are based off the psalms and I think originally started by saying all the psalms at specific times throughout the week.

I know what Liturgy of the Hours is. I am just looking for a book and do not know which one to purchase.

 

[lak611]

universalis.com

liturgyhours.org/

I think you guys answered the question about why not red letter for Jesus words. Talking about the Liturgy of the Hours is not off topic if you are Catholic. However, many Catholics are unfamiliar with the Liturgy of the Hours. It would be a wonderful idea to read up on it just to understand what it is first. It is the prayer of the Church. What I’ve read thus far appears correct about red letters being ignored.

I know what Liturgy of the Hours is. I’m looking for a book that has the readings and do not know which one to get. What do you recommend?

 

[mdstanzel]

I know what Liturgy of the Hours is. I’m looking for a book that has the readings and do not know which one to get. What do you recommend?

I have to put a disclaimer up front on this response. For some reason I’m a bit confused as to what you are asking. But I will give it a shot. :twocents:

The following EWTN webpage explains the hisory in brief and give what you probably need to read first about what is what:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/breviary.htm


Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/11219a.htm
Haven’t looked at this yet:
catholicliturgy.com/

There are daily Mass Readings and the daily Office of Readings (Divine Office for Priest and religious). The latter are located in the 4 volume set of the Liturgy of the Hours and a brief version in the 1 volume Christian Prayer. There is even daily Psalm readings. Now if you want to do the readings but are limited in time get hold of the Magnificat which has fewer Psalms to read everyday and includes a meditation and the Mass readings. My wife loves it. I liked it when I tried it. But I try to be read the Liturgy of the hours Office, Morning, Evening and Night prayers. If time permits I try to do the Daytime prayers. This is what I did in my Catholic seminary days.

But if you mean the Office of Readings (aka Divine Office or Office)then the choice is a 4 volume set with the Divine Office/Readings) are what you need. The readings are the same throughout the Church. But if you google it you’ll find a lot of info on it. But I’d try to stick to sites like usccb.org/ the 2 privous sites are very good too. But the unofficial universalis follows the breviary (another common name used for the Liturgy of the Houss). But the translation is different because of copyright stuff. I discover Universalis at the Dallas Diocese website. The site is great for learning of if you don’t have the $35 per vinyl bound book. The leather bound set is a bit more expensive. I’m looking for the Latin version of the Office sinces I’m trying to get my Latin up and working .

If you mean the Mass Readings, then I used to use the St. Joseph’s Edition Missal. Try the following link to see what I’m talking about catholicshopper.com/products/missals.html

Or you can go to the the USCCB website for daily readings. We’ve made it our home page and follow the EWTN morning Mass since we can’t make it most weekdays.

Contact you local Catholic book store. But I like to push support for Catholic Answers or EWTN or even your local Catholic Radio as a way to help support them financially.

I probably missed the boat here and I’m sorry but your question is vague too me. Bop me on the head if I missed it.

 

[John_Hiner]

When I referred to “red lettering” I meant “rubrics.” This is the customary word, based on the Latin word “rubra” meaning red. The Catholic Encyclopedia article is more interesting than one might expect: Rubrics.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[mdstanzel]

Oh and the breviary has the red lettering that you read silently as instructional only. It is not to be read out loud. And yes, the red lettering is the rubrics. That’s what I read too.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

I know what Liturgy of the Hours is. I’m looking for a book that has the readings and do not know which one to get. What do you recommend?

Since it was getting a bit off topic, I started another thread for your question here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=156689

 

[mdstanzel]

Now, back on topic. I’m looking for a Bible with the Catechism references. The perfect book would be a bible with the catechism and the brievery in one with “words of Christ” in red . That way I don’t have to look like a goofball carrying mine around.

Back to red letter editions. I heard from Dr. Scott Hahn that about 99.9% (I interpret this as emphasis on most) of theologians agree that Jesus actually made these statements in Aramaic, not Greek (and if you’re really dense, King James English). One perfect example is Mathew 16 dealing with Peter, the rock. BTW, I found a refutation of the Catholic rendering of this. But it’s logic - as intelligent as it sounded - was missing leading. And I will not give a link to it so that my links aren’t responsible for dense Catholics walking away like I did many moons ago.

Moral of the story Don’t isolate the scriptures. Even the scriptures tell you that. My best protestant bibles do not have red letter either.

