Saying Clement quoted from it like it was canonical is like saying Paul quoted Menander Thais in I Corinthians.
The word "hated" is a bad choice of words on my part. The term you used, "Spurious" is far better. However, just because Revelation was once considered spurious because of its apocalyptic nature or Hebrews because of the issue over authorship identification does not elevate Barnabas by any means. It's still non-canonical and (in my opinion) a terrible book. It can be interesting to use the book to determine the mindset of some in the 2nd Century (the century of its writing), but since it's impossible to have been written by Barnabas, it's basic premise (an epistle written by Barnabas the Apostle) is a lie. You say it uphold Torah. It does not. It appears to uphold Torah, just like Judy and others who say Torah is dead still uphold a sense of righteousness apart from Torah. The book's authorship is Gentile and of the Alexandrian mindset (90 - 150 CE) with the view of winning back, or guarding from a Judaic form of Christianity, those Christians belonging to the same class as himself. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- slade ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
