On the issue of “how likely is it that the composers of the credo knew about it [an empty tomb] and just didn’t think it was important enough to mention”…
Probably worth mentioning that the credo also doesn’t mention that Jesus was crucified — which, I’d argue, is a pretty important thing.
Blackwell said
Stephen said
Paul was a diaspora Jew whose first language was probably Greek. Acts is historically suspect because when we can compare its accounts with Paul’s authentic letters there are wide discrepancies. Paul gives no indications in his authentic letters of any career in Jerusalem. His reference to a burial is part of a credo which he is repeating. We have no idea what the composers of the credo meant by it nor how Paul interpreted it.
Paul says that he savagely persecuted the church of God when he was still a practicing Jew, which was in Jerusalem before he left for Damascus, so he was living there soon after the crucifixion. Of course, we do not know for sure how long he had been living there but he gives no indication that he had recently arrived. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that he had been there for several years, and the reference in Acts to him being a pupil is consistent with this. Where else could he have been living? It is then probable that Paul was living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion, but not involved in the matter in any way.
I think we can be agnostic on Paul’s pre-conversion experiences in Jerusalem as depicted in Acts, and still believe what he says about returning from Arabia to meet with Cephus and James in Jerusalem in what was probably before the Year 40.
JAS said
Whether or not a tomb was empty would have been a mere detail of no particular interest . . . if you already accept Jesus as resurrected. (It does make for a dramatic moment if you are detailing the crucifixion.) And Paul claimed to have had his own resurrection vision. What we might think important need not be what Paul thought was important. I think some are putting a lot of emphasis on an “aha” that isn’t the “aha” they think it is.
Well the later church seems to have considered the Empty Tomb of considerable interest. Since Paul spends a good chunk of his 1st letter to the Corinthians discussing the nature of resurrection body it seems natural to wonder why he wouldn’t have considered it important if he knew about it. The composers of the credo considered Jesus’ burial important enough to include it. I have no idea the point you’re trying to make in your last sentence.
I don’t understand this generalized appeal to ignorance…
Vergari, timing is everything. Read my previous response to JAS timestamped at 3:21 for my actual point of view.
What about the significance of Paul’s interpretation of the credo? Unless Paul is modifying or interpolating the credo, then his interpretations simply aren’t relevant as to what the credo itself actually said.
All I can tell you is to read the letter.
The point about the credo is that we have very good reason to think that it depicts some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians.
Beliefs which apparently did not include the story of the Empty Tomb. You can’t have it both ways. If the credo represents “some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians” you can’t get discombobulated when someone merely points out the discrepancies between the credo and later developments in the tradition.
This is an argument from silence on steroids. Your argument is basically that the writers of the credo and Paul somehow mentioned everything they believed to be important and in documents that survived!
No I’m merely pointing out that neither the credo nor Paul mention the Empty Tomb and drawing a possible conclusion from that. You’re the one claiming that the credo represents “some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians”. They considered the burial itself important enough to include. But not the Empty Tomb.
An Argument from Silence, like an Argument from Authority, has both a fallacious and a non-fallacious aspect. It is not fallacious to suggest that Paul did not mention the Empty Tomb because he didn’t know about it. However insisting that Paul must have known the Empty Tomb even though he didn’t mention it comes pretty close.
Paul says that he savagely persecuted the church of God when he was still a practicing Jew, which was in Jerusalem before he left for Damascus, so he was living there soon after the crucifixion. Of course, we do not know for sure how long he had been living there but he gives no indication that he had recently arrived. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that he had been there for several years, and the reference in Acts to him being a pupil is consistent with this. Where else could he have been living? It is then probable that Paul was living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion, but not involved in the matter in any way.
Blackwell I don’t know what else to tell you other than when we can check Acts historically it reveals itself to be unreliable. Acts contains stories about Paul from an author who seems not to know Paul’s actual writings. (And if you accept the conclusions of the folks who see an influence from Josephus a book that was written as late as the first decades of the Second Century.)
Stephen said
Well the later church seems to have considered the Empty Tomb of considerable interest. Since Paul spends a good chunk of his 1st letter to the Corinthians discussing the nature of resurrection body it seems natural to wonder why he wouldn’t have considered it important if he knew about it.
