Giuseppe Guarino

Introduction to the Bible

CONTENTS

Preface

Chapter 1 - The Bible – the Word of God

Chapter 2 – The Canon of Scripture

PART ONE: THE OLD TESTAMENT

Chapter 3 - The Old Testament

Chapter 4 - The Text of The Old Testament

Chapter 5 – Early translations of the Old Testament

PART TWO: THE NEW TESTAMENT

Chapter 6 - Introduction to the New Testament

Chapter 7 - The Message to the Gentiles

Chapter 8 - The Text of the New Testament

Chapter 9 - Critical Editions of the New Testament

Chapter 10 – Early Translations of the New Testament

Conclusion

Appendix I - The Genesis account of Creation

Appendix II - The Bible as a historical document

Appendix III - Modern Bible Translations

Appendix IV – A chronology of Paul’s epistles

Preface

This booklet was initially written to be used in the church where I served. It was intended as a starting point for various discussions on basic Bible topics. It was never used for that purpose. Anyway, during the years, I continued to work on it and, every now and then, I added new information.

I really enjoy reading and writing about the Bible in general. There is nothing so wonderful in my life like the study of the Word of God and the desire to share the things I learned. 

Though not from a purely critical point of view, I enjoy discussing matters belonging to the field of textual criticism or higher criticism, history and even theological matters, trying to do it in the simplest way possible.

It was not meant to be, but I present this which, at the time I am writing this preface, can hardly be called more than a series of notes on some Bible related subjects, hoping somehow it will benefit the body of Christ.

One thing I’d like the reader to keep in mind is that the best book about the Bible is the Bible itself and that the best way to understand it is to pray for the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Knowing this, I pray that my work will be useful to my readers to give them some general information about the book they are hopefully beginning or continuing to read and study. In this prospective, I present it to the public.

Though I am Italian, I decided to write my notes in English. It is not my language and this will be evident. I hope the reader will see beyond the mistakes I will obviously make and concentrate only on the information I give.

God bless all those who read his Word with faith and expectations. He will not let them down.

Chapter  1

The Bible: The Inspired Word of God

The word Bible comes from the Greek ta biblia, which means the books. The Bible is, in fact, a collection of 66 books. It is usually divided in two main sections called the Old Testament, written before Jesus, and the New Testament, written by the disciples of Jesus.

Any serious discussion about the Bible text has to start considering what is the principal and most important characteristic of this book: its claim to be the Word of God.

So write the apostles.

In II Timothy 3:16-17, Paul writes: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

The Bible is more than a common book, like some may claim. It was written by men, no one denies. But those men were not writing their own thoughts or ideas, but what the Spirit of God moved them to write.

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of the man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”, II Peter 1:21

We believe and explain the inspiration of the Bible as having been extended to all portions of the Bible, so that there is no part of the Bible that is not the Word of God. It is also commonly said that the Bible was verbally inspired, that is the very words of the text were inspired by God.

It would be useless to insist on the theological debate existing about the limits and consequences of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I believe the simplicity of the Bible text is so devastating that theories and complicated thoughts find little room in the simple interpretation of the Bible text if read for what it says. In the simple phrase – just to quote one, but there are many: “Well spoke the Holy Ghost by E-sa’-ias the prophet …”, we find the sum of what we need to know and believe about Bible inspiration. Reading hundreds of pages, I am sorry to say, will add so little to this powerful concept.

God speaks in his Word, through his Word. It is far better to acknowledge the fact and be ready to receive the blessings he has prepared for us than to drawn in an ocean of theological expositions very unlikely to cast more light on the subject than the simplicity of the Bible itself does.

I like the comparison often made between Jesus, the Word incarnate, and the Bible, the Word of God in written form. Both have a human and a divine nature.

The human in the Bible is in the fact that men wrote the books of the Bible. That the books were written in human language, with all the limitations this implies.  The Bible, like all other books written before the invention of print, also needed to be preserved through various collecting and copying processes.

The divine of the Bible makes it the pure inerrant Word of God, spoken through men but spoken by God. An inevitable consequence is its infallibility, that is the Bible contains no mistakes or contradictions whatsoever. 

It would not be out of place to introduce here the idea of Preservation of the Scripture that the writer of this booklet, with many other scholars, believe goes hand in hand with the Inspiration of the Bible text.

It is in fact my conviction that to believe that God inspired the Bible requires to believe that God preserved the inspired text in history, through the various human events and the direct copying process of the text. It would have been useless to inspire the Scriptures if they would have been lost. On the contrary, they have been preserved by the hand of God to our days.

When discussing of Bible manuscript evidence, this will be more than evident. 

Surely the Bible is to be relied by men for their salvation and for Christians as the standard of their spiritual growth.

The Bible is to be read and studied regularly with the attitude of utmost reverence.

Certainly, the words found in the beginning of the book of Revelation can be applied to the whole Scripture: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”, Revelation 1:3. 

Chapter 2

The Canon of Scripture

Though not evident from the term, we intend for Canon the number of inspired books to be included in our Bibles, which are then called Canonical.

Discussing on the Canon of Scripture means to discuss if a book has or has not the right to be included among the list of the inspired writings and consequently be a part of our Bibles or not.

It may seem a simple matter. And to a certain extent I agree it is. But as often happens with the Bible, theologians must find ground to build their speculations upon. So, the authenticity of almost every book in the Bible has been questioned and/or denied by this or that school of thought. I know a thought might cross the mind of the reader, like it happens to me: why do some people spend so much time over a book they consider so empty of both historical and religious value? Personally, if the Bible was not the Word of God, I would not waste much of my time reading it. The reason is that the main message of the Books is telling me that I am a sinner and that I need to repent, requesting a way of life that is a continuous battle against what are human nature’s desires!

So, I will consider the problem from a “simplified” point of view, I admit. But I am motivated by a presumption: to recognize the authentic books to form the Bible was never intended to be the task of our generation of believers!

