ph2ter

The Epistle of Barnabas seems to be unique among early Christian documents and I think it could be very helpful in determining how the Christianity formed. When looking in isolation it shows some peculiar things. The familiarity with the Gospels is nowhere clearly showed and it is perfectly possible that the author wrote it without knowing any of the Gospels or even any of the epistles of Paul. So I propose here the reading which presupposes that the author never heard about or read any of the Gospels, i.e that he writes before any of the canonical Gospels were penned down.

In that light it is interesting to see how the author treats the passion of the Christ. He exegetically describes the typology of the passion mentioning the elements which can be found also in the Gospels and which do not contradict Paul. His passion typology looks like some kind of precursor of the Gospel passion story. He has almost all the elements of the passion, but lacks the story. The author builds up his typologies from a tissue of OT biblical references and is clear that some real historical event is not a necessary precondition. The author everything argues from the OT and lacks any biographical data about Jesus.

According to the author Jesus acted on human history already from the beginning of humankind and has God speaking to His Son (Jesus): "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness..."
According to the author the Jews lost the covenant already when Moses cast the two tables out of his hands. Already from that moment the covenant of Jesus was starting and for this end Jesus on earth endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption at the hand of men, that a new people which He prepared for Himself might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling; that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers; to bring to a head the sum of the sins of the Jews who had persecuted His prophets to the death; in order that the type established in Isaac when he was offered upon the altar might be fully accomplished.
The author knows that Jesus endured suffering on the cross because he read that in the Scripture. That event he puts in the past because the Scripture says so, not because he learned that from a history.

The author mentions great miracles and signs which the Lord has done to Israel teaching him, but from the context it is clear that the author does not speak about miracles which Jesus performed according to the Gospels, but about great signs and miracles which the Lord has done to Israel before the covenant was broken at Sinai. After that the Lord Jesus chose his own apostles to preach his Gospel and after the apostles started to preach the Gospel, only "then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God". Interestingly, for the author the apostles "were sinners above all sin" and there were twelve of them „as a witness to the tribes, for there were twelves tribes in Israel“.
The author says also: „And thus the things that have happened in this way are clear to us, but they are obscure to them (to the Jews) , because they have not heard the voice of the Lord.“
There is nothing in this reasoning which should force us to suppose that the author thinks that Jesus really walked on earth in the recent past in any ordinary way and literally chosed the apostles. But despite that the author feels the need to argue that Jesus come in the flesh, so it looks that he had some opponents who denied that.

The author then says: "What, then, says Knowledge (Gnosis)? Learn: "Trust," she says, "in Him who is to be manifested to you in the flesh - that is, Jesus."
He argues that from Ezekiel's "Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them" "because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us. "

So, there we can see of what kind of flesh he is speaking about. This is some kind of spiritual flesh, something very close to the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The same understanding the author shows in the next paragraph in which the Lord asks: "And wherewith shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified? He says, I will confess to thee in the Church in the midst of my brethren; and I will praise thee in the midst of the assembly of the saints."
Again nothing about Jesus ministry in Israel before the crucifixion, but rather about symbolical presence of Jesus among the brethren.

Then the author starts to perform the exegesis about the passion. He bases his typologies on the two goat sacrifice of the Day of Atonement and on the red heifer sacrifice, drawing heavily from the Jewish tradition and midrash. From his exegesis we can learn how the passion typology finally expressed in the Gospels might have come into existence.
The document also shows the close parallels with the two ways doctrine which it has in common with the Didache and shows some affinities with the Epistle to the Hebrews.

From the content it is possible to conclude that the epistle is written after destruction of the Temple, but also that it is written before the Gospels. The epistle fits the tendency which says that the more closer to the supposed time of Jesus, the less biographical data you can find about him.

DCHindley

Is this your own analysis or is this long post a paraphrase of an essay in someone's web site?

Sure the Epistle of Barnabas is unique, but whether it represents a glimpse into early Christian thought or not is related to Didache scholarship, a subject that does not get much traction on this board (or anywhere, really). I can't think of too many popularly oriented books on the Didache, even though it is key to understanding current work on Q, Gospel of Thomas and the "synoptic problem" among the canonical gospels.

You are aware that in spite of the mention of popular Jewish lore about the scapegoat (otherwise only known from early 3d century+ Rabbinic sources - it is not of biblical origin), and the "two ways" tradition otherwise known from the Didache and the Damascus Document among the DSS, in chapter 9 there is also exegesis of Genesis (the 318 men Abraham had circumcised from his household - see Genesis 14 & 17) that is only possible in Greek? The number 18 is gematria for the Greek letters I (iota) & E (eta), interpreted as "Jesus," plus 300 for the Greek letter T (tau), representing the cross. Sounds like a historical allusion to me, sorry.

DCH

andrewcriddle

There is some evidence that the author of barnabas knew the Gospel of Matthew. eg see Matthew 22:14 and and the reference to vinegar and gall see Matthew 27:34.

Your claim that it is earlier than the gospels seems to assume that very heavy use of the OT as a basis for the passion of Jesus is a sign of primitiveness which may be begging the question. Matthew has more of this explicit use of the OT than Mark but is generally regarded as later.

On the whole, the strong rejection of Judaism by Barnabas may point to a relatively late date.

Andrew Criddle

ph2ter

This is my own analysis.