You can wonder . . . you just cannot jump to a conclusion.
Stephen said
I have no idea the point you’re trying to make in your last sentence.
The topic of this thread. The notion that the presumed standard Roman practice precludes the idea that Jesus might have been buried in a tomb. It is all just a claim to “disprove” a dramatic episode in the NT, and cast Christianity into the scrap heap. But it is not what it seems.
Blackwell I don’t know what else to tell you other than when we can check Acts historically it reveals itself to be unreliable. Acts contains stories about Paul from an author who seems not to know Paul’s actual writings. (And if you accept the conclusions of the folks who see an influence from Josephus a book that was written as late as the first decades of the Second Century).
Regardless of Acts, Jerusalem is the most probable place where Paul was living when Jesus was crucified, because that is where he was soon after.
If the three bodies had been left on their crosses to rot, then Paul knew it from his own experience or by being informed by associates who were there at the time. How could he have been unaware of such an important argument to use in his persecution of those claiming resurrection? In this case, he should never have said that Jesus was buried.
Stephen said
The point about the credo is that we have very good reason to think that it depicts some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians.
Beliefs which apparently did not include the story of the Empty Tomb. You can’t have it both ways. If the credo represents “some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians” you can’t get discombobulated when someone merely points out the discrepancies between the credo and later developments in the tradition.
This is an argument from silence on steroids. Your argument is basically that the writers of the credo and Paul somehow mentioned everything they believed to be important and in documents that survived!
No I’m merely pointing out that neither the credo nor Paul mention the Empty Tomb and drawing a possible conclusion from that. You’re the one claiming that the credo represents “some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians”. They considered the burial itself important enough to include. But not the Empty Tomb.
This is such a fallacious line of argument, it’s almost impossible to believe you continue to make it. There’s absolutely nothing remarkable about the credo representing some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians and at the same time not being anything close to comprehensive.
You have to take the credo for what’s in it, not for what’s not. For godsakes, the credo doesn’t even mention crucifixion.
Is the credo a good source for the comprehensive views of early Christians? Of course not. But it is a window into a piece of what they believed.
Early Christians, as best as we can tell, believed Jesus was crucified on one day, he died and was buried on that day, and he rose on the third day, which was apparently a Sunday. That tradition is about as old as we can reasonably get for a Christianity.
We also have no hint of any competing tradition, save for perhaps John’s understanding of what day Jesus was crucified on. But we have no tradition of Jesus remaining on the cross, or disappearing from the cross. The unbroken tradition dating back apparently in to the 30s was that Jesus was buried on the day of his death by crucifixion, and no one seems to say otherwise.
Regardless of Acts…
Blackwell, in his letter to the Galatians Paul indicates he only went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James three years after his conversion. No hint of a prior career in Jerusalem. Paul then says that he was unknown by sight to the believers in Judea which would be odd if he had a previous career living and persecuting Christians in Jerusalem.
There were diaspora Jewish communities all over the ancient world. Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized and many of these folks would have grown up speaking Greek and having a tenuous connection with Palestine. Prof Ehrman even doubts Paul knew Aramaic.
If Paul had intimate first hand knowledge of the events surrounding Jesus’ death why did he rely on a credo composed by others in 1 Cor?
This is such a fallacious line of argument, it’s almost impossible to believe you continue to make it. There’s absolutely nothing remarkable about the credo representing some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians and at the same time not being anything close to comprehensive.
Vergari, I’m not exactly sure what line of argument you think I’m attempting to make here. You seem to agree that the credo mentions the burial of Jesus, but not the Empty Tomb. You insist that the credo is early and contains “some” of the oldest surviving Christian beliefs but is not comprehensive. But how do you know the credo is not comprehensive? Are you simply going to assume they knew stuff they left out? Why would you do that?
For godsakes, the credo doesn’t even mention crucifixion.
True but it does mention Jesus’ death. Paul spends a great deal of space in his letters discussing his views of the significance of the crucifixion. You might say it’s one of his main themes. In Cor 1 Paul uses this credo as a springboard to discuss the nature of the resurrection and the resurrection body. But at no point does he use this discussion to refer to the story of the Empty Tomb. I find that odd if he knew about it. You don’t find that at all odd?
