Barnabas, Epistle of
Barnabas, Epistle Of
1. Object.-The chief object of the author of this Epistle was to impart to his readers a knowledge of what pertains to salvation that they might be saved in the Day of Jesus Christ (ii. 10, iv. 1, 9). The two lessons he impresses upon them are: (1) that the literal observance of the Mosaic Law is useless for salvation; (2) the necessity and duty of a moral life. This is the letter of a true Christian pastor of much moral and spiritual earnestness; he is deeply concerned for the salvation of his flock and desirous of imparting to them the best that he has.
2. Moral interest.-It is only right to emphasize our authors moral and spiritual aims because a large part of what he says, consisting of allegorical interpretations of the Mosaic Law, appears to modern minds strangely unreal and fantastic. But if his letter abounds in allegory, it is only because he is deeply impressed with the idea that the Law, if literally observed, will make shipwreck of mens salvation (iii. 6). His earnest advice is: Let us flee from all vanity, let us entirely hate the works of the evil way (iv. 10; cf. 9). In his closing chapters (xix-xxi.) he forsakes the allegorical method entirely, and devotes himself to a setting forth of the two ways, the way of light and the way of darkness. The duties of loving, fearing, praising, and obeying God are named first. Then follows a series of injunctions, some negative and some positive in form, concerned chiefly with ones relations to others. A mans neighbour must be loved more than his own soul. The way of the Black One is set forth in the form of a catalogue of vices and evil actions. Only two Commandments are quoted from the Decalogue-the third and the seventh. There is no direct appeal to either the teaching or the example of our Lord.
3. Attitude towards Judaism.-The main interest which the Epistle has for us to-day lies in the light which it throws upon the relations between Judaism and the Church. In order to appreciate the position of this Epistle in early Christian literature, it is necessary to make a brief review of the transition from Judaism to Christianity. Christianity did not come into the world at a point where there was a religious vacuum. It was founded by One who claimed to be the Anointed One of a definite national religion, which had existed for many centuries. He and His apostles believed in the Jewish religion, as the only true religion, used the Jewish Scriptures as the very word of God, and observed the national forms of worship as the Divinely-appointed mode of serving God. How then did His followers ever come to abandon the Law? Did they at any point make a complete break with all that was Jewish and begin afresh on an entirely new basis? By no means; there was no break, but merely a reorganization. The followers of Jesus believed that He, as Messiah, had authority from God to institute a new Covenant between God and His people Israel, and that He actually did so when He offered Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. The logical consequences of this belief were not perceived all at once, but were bound to come to light as time went on.
(1) If the death of Jesus is sufficient to obtain salvation, the observance of the Law cannot be essential any longer. Hence, though believing Jews may continue to observe the Law if they will, there is not sufficient ground for compelling Gentiles who turn to God and believe on Jesus to do so also. This recognition of the Gentiles is the first step in the process, and is the position reached at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). The next step was to admit that it was not necessary for believing Jews to observe the Law, when such observance caused them to separate from their Gentile brethren. This step was being taken during the lifetime of St. Paul (Gal 2:14 ff., 1Co 9:21). The last step was to condemn all observance of the Law, whether by Jewish or by Gentile believers.
This last step is reflected in the pages of our Epistle. There is, however, this peculiarity about its position: the main stream of Christian thought believed that the Mosaic Law had been given by God to the Jews to be literally fulfilled. Our author, however, does not believe that the Law ever was intended to be taken literally; he says it was uttered in a spiritual sense which the Jews did not understand (x. 9). This error of the Jews was the work of an evil angel (ix. 4; cf. viii. 7); the true spiritual interpretation is known to Christians because God circumcised their ears (ix. 4). This spiritual interpretation of the Law is nothing more or less than a series of allegories. The scapegoat of the Day of Atonement is the type of Jesus who was to suffer (ch. vii). The prescription that certain animals must not be eaten is explained as meaning that one must have no dealings with certain kinds of evil persons (ch. x). If Abraham is said to have circumcised 318 men, the real meaning is Jesus and the Cross, because in the number 18, I stands for ten, H for eight. Here thou hast Jesus (). And because the cross in the T was to have grace, he saith also three hundred. So be revealeth Jesus in the two letters and in the remaining one the Cross (ix. 8; cf. his treatment of the Red Heifer of Numbers 19 in ch. viii).
This position is supported by citing the prophetic condemnation of the idea that sacrifice and ritual can be made a substitute for a moral life (chs. 2 and 3). In dealing with circumcision, our author seizes on those passages which speak of a circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:4, Deu 10:16; Jer 9:26), and argues that the Jewish circumcision is abolished, for he hath said that a circumcision not of the flesh should be practised (9:4). The six days of creation are in reality 6000 years; hence the true Sabbath cannot be observed until the coming of the Son of God (ch. 15). Similarly the building of a material Temple was a mistake; the true Temple is a spiritual Temple-the hearts of those with whom God dwells (ch. 16); thus all that is outwardly distinctive of the Jewish religion is interpreted in a spiritual sense: distinctions of clean and unclean, circumcision, the Sabbath and the Temple.
(2) Another logical consequence of belief in Jesus as Messiah will further illustrate the mind of our writer. If the Messiah has indeed come in the person of Jesus, then the national religion of the Jews is not destroyed but proved to be the true service of the Living God, and its claim that it had received a direct Divine revelation is not exploded but vindicated by God Himself. Every one who believed in Jesus, believed that He came in fulfilment of promises made by God to the Jewish fathers; hence a Christian believer could not but regard the ancient Jewish Scriptures as the record of a unique revelation and treat them as the very word of God. This, too, is the position of our author; for, though he regards the literal observance of the Law as having been from the very first a fatal mistake, yet all his proofs of this are drawn from the OT itself and from what he believes to be its true exegesis. The Lord has made known to us by His prophets, things past and present. The words of Scripture he constantly quotes as words spoken from the mouth of God (ii. 4, 5, 7, iii. 1, iv. 8, v. 5, 12, etc.; cf. iv. 7, 11, v. 4, etc). Moreover, he uses the Scriptures to explain the mystery of the suffering of the Son of God. How did He endure to suffer at the hand of men? Understand ye. The Prophets receiving grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him (v. 5, 6, 13, 14; cf. vi. 6, 7, 10, 11). The OT was his only source of authority in religion; ho does not appeal to any Christian writing, or even to the words of Jesus; he feels he has fully proved his point if he can show that his doctrine is grounded in the Jewish Scriptures.
