In the King James Version of the Bible, 1 Orinthians 11:24 it says…".this is my body which is broken for you"

How do we know none of Jesus’s bones were broken when the KJV says this?


Psalm 34:20 John 19:36.

Exodus 32:19.


Breaking the body doesn’t necessarily imply the fracture of bones.



How so?


I would assume the beating he received broke some ribs in His back. Then, the spear to His heart could have pierced His sternum or a rib. Hitting the small space between two ribs w Jesus high on the cross is difficult. The Romans weren’t gentle. Isaiah 54, I think says “HE WAS BRUISED FOR MY INIQUITIES…” Was He supposed to have broken bones??
in Christ’s love
May we take up our cross daily and follow Him.

He may have been talking of breakiNG the bread/body in His hands at the last supper.
Scripturally, I don’t think his bones were to be broken. Lower message of mine points out areas where it could happen to a human body.
in Christ’s love


As referenced in post #2.

John19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

The reference [c] takes you to: Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20


Jesus was the Paschal Lamb. The Jews always took care not to break the bones of the Paschal Lamb.


First of all ,the King James edition was written centuries later, and is not the original translation… That’s why we don’t use it.

Second, the Bible tells us that they took care NOT to break His bones…
For Example:
John 19:33
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

John 19:36
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”

Exodus 12:46
"It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.


A human body who is too badly physically damaged to hold life can truthfully be described as “broken.”

Particularly if as in His case, the skin was shredded, nose (cartilage) broken, shoulders dislocated, muscles bruised, etc.



The Passover unleavened bread was broken and shared among the apostles: that is part of the ceremony. Jesus’ body is shared among all believers as our eternal Eucharist.

His bones were not broken, as others haven mentioned, to fulfill the law and prophecy.

When you look at today’s Matzo, which is used for Passover, there are a few similarities to Jesus:
–It is unleavened (symbolically "without sin)
–In baking the matzo, it is pierced–when you look at it, you can see small piercings that you can see through. Just as Jesus was pierced through for our sins.
–the matzo appears to be striped-this also happens in the baking–Jesus received stripes from the whip.


They didn’t think of Him as the Paschal Lamb, though, did they?


So you think His bones were broken or not?


I didnt .know that. Thanks. :slight_smile:


Not the Jews generally.
The Jews who followed The Way thought of him as the Paschal Lamb.
“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”.
John the Baptist was a Jew.


The word “broken” (klomenon) apparently does not appear is all ancient manuscripts. On 1 Cor 11:24, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard M.A. (Cantab.) and published in 1953, page 1093, says:
24. ‘My body . . .’: the best texts read (literally): ‘This is my body which is on your behalf’. Doubtless we may supply *given *or *offered *to make the meaning clearer.

I notice that the word *klomenon *does appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, not in the regular column of letters, but in the space between the columns, as if it was a later addition or correction, here.

The word is not present in many of the English translations of the verse at


So it was a Protestant KJV addition?


There was a small typo in my earlier post; sorry about that. I meant to say, as I understand it, the Greek equivalent to the word “broken” appears in some ancient manuscripts but not all ancient manuscripts. The translators of the KJV did not add the word, they simply chose to follow the ancient manuscripts that included the word.


So if some ancient manuscripts say “broken”, His bones might’ve been broken, or not?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit