The Journal of Theological Studies, NS 13(1962) 401-408 --
Review by Robert A. Kraft of

<t>Les Testimonia dans le christianisme primitif: l'E/pi^tre
de Barnabe/ I-XVI et ses sources.</t> By PIERRE PRIGENT. Pp.
240. <fr>(E/tudes Bibliques.)</fr> Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961.
N.F. 32.

As its lengthy title indicates, this recent addition to the 
collection <t>E/tudes Bibliques</t> deals with two closely 
related areas of investigation: (I) the [402] <e>general</e> 
problem of early Christian use of excerpts from Jewish religious 
literature ("Testimonia"; strictly speaking, such texts are not 
accompanied by exegesis, see p. 82), and (2) the <e>detailed</e> 
source analysis of the numerous quotations in Barnabas i-xvi. As 
Prigent himself says, "the fundamental orientation of this work" 
is towards the problem of <e>Testimonia</e>, "so that Barnabas 
appears only in the sub-title" (p. 9). Nevertheless, the bulk of 
the study deals with the Epistle itself, and makes many valuable 
contributions to that area of investigation. 

     After a brief introduction to the problems of the text and 
integrity of Barnabas (pp. 10-16), Prigent provides an excellent 
survey of <e>Testimonia</e> theories, form the pioneer work of 
Credner (1838) and Hatch (1889) down to the present day (pp. 16-
28). That <e>Testimonia</e> in one sense or another existed when 
Christianity came into existence is now beyond doubt (Qumran 
provides proof positive), and Prigent points to the following 
factors as indications of the presence of such <e>Testimonia</e> 
behind early Christian literature: (1)composite citations, 
(2)ascription of a text to the wrong author, (3) strange textual 
variations common to quotations made by authors who are 
independent of each other, (4) the same series of citations 
attested by several independent authors, and (5) the presence of 
a citation-group which, considered as a separate unit, has its 
own point of organization and argument, but which has been put to 
a different use in its present context (p. 28). The evidence 
from the Epistle of Barnabas clearly points to the presence of 
such <e>Testimonia</e> (and other related sources) behind much of 
chapters i-xvi. 

     Nevertheless, all the sources which can be uncovered from an 
analysis of Barnabas are not of the same genre. One finds 
several groups of rather straightforward quotations (based on the 
O.T. prophets; <e>Testimonia</e> proper) which are "anti-cultic" 
in thrust: so Barn. ii-iii, on sacrifices and fasting; ix. 5, on 
circumcision; xiv. 1-3 (= iv. 7-8), on the covenant; xv. 1-2, on 
the sabbath; and xvi. 1-3, on the Temple (ix. 1-3 and xi. 2-3 
contain similar <e>Testimonia</e>). These anti-cultic 
<e>Testimonia</e>, with their "spiritualizing" tendency, seem (to 
Prigent) to come from a single collection, systematically 
organized and theologically oriented in a way similar to 
"Stephen's Speech' in Acts vii and to the newly found "Sayings' 
Gospel of Thomas (p. 217). Prigent considers Syria to be the 
most likely place of origin for this source (see p. 145). 

     Quite different, both in form and theology, are certain 
"midrashic" sections of Barnabas in which "ritual commandments or 
episodes from the history of Israel are interpreted allegorically 
in a Christian context" (p. 145): Barn. vii, on the Day of 
Atonement; ch. viii, on the Red Heifer; ix. 7-9, the circumcision 
of Abraham's men; ch. x, moral allegory on Mosaic food laws; ch. 
xii, Moses and Joshua types (battle with [403] Amalek, bronze 
serpent, etc.); and ch. xiii, the blessing of Jacob. "Now in 
these chapters the anti-Jewish polemical tone is practically 
absent....For the most part, these midrashim must have been 
destined for a usage internal to Christianity (p. 146; cp. p. 
218). Similarly, two additional "midrashic" passages (vi. 8-19 
and xi. 4-9) seem to reflect a baptismal catechesis used by the 
community from which the Epistle comes, and closely related to 
material in the Odes of Solomon (thus again indicating a Syrian 
milieu; see pp. 90,96 ff.). 