(3) If Jesus was the Messiah, He was clothed with full authority to mould the national religious life according to the will of God. Those who refused to believe and obey Him refused to obey and believe God, and by this act of disobedience cut themselves off from the Covenant and the mercies of God, On the other hand, those who did believe God and were obedient to His Messiah, became the true people of God, the New Israel, the present possessors of all the privileges that once belonged to the Jewish nation, and the recipients of all the Messianic blessings. If the purpose of God in creating the world and in calling Abraham had been fulfilled in Jesus, then it was not for the sake of unbelieving Jews but for the sake of the believers in the Messiah that the world had been created and Abraham called. They are the new People and yet the old, for they have been latent in Gods intention since the Creation. Thus the Christians denied to the Jews any share whatever in the glorious heritage of the Jewish nation, and claimed it entirely for themselves.
This position throws light upon the mind of our writer. He is sure that the patriarchs from Abraham to Moses stood in a special relation to God and received special promises from Him (v. 7, v. 7, xiv. 1). But, whereas St. Paul would say that the physical descendants of Abraham were not cut off from this special relationship until they out themselves off when they refused to believe in Jesus (Romans 11), our author thinks that they were cut off long before this, as long ago as the day of Aarons golden calf. A Covenant, he says, was given to Moses to deliver to the Jews, but it was never really received. He hath given it (the Covenant), but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins (xiv. 1); for, when Moses perceived their idolatry, he cast out of his hands the two tables which he had received in the Mount, and they were broken in pieces (14:1-4, iv. 6-8). St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews know of two Covenants-an old and a new; and the old was in force until the coming of the Messiah (Rom 7:2 ff., Gal 3:24 f.; 4:24, Heb 8:13). The Epistle of Barnabas says that only one Covenant was over in force-the Covenant of Jesus.
Our author does not cut Christianity away from all historic connexion with the Jewish past; on the contrary, he denies a place of privilege to the Jews after Mount Sinai, in order to show that that place really belonged to the Christians. There are two peoples-the Jews and the Christians. Of these, the Jews, the elder, are in the position of Esau and of Manasseh, who, though the first-born of their respective fathers, did not inherit the blessing; the Christians, like Jacob and Ephraim, though in each case the younger, have been made the recipients of the promise (ch. 13). Accordingly, to our author, the Christians have now come into what was always their own and had never belonged to the nation of Israel. Do not then say, Our covenant remains to them also, Ours it is, but they have lost it in this way for over, when Moses had just received it (iv. 6; cf. 8). The Christians are the new people of God (v. 7, vii. 5; cf. xiii. 6), a holy people (xiv. 6), who have been cleansed, forgiven (vi. 11), whose hearts have been redeemed out; of darkness (xiv. 5), created afresh from the beginning (xvi. 8), a new type (vi. 11); He Himself prophesying in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in bondage unto death. This is the spiritual temple built up to the Lord (xvi. 9, 10; cf. vi. 15).
It is not correct, then, to say with Krger (Hist. of Early Christian Lit., New York, 1897, p. 21) that to the writer of this Epistle Judaism was an error with which Christianity could have nothing to do, but which it must reject. Our author accepts the Jewish Scriptures, the patriarchs, the promises, Moses, and the Law in its (to his mind) correct spiritual interpretation. His animus is against the Jews, not against the Jewish religion; from Sinai onwards they have in reality stood outside that religion; its privileges were always the peculiar property of the Christians, held in reserve for them until the coming of the Messiah.
4. Christology.-In the facts of the earthly life of our Lord the Epistle of Barnabas has but little interest. from incidental notices one gathers that Jesus had performed wonders and miracles (v. 8); that He had chosen twelve apostles to preach His gospel (v. 9, viii. 3); that He was crucified, set at naught and spit upon (vii. 9); that He was given vinegar and gall to drink (vii. 3). It is evident that the writer did not think that his readers stood in need of instruction in the details of the life of Christ.
Nor does he aim at expounding a doctrine of Christs Person and work; but when one gathers together from different parts of his work the passages which refer to our Lord, one can see that his teaching is in line with that of the Catholic Church. Christ is the Beloved of God (iii. 6, iv. 3, 8). He manifested Himself as the Son of God (v. 9, 11, vii. 9), who was pre-existent, being present at and taking an active part in the Creation (v. 5, 10, vi. 12); One who came among men in the flesh (v. 6, 10, 11, vi. 7, 9, 14, xii. 10); who should not be called Son of David but Son of God, for David himself called him not son, but Lord (xii. 10, 11); who is about to come again, and that quickly, to judge both the quick and the dead (v. 7, vii. 2, xxi. 3).
His teaching on the Atonement belongs to the same early period of Christian teaching. He knows that Christ suffered for us (v. 5, vii. 2) and as a sacrifice for our sins (vii. 3, 5, v. 2), that we might be forgiven, sanctified (v. 1), and saved (v. 10); and that we may reign with Him hereafter when we have been made perfect (vi. 18, 19); that He might annul death, show the resurrection (v. 6) and give ns life (vii. 2, xii. 5); that He might sum up the tale of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets (v. 11; cf. xiv. 5). He has no theory of the Atonement and no definition of sacrifice; he is content to show that according to the Scriptures Christ died for our sins and that we are thereby saved.
5. Authorship.-The Epistle is anonymous. Tradition, however, has ascribed it to Barnabas the fellow-worker of St. Paul. Clement of Alexandria quotes it as the work of the Apostolic Barnabas, who was one of the seventy and a fellow-worker of Paul (Strom. ii. 20; cf. ii. 6, 7, 15, 18, v. 8, 10). Origen speaks of the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius calls it the Epistle of Barnabas, i.e. the Apostle (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] vi. 14, iii. 25). It seems to have been held in high esteem in Alexandria towards the end of the 2nd cent.; and, since it is found in Codex Sinaiticus beginning on the leaf where Revelation ends, one may conclude that it was once read in churches. In the West it was never regarded as canonical. Eusebius objected to it, and finally its connexion with the NT was severed entirely.
