The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[Natural Law]

"We have been given the Scriptures, we read them, and find that the doctrines of Rome do not appear in them. End of argument.

Who gave you the Scriptures?

Inerrant documents are only inerrant if infallibly interpreted. Are you claiming that you are interpreting them infallibly?

Are each of the 33,000 Protestant denominations (the actual number is not important) that do not agree with YOU from hell too?

Is there any common ground between your belief system and Catholicism?

Do you agree 100% with the Credos (Creeds) that preceded the Scripture of the New Testament? (The Old Roman Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed)?

[Dutchboy88]

"That is a falsehood that borders on blasphemy. In the the pedagogy or "evolution of revelation", the Old Testament was never wrong. It was right until Jesus fulfilled it, and then it was no longer right for us.

I said, the "intellectual giants", referring to the rabbinical schools which taught the means of fulfilling the Law. I did not say the OT was wrong. Check out the Mishna, a catalogue of 63 topical books explaining the oral traditions associated with subjects from the Torah. Even Pirkey Avot (book 63) containing famous rabbinical sayings is in there.

Add to that the Gemara, the commentaries on the Mishna. Together you get the Talmud. And teachers like Gamaliel held that the Mishna was as "important as the written Torah". Here is the pre-cursor to the errors of Rome.

But, it gets worse. Gamaliel taught that every exquisite detail of the Law, down to the infinitesimal level of exacting obedience, could and should be kept to meet the Law's demands. This interpretive technique became known as the Midrashim. God would be pleased if every possible obligation were explored and executed.

Along comes Jesus, the Son of God, and says, "You have heard the ancients say..." "...but I tell you..." THEY HAVE IT WRONG. The Law is far more perfect than they have said, far more demanding, far higher than any mortal can reach. What shall we do? Glad you asked. What is impossible with man, is possible with God.

It is those who add to the message of the Scriptures who are wrong, and these intellectual giants did so for 1400 years. The same thing has happened to Rome.

[Natural Law]

"rabbinical schools which taught the means of fulfilling the Law...

LOL! The only difference in what those rabbinical schools did and what you claim to do is in the conclusions reached. Unlike you and they, "Rome" has the hand of the Holy Spirit guiding it through Apostolic Succession and Traditions manifest in the Magisterium. If I have to pick a poison it will certainly be them over you or the rabbinical schools that also see fit to reject the entire New Testament.

[Dutchboy88]

We are going to get you some reading lessons for Christmas. Perhaps that can help you avoid the poison of Rome.

[D-fendr]

It is those who add to the message of the Scriptures

But this is what you've done in sola scriptura, sola fide, your view of church, etc.

[Natural Law]

"We are going to get you some reading lessons for Christmas."

Send me a good Greek course. My English, Latin and German are OK, but my Greek is pretty weak.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, I have explained numererous times, and with numerous Scripture Paul’s commission by direct revelations from the risen Christ. Do you think he lied?

Nope.

Do you not believe Christ gave him instructions, a commission, the apostleship to the Gentiles?

I believe that Paul's commission was in addition to, not a replacement for the missions of the rest of the Apostles. Remember that he had to go to them and be examined by them before they accepted him.

Why do you insist that to understand Paul’s unique calling in the mystery, hid in God, from the foundation of the world until revealed to him, is to deny Christ?

I don't. You are the one insisting I do. We believe that Paul was called by Christ to help with the fledgling Church's survival. Remember that Paul was a salesman. Also please note that when you follow Acts and Paul's letters, he spends more time either with the Jews or (towards the end) more with the converted Christians. Paul is to become all things to all men to help the Church survive and grow. It was Peter that converted the first men to Christianity after Pentecost. Paul is important, but so is Peter. The school and church I grew up in are both named Sts. Peter and Paul. Not Peter or Paul.

It doesn’t make sense, in any sense of understanding Paul’s writings. Over and over again, in every letter, every epistle, every doctrine, it is ALL about Christ and His revelations to Paul for the Church the Body of Christ. Us. Please, I’ve communicated too long with you for you to continue to make this a “choose one or the other” game.

I'm not. You are. The Gospel is both the Word and the word of God. If you think that Paul's message is different than the Gospels and the teachings of the 12 are different, it is your interpretation of Paul that is faulty.