You obviously have ideological commitments I certainly lack. For me these are historical questions. I’m perfectly comfortable with blank spaces on the map. I am perfectly aware however that many people find the se blank spaces intolerable.
Stephen said
This is such a fallacious line of argument, it’s almost impossible to believe you continue to make it. There’s absolutely nothing remarkable about the credo representing some of the oldest surviving beliefs of early Christians and at the same time not being anything close to comprehensive.
Vergari, I’m not exactly sure what line of argument you think I’m attempting to make here. You seem to agree that the credo mentions the burial of Jesus, but not the Empty Tomb. You insist that the credo is early and contains “some” of the oldest surviving Christian beliefs but is not comprehensive. But how do you know the credo is not comprehensive? Are you simply going to assume they knew stuff they left out? Why would you do that?
But how do you know the credo is not comprehensive? Are you simply going to assume they knew stuff they left out? Why would you do that?
Uh, because it doesn’t include the crucifixion. That’s a small clue.
I mean this doesn’t exactly take Sherlock Holmes … simple and very basically rules of deductive reasoning will suffice. For example:
- The credo refers to Jesus as Χριστὸς (Christos/Christ), a word simply meaning “anointed one.” On its own, this meaning of Χριστὸς might be uncertain, but given our access to the Septuagint, we know that Χριστὸς was a Greek translation for the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ/messiah). So, using basic deductive reasoning, we can reasonably infer that the authors of the credo believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah in some form. Of course, the credo doesn’t actually say this — so that deduction is beyond our ability to know for a fact that “stuff was left out.”
- The credo mentions Κηφᾷ (Kēpha/Cephas) and δώδεκα (dōdeka/[the] Twelve), but tells us nothing else about them. Now let’s use simple deductive reasoning: Would the authors of a credo make reference to a specific person and some type of designated group of people if the followers of the credo had no idea who these people were or why they were relevant? My guess is that Arthur Conan Doyle falls on the side that the followers of the credo had some more basic information on “Cephas” and “the Twelve,” though we can’t know that for certain, and, using the principle that anything is possible, it’s technically possible that they knew nothing else and no “stuff was left out.”
Is there an argument to be made that the credo was comprehensive and the authors and followers of the credo knew nothing beyond what they put into that credo? Well, anything is possible (especially when talking about the past). It’s possible that Augustus Caesar was an alien from Alpha Centauri; I mean, I definitely can’t prove for a fact he wasn’t. We don’t have his DNA, and, even if we did have DNA, we could never be sure it was his. Plus, who’s to say what the DNA from a creature from Alpha Centauri would look like?
But… on the other hand…
If biblical scholarship is now at the point that we can’t appeal to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic to the extent we must simply throw up our hands and say “we just can’t know,” then the discipline is dead and not worth pursuing — an utterly futile waste of time.
Stephen said
For godsakes, the credo doesn’t even mention crucifixion.True but it does mention Jesus’ death. Paul spends a great deal of space in his letters discussing his views of the significance of the crucifixion. You might say it’s one of his main themes. In Cor 1 Paul uses this credo as a springboard to discuss the nature of the resurrection and the resurrection body. But at no point does he use this discussion to refer to the story of the Empty Tomb. I find that odd if he knew about it. You don’t find that at all odd?
You obviously have ideological commitments I certainly lack. For me these are historical questions. I’m perfectly comfortable with blank spaces on the map. I am perfectly aware however that many people find the se blank spaces intolerable.
I have an ideological commitment to good scholarship and the rules of logic. Beyond that, I take your statement as purely ad hominem and nothing more than a reflection that you’re lacking in quality substantive arguments. You have mistaken me for a devoted Christian — something on which you should reflect. Though I can’t know it for certain, my guess is that your theological commitments are far stronger than mine.
As for Paul’s discussion of the crucifixion and resurrection in 1 Corinthians, without a discussion of the Empty Tomb…
1 Corinthians also never mentions:
- Pontius Pilate
- Romans or Rome
- the Sanhedrin or Jewish authorities or priests
- preparation day or the sabbath
- that Jesus was mocked as “king of the Jews”
- any details of the crucifixion
- any further detail on the appearances to Cephas, or to the Twelve, or to 500, or any other appearance
Indeed, beyond a single passing reference to Passover, without a clear nexus to crucifixion, 1 Corinthians gives almost nothing of the tradition of the crucifixion and resurrection.