Believe it or not, today we are not as qualified as the early church was to identify true, authentic, inspired, apostolic writings.

Let us first consider briefly the Canon of the Old Testament. It was closed as we have it in our Bibles today long before the times when the Lord Jesus lived. He himself sanctioned the Hebrew Scriptures by recognizing the common Hebrew division of it: Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings), Luke 24.44.

The Old Testament writings have been quoted many times in the New Testament. Their authority was to support and prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Jesus himself mentions Moses, Daniel, David and quotes the Old Testament very often against his opponents.

In the book of Revelation we read, “ I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.” Rev. 2.2.  This was written to the church of Ephesus and it takes no particular speculation to understand that such battle was the battle of the first century: tell the true apostles from the false.

The task the church of the post apostolic times was confronted with, was to recognize authentic apostolic, reliable witnesses.

When Luke started his gospel, he clearly stated:

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” Luke 1:1-4.

Luke is a second generation Christian. He was with the apostles, he received their account reliable as of eyewitnesses. But the apostles were no longer available, so the need of a narrative that was reliable was felt, since many others seem to have intended to write but were not considered reliable enough by Luke.

Paul was very serious about the authenticity of his letters. At the close of I Corinthians he cares to imprint the epistle with his own personal hand: “the salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.”, I Corinthians 16:21. See also, Colossians 4:18 and II Thesalonians 3:17.

His letters were exchanged among churches, as it is carefully recorded that Paul himself required this. “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”, Colossians 4:16. “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.”, II Thessalonians 5:27.

Peter in his second epistle writes of the epistles of Paul: “even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Such intense activity in the early church, the continuous alarms about false teachers and false apostles – and there must have been many!  The communication necessity felt among local churches, exchanging epistles. The genuine interest of the Early Church must have been in one direction only: the collection of reliable apostolic information, substantiated first by the living apostles then by those that met them and the epistles, the Gospel accounts and then the book of Revelation.

For example, Irenaeus is famous because he is a good, reliable source of information concerning the  authorship of the Gospel of John. He knew Polycarp, who personally knew the apostle.

We could continue to collect evidence and quotations. Of course, some scholars could do the same on the opposite direction. But as we said, it is much safer if we look at the problem from our prospective.

We look at a Christianity today, both Catholics and Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. united in the acceptance of the New Testament as we know it. No one today believes the Bible to be God’s Word and denies the right of even one of the 27 books to have a place there. We could have not asked God a better confirmation of the Canon of Scripture than this.

PART I

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT

Chapter 3

Introduction to the Old Testament

The first and the oldest books of the Bible – with the exception, perhaps, of Job -  are those written by Moses, called the Law (Torah, in Hebrew), or, more commonly, Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

God expressly commanded Moses to write the Law. Exodus 17:14, “And the Lord said unto Moses, write this for a memorial in a book.”

Jesus testified that Moses was the author of the Law. John 5:46-47, “...For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

Some scholars have cast doubt on the mosaic authorship of the Law. They thought alphabetical writing was unknown to Moses and oral tradition was predominant in his days. Time and more recent discoveries have proved  both assumptions to be false and destitute of all evidence. Entire libraries, older than the times of Moses, have been discovered in the Middle-East, at Ugarit, and some scholars go as far as ca. BC 1983-1786 to date the origin of alphabet writing, but not of writing, which in its various forms - hieroglyphics, cuneiform - existed and was used earlier than 3000 BC.

Abraham lived more than 400 years before Moses, in Ur, in Mesopotamia. Archeological findings have brought to light books as old as Abraham’s days and older. Some texts represented a culture used to represent itself in a written form. There were found even some grammars comparing the language of the Sumer with other Semitic languages, astronomy texts, medicine texts, mathematics.

It is evident that Moses knew an alphabet in which he could write his books. Moreover, from these findings we learn that not oral tradition but written texts were used to hand down memories, facts or documents to future generations.

Not only Moses might have written the Law, but it is quite improbable that he would have not written it. He may even just have edited – in the Genesis – previously existing writings, handed down to him from the times of Abraham or even earlier.

The Law is the first of the Hebrew divisions of the Old Testament. Then follow the Prophets and the Writings.

To this division is made reference of by Jesus in Luke 24:44: “And he -Jesus- said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

Today’s Bibles follow the division of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was very popular among Christians of the first century and has survived in our modern Bibles. It actually follows a more chronological order: the books of Moses, Historical and Poetical Writings, Major and Minor Prophets.

Our Bibles have 39 Old Testament books.

Though the books are the same, in the Hebrew collection their number is different. I and II Kings are just one book; the same applies to I and II Chronicles. The reason is very simple. In the Hebrew texts vowels were not used and the use of consonants only made the books short enough to be copied in just one scroll. When translated in Greek, with the insertion of vowels, the text became too long and the books, only for the sake of necessity, had to be divided in two parts.

Chapter 4

The Text of The Old Testament

How were the books of the Hebrew Bible handed down to our days?  The question we be answered  in this section.

The first printed edition of the Old Testament was produced only in 1488 AD, in Soncino, Italy.

Before that time, for 2.800 years, the Old Testament had been transmitted from a generation to another by copying it in manuscripts.

It is not difficult to imagine that soon after the sacred books were written, people started to make copies of it. This was done to satisfy a twofold need: to spread the sacred texts and to substitute older copies ruined by the use with newly produced ones.

The text we read today in our Bibles rely on an original obtained by carefully comparing the surviving manuscripts. The process of collecting, comparing and editing the text is the task of that area of biblical studies called textual criticism.

Was the copying process reliable enough so that the text we have today is virtually the same the authors wrote?

To shed more light on this, It will be very educating to notice some facts.

No other book like the Old Testament shows such an incredible accurate spelling of names. This may seem an insignificant detail. It is not. It says a lot about the care of Jewish scribes in transcribing, in copying the sacred writings.

‘There are twenty-nine ancient kings whose names are mentioned not only in the Bible but also on monuments of their own time; many of them under their own supervision. There are one hundred and ninety-five consonants in these twenty-nine proper names. Yet we find that in the documents of the Hebrew Old Testament there are only two or three out of the entire hundred and ninety-five about which there can be any question of their being written in exactly the same way as they were inscribed on their own monuments. Some of these go back for two thousand years, some for four thousand; and are so written that every letter is clear and correct. this is surely a wonder’, Which Bible edited by David O. Fuller, page 45.  

This proves two things:

First. The writers of the books were contemporaries of the times they are writing about or could dispose of the most reliable historical records, showing their personal effort even for historical accuracy.

Second. The correct copying of minor details such as the spelling of names permits us to suppose that the utmost care was used during the copying process in general, becoming a clear hint by which we can derive its reliability.

‘That the names should have been transmitted to us through so many copyings and so many centuries in so complete a state of preservation is a phenomenon unequaled in the history of literature’, Which Bible, page 55.

Yes, God was taking care that the text of the Bible would get to us in the most reliable form.

As far as the manuscript evidence for the Old Testament is concerned, it is, compared to the New’s, quite poor. For many years very few manuscripts survived and relatively recent in date. Here is a list of the most prominent:

The Aleppo Codex, named also A, is dated 925 AD, and contains all the Old Testament, except the books of Moses.

The Leningrad Codex, named also L, is dated 1008 AD, and contains all the Old Testament.

The manuscript identified as British Museum 4445, also named B, is dated 925 AD, and contains most of the mosaic Law.

The Cairo Codex, named also C, is dated 896 AD and contains the books of the Prophets.

The Sassoon 507, named also S, is dated X century and has most of the Law.

These manuscripts represent the so called Masoretic Text. It is the text that was used for the Bible translations of the XVII century, such as the King James Version, 1611, and the Italian Diodati, 1607-1649. And even to this days, it enjoys credit by critics.

The Masoretes fixed the vowels in the text of the Old Testament, originally written without them. They also recorded the accents and developed a system of notes. They cared, of course, that faithful copies would be made.

Because of the relatively recent age of the witnesses to the Masoretic text, it was underestimated by some scholars. The discovery in 1947 of the so called Dead Sea Scrolls, opened new doors for a better understanding of the history of the transmission of the Old Testament. Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible were found there dating from II century BC to I century AD, thus taking back the witness to the text of the Old Testament of about a thousand years. In particular, a very old and complete copy of Isaiah was found.

About such incredible recovery a scholar had to say:

‘The conspicuous differences in spelling and grammatical forms between the St. Mark’s manuscript and the Masoretic text makes their substantial agreement in the words of the text all the more remarkable...It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.’, Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, page 95.

The slight differences in the spelling proves that the documents come from different and independent sources. This makes their agreement even more significant.

The text of the Old Testament has then been confirmed, as far as historical evidence is concerned.

Ellis R. Brotzman concludes: “...90 per cent or more of the text...exists without variation...”, Old Testament Textual Criticism, page 23.

As far as faith is concerned there has never been any doubt that the hand of God knew how to take care of the Bible. Because, as we said before, it would have been useless to inspire a text that would get lost during his journey through history.

God Himself has preserved the text that He has inspired.

To say that with Jesus’ words: “For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”, Matthew 5:18

Chapter 5

Early translations of the Old Testament

Various translations of the Old Testament have been attempted during its quite long history. Though not as many as of the New Testament, because of the national distinction of the Jewish religion, and most motivated by the Gentile Christians use of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Translations cannot be underestimated as a witness to the original text. They prove its existence, the diffusion and the state of the text when translated. This means that the many manuscripts of various translations strengthen the witness to the original.

The most famous of Old Testament translations is the famous Greek one, called the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), that goes back to the III century BC among the Jews of the dispersion in Egypt.

It was during the reign of Ptolemy Filadelphus (285-246 BC) that 72 Jewish scholars began the translation of the Pentateuch. Out of their number, rounded to 70, came the name Septuagint. Later, the remnant of the books were translated and available to Greek speaking Jews.

The importance of the LXX cannot be underestimated as it became the Old Testament of the first Christians, when the majority of them were not Jews and could not read Hebrew, while Greek was the best known language in the Roman Empire. This translation was quoted in the New Testament that was also written in Greek.

The first Christian translations of the Old Testament were from the Septuagint and not from the original Hebrew.

Other Greek translations of the Old Testament were made in the II century AD (ca. 150) by Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, by Theodotion, which became very popular with Christians and by Symmachus, whose translation influenced the work of Jerome, the father of the Latin Bible.

The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament included the so called Apocrypha books. Thus they were and are called by Protestants. Catholics call them Deuterocanonical. Those books and portions of books never entered the Palestinian Hebrew text. They were written during the time of the long silence between Malachi and Matthew, thus not having the authority of other Scriptures. They were written among the Jews of the dispersion, who were not so radical as the Jews in Jerusalem. They were received by many Christians of the first centuries, mostly because in the Septuagint. Jerome pointed out that he did not find those books in the Hebrew canon of Scriptures. The Catholic Church receives them as Scripture, as decreed by the Council of Trent in 1546. Protestants reject them for the above mentioned reasons and the indubitable inferiority of value, both historical and religious, of those books compared to the canonical books.

PART II

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Chapter 6

Introduction to the New Testament

The New Testament was written after the death of Jesus by his apostles and disciples.

It is a collection of 27 books.

The first three are the so called synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark  and Luke.

The forth Gospel was written by the apostle John.

The book of The Acts of the Apostles follows. It was written by the same Luke who wrote the Gospel.

After the book of Acts come the epistles of the Apostle Paul. They are entitled by the name of the church to which they were addressed: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Many claim that the epistles to the Hebrews was also written by Paul. Many don’t believe so. As no name appears in the heading, we can’t be dogmatic about its authorship,  though the author of this booklet is convinced that Paul wrote that epistle also.

After Paul’s, the so called general epistles come. They take the name of the writer: James, I and II Peter, I, II and III John and Jude.

The Revelation is the last book of the Bible and the only prophetic one of the New Testament.

The natural division of the New Testament is: Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Revelation.

As for the Old Testament, also for the New there is no agreement between Christian scholars and Christian tradition, concerning the exact date of composition of the books and, of course, as a consequence, of their authority.

As usual, critics of a certain school are for a more (relative) recent date of composition for the Gospels.

It is quite understandable that after the resurrection of Jesus and the beginning of the preaching of the gospel even to the Gentiles, the accounts of the life of Jesus would be written by eye-witnesses. And even before that.

The first of the gospels is Matthew. The name this book bears is a clear sign of its authenticity. If it had borne the name of Peter or of Thomas, it would have not had the same authority. Because it is obvious that it was only close scrutiny of the authentically apostolic origin that might lead the whole church to consider this book as Scripture, as it came from one of the least known of the apostles.

Matthew must have written his gospel very soon. He wrote it addressing the Jews. Jesus is then presented by his gospel as the King, “the son of David and the son of  Abraham”, 1:1, the one who came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. This book is filled with Old Testament quotations to show that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jewish people so long awaited.

Mark is the author of the second gospel. He is not an apostle. Tradition says he wrote the memories of the apostle Peter; but it is no more than a supposition. The key of this Gospel is: “For the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.”, Mark 10:45. The second gospel is in fact the gospel of the Servant.

Luke, “the beloved physician”, Col.4:14, is the author of the third gospel, that presents Jesus as the Son of man: Key-verse: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”, Luke 19:10. This gospel is addressed to the Gentiles and no one better than Luke could have written it. The beginning of his work shows clearly the mark of the Greek – western - mentality: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning ere eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the certainty of those things, in which thou hast been instructed.”, Luke 1:4.

Luke was not an eyewitness, but reassures his readers that he diligently collected all the information he could, to relate faithfully the story of Jesus, to confirm those that have believed.

The last gospel, that of John, paints Jesus as the Son of God. The goal of this writing is explained in John 20:31: “...these things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...” 

John’s was the last of the four gospels to be written and completes perfectly the fourfold picture of the person of Jesus given by the New Testament Gospels: King, Servant, Son of man, Son of God.

The date of composition of these four books has been long debated. A very famous German scholar of the last century, Ferdinand Christian Baur believed the Gospel of John not to have been composed before 160 AD. He founded a school of thought.

But later, besides other evidence, a manuscript was discovered (named P52) in Egypt and dated 125 AD or even earlier, according to some scholars. Baur was wrong and the traditional view right.

A late date is still assigned to the other gospels by many.

On the other hand, the book by J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 1976, assigns a date before the AD. 70 to the Gospels.

Carsten P. Theide, in his book, “The earliest Gospel Manuscript?..., and Eyewitness to Jesus”, identifies and dates fragments of the Gospel of Mark (called 7Q5) around the year AD. 50, and places others at an earlier date, claiming that later dates were assigned to manuscripts just to fit the scholars’ theories on the gospels’ composition. This scholar – with right - affirms boldly that the reverse should be true.

It is clear that some critics forget the obvious. It is impossible that early Christianity, coming out from the religion of the book, Judaism, did not feel the need to write the story and teachings of Jesus to confirm the gospel from an authoritative – apostolic - point of view, to avoid false representation by heretics - existing also during the apostolic era.

Luke writes: “many have taken in hand to set forth in order the declaration of the things which are more surely believed among us.”, Luke 1:1.

One more obvious thing is that the Church had enough critical sense (“try the spirits”, John wrote in his first epistle) and  sufficient organization to discard false gospels and writings and receive and keep the true.

It is inevitable that even the apostles would help the collection and reading of the true apostolic writings.

We already quoted Paul and John encouraging Christians to read and spread their writings.

Peter wrote: “Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shown me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”, II Peter 1:14-16

Again, later in the same epistle he sanctions the work of Paul and the use (that he also confirms as usual) of his writings as Scripture: “...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him hath written to you; as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”, II Peter 3:15-16.

I leave the reader with such strong words.

Chapter 7

The Message to the Gentiles

In the Old Testament it had been prophesied that the Gentiles, the non-Jewish people, would have been called to salvation in the days of the Messiah. Many passages can be adduced in the books of Isaiah, Geremiah, Zaccariah. Jesus confirmed: “...many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven,”  - Matthew 8:11.

Paul wrote of  “...the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is revealed to his saints: To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”, Colossians 1:26.

Peter was the first to open the door of salvation to the Gentiles, as recorded in Acts 10. Paul then was called to be a Christian and the apostle to the Gentiles, Acts 9:15, Galatians 1:8.

The call of the Gentiles and the successful spread that the Christian faith knew in the beginning of our era is motivated and to be understood as the result of the work of God. He operated in history so that the Gospel might be preached in the whole Roman Empire.

Let us shortly see how.

In the IV century BC an unprecedented event had taken place: a king came from the West, from Greece, to conquer the Eastern empires and all the then known world. The legend says that Alexander the Great wept because he did not have any more lands to conquer.

Alexander died at the age of 33. Though he left no heirs to his throne and his kingdom was divided among his generals, he had planted the seed for the spread of the Greek culture, thought and language throughout the all then known world. Such phenomena is called Hellenism.

More than 300 after the death of Alexander, Rome was the leading empire, ruling almost the whole world. The Roman Empire spread throughout the Mediterranean Sea: Italy, Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East. Israel was part of the Empire.

The Roman influence was more political than cultural. The cultural world was still in the hands of Hellenism and the most widely spoken language was Greek. Even some of the inscriptions of the Roman emperor on his coins would be in Greek and the term “tou soteros tou kosmou”, “the Savior of the world”, applied by the apostle John in the original Greek text of his Gospel to our Lord (John 4:42), was a titled used to address the Roman emperor.

The spread of the Greek culture permitted the gospel to be preached to all nations, Matthew 28:19, according to the mandate given by Jesus to the Apostles.

The hand of God worked in history in order to create the right conditions so that the Gospel might really be preached unto every creature. Greek was commonly spoken by merchants. The apostles were fishermen, but they knew Greek. It was common during those days as English is today.

The New Testament was all written in this beautiful language, perhaps the most developed speech (certainly for tenses of verbs) ever produced by man.

And as historical conditions were not a product of chance, nor was the person called to the ministry of apostleship to the Gentiles chosen by chance. He himself wrote: “God...separated me from my mother’s womb”, Galatians 1:15.

The Epistles written by Paul perfectly met the needs of the newly converted Gentile people. He was able to discuss Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism on their own field. The Greek terminology he uses in Colossian for example is so accurate to the least detail that the reading of the original Greek text is an amazing adventure into the deepest Christian theological affirmations.

Galatians could have been written by Paul and Paul alone, for he was also able to display the utmost knowledge of the Hebrew customs to fight Jewish legalism, which was another threat to the first gentile Christians.

The needs of the first Christian churches are very often the same of our churches today. The New Testament is still today the most accurate and detailed source for Christian doctrine God could provide for the Church.

The hand of God was really working when he prepared the conditions for the New Testament to be written and the Gospel to be preached for the salvation of every creature under heaven.

It is the marvelous work of a God of endless love and wisdom.

Chapter 8

Manuscript evidence of the New Testament

Like for the Old, the first printed edition of the New Testament was released at relatively a late date, in 1516. Until that time, the transmission and diffusion of the text of the New Testament was due to hand copied manuscripts.

Again, the text we posses today is the result of the estimation of the surviving manuscript activity of the Church.

We find quite amazing data concerning the surviving witness to the text of the New Testament.

To better realize what we are talking about we have to make a short preface.

Bruce Metzger, in his book “The Text of the New Testament”, page 34, relates that Homer’s Iliad is preserved in a bit more than 600 manuscripts. Euripides in less than 400 manuscripts. The Annals of the historian Tacitus is preserved in a single manuscript of the IX century AD. Many ancient authors are witnessed by isolated Middle Ages manuscripts.

Evidence for the New Testament, both in number and date (comparatively very close to the originals) of manuscripts is far more overwhelming.

More than 5.000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament alone survive. To them we should add manuscripts of translations and of lectionaries used for church reading (in number of 2135 for the Greek New Testament).

The problem textual critics of the New Testament face is exactly the opposite to that of secular textual critics: they have too much evidence to collect, compare and edit.

The following is just a short list of the most important New Testament manuscripts.

Papyrus manuscripts are conventionally named P followed by a progressive number, given at their discovery. Uncial Codexes, so called because all written in capital letters and in a sort of book form, are indicated by a capital letter of the alphabet.

Notwithstanding the enormous number of manuscripts, the faithful transmission of the text of the New Testament is assured by the considerably slight differences arising among them.

This is again plain evidence of God’s care in preserving his Word.

In considering the evidence of the text of the New Testament from all sources, Westcott and Hort, perhaps the best known scholars on New Testament textual criticism, conclude: “...the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”, Westcott and Hort, “The New Testament in the Original Greek”, page 2.

If we compare Bibles of various times and according to different translations, we’ll see that the above statement is more than accurate and could be even considered an underestimation if we think that what critics may consider of value could be irrelevant for the average Bible reader.

This has to be kept in mind when evaluating the differences in critical editions of the Bible or of the New Testament, of which we will briefly speak in the following chapter.

Chapter 9

Critical Editions of the New Testament

An editing of the text of the New Testament (just as for the Old) is necessary because of the choice that has to be made among the different readings (called variant readings) found among the extant manuscripts.

We already stressed the fact that the differences arising in the critical editions do not touch the reliability of the Bible. On the contrary, the editions of independent scholars being in the end so relatively close to each other, ARE evidence of the reliability of the text of the Bible we read today.

The first Greek text of the New Testament ever published in printed form, was the edition of 1516 of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Later, this was called the Textus Receptus, Received Text, for its general use and acceptance. It lies at the base of Bible translations of those days, like the King James Version, 1611, or the Italian Diodati, 1607.

No critical edition of the New Testament had been able to replace the Textus Receptus until 1881. In that year, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, published “The New Testament in the Original Greek”, a revision of the Textus Receptus in the light of the then newly discovered manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both representing the oldest (IV century) and most complete evidence available at that time.

The English Revised Version, the first true revision of the 1611 King James Version, was based on their text and theories.

Since then, all new editions of the Greek New Testament are following basically the text of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, still thought to be the best.

Recent editions of the Greek New Testament are said to be reproducing the so called “Standard Text”, which critics think is the nearest text that can be retraced to better represent the originals, as far as today’s available evidence can permit.

This text, after 100 years of efforts in that direction, is an attempt to create a new “Textus Receptus.”

All the newest translations are pratically based on this text. The only exceptions are the American New King James Version and the Italian Nuova Diodati, both still based on the Textus Receptus.

The birth of the Revised Version, back in 1881, was not left without strong criticism from various parts of Christendom. It was only the beginning of a long and complicate debate going on still to this day, though mostly regarding the English speaking Christians.

More recently, following a stream of protest against the Westcott and Hort turn, some scholars decided to support the value of the Textus Receptus and of the manuscripts and the type of text it represents.

