| Part ofa series on |
| New Testament apocrypha |
|---|
 |
|
 Christianity portal |
TheEpistle of Barnabas (Ancient Greek:Βαρναβᾶ Ἐπιστολή) is anearly Christian Greekepistle written between 70 and 135 AD. The complete text is preserved in the 4th-centuryCodex Sinaiticus, where it is positioned at the end of theNew Testament, following theBook of Revelation and preceding theShepherd of Hermas.
For several centuries, the epistle was categorized among the "antilegomena" ("disputed writings"); while some early Christians regarded it as sacred scripture, others excluded it.Eusebius of Caesarea classified it with excluded texts. It is mentioned in a perhaps third-century list in the sixth centuryCodex Claromontanus and in the laterStichometry of Nicephorus appended to the ninth-centuryChronography ofNikephoros I of Constantinople. Some earlyFathers of the Church ascribed it to theBarnabas mentioned in theActs of the Apostles, but it is now generally attributed to an otherwise unknown early Christian teacher (though some scholars do defend the traditional attribution).[1] It is distinct from theGospel of Barnabas.
The central message of the Epistle of Barnabas is that the writings comprising theHebrew Bible—what would become theOld Testament of the Christian Bible—were, from even their times ofauthorship, written for use by Christians rather than theIsraelites and, by extension, theJews. According to the epistle, the Jews had misinterpreted their ownlaw (i.e.,halakha) by applying it literally; the true meaning was to be found in its symbolicprophecies foreshadowing the coming ofJesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe to be themessiah. Furthermore, the author posits that the Jews broke theircovenant from the very beginning and were misled by an evil angel. After explaining itsChristian interpretations of the Jewish scriptures, the epistle concludes by discussing the "Two Ways", also seen in theDidache: a "Way of Light" and a "Way of Darkness".
The 4th-centuryCodex Sinaiticus (S), discovered byConstantin von Tischendorf in 1859 and published by him in 1862, contains a complete text of the Epistle placed after the canonical New Testament and followed by theShepherd of Hermas. The 11th-centuryCodex Hierosolymitanus (H), which also includes theDidache, the twoEpistles of Clement and the longer version of theLetters of Ignatius of Antioch, is another witness to the full text. It was discovered byPhilotheos Bryennios atConstantinople in 1873 and published by him in 1875.Adolf Hilgenfeld used it for his 1877 edition of the Epistle of Barnabas. A family of 10 or 11 manuscripts dependent on the 11th-century Codex Vaticanus graecus 859 (G) contain chapters 5:7b−21:9 placed as a continuation of a truncated text ofPolycarp's letter to the Philippians (1:1–9:2). An oldLatin version (L), perhaps of no later than the end of the 4th century, that is preserved in a single 9th-century manuscript (St Petersburg, Q.v.I.39) gives the first 17 chapters (without the "Two Ways" section of chapters 18 to 21). This is a fairly literal rendering in general, but is sometimes significantly shorter than the Greek text. S and H generally agree on readings. G often agrees with L against S and H. A small papyrus fragment (PSI 757) of the third or fourth century has the first 6 verses of chapter 9, and there are a few fragments inSyriac of chapters 1, 19, 20. The writings ofClement of Alexandria give a few brief quotations, as to a smaller extent doOrigen,Didymus the Blind andJerome.[3][4][5][6]
The Epistle was viewed as authoritative scripture by some Christians in the early centuries of church history.[7] It was attributed toBarnabas, the companion ofPaul the Apostle, byClement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215)[8] andOrigen (c. 184 – c. 253).[9][10] Clement quotes it with phrases such as "the Apostle Barnabas says."[11] Origen speaks of it as "the General Epistle of Barnabas",[12] a phrase usually associated withcanonical non-Pauline epistles.