I know that the popular Jewish lore around the scapegoat ritual mentioned in the epistle is not of biblical origin, but we can be sure that it is older than 3d century, because the epistle is cited by Clement of Alexandria toward the end of the second century. It would be nothing unusual if described ritual was alive already in the first century. Very probably it actually represents authentic practice before destruction of the Temple.


I believe that the Didache belongs to the documents written before the end of 1st century, mainly because it preserves the Eucharist formula older than 1. Corinthians and the Gospels versions. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache represent community in which the Gospel of Matthew was written. The common material with the Gospel of Matthew can be the result of a tradition which came into existence in that community before the Gospel of Matthew was written. It is strange that the Didache the sayings of Jesus found also in the Gospel of Matthew does not represent as sayings of Jesus. If we also take into account that the Didache surely got a few later additions and interpolations, then the case looks more stronger.


But, do you think that such gematria is not possible already in 1st century?




Maybe the Gospel of Matthew knew the Epistle of Barnabas. The same correlation you can find also looking at the Didache.
The author never cites the Gospels as Scripture except in this case, which looks very suspicious. Maybe the author cites some lost book which was regarded by him as biblical.
I don't think that strong rejection of Judaism excludes the early date. I believe that it is written after the destruction of the Temple, but before any of the Gospels.

dog-on

The strong rejection of Judaism is what Christianity is all about...

GakuseiDon

This is not unique. There are quite a few epistles written in the first few centuries by Christians that are similar: few references to the Gospels, and no mention of Mary or Galilee, and many many references to the OT.

Again, this is quite common in early Christian writings. As it said in Acts:

Acts 17:11:

'"But the people of Beroea were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements, to see if they were really so."

The only way to show that Jesus was the Christ and that Christianity was valid was by tying it into the Hebrew Scriptures. I speculate that early writers were reluctant to put in anything about Jesus that couldn't be defended from the Old Testament

Yes, the epistle writer doesn't mention Jerusalem, Galilee, any of the names of the apostles, in fact almost no historical details. This is quite common of the epistle writers at the time. Doherty notes that there was a silence in the Second Century almost equal to the first, and I agree with him. "Barnabas" is an excellent example.

So, this is what "Barbabas" did write: (my emphasis):

... "Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them," because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us...

Because they shall see Him then in that day having a scarlet robe about his body down to his feet; and they shall say, Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified? Truly this is He who then declared Himself to be the Son of God... Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him? ...

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling... And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh)... might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I would recommend that you go through the earlychristianwritings website, esp the Second Century authors writing from 160 to 200 CE, to see if that idea is correct. Justin Martyr is about the only exception, and even he doesn't have much. Most of his apologies are spent on the Old Testament.

DCHindley

Thanks. I apologize if I seemed to doubt that you could. It just seemed to be "pre-digested" when I first read it.

Not disagreeing here. The point was supposed to be that it is not biblical, and is really not known to predate the destruction.

Ahhh, you have done some homework! As I have suggested elsewhere, one really needs to dig into the various arguments and counter arguments of folks like Jonathan Draper, Kurt Niederwimmer, Willy Rordorff or Clayton Jefford, and evaluate that against the social situation (radical itinerants created by crushing economic oppression being gradually civilized) proposed by Gerd Theissen and promoted by the likes of Stephen Patterson and Aaron Milavec.

Oh yeah!

What I mean to say that since it is only possible to interpret "318" in that way if it is in Greek, the writer only knew Jewish scripture in Greek translation. If he were among the "Jesus people" immediately surrounding a Galilean who died in Judaea, he would more likely know Jewish scripture in Hebrew or at least an Aramaic targum. Even so, many Jews of the Diaspora in Syria and the Mediterranean region only knew their scriptures from Greek translations .

While knowing Jewish scripture only in Greek doesn't rule out him being a former Jew who turned his back on his own national identity, I think it is more likely that he was a gentile with a fetish for Judaism who was sorely disappointed in their expectations from it.

DCH

ph2ter

The epistle is unique regarding the passion. It represents the Gospel like typologies of the passion, but without any story attached.


I find that apologetics again and again. Of course that they searched the Scriptures, because that was everything. Probably nothing else was known to them.


I always marvel how anyone can use that fact to posit HJ.

All that Barnabas got from the Scripture and he says so. You can't find any history in all that exegesis.

ph2ter

I contemplated above that epistle many times because it possesses the crucial elements for the passion story to appear. The scapegoat sacrifice is in the heart of the Bible and is connected with the sacrifice of the firstborns. Jesus is the firstborn of Jahweh and is sacrificed, so the epistle deals with the central issues of Christianity and help us to understand how the first Christians developed their theology.

It is hard to believe that Barnabas invented it.


But I don't believe that any such figure ever lived.
Barnabas was probably a former Jew living in diaspora.

mountainman

Plus. The Chrestian Good News was written in a common Greek script for the strong rejection of the gentile ways of the Greeks. The Jews get to stand in line behind the gentiles aka Greeks in terms of the rejectionism inherent in Christianity. To whom were the first Christian Laws addressed? Which culture - predominantly Greek or predominantly Jewish?

The Epistle of Barnabas is one book of that set of books of the new testament
which were bound by Constantine in his editions, also including for example, the "Shepherd of Hermes",
but which were later excluded during a process of closure on the NT Canon (before the end of the 4th century)