Thomas Nelson has recently published the so called Majority Greek Text, which is the text witnessed by the majority of the surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. This type of text is often called the Byzantine Text following Westcott and Hort to discredit it of historical value.

In my personal studies, I read the Majority Greek Text in the interlinear edition with the King James on the side edited by Thomas Nelson.

I believe the Majority text to be worthy of strong consideration. The name Byzantine text is misleading and it is being abandoned on all sides. Today it is to be considered at least as valuable as any other type of text.

Its supporters, like myself, think it may be the evidence of the faithful work of the Church in copying the originals of the New Testament with as much faithfulness as possible. So, if this be true, it reproduces the closest text to the originals today available.

The Majority text is very well witnessed by the Textus Receptus. Though it must be added that it differs from the Majority text in some minor details, because of some peculiarities of its own due to readings found only in a few manuscripts.

Textual criticism is probably my favorite Biblical subject, but by far the most difficult to discuss for the incredible amount of information it requires to be very well acquainted with even before starting to seriously investigate it.

I will stop here, hoping to have given enough basic information to the reader to let him appreciate how good God has been to our generation providing so many wonderful means of study to learn more and more in detail of his Word!

Chapter 10

Early Translations of the New Testament

We already said that Greek was the language in which the New Testament was written. It was a very common language, spoken almost everywhere. But because of the fast spread of Christianity, the need for translations was anyway very soon felt.

Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire. So it was inevitable that the Latin translation of the Bible was attempted very early and in various places. So St. Augustine could complain: “no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek manuscript, and imagine himself to have any facility in both languages (however slight that might be), than he made bold to translate it.”, quoted by Bruce Metzger, “The Text of The New Testament,” page 67.

The Old Latin Version is more a series of versions than one translation, which circulated in Europe and North Africa as early as the third century.

For the confusion arising, in about AD 382 Jerome, a well learned man, was commissioned to revise the Old Latin.

He was the first to translate the Old Testament out of the original Hebrew language. This proves how seriously he worked on his project.

His is perhaps the most important of early Bible translations, the so called Latin Vulgate.

8.000 manuscripts are surviving to this day as a witness of history to this Bible translation.

For many years it was the Roman Catholic Bible and the only one to be read, when the Church of Rome forbade unauthorized translations of the Bible in any other tongue than Latin.  

The Syrian translation is also very old: II-III century. In the beginning of the fifth century, prior to AD 431, the Syrian translation was revised and became the so called Peshitta or Syrian Vulgate and received general acceptance among Syrian-speaking churches.

More than 350 manuscripts survive, dating back to the fifth and sixth century.

Other early translations are: the Coptic Version, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Ethiopic.

Conclusion

The Bible is more than a book. Those who believed know that it can change lives.

From people who were addicted to drugs, alcoholism, stealing, to people who just felt a big awful emptiness, the Bible has been changing the lives of millions around the world and throughout history.

Those that attended the study of the Scriptures with a sincere and humble heart, know that God talks through those words: it is just a matter of being willing to listen. Man needs only to take the challenge, God’s challenge:

“...prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”

Malachi 3:10.

Appendix I

The Genesis account of Creation

Please, let me say something about the Genesis account of Creation

The most disputed and discussed Bible text is without any doubt the Genesis account of creation. I have spoken to so many who would argue that the Genesis story is ridiculous, of no scientific value. I answer to that false accuse, saying that the Bible story on how the world was created, is so perfectly and beautifully written that I am convinced that any other way of writing it would have made it useless.

It is vital to understand that the first chapters of Genesis, apparently so simple to today’s learned readers, has explained successfully the beginning of the world and of the sinful human condition for more than 3500 years. Some may try to discredit such text, but evidence is clear that at least one billion times more than the most credited scientific text, it has spoken to millions in an intelligible way concerning the beginning of all things.

Scientists and their writings maybe so credited in one generation, but totally discredited in the following. No “Bible” of science -though science is so much credited in the abstract- has ever been published. When I say “bible” of science I mean two simple things: A book which is universally agreed to contain irrefutable scientific evidence on the origin of life –theories are theories, not facts! – and that the same text is readable with profit by everyone. Such text, I venture say, if ever possible, will be written thousands of years ahead of our time, if ever science will learn everything about everything and all men will be giants in learning.

Till then, the Bible will still be the most satisfactory account of how all things were created and the best answer given to the sadness of human condition.

More than this, if the Bible was a true scientific account in the full sense of the term, written by God himself, who would have been able to read it? My friends asking for scientific accuracy, would be in the same position as the most learned scientific scholars: Unable to grasp the content of a scientific account of creation given by God himself ! Can’t you agree with this?

Even scientists, when they intend to write books on topics which are hard to understand for laymen, they try to simplify difficult matters translating them in lay terms, in a terminology as simple as possible, so that it may be understood by their target readers. How the more this is true with God!

My point is: the Bible story of Genesis is the only way God could have explained with success the origin of the world to the men living in all the various parts of the earth, of different culture and tradition, in a length of time expanding today for more than 3500 years. No one has ever done better than that and very hardly anyone ever will.

Appendix II

The Bible as a historical document

Why is it that scholars always rely on any historical documentation to prove the foundation of biblical data and not the contrary ? Why is it that documents from various, sometimes anonymous sources, are welcome with enthusiasm, while the information contained in the Bible is not accepted if not confirmed by other historical evidence?

The fact is simple and I am sorry to say. People are reluctant toward admitting the historical reliability of the Bible, because they cannot accept the religious significance of that book. At the same time, recognizing the accountability of the Bible in itself, representing unparalleled phenomena in the history of the world, many will be left only to discuss the religious value of such incredible, amazing document – a thing which is avoided and dismissed easily by accusing the Bible of being a collection of traditions and false information. Such is not the case. I dare say that, where there has been a way to confirm the Bible with other documents, excavations, archeological findings and personal experience, it has been proven to be the most reliable of history texts ever written. I dare also say that this is an undeniable FACT, true until the contrary is proven – and it has never been proven.