That said, I would challenge you to tell me where in the 1 Corinthians letter a reference to the Empty Tomb should go? and why a reference to the Empty Tomb, but not Pilate or Rome or Jewish authorities or the sabbath or “king of the Jews,” etc., etc., etc.?
First of all Vergari, I’m sorry if I misjudged you. It’s just that I’ve never heard your line of reasoning except from Christian apologists. Apologies.
If biblical scholarship is now at the point that we can’t appeal to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic…
So are you saying you can derive the Empty Tomb stories from the credo by appealing to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic?
I would challenge you to tell me where in the 1 Corinthians letter a reference to the Empty Tomb should go?
An excellent question. Let’s look at 1 Cor 15 shall we? Paul is using the credo as a springboard to discuss first, his own status among the apostles, and then to discuss the nature of the resurrection and the resurrection body.
Paul has two problems. First, he must internalize in his gentile audience the concept of a resurrection. We moderns are so used to the association between our religious hopes and our expectation of an afterlife we don’t realize that among the pagans many if not most had no such expectation. Some of the Corinthians had come to believe in what scholars call a “realized eschatology”, the idea that believers already participated in some way in the resurrection before actual physical death. (Not to sink into pedantry but this is one reason why scholars think Ephesians is a forgery, because it advocates just this view which Paul rejects in 1 Cor.) For Paul the eschaton was an actual future event which had begun with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Not only did he have to convince the Corinthians of the reality of the resurrection, Paul also had to convince them of the nature of the bodily resurrection, the expectation of Jewish apocalypticism. Gentiles would have found this a completely counterintuitive even weird idea. Their cultural expectation was that any kind of afterlife at all would be a disembodied ghostly existence. The fleshly body was considered corrupt and inferior. Paul has to convince his audience that while the resurrection was bodily, it was not simply a resuscitation of the physical corpus.
So in either instance it’s mighty hard to see how a recounting of the Empty Tomb stories, if he knew of them, could fail to help him make his case. Jesus really died. He was buried in a tomb. There were witnesses who saw him buried and witnesses who found the tomb empty, some of whom saw him alive later. The resurrection was real and it was bodily. Finally I note that in a fine rhetorical flourish Paul mentions the grave, but not the Empty Tomb.
I think one common problem is that people are often too quick to accept “shocking” challenges to widely conventional positions, at least if that position is not one held dear to them. It is one reason that conspiracy theories and malicious rumors are so easily spread. It is not only interesting in its own right but also tends to make people feel special for the impression that they are one of the few to possess unusual insight and thus being smarter or better informed than “most people.”
Stephen said
Regardless of Acts…Blackwell, in his letter to the Galatians Paul indicates he only went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James three years after his conversion. No hint of a prior career in Jerusalem. Paul then says that he was unknown by sight to the believers in Judea which would be odd if he had a previous career living and persecuting Christians in Jerusalem.
Paul says he was persecuting the church of God before his conversion. These people were in Jerusalem. Paul then left Jerusalem to go to Damascus and had his conversion experience on that journey. He then spent three years in Damascus before returning to Jerusalem where he met Peter and James. He was unknown by sight to believers in Judea who did not live in Jerusalem (and probably were not yet believers when he left for Damascus). This is all consistent with the conclusion that Paul was living in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion.
Stephen said
First of all Vergari, I’m sorry if I misjudged you. It’s just that I’ve never heard your line of reasoning except from Christian apologists. Apologies.
Apology absolutely accepted. I’ve always enjoyed this forum and want to post with strong, but civil arguments. I have always found your posts interesting, even when we don’t see eye to eye. I am a little surprised that you have only heard arguments that Jesus was taken down from the cross on the day of his crucifixion from Christian apologists (because the Crossan counter-narrative on the cross is relatively new), but I accept what you’re saying.
Stephen said
If biblical scholarship is now at the point that we can’t appeal to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic…So are you saying you can derive the Empty Tomb stories from the credo by appealing to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic?