To not believe what Paul said Christ gave to him is to call Paul a liar or Christ a liar. You wanna choose that? Soitenly not...I’m sure :)

Paul was a salesman, sent by God to serve the Church (not to supplant or surpass the message of Jesus, but to put it in sales talk) but Paul's message can be, as Peter says, misinterpreted to one's destruction. Same as misinterpreting any salesman's delivery.

1 Corinthians 9: 19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23

Paul is a super salesman, and was a critical part of the success of the Church. Jesus was the whole basis of the Church - I hope we don't have to debate that again. But what was Peter?

Acts 15: 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Peter is the leader of the 12. Paul had to come to Peter to receive the sniff test, as it were (which Paul resented all his life).

Acts 2: 14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” ... 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

This is what their roles were. Peter the leader of the Church, steward of Christ until His return. Paul, the energetic salesman with his small band of merry marauders, performing hit and run raids against the Jews until the churches under his jurisdiction started to flourish, then paying more attention to them. But his churches were stocked with more Jews than Gentiles, if his journeys were any indication. So was his claim of evangelizer to the Gentiles sales talk?

[MarkBsnr]

Well, let me ask it this way. What are Peter and the 11 promised by Christ that they will be doing when He returns and sets up His Kingdom on earth?

2 Peter 3 says what they ought to be doing.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. 14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Oh dear, sounds like Peter is accusing Paul of teaching a salvation that can be lost by evil works...

[MarkBsnr]

Let us not substitute Paul for Jesus in any way, shape or form. One must not mistake the herald for the King.

Actually, it was John the Baptist who was the herald for the King. Paul was one of the King's embassadors pleading for the enemy to be reconciled with the sovereign.

Ambassador or emissary. A better description. Appreciated.

[MarkBsnr]

well, since much of your post depends upon the Apostles staying within Jewry (as Paul largely did), let us address that Biblically, since you will admit no other source.

Matthew 28: 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mark 16: 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” 19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Acts 1: 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

So Matthew says it; Mark says it; Luke says it in Acts (and John omits it). All the earth. All nations. All men. Not just the Jews.

[MarkBsnr]

If you follow an organization (error #1), an organization which does not comport with the Scriptures it claims to have delivered (error #2), and that organization substitutes a message which calls you back to the Law (error #3 - #1,679 approx.), you have followed an empty shell.

Very good. Let us follow that and see where it goes.

If you follow the organization formed by God, who promised to stay with them via the Holy Spirit until He returns, then you have a problem with God, not the organization. If you follow only yourself, then how can the created individual claim superiority over what God has commanded? Error #1.

If the belief of divergence from Scripture is simply a matter of selective Scripture and personal interpretation (proscribed by the same Scriptures you use as authority), then we arrive at error #2.

When the Lord God Almighty in the Person of Jesus Christ says that the Law is not abolished, and one of the created says it is, we arrive at error #3.

In short, it comes down to whether one's selective reading and interpretation of Scripture is superior to the Church created by Jesus Christ or not.

[Dutchboy88]

Paying attention to what is and is not in the Scriptures is adding to the Scriptures? Is this Rome’s logic?

[Dutchboy88]

I thought you gave up all this wrestling for Lent?

Let me be perfectly clear. The Body of Christ is not, repeat not, an “organization”. That is something that the RCC cooked up to keep the sheeple in chains. The Body of Christ is the assembly gathered by the Holy Spirit from all over the world, the believers in Jesus who have been rescued by the rebirth from above. Correction #1.

The organization from Rome is the outfit which has added to the simple message of faith in Jesus, granted by the grace of God. The believers in Christ don’t need papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, confession in booths, Hail Mary’s for penance, pergatory, sacraments, pope mobiles, and prada shoes. Correction #2

If Paul says that Jesus told him the Law is gone, then I am going to listen to the apostle appointed by Jesus. And your organization wants the credit for finding all of his letters and binding them into the Book. Now your gang doesn’t like what they say. Correction #3

If you guys would read the text and God permitted the scales to fall off, you would swim back over that infested Tiber and into the light of Christ, alone. Now, some of you might very well be among the elect, thus He will rescue you in spite of Rome. For this I am grateful. Got to run...

[D-fendr]

Paying attention to what is and is not in the Scriptures is adding to the Scriptures?

No. The doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide are adding to scripture, outside scripture. Taking your personal interpretation as authoritative is adding. These are not in scripture, contrary to scripture.

[MarkBsnr]

I thought you gave up all this wrestling for Lent?