Let me ask you a simple question: What is history? I want the reader to ask himself this question, going beyond the blind acceptance of history text required in school.

I will give you my idea of history.

Eleven men – and many others with them, but they had this special charge – witnessed an extraordinary unparalleled event in history. To this event they were called to bear witness to all men of this event because after that the world could not be the same anymore and the lives of those who believed this event to actually have taken place would not be the same anymore. They were so convinced of what they had seen and of the magnitude of what they had seen that they were ready to die to fulfill their mission of witnesses to mankind. Probably 10 of those eleven men died because of this testimony, of one of them we know that he was put in prison on an island called Patmos: all of them sealing their testimony in their own blood, because who would die for a lie or even for something he doubted?

The historical event I am talking about is the resurrection of Jesus and the witnesses are the apostles.

This I call history, based on the authority of eye-witnesses report, all agreeing with one another and all ready to live for it and die, if necessary, because of it.

If we cannot accept this historical event as reported in the Bible, when of such weight is the evidence in its favor, there is not much chance we’ll be inclined to consider the rest of the Bible as dependable. 

Personally, I was always interested in a special way in the study of the book of Daniel. This book has been attacked in a very special way by non-believers. Scholars of the past called a mistake the fact that the book says Belshazzar was king of Babylon, Daniel 5:1. This only because profane documents did not mention this king. Such was the case until more recent findings showed that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, the actual king, reigning as viceroy in Babylon. No mistakes in the Bible. If we carefully read the text, in verse 29, Daniel is made by the king “the third ruler in the kingdom”, of course after him and his father: the text was perfectly correct also as far has history is concerned.   

In various places it is said that Moses wrote the law. In the past such a thing was considered impossible, because alphabetical writing was supposed to be unknown to Moses and to his contemporaries. The denial of the mosaic authorship of the first five books of our Bibles cannot be based on such an assumption anymore, because time and new discoveries proved it to be false. What about those who based their ideas on false assumptions? I am sorry to say that to the mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch I find no better and more reliable historical witness than that of Jesus, who clearly recognized Moses as author of the Law, and treated what he wrote as reliable history.

The Bible, being the written Word of God, I consider to be reliable as the Word of God made flesh, our Lord Jesus.

Appendix III

Modern translations of the Bible

Nowadays, the Bible has been translated in almost all the languages and dialects of the world. It is still the most widely read book in the world.

So far, we spoke of old translations of the Bible, in Greek for the Old Testament, in Latin and other languages for the New and for the whole Bible, following the spread of the Christian Church.

We have to wait for the Reformation and the Protestant movement for a new serious organized effort to translate the Bible for everyone to read.

In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church had adopted the Latin language as its official language. The Mass was all in Latin. The Bible translation adopted was the so called Vulgate, a translation of Jerome made in the fifth centuries. In 1436, during the Council of Trent, the Roman Church officially sanctioned the Vulgate  as the only authorized and official translation of the Church and forbade the translation of the Bible in other languages. In doing so the Roman Church tried to stop the spreading Reformation and the diffusion of the fundamental principles it carried: the personal interpretation of the Scriptures and the right of every Christian to have access to them. Against the corruption of the Church of Rome, a monk named Marthin Luther published 95 thesis, which stirred all Europe. From that time on Christianity was divided, and, please, let me say that, the people found enough reasons in the Bible to which now they had access, to give up the Roman despotism and spiritual tyranny.

So we can say that Bible translations grew proportionally with the Protestant Reformation, though many independent movements and personal efforts are behind it. Men like Wyclif, Tyndale, Hus, paid the highest price at the hands of the Roman Church for translating the Bible and spreading its text among the people. In Italy the Waldesians survived the Catholic persecutions hiding in the mountains. Everywhere, the need for Bible translations was felt. In Germany, Martin Luther translated the whole Bible. In Italy, Giovanni Diodati translated the Scriptures in 1607. In 1611 England was given by her king the so called Authorized Version, cherished by Christian Churches even today.

Why did Catholics fight against Bible and translations and Protestant encouraged them?

There is a main difference between the Catholic Church and the so called Protestant Churches: the Istitutionalism of the Church.

The Catholic Church in her hierarchy system, believes to have been instituted by Jesus when he nominated Peter the first Pope ( Matthew 16:16-18 ), and its organization it believes to be the Church. The consequences of this assumption are: where the Roman Church is, there is God. Being the Church instituted by God, the Holy Spirit guides it. Whatever the Roman Church teaches this is the Word of God, God’s teaching.

Quite different is the matter for Protestant Churches. The exact contrary, and with right, for such is the teaching we find in the Bible. In fact, it is quite clear in the New Testament that there where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, because no man or people has the monopoly of God. The Church is never seen as a group of people, an institution, and organization, a hierarchy, in the New Testament the Church is the whole assembly of the believers. There are no ranks in the Church, but only ministries. The Church is an organism and not an organization.

The basic consequence for such an approach to the truth of the Church is that the Catholics don’t have to read the Bible and interpret that but learn from Catechism, which is the official and infallible teaching of the Roman Church. No direct knowledge of the Bible is necessary for salvation but just conforming to the Catholic teachings.

Jerome wrote that the ignorance of the Scriptures is the ignorance of Christ and that is why Christians have to have access to the Bible, read it, cherish it, love it as the Word of God, personally feeling the need of communion with God through the Scriptures, conforming themselves to the Lord’s teachings. No one has the monopoly of the Spirit of the Lord, so that if we are Christians we have the Spirit of God in us. The New Testament is too clear about such facts. I don’t want to list all the passages, I want to encourage the reader to personally investigate the Scriptures.