This entire thread is about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth being taken down from the cross and buried on the day of his crucifixion; this is not a thread about the historicity of Empty Tomb stories. An evaluation of the historicity of Markan Empty Tomb stories can employ deductive reasoning and basic rules of logic, but I’m not making arguments about that in this thread. I do not find the case for the historicity of Markan Empty Tomb stories to be as strong as the historicity of Jesus’s burial on the day of his crucifixion.
Stephen said
I would challenge you to tell me where in the 1 Corinthians letter a reference to the Empty Tomb should go?An excellent question. Let’s look at 1 Cor 15 shall we? Paul is using the credo as a springboard to discuss first, his own status among the apostles, and then to discuss the nature of the resurrection and the resurrection body.
Paul has two problems. First, he must internalize in his gentile audience the concept of a resurrection. We moderns are so used to the association between our religious hopes and our expectation of an afterlife we don’t realize that among the pagans many if not most had no such expectation. Some of the Corinthians had come to believe in what scholars call a “realized eschatology”, the idea that believers already participated in some way in the resurrection before actual physical death. (Not to sink into pedantry but this is one reason why scholars think Ephesians is a forgery, because it advocates just this view which Paul rejects in 1 Cor.) For Paul the eschaton was an actual future event which had begun with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Not only did he have to convince the Corinthians of the reality of the resurrection, Paul also had to convince them of the nature of the bodily resurrection, the expectation of Jewish apocalypticism. Gentiles would have found this a completely counterintuitive even weird idea. Their cultural expectation was that any kind of afterlife at all would be a disembodied ghostly existence. The fleshly body was considered corrupt and inferior. Paul has to convince his audience that while the resurrection was bodily, it was not simply a resuscitation of the physical corpus.
So in either instance it’s mighty hard to see how a recounting of the Empty Tomb stories, if he knew of them, could fail to help him make his case. Jesus really died. He was buried in a tomb. There were witnesses who saw him buried and witnesses who found the tomb empty, some of whom saw him alive later. The resurrection was real and it was bodily.
I get that you are suggesting that a story of the Empty Tomb would be a valuable tool in Paul’s argument toolkit for making the case about bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians… if Paul was so inclined to use tradition to make those arguments. The problem is that this would apply to a bunch of other resurrection traditions — traditions which we know Paul knew something about — but which he also declined to use. The most obvious and easiest example is that Paul could have expanded on the resurrection appearances he already mentioned with detail. Paul clearly knows about the resurrection appearance tradition of Peter, and tells us he spent 15 days with Peter about three years after his conversion experience. But he provides no detail about this appearance or any other appearance tradition he certainly would have learned about. We obviously don’t know the full gamut of resurrection appearance traditions Paul may have been familiar with in the mid 50s, but it would have been more than what he provides (which is limited to the credo). This is where arguments from silence become so tricky.
Did Paul know about an empty tomb tradition? It’s hard to say based on the information he’s given us, but he does appear to know about the tradition of crucifixion-day burial and a date certain for the resurrection: the third day. If I were to apply deductive reasoning here, I’d say it’s decidedly more likely than not that Paul seemed to understand some tradition about Jesus’s body not being in its burial place after the third day; otherwise, the “third day” after being “buried” makes little sense.
Stephen said
Finally I note that in a fine rhetorical flourish Paul mentions the grave, but not the Empty Tomb.
Kind of a side note, but are you referring to 1 Corinthians 15:55 (“O grave, where is thy victory?”)? Doesn’t the Greek there read: Ποῦ σου θάνατε τὸ νῖκος (“Where are you O Death the victory”)?
I think one common problem is that people are often too quick to accept “shocking” challenges to widely conventional positions, at least if that position is not one held dear to them. It is one reason that conspiracy theories and malicious rumors are so easily spread. It is not only interesting in its own right but also tends to make people feel special for the impression that they are one of the few to possess unusual insight and thus being smarter or better informed than “most people.”
I suppose it depends on your capacity to be shocked. Are you saying I’m not special? That hurts.
Paul says he was persecuting the church of God before his conversion. These people were in Jerusalem. Paul then left Jerusalem to go to Damascus and had his conversion experience on that journey. He then spent three years in Damascus before returning to Jerusalem where he met Peter and James. He was unknown by sight to believers in Judea who did not live in Jerusalem (and probably were not yet believers when he left for Damascus). This is all consistent with the conclusion that Paul was living in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion.