Not with the participants this attractive. :)

Let me be perfectly clear. The Body of Christ is not, repeat not, an “organization”. That is something that the RCC cooked up to keep the sheeple in chains. The Body of Christ is the assembly gathered by the Holy Spirit from all over the world, the believers in Jesus who have been rescued by the rebirth from above. Correction #1.

The Gospels and Acts disagree with that statement. Jesus put a lot of time and effort into the creation of the Church. Peter and the 12, as well as Paul and his assistants show that that statement is wrong overall. The Church is an organization; else it is chaos. We have the chaos of the Reformation, for instance which has given us the fracturing of Christianity (with the expected departure from Christianity) warned about by Christ.

The organization from Rome is the outfit which has added to the simple message of faith in Jesus, granted by the grace of God. The believers in Christ don’t need papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, confession in booths, Hail Mary’s for penance, pergatory, sacraments, pope mobiles, and prada shoes. Correction #2

The believers in Christ need to believe in Christ. However, one's personal interpretation of Christianity is proscribed in Scripture. You have named a number of things as antithetical to Christianity. Let us take them in order.

Papalism. Peter in Acts 2 and 10.

Sacerdotalism. The Last Supper and all of early Christianity.

Indulgences. The power to forgive sins and the power of the keys.

Confession in booths. You don't believe in confession and repentence of sins?

Hail Mary’s for penance. Who are you to prescribe penance?

Purgatory. What else would you call the transition between earth and heaven after Judgement?

Sacraments. What Jesus left us with.

Pope mobiles. Even Jesus withdrew from angry crowds.

Prada shoes. No Pope in history has worn Prada shoes. Boy, you're not swinging it over the plate tonight.

If Paul says that Jesus told him the Law is gone, then I am going to listen to the apostle appointed by Jesus. And your organization wants the credit for finding all of his letters and binding them into the Book. Now your gang doesn’t like what they say. Correction #3

Jesus says that the Law is not gone. Am I going to listen to your interpretation of Paul or am I going to listen to Christ?

If you guys would read the text and God permitted the scales to fall off, you would swim back over that infested Tiber and into the light of Christ, alone. Now, some of you might very well be among the elect, thus He will rescue you in spite of Rome. For this I am grateful. Got to run...

Actually, God is permitting more and more to swim to pure destinations over the pure Tiber (and head East to the Orthodox who are our equal brothers in Faith).

Good talking to you. Perhaps I may show you the error of your individualistic post Reformation ways. Jesus gave the instruction 2000 years ago. He didn't mean for a self serving cabal to open up Christianity to the lowest common denomination.

[MarkBsnr]

Ping to post.

[smvoice]

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, PREACHING THE WORD TO NONE BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY." Acts 11:19.

The Jewish Christians that were forced to flee from the persecution of Acts 8:1,2 went into Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch establishing Christian Churches to all, including Gentiles...uh, no, that's not right...they established JEWISH churches.

[smvoice]

Paul's ministry and commission are much more interesting than you give him credit for. Do you suppose there is a reason Paul went to the Jew first? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; TO THE JEW FIRST, and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16.

His first six epistles are full of miracles, signs and wonders (Acts 19:12) and legal ceremonies (Acts 16:3,4), "because of the JEWS" (Acts 16:3). (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20-23; 10:32). Those epistles would be 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans.

BUT AFTER Israel is blinded and set aside, Acts 28, he no longer preaches or practices things that are Jewish. The Gospel is preached to the nations WITHOUT RACIAL PRIORITIES (Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6), WITHOUT MIRACLES, SIGNS, and WONDERS (1 Tim. 5:23, 2 Tim. 4:20; Phil 2:25-29) and WITHOUT LEGAL CEREMONIES (Phil. 3:8-14).

Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus would be those epistles AFTER Israel is set aside. So to say that Paul stayed within Jewry is only partly right. As long as Israel was operational and could have accepted Christ as Messiah, Paul went to the Jew first, as a minister of confirmation to the Jews concerning Jesus, the promised Messiah. (Acts 13:14-41; 18:5; 26:22, 28:23).

But he also had a ministry of revelation. The Apostle to the Gentiles, The dispensation of the grace of God, the Church the Body of Christ, the One New Man, the fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9). All by direct revelations to him from the risen Christ, beginning in Acts 9.

unless you just believe him to be just a really good salesman...

[D-fendr]

Quick question:

For your ‘before and after,’ chronological order, of Paul’s epistles, are you going by the order they appear in the canon?

[boatbums]

Placeholder to one of the better threads I’ve seen in a while. ;o)