The external evidence is thus wholly in favour of the apostolic authorship. But, coming as it does from a period as late as the closing years of the 2nd cent., this testimony cannot overbalance the weighty considerations drawn from internal evidence which make it impossible to ascribe it to the companion of St. Paul. What we know of the apostolic Barnabas indicates that he took a view of the Mosaic Law wholly different from that reflected in this Epistle. The Son of Consolation belonged to the earliest stage of the Jewish Christian controversy; he was ready to give the Gentiles liberty, but by no means ready to say that the Jews might abandon the Law altogether (Gal 2:13). It is, of course, quite possible that, after the incident of Galatians 2, Barnabas might have come to acknowledge the entire freedom of the Jews, but even this would not bring him into the atmosphere of our Epistle; for here there is no question as to whether a believing Jew may or may not abandon the Law; the main idea is that no Jew, believing or unbelieving, ought ever to have observed the Law at any time, even before Christ came. Such an attitude as this lay altogether outside the purview of the thoughts of St. Pauls companion, if we may judge from what St. Paul tells us of him. And it is difficult to think that any Jew, born under the Law, and nurtured in the stirring traditions of its maintenance in the face of cruel persecution, could come to feel so little enthusiasm for and interest in the national struggles and heroisms that he could sweep them all away as things which never ought to have been. A soul so dead to patriotism was no true Jew. None but an alien could be so unsympathetic to the national history of the Jews.
Not very much more can be added to this. The author was probably one of the class distinguished by a charisma or gift of teaching. Though he disclaims any intention of writing professionally, yet he was conscious of possessing some claim to a deferential hearing (Bartlet, Encyclopaedia Britannica 11 iii. 409). Two theories are advanced to account for the ascription of the Epistle to Barnabas. It was the work of a namesake of St. Pauls companion; or, it was known as coming from Alexandria, and hence was ascribed to Barnabas as to one prominent in the early history of that Church.
6. Place.-There is a general agreement among scholars that Alexandria is the probable scene of its composition. The general style and the use of the allegorical method are thoroughly Alexandrian. At Alexandria, again, the Jews were particularly strong, and in constant conflict with the Christians. Hence the bitter opposition to the Jews as a nation, and the anxiety to cut off all sympathy with Jewish practices. It has been observed that there are serious blunders in the descriptions of Jewish rites; our author agrees neither with the OT nor with the Talmud. But possibly his knowledge is derived from Alexandria rather than from Palestine. Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia ii. 537, remarks that the letter shows an astonishing familiarity with Jewish rites.
7. Date.-There is much less agreement on the question of the date of the Epistle. It is plainly later than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in a.d. 70, for it alludes to that event (xvi. 4). Again, it is earlier than the second destruction under Hadrian in a.d. 132; otherwise, as Lightfoot remarks, some reference to this event would have been found.
A closer determination of the date depends mainly on the interpretation of a passage from ch. iv. This chapter contains a warning that the last offence is at hand; for the Lord has shortened the times and the days that His beloved may come quickly. As a proof that the last offence, i.e. the Antichrist, is at hand, the writer quotes a prophecy from the Book of Daniel (Dan 7:7; Dan 7:24) to the effect that ten kings shall reign, and after them shall arise a little king who shall subdue three of the kings in one ( ). It is evident that the writer thinks that this prophecy has been, in part at least, fulfilled; he has seen something in recent history which corresponds with this vision. Thus much then seems clear; when he wrote this, there had been ten Caesars on the Imperial throne. Unless we are to omit some of the Emperors from the list-a proceeding for which there seems no justification-the tenth Emperor brings us to the reign of Vespasian. If the little horn had already appeared when the Epistle was written, then we must look for three Emperors subdued by the successor of Vespasian. And this, of course, Titus did not do. Hence it seems better to interpret the little horn as Antichrist, who has not yet been revealed, for this gets rid of the difficulty of finding one Emperor who had already subdued three. The writer found this reference to three kings in his text of the prophecy, and meant to leave it to the future to show who the three were and how they would be overthrown. But no matter how this point is settled, the tenth horn can scarcely be other than Vespasian, and this fixes the date of the Epistle at between a.d. 70 and 79. Another chapter (xvi.) is sometimes referred to as having a bearing on this question. This chapter speaks of a building of the Temple of God. Many commentators, including Harnack, take this as referring to the material Temple at Jerusalem, which they say the Jews expected Hadrian to rebuild. Hence they place this Epistle c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 120. But this rests on a misinterpretation of ch. xvi. It seems certain that the writer has in view the spiritual Temple built up in the hearts of believers, and hence the passage has no bearing on the question of date (cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 241). Certain other considerations, such as the absence of a reference to Gnosticism and the apparent possibility of a relapse into Judaism, have also been brought forward. Suffice it to say that none of these is incompatible with the date given above.
8. Text.-Until the discovery of the famous Codex Sinaiticus () in 1862, this Epistle was known only in a Latin translation and in eight Greek Manuscripts . The Latin Version is found in a manuscript of the 8th cent., but the translation was made from a text supposed by Mller to be earlier than . It does not contain the last four chapters. The Greek Manuscripts all lacked exactly the same portion of the Epistle-the first five and a half chapters-and joined the remainder of Barnabas on to the end of the Epistle of Polycarp as though it were all one letter. Being thus plainly descended from a common source, they are not independent witnesses for the text. With the publication of by Tischendorf in 1862 a complete Greek text appeared for the first time. In this Codex our Epistle follows Revelation, and is followed by the Shepherd of Hermas. Another complete Greek manuscript was discovered in Constantinople by Bryennios in 1875. A good account of the Manuscripts will be found in Harnacks Altchristl. Litteratur, i. 58-61, and in Gebhardt-Harnacks Pat. Apost. Op. i. 2, pp. vii-xx.
9. Integrity.-Attempts have been made by Schenkel, Heydecke, J. Weiss, and others to show that the Epistle contains many interpolations. Hefele, Hilgenfeld, and Gebhardt-Harnack have maintained the opposite. Of special interest is the relation of our Epistle to the Didache (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ); for both set forth much the same moral teaching under the title of The Two Ways. Rendel Harris (Teaching of the Apostles, Cambridge, 1888, pp. 17-20) maintains that the writer of Barnabas knew the Didache and quoted it from memory. Harnack, however, seems more successful in showing that the writer of the Didache used and improved upon our Epistle (cf. Die Lehre der zwlf Apostel, Leipzig, 1884, pp. 81-87).