In the fourth century, the Epistle was also highly regarded byDidymus the Blind (c. 313 – c. 398),[13]Serapion of Thmuis (c. 290 – c. 358),[14] andJerome (c. 342–420)[15] as an authentic work of the apostolic Barnabas. Its inclusion in close proximity to the New Testament writings inCodex Sinaiticus andCodex Claromontanus witnesses to the canonical or near-canonical authority it held for some Christians,[16] though it is argued by some that this is evidence merely of its popularity and usefulness, not necessarily of canonicity.[17][18]
Eusebius (c. 260 – c. 340), in book three of hisChurch History, excluded it from "the accepted books", classifying it as among the "rejected" or "spurious" (νόθοι) writings,[19] although he elsewhere included this same Epistle of Barnabas withHebrews andJude in the category of "disputed scriptures" (ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν).[20]
In the sixth century, Codex Claromontanus (a list of Old Testament and New Testament books, dating from the third or fourth century) includes the Epistle of Barnabas betweenJude andRevelation along with theShepherd of Hermas, theActs of Paul and theApocalypse of Peter.[21][22] Next to the listing of Barnabas is a dash (most likely added some time later)[23] that may indicate doubtful or disputed canonicity, though the same marking is found next to1 Peter as well, so its meaning is unclear.[24]
TheStichometry of Nicephorus, a later list of uncertain date appended to theChronography of the early 9th centuryNikephoros I of Constantinople, puts the Epistle of Barnabas among its four "disputed" New Testament works—along with theBook of Revelation, theRevelation of Peter and theGospel of the Hebrews—but not among its seven "New Testament apocrypha".[25][26]
In 16.3–4, the Epistle of Barnabas reads:
Furthermore he says again, "Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it." It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.
As commonly interpreted, this passage places the Epistle after thedestruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. It also places the Epistle before theBar Kokhba revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must therefore come from the period between the two Jewish revolts. Attempts at identifying a more precise date are conjectures.[10][27] TheEncyclopædia Britannica puts the latest possible date at AD 130,[28] and gives the actual date of composition at "circa AD 100".[29] Its 1911 edition opted strongly for "the reign ofVespasian (AD 70–79)",[28] shortly after theCatholic Encyclopedia had preferred AD 130−131 in an article by Paulin Ladeuze,[30] and AD 96−98 in an article by John Bertram Peterson.[31] On a more precise dating within the limits associated with theJerusalem temple there is thus an "absence ofscholarly consensus".[32][33][34]
Jay Curry Treat comments on the absence in the Epistle of Barnabas (except for a possible reference to the phrase "Many are called, but few are chosen" in theGospel according to Matthew) of citations from the New Testament:
Although Barnabas 4:14 appears to quote Matt 22:14, it must remain an open question whether the Barnabas circle knew written gospels. Based on Koester's analysis (1957: 125–27, 157), it appears more likely that Barnabas stood in the living oral tradition used by the written gospels. For example, the reference to gall and vinegar in Barnabas 7:3, 5 seems to preserve an early stage of tradition that influenced the formation of the passion narratives in theGospel of Peter and the synoptic gospels.[35]
J. E. Jacquier on different opinion, pointing to the fact that the reference to Matthew 22:14 is proceeded by the words "as the scripture says" (os gegraptai) which not only shows that the words are a quotation but according to him "proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament".[36]
Helmut Koester considers the Epistle to be earlier than theGospel of Matthew: in hisIntroduction to the New Testament he says of the author of the Epistle: "It cannot be shown that he knew and used the Gospels of the New Testament. On the contrary, whatBarnabas presents here is from 'the school of the evangelists'. This demonstrates how the early Christian communities paid special attention to the exploration of Scripture in order to understand and tell the suffering of Jesus.Barnabas still represents the initial stages of the process that is continued in theGospel of Peter, later in Matthew, and is completed inJustin Martyr."[37]
John Finnis has recently argued that the Epistle may have been written around the year 40 AD, proposing that chapter 16 refers instead to thedestruction of the First Temple in 587 BC.[38]
An opposing view is enunciated byEverett Ferguson: "The language of rebuilding the temple in 16.3–5 refers to the spiritual temple of the heart of Gentile believers (any allusion to a physical temple in Jerusalem is doubtful)." On the date of composition he says: "TheEpistle of Barnabas is usually dated to 130−135, although an earlier date in the late 70s has had its champions, and 96−98 is a possibility."[39]
The place of origin is generally taken to beAlexandria inEgypt. It is first attested there (byClement of Alexandria). Its allegorical style points to Alexandria. Barnabas 9:6 mentions idol-worshipping priests as circumcised, a practice in use in Egypt. However, some scholars have suggested an origin in Syria or Asia Minor.[39][40][41]
Treat comments on the provenance of the Epistle of Barnabas:[42]
Barnabas does not give enough indications to permit confident identification of either the teacher's location or the location to which he writes. His thought,hermeneutical methods, and style have many parallels throughout the known Jewish and Christian worlds. Most scholars have located the work's origin in the area of Alexandria, on the grounds that it has many affinities with Alexandrian Jewish and Christian thought and because its first witnesses are Alexandrian. Recently, Prigent (Prigent and Kraft 1971: 20–24), Wengst (1971: 114–18), and Scorza Barcellona (1975: 62–65) have suggested other origins based on affinities in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The place of origin must remain an open question, although the Gk-speaking E. Mediterranean appears most probable.