In 1 Cor 15:9 Paul says he “persecuted the church of god”. In Philippians 3:5-6 Paul gives us his CV which includes “persecuting the church”. That’s it. Paul doesn’t elaborate. Paul has plenty of opportunities in his letters to indicate that he was present in Jerusalem during the crucifixion but does not. He quotes credos. The quality about credos is that they are unnecessary for eyewitnesses. Credos are created for the non-eyewitness followers to have an easily remembered enumeration of the important doctrines.
…this is not a thread about the historicity of Empty Tomb stories.
Well not after my last response I guess. You did challenge me to tell you “where in the 1 Corinthians letter a reference to the Empty Tomb should go?” The beauty (perhaps the only beauty?) of a forum like this is that our posts remain for all to read. Everyone can see your line of reasoning and my responses. And there is no need for us to try to tell each other what we really said. At this point I would simply be repeating myself.
Kind of a side note, but are you referring to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (“O grave, where is thy victory?”)? Doesn’t the Greek there read: Ποῦ σου θάνατε τὸ νῖκος (“Where are you O Death the victory”)?
I was relying on the KJV which as everyone knows is the only truly inspired inerrant translation of the Bible.
Stephen said
I suppose it depends on your capacity to be shocked. Are you saying I’m not special? That hurts.
It would be shocking in the sense of being a stark change from the traditional view. As for being special, if it makes you feel better, you are probably special in other ways. (If being special relies on this particular argument, I am afraid that I have no helpful suggestions to offer. Maybe get a puppy.)
Stephen said
…this is not a thread about the historicity of Empty Tomb stories.Well not after my last response I guess. You did challenge me to tell you “where in the 1 Corinthians letter a reference to the Empty Tomb should go?” The beauty (perhaps the only beauty?) of a forum like this is that our posts remain for all to read. Everyone can see your line of reasoning and my responses. And there is no need for us to try to tell each other what we really said. At this point I would simply be repeating myself.
There is a subtle but very important distinction here. I challenged you to give me where “a reference to the Empty Tomb should go.”
You came back and asked me if we “can derive the Empty Tomb stories from the credo by appealing to basic deductive reasoning and other rules of logic” (emphasis mine). I interpreted “Empty Tomb stories” to mean Marcan Empty Tomb stories, as opposed to a generalized reference to or belief in an empty tomb.
So I should make this clear: yes, you can reasonably deduce the existence of some type of empty tomb or, better said, missing corpse, from the 1 Corinthians 15 credo; yes I do.
Can we deduce a Marcan version of the Empty Tomb? No.
As to which would apply to the Pauline toolkit argument for 1 Corinthians, the generalized missing corpse, not in the tomb version would certainly suffice.
Did Paul know about a Marcan Empty Tomb story when he wrote 1 Corinthians? We obviously can’t be sure. I am persuaded that it is more likely than not that he did. But that is a several step argument, and not nearly as deducible as a more generalized familiarity with an empty tomb / missing corpse tradition.
Stephen said
Kind of a side note, but are you referring to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (“O grave, where is thy victory?”)? Doesn’t the Greek there read: Ποῦ σου θάνατε τὸ νῖκος (“Where are you O Death the victory”)?I was relying on the KJV which as everyone knows is the only truly inspired inerrant translation of the Bible.
Ha, okay. Well, obviously, I regard KJV as a literary work (an impressive one), but not of particular historical value as compared to more recent translations.
Better to think of the KJV as an artifact in the history of the English language rather than as a stage in the history of translations.
Friends I have a cousin Larry who is part of the KJV-only movement. If you’ve not run into these folks they are a small but ferocious band of fundamentalist evangelicals who do think the KJV is the only God approved translation. Any subsequent amendment of the translation based on the discovery of other greek manuscripts is Satan’s attempt to bewilder the faithful and deny the gospel. Like Cain’s wife this point of view raises all kinds of interesting questions. What’s really sad is that these folks are practically the only ones left who still read the KJV.
JAS said
The 1611 version, or the 1769 version? Just try reading the 1611 version; it will give you a serious headache (in the original typography).
Not to mention the extra texts that were dropped along the way.
Many fundamentalists think the King James Version is a book inspired by God.
If so, God had to take a couple stabs at it to get it right.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)