RE: [TruthTalk] Epistle of Barnabas

[Slade Henson]

David M in Black
slade in Red

No it is not.  If I get a chance, I can get some quotes for you, but let me just point out now that Clement considered the author to be the apostle Barnabas who was the apostle Paul's companion.  I think he said it something like, "him who preached in company with Paul."  In like manner, another church father, Jerome, says it was written by the apostle Barnabas.  Jerome said something like, "Barnabas the Cypriot, ordained an apostle to the Gentiles along with Paul."

I don't need the quotes. I have some myself and I read them this morning. I don't necessarily have to accept Early Church Fathers' (ECFs) opinions as absolute truth. The ECFs have an agenda I generally find disappointing. Whereas I find the testimonies of Akiva and Zakkai more along my line of thinking, I don't always agree with them because they have an anti-Yeshua agenda I don't agree with either. It's easy for me to hear the anti-Messianic agenda in the Rabbis, but it's a bit more difficult for me with the ECFs because Hellenized thinking is not necessarily anti-Biblical thinking, but it can easily pervert Biblical Truth into Spiritualized non-action, and that can be a bit harder for me to discern.

Some scholars argue for a first century date. J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer date it between 70 to 79 A.D.  They reference Weizsacker as also dating it within this range.  Michael Holmes says it is impossible to say outside of the 70-132 range, but also references J.A.T. Robinson as someone who dates it in the 70-79 A.D. range in is book, "Redating the new Testament."

You quote one scholar who likes Barnabas, I quote another who dislikes it and says 2nd C CE. Interesting. The one we use will agree with what we hope most. The scholars I've read date it late 1st C through and mid 2nd C. I am the one who says it's impossible to be THE Barnabas for reasons I will list below. This is also why I agree with [certain] scholars who believe the author is a hellenized Gentile, because he lack a certain base understanding necessary to properly interpret the prophets...

• II.8 speaks of the abolition of the Levitical system based solely on the disobedience of those who took part in the system. Also the type of dualism he uses is strongly Hellenistic which is a stark departure from the OT and NT mindset.
• III.9 speaks of the breaking tablets as the broken covenant. The author seems to have forgotten that 3,000 died as the Levites killed those who sacrificed to the idol (a sure sign that the covenant was still in force), and a second set of tablets came down from the mountain to replace the first (again a sign of the continuation of the covenant), and not all sacrificed to the golden calf (so the premise that Israel lost the covenant because of idolatry is too inclusive).
• III.16 speaks of God forsaking the Israeli. This is a fat lie. If it's true, the "church" better watch out because it's only a matter of time before it's our turn (unless it's already happened) -- and welcome to the gospel of "keeping your salvation by obedience" -- the yoke no one can handle.
• III.17 -- note how the words of Yeshua are stated as "as it is written." Is the gospel of Matthew written already? When do you think it was penned? How does that compare to your estimation of the penning of the Epistle of Barnabas?

I don't want to waste too much time reading Barnabas again in order to find more references. Speaking of lightfoot, do you have his four-volume set comparing the NT with Talmud?

 

What scholar says it is impossible to have been written by the Biblical Barnabas?  Many say it seems unlikely to them, but that is not the same thing as "impossible."  Perhaps you should reconsider.  I think you are overstating the case here.  I have a large degree of doubt that it was the Biblical Barnabas.  I tend to go with the idea that it was another Barnabas, partly because within the text, he says, "for my part, not as a teacher but as one of you, I will point out a few things which will cheer you up in the present circumstances."  The title does not say, "an epistle written by Barnabas the Apostle," but rather it is simply, "The epistle of Barnabas." My Greek text has, "Barnaba Epistoah" as the title.  Please reconsider your position that its "basic premise is a lie."

If it was written to make us believe that the Barnabas from the book of Acts rote the book, it's premise is a lie. A man of that caliber would not write in such a "us the Christians" vs. "them the Jews" way; the Barnabas in the NT didn't even have a Greek-ified name, so what does THAT tell you (rhetorical question)? Therefore I, slade, think it's impossible for the REAL Barnabas to have written it.

 

Here's how one scholar lists the chapters (at least one way of two to number the chapters)....

• Chapter I - After the Salutation, the Writer Declares that He Would Communicate to His Brethren Something of that Which He Had Himself Received.
• Chapter II - The Jewish Sacrifices are Now Abolished.
• Chapter III - The Fasts of the Jews are Not True Fasts, Nor Acceptable to God.
• Chapter IV - Antichrist is at Hand: Let Us Therefore Avoid Jewish Errors.
• Chapter V - The New Covenant, Founded on the Sufferings of Christ, Tends to Our Salvation, But to the Jews' Destruction.
• Chapter VI - The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.
• Chapter VII - Fasting, and the Goat Sent Away, Were Types of Christ.
• Chapter VIII - The Red Heifer a Type of Christ.
• Chapter IX - The Spiritual Meaning of Circumcision.
• Chapter X - Spiritual Significance of the Precepts of Moses Respecting Different Kinds of Food.
• Chapter XI - Baptism and the Cross Prefigured in the Old Testament.
• Chapter XII - The Cross of Christ Frequently Announced in the Old Testament.
• Chapter XIII - Christians, and Not Jews, the Heirs of the Covenant.
• Chapter XIV - The Lord Hath Given Us the Testament Which Moses Received and Broke.
• Chapter XV - The False and the True Sabbath.
• Chapter XVI - The Spiritual Temple of God.
• Chapter XVII - Conclusion of the First Part of the Epistle.
• Chapter XVIII - Second Part of the Epistle. The Two Ways.
• Chapter XIX - The Way of Light.
• Chapter XX - The Way of Darkness.
• Chapter XXI - Conclusion.

"The writer is an uncompromising antagonist of Judaism, but beyond this antagonism he has nothing in common with the Antijudaic heresies of the second century. Unlike Marcion, he postulates no opposition between the Old Testament and the New. On the contrary he sees Christianity everywhere in the Lawgiver and the Prophets, and treats them with a degree of respect which would have satisfied the most devout rabbi. He quotes them profusely as authoritative."

True. He quotes the OT frequently. He also quotes the NT profusely. He is not only an antagonist of Judaism, but of the Torah. He [Barnabas] would make a Rabbi puke. And he makes this [slade] proto-Rabbi puke.

I think you misunderstand his [Barnabas's] writing in the same way that some Messianics misunderstand Paul's writings and dismiss them as non-canonical.

 

Please show me Messianics who dismiss Paul as non-canonical. URLs would be handy.

 

-- slade

 

P.S. Other non-Biblical quotes in the NT:

• I Corinthians -- Menander, Thais
• Titus 1 -- Epimenides, Oracle
• Acts 17 -- Aratus 5