The Epistle of Barnabas has the form not so much of a letter (it lacks indication of identity of sender and addressees), but as of a treatise. In this, it is like theEpistle to the Hebrews, whichTertullian ascribed to the apostleBarnabas[43] and with which it has "a large amount of superficial resemblance".[44] On the other hand, it does have some features of an epistolary character,[45] and Reidar Hvalvik argues that it is in fact a letter.[46]
The document can be divided into two parts. Chapters 1−17 give a Christ-centred interpretation of theOld Testament, which it says should be understood spiritually, not in line with theliteral meaning of its rules on sacrifice (chapter 2: the sacrifice God wants is that of a contrite heart), fasting (3: the fasting God wants is from injustice), circumcision (9), diet (10: rules that really prohibit behaviour such as praying to God only when in need, like swine crying out when hungry but ignoring their master when full, or being predatory like eagle, falcon, kite and crow, etc.; and that command to chew by meditating the cud of the word of the Lord and to divide the hoof by looking for the holy world to come while walking in this world), sabbath (15), and the temple (16). The passion and death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews, it says, is foreshadowed in the properly understood rituals of thescapegoat (7) and thered heifer (8) and in the posture assumed by Moses in extending his arms (according to theGreekSeptuagint text known to the author of the Epistle) in the form of the execution cross, whileJoshua, whose name in Greek is Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), fought againstAmalek (12). The last four chapters, 18−21, are a version ofThe Two Ways teaching that appears also in chapters 1−5 of theDidache.[47][48][49][50]
As viewed byAndrew Louth, the author "is simply concerned to show thatthe Old TestamentScriptures areChristian Scriptures and that thespiritual meaning is their real meaning".[51] As viewed byBart D. Ehrman, the Epistle of Barnabas is "more anti-Jewish than anything that did make it into the New Testament".[52]
According to David Dawson, "the Jewish mind-set of Barnabas, evident in its choice of images and examples, is unmistakable". He says that the work's two-part structure, with a distinct second part beginning with chapter 18, and itsexegetical method "provide the most striking evidence of its Jewish perspective. It is presented as atalmud ordidachē ('teaching') divided intohaggadah andhalakhah. It usesPhilonic allegorical techniques to interpret fragments ofSeptuagint passages, in the manner of themidrashim. Finally, it applies biblical texts to its own contemporary historical situation in a manner reminiscent of thepesher technique found atQumran."[53]
The creative interpretation of Bible texts that is most typically found inrabbinic literature and is known asmidrash, appears also in theNew Testament and other early Christian works, where it is used with the prior assumption that the whole of the Bible relates to Christ.[54]
James L. Bailey judges as correct the classification asmidrash of the frequent use by the evangelists of texts from theHebrew Bible,[55] and Daniel Boyarin applies this in particular to the Prologue (1:1−18) of theGospel of John.[56] Other instances of New Testamentallegorical interpretations of theOld Testament scriptures as foreshadowing Jesus areJohn 3:14,Galatians 4:21−31 and1 Peter 3:18−22.[57] Other examples ofmidrash-like exegesis are found in the accounts of thetemptation of Christ inMatthew andLuke,[58] and of circumstances surrounding the birth ofJesus.[54]
Some scholars have evaluated pejoratively the use of scripture, such as by Matthew, as "twisting" its meaning.[clarification needed] According toGeorge Wesley Buchanan, however, such condemnations are due to the fact that the scholars have "failed to recognize the meaning and use ofmidrash", which followed "well-established rules": the authors using midrash were not "objective analysts" but "dogmatic apologists", similar to "twentieth-century lawyers", so it was only natural and understandable that they "took passages out of context and used them to support their unrelated cases".[59]
Similar negative judgments have been expressed on the abundant use ofmidrash[57][60][61] in the Epistle of Barnabas. In 1867, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in theirAnte-Nicene Christian Library, disparaged the Epistle for what it called "the absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture which it suggests".[62]