 

[John_Hiner]

Now, back on topic. I’m looking for a Bible with the Catechism references. The perfect book would be a bible with the catechism and the brievery in one with “words of Christ” in red . That way I don’t have to look like a goofball carrying mine around.

Back to red letter editions. I heard from Dr. Scott Hahn that about 99.9% (I interpret this as emphasis on most) of theologians agree that Jesus actually made these statements in Aramaic, not Greek (and if you’re really dense, King James English). One perfect example is Mathew 16 dealing with Peter, the rock. BTW, I found a refutation of the Catholic rendering of this. But it’s logic - as intelligent as it sounded - was missing leading. And I will not give a link to it so that my links aren’t responsible for dense Catholics walking away like I did many moons ago.

Moral of the story Don’t isolate the scriptures. Even the scriptures tell you that. My best protestant bibles do not have red letter either.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear mdstanzel:

I would not be too definite on the Aramaic versus Greek argument. It is true that Jesus sometimes spoke in Aramaic, as certain transliterations in the Greek texts indicate. However, there were a large number of Greek speaking Jews in the world in the first century, perhaps numerically more than those who spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic. These Jews from Egypt and elsewhere traveled to Jerusalem, and were, in my mind, likely to have been addressed by Jesus in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Eastern Empire.

Further, there is a reason that the Spirit arranged for Greek and Latin to be available and in their then current forms as the Gospel was being initially promulgated. As Cardinal Ratzinger has suggested in his writings, the Greeks and Romans, as well as Israel, were groomed and intentionally prepared to be of service to the Word in the “fullness of time.”

When considering these matters, I find it interesting to consider that the Spirit was at work in the currency of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin during Jesus’ lifetime in Palestine. The Spirit can also be seen in the dialectic among Greek, Latin, and one’s native language in the present day. By conveying the Gospel in both of these “dead” languages, as well as in translation into our native tongues, the messages of the Scriptures are kept fresh and challenging. One is kept from being fooled into a complacent or anachronistic reading, because the tension and consonance among the various languages keep one from compromising or settling on a mistaken or lifeless reading.

These considerations bring to mind the Scriptures which say: “

they shall speak with new tongues. Mark 16:17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. Acts 2:4 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

On your other point, there is an index in the back of the printed Catechism of the Catholic Church listing the Scriptures and other writings to which the footnotes of the Catechism refer. By using this table, one can read each section of the Catechism that refers to a given passage in Scripture. I find these stimulating and often surprising, because of the different contexts in which the same passage is cited.

I have never yet found an online copy of this reference table. If anyone knows of an online copy, I would appreciate the link. It is a handy resource, if one has the physical book to hand.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[mdstanzel]

I’m flattered that you thought I was making any point at all after placing emoticons trying to show humerous tones in my thoughts. I litterally carry my prayer book, bible and sometimes the catechism with me to church and to work. It’s awkward. I would like to have them available at any given time without depending on online sources. I’ve been looking at getting a digital version of all three so that I can tote them in a mini cell & personal computer device. There’s a bunch of stuff to choose from, but I’m not familiar enough yet to make a decision.

And BTW, after experiencing the typical lame cafateria Catholic thing 18 years ago, I’m would never place my trust in anyones unofficially accapted theology and conjecture. I place all of my trust in is God. And the Magesterium, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are enough for my faith. I also understand that none of us are in a position to officially interpret any of the above outside of the official teaching authority in the vatican’s court (for lack of better way of putting it). I am very careful to what I take serious from any lay person, religious or even priest after what I’ve experience before, during and after my Catholic seminary days. There are a lot of people that are either or on the verge of being heretical. You may have a sound academic background in this area, but I don’t coward down to that either. I’ve seen to many other sides of the fences on many issues that sound like they make sense. As much as I love Pope Benedict XVI, I believe in the same thing that he buys into if that is what you said. The timing of Christ’s life, death and resurection seems likely to have been timed perfect by God. I merely quoted as best I could Dr. Scott Hahn. I like Scott, but do not place my life in his hands. However, he seems to make things sounds simple and clear, whethe in fact they realy are or not. Noting wrong with liking what he says. He’s not speaking from the Holy See infallibly. I know my way around scripture pretty good for a lay person without a formal degree in biblical studies. But I’m sure I could get into trouble really fast without the Church as I did years ago when no on (particularly lame priest) came to my aid 18 years ago over several years of struggling with apologetics in my family and future/present family of preachers. But I in comparison to the typical Catholic, well it’s embarrassing to say that I know more than I should compared to them. It’s shameful to not not know or try to know your own faith.

