You're the one who claimed Early Church Fathers (ECFs) considered the book spurious.
We have a gross misunderstanding of terms here. I understand "Early Church Fathers" to mean Ante-Nicene fathers. I quoted Eusebius, who is not an Early Church Father, as considering the book "spurious" in regards to being part of the New Testament Scripture. He also considered other books spurious which we now accept as Scripture, and he warned that we should not classify the Epistle of Barnabas as a heretical book or forgery. I do not know of any Early Church Fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers) who considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be heretical, a forgery, or terrible reading. That is why I am still curious about what Church Fathers you have in mind.
Slade wrote:
But since you want me to list some, how about Cotelerius, Eusebius, and Manardus?
I don't know any Early Church Fathers by the name of Cotelerius or Manardus. Cotelerius published the first "Apostolic Fathers" in the 17th century. I don't know who Manardus is, but suspect he was a later scholar and not an Early Church Father either. Eusebius was a fourth century historian, who might be considered a Nicene church father, but not an EARLY Church Father (Ante-Nicene Church Father). While he did not consider the Epistle of Barnabas to be canon, he classed it with books like Revelation and Hebrews, and spoke of it being valued by many in the church, and cautioned against grouping it with heretical books. With these three names you offer, I think I get the picture now. No need to go any further.
Slade wrote:
"When it is remembered that no one ascribes the Epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the 'spurious' writings, which, however much known and read in the Church, were never regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the Apostle."
The problem in this logic is that Clement of Alexandria of the second century is the first we have to even talk about this Epistle, and he ascribes it to the apostolic Barnabas. That doesn't make him right, but the logic above assumes that because he is the first one we have ascribing it to him, and because Eusebius 150 years later isn't ready to accept it as Canon, then we should not hesitate to refuse to consider Barnabas as its author. This is a non sequitur. Perhaps he assumes that if the apostolic Barnabas wrote it, then we should accept it as Scripture. I do not believe that apostolic authorship warrants anything to be regraded as Scripture. I consider this Epistle not to be Scripture. While I think it likely that this was not the Biblical Barnabas who wrote it, I certainly do hesitate from ruling the Biblical Barnabas out as a possibility. Whoever wrote it was a very good disciple of Jesus Christ (IMO).
Slade wrote:
Interestingly, I was one who thought Barnabas and the Epistle to the Laodiceans should have been included in Scripture. Nine years ago, I changed my mind.
That is interesting. While I agree that it should not be regarded as Scripture, perhaps you let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction in rejecting it as helpful reading.
Slade wrote:
It use of Gnostic terminology and it adherence to the same
What terminology in it is Gnostic? Example please? Lightfoot argues for the earlier 70 A.D. date of authorship partly because of its lack of Gnostic terminology.
Slade wrote:
as well as it's rejection of the Law
Nowhere does the epistle reject the Law. Please document where you think he rejects the law. Again, this is very reminiscent to me of how modern Christians might say that Paul rejected the law.
Slade wrote:
have lessened its apparent importance in my eyes. The writings of Paul can be viewed as either supporting the Law in the Christian Community or it can be used to disband with the Law in the Christian Community -- all depending upon the mindset and any preconceived notion one carries with him/her to the page.
Paul might be twisted by some to be viewed as being contrary to the law, even as the Jews in his own day accused him, but Paul is decidedly FOR THE LAW despite anyone's bias because he quotes it extensively as an authority for what is true.
Slade wrote:
Barnabas cannot be interpreted except to disband with the Law in the Christian Community.
Ridiculous. He argues strongly that the law is to be understood spiritually and not carnally. Hence, Passover is meant to have us partake of Christ and is not meant to have us slay lambs. Not eating swine is meant to tell us not to associate with people who are like swine. Barnabas encourages someone like me to study the law and value it highly, not disband it.
Slade wrote:
Again, it's all in how you interpret the data. I think the terminology used within the book indicate it's written by a Gentile with a later date. You prefer an earlier date. In the end, who cares?
I don't "prefer" an earlier date. I just recognize that the terminology used in the book, when he refers to Daniel and interprets it concerning events happening at that time regarding the destruction of the Temple, suggests that it was written at the time when the Temple was destroyed. This was Lightfoot and Harmer's argument, not mine. I don't consider that argument impossible, but you previously did and to my knowledge never retracted that.
Who cares? I do. We are talking about truth and I think we need to be careful not to overstate our case. If you say it was impossible and somebody values your scholarship, then you might end up causing them to repeat something that is wrong. I think you should reconsider and say that your studies lead you to believe it was written by a Gentile in the early second century, but that it is possible to have been written by a Jew around 70 A.D.
Slade wrote:
The point is that the ECFs considered it spurious, and I believe one of the reasons is that it's authorship is in doubt.