Literature.-English translations will be found in J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1 vol., London, 1891; The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, translation Roberts, Donaldson, and Crombie (= Ante-Nicene Christian Library, i.), 97ff.; K. Lake, Apostolic Fathers, London, 1912. Reference should also be made to Gebhardt-Harnack, Patrum Apost. Op. i. 2 [Leipzig, 1878], who given complete list of titles down to 1878 on pp. xlii-xliv; A. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Litteratur, Leipzig 1893; A. Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur, Freiburg i. B., 1902-03; J. Donaldson, Apostolical Fathers, London, 1874 (= new ed. of vol. i. of Crit. Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doct.); W. Cunningham, A Dissertation on the Epistle of St. Barnabas, do. 1877; C. J. Hefele, Pat. Apost. Op. iv. 8 [Tbingen, 1855]; S. Sharpe, Epistle of Barnabas, London, 1880; G. Salmon, Introd. to the NT6, London, 1892, pp. 513-519; K. Kohler in Jewish Encyclopedia ii. [1902] 537f.; W. Milligan in DCB [Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.] i. [1877] 260ff.; J. Vernon Bartlet in Encyclopaedia Britannica 11 iii. [1910] 408f.; J. G. Mller, Erklrung des Barnabasbriefes, Leipzig, 1869.
Harold Hamilton.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Barnabas, Epistle Of
An epistle has come down to us bearing the name of Barnabas, but clearly not written by him.
1. Literary History. This epistle was known to the early church, as it is cited by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1. 2, p. 273, Paris, 1629, et al. seven times); by Origen (contra Celsum, p. 49, Cantab. 1677, et al. three times); and is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 6:14), and by Jerome (Catal. Script. Eccles. c. vi). It was lost sight of for several centuries, until Sirmond (17th century) discovered it at the end of a manuscript of Polycarp’s Epist. ad Philipp. Hugo Menardus also found a Latin version of it in the abbey of Corbey, and prepared it for publication. It appeared after. his death, edited by D’Achery (Paris, 1645), and this was the first printed edition of the epistle. Isaac Vossius had previously obtained a copy of the Corbey MS. and of that of Sirmond, and had conveyed them to archbishop Usher, who annexed them to a copy of the Ignatian Epistles he was preparing for the press. But the fire at Oxford (1644) destroyed all but a few pages, which are given by Fell in the preface to his edition of Barnabas (Oxford, 1685). Vossius published the epistle in 1646, at the end of the Ignatian Epistles. It is given also in Cotelerius, Patr. Apostol. (1672), in both what was then known of the Greek text and also in the Corbey Latin version; in Russel, Apost. Fathers (1746); Galland, Biblioth. Patrum (1765); and recently in Hefele, Patr. Apostol. Opera (1842). Several German translations were made; also an English one by Wake, Apostolic Fathers. All these editions were based on the same materials, viz. a defective Greek text, in which the first four chapters, and part of the fifth, were wanting, and the Latin version of Corbey, which lacked four chapters at the end. But in 1859 Tischendorf brought from Matthew Sinai a manuscript containing the entire epistle in Greek, with a part of the Pastor of Hermas. It was published in his Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum (2d edit. Lips. 1863). The first five chapters are also given in the second edition of Dressel, Patr. Apostol. Opera (Lips. 1863, 8vo), with a preface by Tischendorf; also, separately, by Volkmar, under the title Monumentum vetust. Christianae ineditum (Zurich, 1864), with a critical and exegetical commentary. The best edition is that of Hilgenfeld, Barnabae Epist. integ. Greece primum ed., with the ancient Latin version, a critical commentary and notes (Lips. 1865, 8vo). An English version of the Epistle, from the Codex Sinaiticus, is given in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1863; reprinted in the American Presbyterian Review, Jan. and July, 1864.
2. Authorship and Date. Some of the early editors, (e.g. Voss), and some eminent modern critics (e.g. Pearson, Carr, Wake, Lardner, Gieseler, Black), maintain that this epistle was written by Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul. But the current of criticism has gone the other way, and it is now held as settled that Barnabas was not the author. For a history of the discussion, see Jones, Canonical Authority of the New Testament (Lond. 1726; new ed. Oxford, 1827, 3 vols. 8vo); Lardner, Credibility, etc., Works, 2:19; Hefele, Patres Apost. Prolegomena. The following is a summary of the reasons against the genuineness of the epistle:
1. Though the exact date of the death of Barnabas cannot be ascertained, yet, from the particulars already stated respecting his nephew, it is highly probable that that event took place before the martyrdom of Paul, A.D. 64. But a passage in the epistle (ch. 16) speaks of the Temple at Jerusalem as already destroyed. It was consequently written after the year 70.
2. Several passages have been adduced to show that the writer, as well as the persons addressed, belonged to the Gentile section of the church; but, waiving this point, the whole tone of the epistle is different from what the knowledge we possess of the character of Barnabas would lead us to expect, if it proceeded from his pen. From the hints given in the Acts, he appears to have been a man of strong attachments, keenly alive to the ties of kindred and father-land. We find that, on both his missionary tours, his native island and the Jewish synagogues claimed his first attention. But throughout the epistle there is a total absence of sympathetic regard for the Jewish nation; all is cold and distant, if not contemptuous. It remains yet that I speak to you (the 16th chapter begins) concerning the Temple; how those miserable men, being deceived, have put their trust in the house.’ How unlike the friend and fellow-laborer of him who had great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart for his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh’ (Rom 9:2).
3. Barnabas was not only a Jew by birth, but a Levite. From this circumstance, combined with what is recorded in the Acts of the active part he took in the settlement of the points at issue between the Jewish and the Gentile converts, we might reasonably expect to find, in a composition bearing his name, an accurate acquaintance with the Mosaic ritual, a clear conception of the nature of the Old Economy and its relation to the New Dispensation, and a freedom from that addiction to allegorical interpretation which marked the Christians of the Alexandrian school in the second and succeeding centuries. But the following specimens will suffice to show that exactly the contrary may be affirmed of the writer of this epistle; that he makes unauthorized additions to various parts of the Jewish Cultus; that his views of the Old Economy are confused and erroneous; and that he adopts a mode of interpretation countenanced by none of the inspired writers, and at utter variance with every principle of sound criticism, being to the last degree puerile and absurd.