The Epistle of Barnabas also employs another technique of ancient Jewish exegesis, that ofgematria, the ascription of religious significance to the numerical value of letters. When applied to letters of the Greek alphabet, it is also calledisopsephia. A well-known New Testament instance of its use is in theBook of Revelation, "Let the one who has understanding calculate thenumber of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666",[63] which is often interpreted as referring to the name "Nero Caesar" written inHebrew characters.[64] The interpretation ofGenesis 17:23–27 in Barnabas 9:7–8 is considered "a classic example" of allegorical or midrashic interpretation:[65][66] "In reading the story of Abrahamcircumcising his household, his eye fell on the figure 318 which appeared in the scroll as ΤΙΗ. Now ΙΗ was a familiar contraction of the sacred name of Jesus, and is so written in the Alexandrian papyri of the period; and the letter Τ looked like the cross."[67] The same gematria was adopted byClement of Alexandria and by several otherChurch Fathers:William Barclay notes that, because the Greek letter Τ (tau) is shaped exactly like thecrux commissa and represented the number 300, "wherever thefathers came across the number 300 in the Old Testament they took it to be a mystical prefiguring of the cross of Christ".[68]
Philip Carrington says: "Barnabas can beartificial, irritating, and censorious; but it would not be fair to judge him by his less fortunate expositions. His interpretation of the unclean beasts and fishes was in line with the thought of his time, being found in theLetter of Aristeas, for instance. Hisnumerology was also a fashionable mode of thought, though the modern scholar is often impatient with it."[67]Robert A. Kraft states that some of the materials used by the final editor "certainly antedate the year 70, and are in some sense 'timeless' traditions ofHellenistic Judaism (e.g., the food law allegories of ch. 10, the Two Ways). It is with such materials that much of the importance of the epistle for our understanding of early Christianity and its late-Jewish heritage rests."[69] The author's style was not a personal foible: in his time it was accepted procedure in general use, although no longer in favour today.Andrew Louth says: "Barnabas seems strange to modern ears: allegory is out of fashion and there is little else in the epistle. But the fashion that outlaws allegory is quite recent, and fashions change."[70]
In its first chapter, the Epistle states that its intention is that the "sons and daughters" to whom it is addressed should have, along with their faith, perfect knowledge.[71] The knowledge (inGreek, γνῶσις,gnosis) that the first part (chapters 1−17) aims to impart is "an essentially practical γνῶσις, somewhat mystical in character, which seeks to make known the deeper sense of scripture". The first part, of an exclusively exegetical character, provides a spiritual interpretation of scripture.[72][73][74]
The second part opens with a declaration (chapter 18:1) that it is turning to "another knowledge" (γνῶσις). This secondgnosis is "the knowledge of the will of God, the art of enumerating and specifying his commandments, and applying them to various situations",[72] a halakhic, as opposed to an exegetical,gnosis.[75]
Thegnosis of the Epistle of Barnabas does not link it withGnosticism. It shows "an implicit anti-Gnostic stance": "Barnabas'sgnosis can be seen as a precursor of thegnosis ofClement of Alexandria, who distinguished the 'true'gnosis from the 'knowledge falsely so-called' espoused by heretics".[75]
Contrary to the views ofHelmut Koester and Jay Curry Treat, cited above in relation to the date of composition of the Epistle, the authors ofThe Comprehensive New Testament say the Epistle of Barnabas quotes from theNew Testament gospels twice (4:14, 5:9).[76][77]
On the other hand, the Epistle abundantly cites theOld Testament in theSeptuagint version, including therefore thedeuterocanonical books. The Old Testament material appears as allusions and paraphrases as well as explicit quotations. However, the work in no way distinguishes its quotations from sacred scripture from its quotations from other works, some of which are now unknown. While there are agreed upon instances where the Epistle quotes from1 Enoch,[78] it is not clear whether other material in theEpistle that, though not an exact quotation, resembles1 Enoch (4:3; 16:5) or4 Esdras (12:1) attributes to the supposed sources exactly the same status as books now considered canonical. Besides, the Epistle sometimes presents as quotations what are rather free paraphrases, while at other times it gives identifiable phrases without any introductory phrase to indicate that it is quoting.[79]
Works related toEpistle of Barnabas at WikisourceAuthority control databases: National |
|---|