I like Scott Hahn and like him more than the average person that conjecture about who did what and why without have a “teaching” passed down officially. So thank you for your advice about whether or not Jesus spoke originally in Greek, Aramaic, English, French, Spanish, Swahely or what ever. . I have no problem with whatever you believe or conjecture. But as far as being careful, I’m not sure if someone’s life is on the line for whether or not Jesus spoke Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. That may have just been your method of introducing your 2 cents or tid bit of info. I’ve heard the same conjecture too, from the protestant side as well. So no big secret to me. But thanks anyway.

Now if you know something that I can research on my own, then back up your claims with evidence please so that I can read it too. I love to learn. As far as having a catachism reading mixed with daily scripture reading, I downloaded one from online and printed it out. But my bible is in my car. When my sweet wife gets back from buying red attire for tomorrow in celbration of the Churches birthday I’ll post it. Never mind I remember where I downloaded it from. It’s from the Journey Home forum: chnetwork.org/journals/readguide04.pdf.

Hope I don’t sound rude - watching my kids.

 

[Steve_M]

I have noticed that many Protestant Bibles are “red-letter” versions, with the words of Christ printed with red ink. I have only seen a few Catholic Bibles that are printed in this manner. Does anybody know the reason for this?

It’s funny you started this thread. This morning I was looking for a Revised Standard Version and noticed that there were no red letter editions in the Catholic book store I was at. The same question came to mind as to why there weren’t any. I guess now I know.

 

[lak611]

It’s funny you started this thread. This morning I was looking for a Revised Standard Version and noticed that there were no red letter editions in the Catholic book store I was at. The same question came to mind as to why there weren’t any. I guess now I know.

BTW, I also have the ecumenical RSV (New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha), which does not have “red letters” either.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear mdstanzel:

I agree that intellectual rigor is needed, and that one should not jump to conclusions, unless there is a pressing need to decide the issue. Aristotle is credited with saying, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I do not ask any deference to my arguments, other than conversational courtesy, and a good faith effort to reach mutual understanding of the truth.

I also agree with your general assessment of Dr. Scott Hahn; he is a good writer and speaker. His comments are worth considering, but not so conclusive as to demand acceptance in all particulars. I also have some concern that he was raised outside of the Church, and that this may still affect his fundamental perceptions. Of course, there are both advantages and disadvantages to this. On the one hand, a convert from a different background can bring a fresh perspective and so cast into relief things that have become common place or un-noticed; on the other hand, there are certain deep orientations which the Church can impart to her children which give a certain kinship with Christ which is lessened or lacking in circumstances outside the Catholic Church.

As to whether anyone’s “life is on the line for whether or not Jesus spoke Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic,” I think the issue is more related to the basis of the Faith. The theories that suggest Jesus’ words are not reliably reflected in the Scriptures are part of an trend stretching back to the 1500s, which gained strength in the 1800s and since. This was part of a concerted effort to weaken the Church’s claims to divine authority. In broad outline, the argument runs something like this: even if Jesus was God, we do not know what He actually said, because none of His words are even purported to have been recorded verbatim; so any claims of ‘grants of authority’ or ‘guarantees of reliability’ are doubtful, or even meaningless, since we cannot know that they are what He actually said or intended. (This is a secular extension of the Protestant theories of ‘freedom of interpretation,’ or perhaps more to the point ‘freedom (from the Church) through interpretation.’)

To the extent that one becomes convinced of the proposition, “Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Scriptures are written in Greek, so we do not have any direct quotation of Jesus’ words,” one is at least at risk of falling under the sway of this challenge to the basis of the Faith. This is why I offered a note of caution.

If you would like an overview of the history and political motivations of this academic trend, there are several interesting papers available on Mr. Dennis Barton’s website, ChurchInHistory.com. The paper, “Bismark and the Four Gospels 1870-1914,” by William R. Farmer, is directly concerned with this topic.