(1.) He mentions in two passages the fact recorded in Exo 32:19, of Moses breaking the two tables of stone, and infers that Jehovah’s covenant was thereby annulled. The falsity of this statement need not be pointed out to the Biblical student. He says, They (the Jews) have forever lost that which Moses received. For thus saith the Scripture: And Moses …. received the covenant from the Lord, even two tables of stone, etc. But, having turned themselves to idols, they lost it; as the Lord said unto Moses, Go down quickly, etc. And Moses cast the two tables out of his hands, and their covenant was broken, that the love of Jesus might be sealed in your hearts unto the hope of his faith’ (ch. 4). The second passage, in ch. 14, is very similar, and need not be quoted.
(2.) On the rite of circumcision (Act 15:1-2) we find in this epistle equal incorrectness. The writer denies that circumcision was a sign of the covenant. You will say the Jews were circumcised for a sign, and so are all the Syrians and Arabians, and all the idolatrous priests.’ Herodotus (2. 37), indeed, asserts that the Syrians in Palestine received the practice of circumcision from the Egyptians; but Josephus, both in his Antiquities and Treatise against Apion, remarks that he must have alluded to the Jews, because they were the only nation in Palestine who were circumcised (Ant. 8:10, 3; Apion, 1:22). How,’ says Hug, could Barnabas, who traveled with Paul through the southern provinces of Asia Minor, make such an assertion respecting the heathen priests!’
(3.) Referring to the goat (ch. 7), either that mentioned in Numbers 19 or Leviticus 16, he says, All the priests, and they only, shall eat the unwashed entrails with vinegar.’ Of this direction, in itself highly improbable, not a trace can be found in the Bible, or even in the Talmud.
(4.) In the same chapter, he says of the scape-goat that all the congregation were commanded to spit upon it, and put scarlet wool about its head; and that the person appointed to convey the goat into the wilderness took away the scarlet wool and put it on a thornbush, whose young sprouts, when we find them in the field, we are wont to eat; so the fruit of that thorn only is sweet. On all these particulars the Scriptures are silent.
(5.) In ch. 8 the author’s fancy seems to grow more fruitful and luxuriant. In referring to the red heifer (Numbers 19), he says that men in whom sins are come to perfection ( v were to bring the heifer and kill it; that three youths were to take up the ashes and put them in vessels; then to tie a piece of scarlet wool and hyssop upon a stick, and so sprinkle every one of the people. This heifer is Jesus Christ; the wicked men that were to offer it are those sinners that brought him to death; the young men signify those to whom the Lord gave authority to preach his gospel, being at the beginning twelve, because there were twelve tribes of Israel.’ But why
(he asks) were there three young men appointed to sprinkle? To denote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And why was wool put upon a stick? Because the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, etc.
(6.) He interprets the distinction of clean and unclean animals in a spiritual sense. Is it not ( see Dr. Hefele’s valuable note, p. 85) the command of God that they should not eat these things? (Yes.) But Moses spoke in spirit ( ). He named the swine in order to say, Thou shalt not join those men who are like swine, who, while they live in pleasure, forget their Lord,’ etc. He adds, Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is, thou shalt not be an adulterer.’ If these were the views entertained by Barnabas, how must he have been astonished at the want of spiritual discernment in the apostle Peter, when he heard from his own lips the account of the symbolic vision at Joppa, and his reply to the command, Arise, Peter, hath at any time entered into my mouth’ (Act 11:8).
(7.) In ch. 9 he attempts to show that Abraham, in circumcising his servants, had an especial reference to Christ and his crucifixion: Learn, my children, that Abraham, who first circumcised in spirit, having a regard to the Son (in Jesum, Lat. Vers ), circumcised, applying the mystic sense of the three letters ( den geheimen Sinn dreier Buchstaben anwendend, Hefele). For the Scripture says that Abraham circumcised 318 men of his house. What, then, was the deeper insight () imparted to him? Mark first the 18, and next the 300. The numeral letters of 18 are I (Iota) and H (Eta), I = 10, H = 8; here you have Jesus, ; and because the cross in the T (Tau) must express the grace (of our redemption), he names 300; therefore he signified Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one.’ It will be observed that the writer hastily assumes (from Gen 14:14) that Abraham circumcised only 318 persons, that being the number of the servants born in his own house,’ whom he armed against the four kings; but he circumcised his household nearly twenty years later, including not only those born in his house (with the addition of Ishmael), but all that were bought with money’ (Gen 17:23). The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.
The probable opinion is that this epistle existed anonymously in the Alexandrian Church, and was ignorantly attributed to Barnabas. It was probably written by a Jewish Christian, who had studied Philo, and who handled the O.T. in an allegorical way in behalf of his view of Christianity. Its date is assigned to the first century by Hilgenfeld, De App. Vater (Halle, 1853); Reuss, Geschichte der Schriften des N.T. 1:223; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 7:136; and to the early part of the 2d century by Dressel, Patres Apost. Proleg., and Ritschl, Entstehung d. Altkath. Kircne, 294. Volkmar gives the date as 119, or later, in Hadrian’s time. Hefele puts it between 107 and 120. Weizsacker, in his treatise Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tubingen, 1864), seeks to prove that the epistle was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, and not under Hadrian. See also Weizsacker in Jahrbucher f. Deutsche Theologie, 1865, p. 391. 1-17) is directed against the Judaizing party, and aims to show that the abolition of Judaism, by means of the spiritual institutions of Christianity. is foretold in the O.T., so that the true covenant people of God are the Christians, not the Jews. The four remaining chapters are ethical, containing practical advices and exhortations for walking in the way of light, and avoiding the way of darkness. The names and residence of the persons to whom it is addressed are not mentioned, on which account, probably, it was called by Origen a Catholic epistle (Origen contr. Cels. lib. 1, p. 49). But if ly this title he meant an epistle addressed to the general body of Christians, the propriety of its application is doubtful, for we meet with several expressions which imply a personal knowledge of the parties. It has been disputed whether the persons addressed were Jewish or Gentile Christians. Dr. Hefele strenuously contends that they were of the former class. His chief argument appears to be, that it would be unnecessary to insist so earnestly on the abolition of the Mosaic economy in writing to Gentile converts.