Not the ECF's, but Eusebius, a Nicene Church Historian. Furthermore, the question of authorship does not appear to be significant to Eusebius. Eusebius considered 2nd and 3rd John to be disputed books of Scripture, "whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." He seems to make no mention of any dispute concerning the apostle Barnabus being the author of this Epistle.
Slade wrote:
What's interesting is the source you quoted (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) states the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written between 70 and 200 CE. How can this be when they exist in the DSS? Are you sure your academic sources aren't on peyote?
I'm not sure where you got that date. The initial link takes you to a page which gives 200-175 B.C. as the possible date of the original, but this work seems to have undergone a lot of redactions, beginning in the first century B.C. Perhaps you were reading a date concerning a particular redaction.
David Miller wrote:
Your basis for dismissing the author is basically just because he does not agree with your view of the New Testament's relationship to the Old Testament.
Slade wrote:
Exactly.
This is an interesting admission. I think using one's own perception of truth as the yardstick for determining authorship to be very shaky ground.
Slade wrote:
This is the same process the ECFs used to determine if books needed to be included in a canon or to dismiss them.
Perhaps you need to define ECF because the Ante-Nicene fathers did not seem to be too concerned about solidifying a canon. The post-Nicene era, from my perspective, did not use this methodology to determine which books were canon.
Slade wrote:
Anything less would be dishonest.
I don't think so. We can look at historical relevance to the churches as the greatest evidence of being Scripture.
Slade wrote:
Thankfully, this [creation of the canon] occurred before Gnosticism and antinomianism was too rampant, otherwise the canon would be very different than it is now.
I don't know how you can have this perspective. Gnosticism was just about exterminated by the time the canon was determined, and antinomianism was at an all time high (IMO).
Slade wrote:
The ECFs also used another method... the smelled the text (if you allow me to use figurative language). If the text didn't smell of the Spirit, it was rejected. Barnabas = case and point. It is not in the canon.
This letter certainly did smell of the Spirit, and I don't know a Church Father who would disagree. Even Eusebius would agree with this.
Many writings can be profitable and Spiritual but not be Scripture. Some of the posts made here on TruthTalk can be "Spirit Led" and "smell of the Spirit" so-to-speak, but still not be considered Scripture.
Do you feel the same way about Clement's letter to the Corinthians? I don't consider it Scripture, but it is certainly led by the Spirit just as this Epistle of Barnabas is. It lacks the controversy concerning the covenant of law, so I wonder what you think about this letter.
David Miller wrote:
Paul himself uses this same Hellenistic dualism in Romans 7 and elsewhere. Perhaps your Hebrew bias prevents you from acknowledging it? From my perspective, your pointing this dualism out would tend to support the view that this author was Paul's companion.
Slade wrote:
The use of Hellenized, dualistic, and/or Gnostic terms does not in itself condone Hellenism, dualism, or gnosticism. After all, we use terms like hermeneutics, but we don't worship Hermes (too bad Judy fell for that one).
Paul wrote:
Romans 7:21-25
(21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
(22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
(23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
(24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
(25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
This is classic Greek dualism, that the material world is a shadow of the real spiritual world. Paul says that with the mind (Greek = nous) he serves the law of God, but with the flesh (Greek = sarx), the law of sin and death. "Nous" is the same word Plato used from which classic Greek dualism descended. I don't see how you can get past the truth here that this Hebrew named Paul accept Greek dualism in the sense that the material world was a shadow and also even evil, but that the real existed in the spirit world, even righteousness itself was obtained from this spirit world. In other words, the dominate Hebrews being primarily Sadducees who did not believe in any kind of spirit world, no resurrection, no angels, etc. got it all wrong. The Pharisees and the Greeks were the ones who got it right. Do you see it differently?
Slade wrote:
The covenant was very much ALIVE. God was threatening to do a lot of trimming on the tree, leaving a single leaf in tact -- Moses. God was never through with them... we need to remember the nature of the suzerain covenant.
Perhaps we have a semantic argument here. I see curses of a covenant as the dissolution of the covenant relationship. If I had a covenat with you that stipulated that you would die if you broke your obligation, I consider the covenant over when you have been killed. You apparently consider the covenant still being very much alive because the covenant stipulated that death would happen. I am looking at relationship while you are looking a contract stipulations. My problem is that I don't see how you can say the convenant continues when the people are dead and cut off from the covenant.
David Miller wrote:
Have you read Josephus and the attitude of the Jews during this whole event? They trusted in Yhwh to deliver them at this time. It was unthinkable to them that Yhwh would allow the Romans to detroy the temple. Clearly, God had forsaken them in their stiff-necked attitude toward Yeshua Ha Mashiach.
Slade wrote:
This is the biggest piece of garbage you have ever written. God has never forsaken His people.
Well, we might be having a semantic difference again, but I will pursue it a little further. How do you understand the following passage?