As for the citation behind my reference to Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings in my previous post, I was thinking of a passage in his book, “Truth and Tolerance,” (2004) specifically the subchapter called, “Hellenization?” in the chapter called, “Variations on the Theme of Faith, Religion, and Culture, at page 90, but all of the material surrounding that discussion as well. In that chapter, the Cardinal traces the trend undermining the authority of the Scripture back as far as the 1500s and the start of the “Reformation.” As to the coordination of the Greek , Roman, and Jewish cultures, he writes, among other things, “So perhaps at this point we may be able to recognize the hand of providence – why the encounter between the faith of the Bible and Greek philosophy was truly ‘providential.’”

As for a charming attempt to convey the complexity of language and culture in Palestine during the first century, “Mary and Joseph: Their Lives and Times,” by Denis O’Shea (1949) may give a refreshing perspective, different from the current more “scholarly” works. This book has the advantage of a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, though its scholarship is certainly out of fashion, and perhaps even a little out of date.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[mdstanzel]

John Hiner

Thank you John for elaborating on what you meant. I certainly agree with your elaborated version. In a feeble defense of Dr. Hahn, earlier in this thread I brought up “petros” versus “petra” as an example of one argument. But the primacy of Peter does not rely on this argument. However, without further research I have no way of confirming Scott Hahn’s elaborations here.

Further in defense of Dr. Hahn’s statements, he says there is an attempt by some “well known”(?names) Protestant scholars claiming that Christ couldn’t have said what is written in Matthew 16: 16-19 because Jesus would never have said that. Scott Hahn gives names of some “scholars” that say the Catholic Church added texts like Matthew 16: 16-19 and John 20:21–23 to trick us into believe Catholic teachings.

Some of the Protestant scholars confirm that this is in fact a claim to the primacy of Peter. But at the same time they claim that Jesus would never have said this because he wouldn’t want or do that (my words). I am amazed at the ridiculousness of their arguments because that would mean we can change anything we feel like by claiming someone added or took away text. My simple argument would be that if the Catholic Church really wanted to do that they would have done a much better job than what exists.

You seem to be very knowledgeable in your understanding of scripture and apologetics. Thank you for following up with your support info. I noticed that you participate on other forums. Since I’m a returning Catholic, I’m brushing up on my Latin and needed to look up some of your greetings and closing. I remember many things but not everything. That’s why I’m in the market for a Latin Breviary.

Ah ha. Found you. Thanks again. I’ll be looking for your columns.

PAX tecum.

 

[mdstanzel]

mlive.com/columns/bctimes/john_hiner/

Instead of assuming, I should have asked if this is you?

 

[John_Hiner]

mlive.com/columns/bctimes/john_hiner/

Instead of assuming, I should have asked if this is you?

I am not that John Hiner.

Thanks for bringing him to my attention though. I did not realize I had a namesake in Michigan.

Pax.

John Hiner

 

[Zooey]

I’ve noticed it, but it has never mattered to me, mainly because I find it very distracting.

I wouldn’t mind this, if only the red weren’t always so light & bright! The only red letter Bible that I have ever found to be comfortable to read, is an inexpensive giant print KJV that I picked up for my mother to use when her eyes began to fail with age; quite sensibly, the “red” letters are actually more like this: red letters. Dark enough to not jump off the page, yet recognizable. I have yet to understnad why this is not the standard for red letter Bibles.

I think that they lead, even if unconsciously, to a false notion that there are two levels of scripture, with some words being “more important” than others.

Leading me to my original thought: In a very real sense, all of the words of the Bible are His words…As has been pointed out (by a wise child), the rest of the words of the Bible are as much God’s words as those in red ink…

 

[lak611]

I wouldn’t mind this, if only the red weren’t always so light & bright! The only red letter Bible that I have ever found to be comfortable to read, is an inexpensive giant print KJV that I picked up for my mother to use when her eyes began to fail with age; quite sensibly, the “red” letters are actually more like this: red letters. Dark enough to not jump off the page, yet recognizable. I have yet to understnad why this is not the standard for red letter Bibles.

I have noticed that too. Many of the red letters actually shine with almost a pink like that when I have my lamp on, so it causes eyestrain to read them.

Leading me to my original thought: In a very real sense, all of the words of the Bible are His words…As has been pointed out (by a wise child), the rest of the words of the Bible are as much God’s words as those in red ink…

Yes, this is true!

 

[Dr_M]

Catholics are taught mostly by context of the Scriptures, and Protestants usually know the individual Scriptures.

Red letters are used for the intstructions. For example it might say “take this all of you and eat it, this is my body which will be given up for you” then in red it’d say priest genuflect.