But the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians is a proof to what dancer Gentile Christians were exposed in the first ages from the attempts of Judaizing teachers; so that, in the absence of more exact information, the supposition that the persons addressed were of this class is at least not inconsistent with the train of thought in the epistle. But more than this: throughout the epistle we find a distinction maintained between the writer and his friends on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. Thus, in chap. 3, God speaketh to them (the Jews) concerning these things, Ye shall not fast as ye do this day, etc.; but to us he saith, Is not this the fast that I have chosen?’ etc.; and at the end of the same chapter, He hath shown these things to all of us, that we should not run as proselytes to the Jewish law.’ This would be singular language to address to persons who were Jews by birth, but perfectly suited to Gentile converts. In chap. 13 he says, Let us inquire whether the covenant be with us or with them’ (the Jews); and concludes with quoting the promise to Abraham (with a slight verbal difference), Behold I have made thee a father of the nations which without circumcision believe in the Lord’ a passage which is totally irrelevant to Jewish Christians. For other similar passages, see Jones On the Canon, pt. 3, chap. 39. Dr. Schaff remarks of the epistle, as a whole, that it has many good ideas and valuable testimonies, such as that in favor of the observance of the Christian Sabbath. But it goes to extremes in opposition to Judaism, and indulges in all sorts of artificial, sometimes absurd, allegorical fancies…. It is an unsound application of the true thought, that the old is passed away and that all is made new by Christ. Compare especially ch. 4 (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 121). Besides the works cited in the course of this article, see Zeitschrift f. d. histor. Theologie, 1866, p. 32; Donaldson, Christian Lit. 1:201 sq.; Neander, Church History, 1:381; Henke, De epistolae quae Barnabae tribuitur authentia (Jen. 1827); Rordam, De authentia ep. Barnabae (Havn. 1828) (both argue for the genuineness of the epistle); Heberle, in the Stud. d. wurt. Geistl. 1846, 1; Ullmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 2 (opposes the genuineness); Schenkel, ib. 1837 (contends that ch. 7-17 are interpolations); Hug, in the Zeitschrift d. Erzbisth. Freiburg, p. 2; Lardner, Works, 2, p. 2.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Barnabas, Epistle of
See APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Barnabas, Epistle of
Barnabas, Epistle of.-I. Authenticity.-Is this epistle the production of the Barnabas so often associated with St. Paul; or has it been falsely connected with his name? The question is one of deep interest, bearing on the historical and critical spirit of the early Christian church.
It is admitted on all sides that the external evidence is decidedly in favour of the idea that the epistle is authentic. Clement of Alexandria bears witness to it as the work of “Barnabas the apostle”-“Barnabas who was one of the seventy disciples and the fellow-labourer of Paul”-“Barnabas who also preached the Gospel along with the apostle according to the dispensation of the Gentiles” (Strom. ii. 7, 35; ii. 20, 116; v. 10, 64. Cf. also ii. 6, 31 ; ii. 15, 67; ii 18, 84; v. 8, 52). The same may be said of Origen, who speaks of it as “the Catholic Ep. of Barnabas” (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius disputes its canonicity, but is hardly less decided in favour of its authenticity. It is included by him at one time among the disputed, at another among the spurious books; yet there is no reason to doubt that when, in both passages, he calls it the Ep. of Barnabas, he under stands not an unknown person of that name but the Barnabas of Scripture (vi. 14, iii. 25). Jerome must be understood to refer to it when he tells us of an Ep. read among the apocryphal books, and written by Barnabas of Cyprus, who was ordained along with Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles (de Vir. Ill. c. vi.). In the Stichometria of Nicephorus, in the 5th cent., it is enumerated among the uncanonical books; and, at the close of that cent., a similar place is assigned to it by Anastasius Sinaita. Since it is, moreover, found in Codex attached to the books of N.T., there is no doubt the early Christian church considered it authentic. That she refused to allow its canonicity is little to the purpose. The very fact that many thought it entitled to a place in the canon is a conclusive proof of the opinion that had been formed of its authorship. The early Church drew a line between apostles and companions of apostles; and, although writings of the latter, such as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Ep. to the Hebrews, were received into the canon, the connexion between the writers of these books and one or other of the apostles was believed to be such that the authority of the latter could be transferred to the former. Such a transference would be more difficult in the case of Barnabas, because, although associated at one time with St. Paul in his labours, the two had differed in opinion and separated.
It is on internal evidence that many distinguished critics have denied its authenticity. That there is great force in some at least of the arguments adduced by them from this source it is impossible to deny, yet they do not seem so irresistible as to forbid renewed consideration. They have been summed up by Hefele (Patr. Apost. p. 14), and succeeding writers have added little to his statement. Of his eight arguments, five may be at once rejected: The first, that the words of Augustine regarding the Apocrypha of Andrew and John, si illorum essent recepta essent ab ecclesia, show that our epistle would have been placed in the canon had it been deemed authentic; for Andrew and John were apostles, Barnabas was not. The second, that Barnabas had died before the destruction of Jerusalem, while the epistle bears clear marks of not having been written until after that date; for this idea is no just inference from the texts referred to, Col 4:10, 1Pe 5:13, 2 Timothy 3 (4 ?) 11, and the authority of a monk of the 6th or 9th cent. is not to be relied on. The third, that the apostles chosen by our Lord are described in c. v. as ; for these words are simply introduced to magnify the grace of Christ in calling not the righteous but sinners to repentance. It was an undoubted fact that the Saviour had associated with publicans and sinners, and Barnabas may mean no more than that out of that class were the apostles chosen. He may even have had the career of Saul previous to his call to the apostleship mainly in view. The fourth argument of Hefele, that the epistle betrays in c. x. so much ignorance of the habits of various animals, is not valid; for natural history was then but little known. The fifth argument of the same writer to be set aside is that Barnabas, who had travelled in Asia Minor, and lived at Antioch in Syria, could not have asserted in c. ix. that the Syrians were circumcised, when we know from Josephus (contr. Ap. i. 22; Antiq. viii. 10, 3) that they were not; for, however frequently this statement has been repeated, Josephus says nothing of the kind. What he says is, that a remark of Herodotus, to the effect that the Syrians who live in Palestine are circumcised, proves that historian’s acquaintance with the Jews, because the Jews were the only inhabitants of Palestine by whom that rite was practised, and it must have been of them, therefore, that he was speaking, and he quotes Herodotus, and without any word of dissent, as saying that the Syrians about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, that is in the northern parts of Syria, did submit to circumcision. He may thus be even said to confirm the statement of our epistle.
The three remaining arguments of Hefele are more important.