The Scriptures are the purest witness to the Christian faith and fear or lack of interest in reading it is only due because of no interest in what God says in His Word and of no interest of conforming to it.

During the Protestant reformation, the Catholic Church was a tyrant ruling spiritually the whole world. The clergy had unlimited power and privileges. All revolts against such shame were silenced in blood. The Roman institution called to find and punish all the of the Catholic Church enemies was the Inquisition, through which incredible crimes against man’s right to freedom and the most basic of human rights were perpetrated. The only interest of the Roman clergy was to keep their privileges and their power and they did it, no matter the price that had to be paid.

With such basic distinction in mind, we understand why the growing number of Bible translations in modern times is due to the spreading and growing religious freedom and need for personal investigation of the Word of God and the Truth found in it.

Today the Bible has been translated in almost all the languages of the world and its message is spread by missionaries worldwide.

I have already mentioned the greatest translations of the Bible of the Protestant Reform, the King James Version, the Italian Diodati – which being Italian I like to mention and cherish in a particular way-, the German translation of Martin Luther. Of course there have been many other translations in various languages – the Valdesians, for example had their own translation. The Geneva Bible is also worthy of being mentioned. The efforts of Wycliff and Tyndale must not be left without praise as the first steps into the religious freedom we all enjoy today and – sad but true – we give too much for granted.

A turning point in Bible translating was the year 1881. In that year the English Revised Version was published in England. Not only it updated the translation of the King James Version, but it also updated the text. In doing so, it created a division, two parallel school of thoughts, still alive today among the English speaking language people: One still supporting the text of the King James, the other supporting the newer text. Let me reassure the reader that such differences do not alter the purity of the text of the Bible available to the average reader. The only exeption to this rule I know is the New World Translation, the Bible as translated and used by Jehowah’s Witnesses. Whereas the average Bible translations differ for type of language used  (modern or less modern), for rendering the meaning of the original text or translating it literally, for the adoption of various editions of the original texts, the New World Translation stands alone as the most manipulated and adulterated Bible text. The people responsible for that will give good account to God.

We can safely say that we can choose the translation we finds in the shelf of any bookstore and be sure to have the Word of God in our hands. If we go on in studying the Word of God, hopefully we will get to study it so deep to be interested in choosing among different Bibles.

Appendix IV

A chronology of Paul’s epistles

Paul is the author of most of the New Testament. His writings are very important because they discuss almost all the aspects of the Christian Doctrine.

His epistles are not listed in chronological order in our Bibles.

The epistle to the Romans, I and II Corinthians come first, being the longest. Then follow the others, also not arranged in any retraceable order.

The following is an attempt to date Paul’s epistles or at least to give them in a chronological order.

I and II Thessalonians are the first two epistles of Paul, written during his second missionary journey.

During his third missionary journey, between the years 57 and 58 AD, the apostle wrote I Corinthians from Ephesus. He wrote II Corinthians and Galatians from Macedonia and Romans from Corinth.

When he was a prisoner in Rome, he wrote and sent to the churches, the epistles to the Philippians, to the Ephisians, Colossians and Philemon.

The Bible says nothing about what happened to Paul after his imprisonment – Acts. 28. It is not sure whether I Timothy, Titus and II Timothy were written during this imprisonment or during the time between this and a hypothetical second imprisonment and his death.  The fact remains that the last mentioned three, were the last epistles written by Paul, in the order in which I listed them.

I Thessalonians

It was written during Paul’s stay in the Greek city of Corinth. It will be easily learned reading Acts 18:5 and I Thessalonians 3:6.

The chronology of the events is easy to retrace in the book of Acts.

Acts 17:1-4 records how Paul funds the church in Thessalonica. Because of a persecution Paul and his companions flee to Berea, Acts. 17:5-12. From there, still fleeing from their persecutors, they go to Athens, Acts 17:13-15.

Paul’s stay in this town is recorded in Acts 17:16-34. From there Paul sends Silas and Timothy to see the Thessalonians.

Now we introduce what said by Paul in I Thessalonians 3:1-5.

When Timothy is back with Paul, he is already in Corinth – I Thessalonians 3:6, Acts 18:1-5

I Thessalonians was written in the year 52 AD.

I and II Corinthians.

I Corinthians was written in Ephesus, during Paul’s stay in that town recorded in Acts 19. Paul himself wrote: “But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.” I Corinthians 16:8

This epistle was written in the Spring of the year 57 AD.

II Corinthian in Autumn of the same year.

Galatians

Some assume that this epistle was written before I Corinthians. Some date it as early as 48 AD believing it to be Paul’s first epistle.

It is my conviction that such hypothesis is wrong and not supported even by internal evidence if we consider the events as recorded in Galatians 2 and following compared to Acts 15.

Such early dating would also question who the recipients of Paul’s letter actually were. I believe that the Galatians the book is addressed to, were visited by Paul during his second missionary journey.

Some other scholars believe it was written before I Corinthians.

I am convinced by my studies that Galatians was written between II Corintians and Romans.

Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon.

We don’t know whether Philippians was written before or after Ephesians. But we know that these epistles were all written when Paul was a prisoner in Rome. Paul himself speaks of his imprisonment. He calls himself “the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles.” Ephesians 3:1. See Also Ephesians 4:1, 6:20, Philippians 1:13-14.

The last three travelled together. So they must have been written at the same time.

Ephesians 6:21-22, “Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and [that] he might comfort your hearts”

Colossians 4:7-9, “All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, [who is] a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord: Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts; With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is [one] of you. They shall make known unto you all things which [are done] here.

The letter addressed to Philemon clearly travels with Onesimus. “I beseech thee

for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds…Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel.” Philemon v.10, 12.

It is quite clear that Tychicus and Onesimus travelled together from Rome with the epistles of Ephisians, Colossians and the letter to Philemon.

We can summarize the chronology of Paul’s epistles as follows