Jeremiah 23:38-40
(38) But since ye say, The burden of the LORD; therefore thus saith the LORD; Because ye say this word, The burden of the LORD, and I have sent unto you, saying, Ye shall not say, The burden of the LORD;
(39) Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence:
(40) And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.
Isn't what Yeshua said in Mat. 10:33 similar?
Matthew 10:33
(33) But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Slade wrote:
Let me ask you a question that I do not want the answer to... What was in your heart when you wrote that last sentence? What emotion were you feeling at the time? Evaluate the source of that feeling (if one even existed).
You didn't want an answer, but I will give you one. I had very little if any emotion. I was thinking of Jesus saying, "ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" and of Peter saying, "you have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" and Stephen saying, "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears... you have been now the betrayers and murderers." These Hebrews looked to YHWH to save them and their temple, but he did not do as they had hoped. He forsook them and the temple was destroyed. This does not mean that he will not later, with another group of Hebrews in a later time establish a covenant with them, as he had promised to Abraham. Certainly he will. He has not entirely forsaken them in that sense, but these who killed Christ and his apostles and who have persecuted the church, these have been cast off from the covenant because while they circumcise the flesh, they do not circumcise their hearts. Without a circumcised heart, no man will see the Lord.
Slade wrote:
The children of Israel lost their Temple because sin abounds in this world. We live in a terrible world and this world hates those who belong to God.
Are you saying that you do not believe that the destruction of the Temple was the judgment of God for the sins of the Hebrew people who rejected both Jesus Christ and his brother, James the Just?
Slade wrote:
You belong to God, as do I and the Israeli people. We are all hated, and the world wants to destroy us. By destroying their Temple and razing Jerusalem, the Romans were PROVING to the world that the covenant is real and that it [the world] hates the covenant people.
If Moses had this logic, he would not have interceded and caused God to spare the Israelites.
Slade wrote:
You have taken the data of history and have used it harmfully. I have used the same data and proved the continuance of the covenant.
I think turning a blind eye to the problem of people rejecting the Messiah so that you can argue for some kind of continuance of a covenant despite their sin is the questionable argument. I don't see what is harmful in my premise, which is that when a person rejects God's Messiah, they will perish. The true Hebrews whom God will gather together in these last days will not say, "we have Abraham for our father," but instead will be saying, "we have Yeshua for our Messiah."
Slade wrote:
... you also do not address the issue that Barnabas quoted Yeshua and used the phrase "as it is written." This terminology is used ONLY for Scripture.
I will try to be more clear. Technically, he did not "quote Yeshua." He did not say, "as it is written by Yeshua" or "as the Scriptures report Yeshua as saying." He simply says, "as it is written." I agree he was quoting Scripture, but I don't know if it was Scripture that Yeshua also had read, Scripture that we no longer have, or if it was Matthew. Barnabas does not say. I can easily accept the viewpoint that it was Matthew he was quoting because even Peter refers to Scriptures being written by Paul. There was plenty of time for him to be acquainted with the gospel of Matthew because this work was written some 30 years later.
Slade wrote:
I argue against apostolic authorship because this author has a different view of Torah than Scripture.
Although he is somewhat extreme in some of his wording, I don't find it at odds with the rest of Scripture. Your argument here reminds me of the argument leveled against Stephen. They said that he spoke blasphemous words against the temple and the law, saying that the temple would be destroyed and that Yeshua would change the customs taught by Moses. Stephen's response was basically, "God does not dwell in this temple or any other house. You murdered the Just One the prophets said would come, you who received the law from angels and have not kept it." Of course, we know that history vindicated Stephen because the customs of Moses were changed. They were forced to be changed by the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. I wouldn't be surprised to see a document with Stephen's name attached to it that was written very much like the Epistle of Barnabas. These two men seemed to have similar views concerning the relationship of the Torah to the Christian covenant.
Interestingly, this argument against Stephen also was leveled against Paul by the Jews in Jerusalem. James knew such was false and urged Paul to demonstrate such by participating in the Mosaic custom of the Nazarite vow. It seems to me that all of this is simply a misunderstanding of the teaching of the law of liberty in Christ.
Slade wrote:
Some of the book's NT Quotes/paraphrases/allusions: II Cor 12.7, James 1.8, Eph 6.9, Rom 8.29-30, Matt 5.42, Luke 6.30, Matt 22.4, Matt 9.13, I Cor 3.16-17, Acts 14.22, Heb 9.13, Rom 11.36 Rom 4.3, Luke 4.18
Paraphrases and allusions are not the same as quotations. If the concepts he shares has so much likeness to the New Testament, is that really why you would be against it?
My point was only about Scriptural quoatations, not teachings that are verified by teachings of the New Testament. Of the passages you listed above, how many do you consider to be quotes from the NT? One?
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "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.