(1) That the many trifling allegories of cc. v.-xi. are unworthy of one who was named the “Son of Consolation.” It is true that it is difficult to conceive how such a one could find in the numeral letters of the Greek version of the O.T. an indication of the will of Him Who had given that Testament in Hebrew to His ancient people. Yet, after all, is it not the time rather than the writer that is here in fault? It is unfair to take as our standard of judgment the principles of interpretation just now prevailing. We must transfer ourselves into the early Christian age, and remember the spirit of interpretation that then prevailed. We must call to mind the allegorical explanations of both Jewish and heathen schools, whose influence passed largely into the Christian church. Above all, we must think of the estimation in which the epistle was held for centuries, e.g. by Clement and Origen; that some would have assigned it a place in the canon; and that, even by those who denied it that place, it was regarded as a most useful and edifying work. In judging, therefore, of the ability of our author, we must turn from the form to the substance of his argument, from the shell in which he encloses his kernel of truth to that truth itself. When we do so his epistle will appear in no small degree worthy of approbation. It exhibits a high appreciation of many of the cardinal truths of Christianity, of the incarnation and death of Christ, of the practical aims of the Gospel, of the freedom and spirituality of Christian living; while the general conception of the relation of the N. T. to the Old, although in some respects grievously at fault, embodies the important principle that the Old is but the shadow of the New, and that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Throughout the epistle there are many sentences of great beauty and warmth of Christian feeling, and the description of the rebuilding of the spiritual temple in c. xvi. is most eloquent.
(2) Against its authenticity are urged, next, the numerous mistakes committed by the writer in cc. vii, viii. with regard to the rites and ceremonies of Judaism, mistakes to all appearance inconsistent with the idea that he could be a Jew, a Levite, who had lived long in Jerusalem, and must have been acquainted with the ceremonial institutions of the Jews. It is impossible not to feel the great force of the objection, or even to complain of one who, upon this ground alone, should reject the authorship of Barnabas. Let it only be remembered that these mistakes are almost equally inexplicable on the supposition that the author was not Barnabas. If such rites were not actually practised, whence did he learn their supposed existence? It is out of the question to think that they were a mere fancy of his own. And how came the great Fathers whose names have been already mentioned, how came the church at large, to value the epistle as it did if in the mention of them we have nothing but absurdity and error? We are hardly less puzzled to account for such inaccuracies if the writer was an Alexandrian Christian of heathen origin than if he were a Jew and a Levite.
(3) The third and last important argument adduced by Hefele is founded upon the unjust notions with regard to Judaism which are presented in our epistle. They are correctly so described. But it is not so clear that they might not have been entertained by one who, educated in the school of St. Paul and animated by a high sense of the spirituality and universality of the Christian faith, would be easily led, in the heat of the Judaic controversies of his day, to depreciate a system which was threatening to overthrow the distinctiveness and power of the Gospel of Christ.
To these arguments recent writers have added that the strong anti-Judaistic tendency of the epistle is inconsistent with its ascription to Barnabas, inasmuch as he erred in too great attachment to the Jewish party (Gal 2:13). But the incident thus referred to reveals no such trait in the character of Barnabas. His conduct on that occasion was a momentary weakness by which the best may be overtaken; and it rather shews us that his position on the side of the freer party had been previously a decided one, “insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.” The incident may also have made him in time to come ashamed of his weakness, firmer and more determined than before.
To sum up the evidence, it seems to the present writer that its balance favours its composition by Barnabas more than critics have been generally willing to allow. The bearing of the external evidence upon this result is unquestionable; and, where we have such evidence, it is a sound principle that nothing but the strongest internal evidence should be permitted to overcome it. The traditions of the early church with regard to historical facts do not appear to have been so loose as is often alleged. It is difficult also to imagine how a generally accepted and firmly held tradition could arise without some really good foundation.
Finally, we are too prone to forget that the substance of Christian truth may be held by others in connexion with misapprehensions, imperfections, misinterpretations, of Scripture, absurd and foolish views, in connexion with which it would be wholly impossible for us to hold it. The authorship of Barnabas is rejected by, among others, Neander, Ullman, Hug, Baur, Hefele, Winer, Hilgenfeld, Donaldson, Westcott, Mhler, while it is maintained by Gieseler, Credner, Guericke, Bleek, Mhler, and, though with hesitation, De Wette. [The weighty judgment of bp. Lightfoot must now (1911) be added to the list in favour, and will generally be considered as decisive: see Apost. Fathers, pt. i, vol. ii. pp. 503-512.]
II. The Date of the Epistle.-External evidence does not help us here. We are thrown wholly upon the internal. Two limits are allowed by all, the destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand, and the time of Clement of Alexandria on the other-that is, from a.d.70 to the last years of the 2nd cent. Between these two limits the most various dates have been assigned to it; the general opinion, however, being that it is not to be placed earlier than towards the close of the 1st, nor later than early in the 2nd cent. Most probably it was written only a very few years after the destruction of Jerusalem.
III. Object of the Epistle, and Line of Argument pursued in it.-Two points are especially insisted on by the writer: first, that Judaism, in its outward and fleshly form, had never been commended by the Almighty to man, had never been the expression of God’s covenant; secondly, that that covenant had never belonged to the Jews at all.
In carrying out his argument upon the first point, the writer everywhere proceeds on the idea that the worship which God requires, which alone corresponds to His nature, and which therefore can alone please Him, is spiritual, not a worship of rites and ceremonies, of places and seasons, but a worship of the heart and life. It is not by sacrifices and oblations that we approach God, Who will have no offerings thus made by man (c. ii.); it is not by keeping Sabbaths that we honour Him (c. xv.); nor is it in any temple made with hands that He is to be found (c. xvi.). The true helpers of our faith are not such things, but fear, patience, long-suffering, continence; and the “way of light” is found wholly in the exhibition of moral and spiritual virtues (c. xix.). But how was it possible to reconcile with such an idea the facts of history? Judaism had had, in time past, and still had, an actual existence. Its fasts and sacrifices, its sabbaths and temple, seemed to have been ordained by God Himself. How could it be pleaded that these things were not the expression of God’s covenant, were not to be always binding and honoured? It is to the manner in which such questions are answered that the peculiar interest in our epistle belongs. They are not answered as they would have been by St. Paul. The Apostle of the Gentiles recognized the value of Judaism and of all the institutions of the law as a great preparatory discipline for the coming of the Messiah, as “a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” There is nothing of this kind in the argument of Barnabas. Judaism has in it nothing preparatory, nothing disciplinary, in the sense of training men for higher truths. It has two aspects-the one outward and carnal, the other inward and spiritual. The first was never intended by God; they who satisfy themselves with it are rather deceived by “an evil angel.” The second is Christianity itself, Christianity before Christ (c. ix. and passim). This view of the matter is made good partly by shewing that, side by side with the institutions of Israel, there were many passages of the Prophets in which God even condemned in strong language the outward ceremony, whether sacrifice, or fasting, or circumcision, or the temple worship (cc. ii. iii. ix. xvi.); that these things, in their formal meaning, were positively rejected by Him; and that the most important of them all, circumcision, was fully as much a heathen as a divine rite (c. ix.). This line of argument, however, is not that upon which the writer mainly depends. His chief trust is in the , that deeper, that typical and allegorical, method of interpreting Scripture which proceeded upon the principle that the letter was a mere shell, and had never been intended to be understood literally. By the application of this principle the whole actual history of Israel loses its validity as history, and we see as the true meaning of its facts nothing but Christ, His cross, His covenant, and the spiritual life to which He summons His disciples. It is unnecessary to give illustrations. What is said of Moses, that he spoke , is evidently to be applied to the whole O. T. The literal meaning is nowhere what was really intended. The Almighty had always had a deeper meaning in what was said. He had been always thinking, not of Judaism, but of Christ and Christianity. The conclusion, therefore, could not be mistaken; Judaism in its outward and carnal form had never been the expression of God’s covenant. To whom, then, does God’s covenant belong? It is indeed a legitimate conclusion from, the previous argument that the Jews cannot claim the covenant as theirs. By the importance they always attached, and still attach, to outward rites they prove that they have never entered into the mind of God; that they are the miserable victims of the wiles of Satan (cc. iv. ix. xvi.). But the same thing is shewn both by Scripture and by fact-by Scripture, for in the cases of the children of Rebekah, and of the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, we learn that the last shall be first and the first last (c. xiii.); by fact, for when Moses broke the two tables of stone on his way down from the mount, the covenant which was at that moment about to be bestowed upon Israel was dissolved and transferred to Christians (c. xiv.).
This line of argument clearly indicates what was the special object of the epistle, the special danger against which it was designed to guard. It was no mere Judaizing tendency that was threatening the readers for whom it was intended. It was a tendency to lapse into Judaism itself. The argument of those who were endeavouring to seduce them was, “The covenant is ours” (c. iv.). These men, as appears from the tenor of the whole chapter, must have been Jews, and their statement could have no other meaning than that Judaism, as the Jews understood and lived it, was God’s covenant, that it was to be preferred to Christianity, and that the observance of its rites and ceremonies was the true divine life to which men ought to be called. Yet Christians were shewing a disposition to listen to such teaching, and many of them were running the serious risk of being shattered against the Jewish law (c. iii.). With this the errors of a coarsely Judaistic life naturally connected themselves, together with those many sins of the “evil way” in which, when we take the details given of them in c. xx., we can hardly fail to recognize the old features of Pharisaism. In short, those to whom Barnabas writes are in danger of falling away from Christian faith altogether; or, if not in actual danger of this, they have to contend with those who are striving to bring about such a result, who are exalting the ancient oeconomy, boasting of Israel’s nearness to God, and praising the legal offerings and fastings of the O.T. as the true way by which the Almighty is to be approached. It is the spirit of a Pharisaic self-righteousness in the strictest sense of the words, not of a Judaizing Christianity, that is before us. Here is at once an explanation of all the most peculiar phenomena of our epistle, of its polemical zeal pointed so directly against Judaism that, as Weizcker has observed, it might seem to be directed as much against Jews as against Judaizers ; of its effort to shew that the whole O. T. cultus had its meaning only in Christ; of its denial of all value to outward Judaism; of its aim to prove that the inward meaning of that ancient faith was really Christian; of its exclusion of Jews, as such, from all part in God’s covenant; and of its dwelling precisely upon those doctrines of the Christian faith which were the greatest stumbling-block to the Jewish mind, and those graces of the Christian life to the importance of which it had most need to be awakened.
IV. Authorities for the Text.-These consist of MSS. of the Greek text, of the old Latin version, and of citations in early Christian writings. The MSS. are tolerably numerous, but the fact that, except the Sinaiticus (), which deserves separate mention, they all lack exactly the same portion of the epistle, the first five and a half chapters, seems to shew that they had been taken from a common source and cannot be reckoned as independent witnesses. Since the discovery of Codex by Tischendorf a new era in the construction of the text has begun. Besides bringing to light the portion previously wanting, valuable readings were suggested by it throughout, and it is now our chief authority for the text. The old Latin version is of high value. The MS. from which it is taken is probably as old as the 8th cent., but the translation itself is supposed by Mller to have been made from a text older even than that of Codex . It wants the last 4 chapters of the epistle. Citations in early Christian writings are extensive.
Editions and Literature.-Valuable editions are those of Hefele, 1855 (4th ed.); Dressel, 1863; Hilgenfeld, 1866; and Mller, 1869. Dressel was the first to make use of Codex , but of all these editors Mller seems to have constructed his text upon the most thoroughly scientific principles. The literature is very extensive. Notices of the Epistle will be found in the writings of Dorner, Baur, Schwegler, Ritschl, Lechler, Reuss, and others. The following monographs are especially worthy of notice; Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs neue untersucht, bersetzt und erklrt (Tbingen, 1840); Hilgenfeld in his Die Apostolischen Vter (Halle, 1853); Weizcker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tbingen, 1863); J. G. Mller’s Erklrung des Barnabasbriefes, Ein Anhang zu de Wette’s Exegetischem Handbuch zum neuen Testament (Leipz. 1869), contains general prolegomena to the epistle, a critically constructed text, and an elaborate commentary, together with careful Excursus on all the most important difficulties. W. Cunningham, A Dissertation. on the Ep. of B. (Lond. 1877). A trans. of the epistle is contained in the vol. of the Apost. Fathers in the Ante-Nicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, 10s. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher (Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clarendon Press with a dissertation by J. H. Backhouse. The best text for English scholars is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by bp. Harmer (Lond. 1991), pp. 237-242.
[W.M.]