     The third major category into which the source materials of 
Barnabas i-xvi fall is that of "Messianic <e>Testimonia</e>", 
which concentrate on the passion-resurrection story about Jesus. 
As to their literary <e>form</e>, these <e>Testimonia</e> differ 
slightly from the anti-cultic materials already discussed, and in 
<e>content</e> they may be grouped under two closely related 
headings: "christological" (v. 2, 12-14; vi. i, 2-4, 6-7; viii. 
5; xii. 1,4) and "universalistic" (xii. 10-11 and xiv. 6). They 
seem to derive from the early Christian practice (attested 
especially in Justin and Irenaeus, as well as in the N.T. itself 
and in the Gospel of Peter) of using collections of O.T. texts 
(1) for formulating confessional summaries of the Christian 
faith, and (2) as the basis for describing the events of the 
Lord's passion. For at least some of this material, Judaism 
already had laid a significant foundation: "a certain type of 
Judaism used the "Servant Hymns" [of Isaiah] and certain other 
prophecies to characterize the history and personage of an 
exceptional man. Christianity fell direct heir to this 
tradition" (pp. 215 f., with specific reference to Wisdom of 
Solomon ii. 10-v). 

     Finally, Prigent also speaks of other kinds of source 
material which occasionally appear in the background of the 
Epistle's quotations: (1) references to Jewish apocalyptic 
writings (iv. 3 ff., xv. 8, xvi. 5 f.; I would add xii. 1 and 9, 
some of the materials already incorporated into the midrashic 
sections in vi. 8-19 and xi. 8-11, and possibly iv. 14), (2) 
material inspired by the "two ways" tradition or by Didache 
itself (iv. 1-2 and 9-10, see p. 157) and (3) "targumic" 
paraphrases (XV. 1-2 and possibly xiv. 1-3 [= iv. 7-8], see pp. 
65 f.; I would add vi. 8, x.2, and most of he Pentateuchal 
material in chs. xii-xiii). 

     Further insight into Prigent's general approach may be 
gained by comparison of his investigation with another recent 
book which deals with the same basic problem, Barnabas Lindars's 
<t>New Testament Apologetic: the Doctrinal Significance of the 
O.T. Quotations</t> (SCM, 1961). Whereas Prigent approaches the 
<e>Testimonia</e> problem primarily from the viewpoint of fairly 
obvious use of traditional materials in early Patristic 
literature (often explicit quotations), Lindars concentrates on 
the N.T. literature and attempts to uncover the manner in which 
the [404] primitive Christian apologetic developed (defense of 
the resurrection, then the passion, then Messianology and 
Christology, etc.) in the era before the present N.T. literature 
was published. A more basic difference, however, concerns their 
respective methodological presuppositions: both authors rightly 
reject J. R. Harris's oversimplified hypothesis that a <e>single-
</e> anti-Judaic "Testimony-Book" was used by early Christianity, 
but Lindars bases his work on C.H. Dodd's alternative explanation 
that larger "Testimony-contexts" were frequently used<n(1>, while 
Prigent rejects Dodd's thesis as equally oversimplified<n(2> and 
continues the search for a more acceptable attitude towards the 
<t>Testimonia</t> problem. 

-----

\1/ C. H. Dodd, <t>According to the Scriptures: the Sub-Structure 
of N.T. Theology</t> (1952). "The importance of Professor Dodd's 
work can hardly be over-estimated. He has ascertained the 
passages which form "the sub-structure of all Christian 
theology," and has also shown the method which was used by the 
first Christians in formulating it" (Lindars, p. 14). "These 
recent works on the O.T. quotations [by Dodd, Stendahl, and 
Ellis] have given us certain presuppositions to guide us in this 
present study. By drawing our attention to the blocks of 
material from which the testimonies have been drawn, Professor 
Dodd has shown that the primary meaning must be ascertained by 
reference to the whole passage. Generally quotations in the N.T. 
have not been selected with complete disregard of the original 
context" (Lindars, pp. 16 f.). 

\2/ Following, in part, the criticisms offered by A. C. Sundberg, 
<t>Novum Testamentum, iii</t> (1959), pp. 268-81. Prigent feels 
that in so far as Dodd's hypothesis is "limited to certain 
passages, his analysis must be received as a positive 
contribution, but the generalization of the explanation is 
absolutely unacceptable" (p. 25). See also Prigent, <t>Theol. 
Zeitschrift</t>, XV (1959), p. 430: "Without doubt the problem 
does not have <e>one</e> solution, and in our opinion, the 
primary error of J. R. Harris and also, although to a lesser 
degree, of C. H. Dodd is to think it possible to provide a single 
explanation for the whole problem." 

=====

     Although it is true that, where both authors deal with the 
same subject matter (as, for example, the development of the 
passion story), Lindars and Prigent show a great deal of general 
agreement, there are also some interesting differences in detail 
which are due to the different bases from which they operate. An 
excellent example of this arises from their respective treatments 
of the passion prediction in Mark x. 34a: <gk>kai\ e)mpai/cousin 
au)tw=| kai\ mastigw/sousin au)to\n kai\ a)poktenou=sin</gk>. . . 
. For Lindars (following Dodd), "the very primitive allusions [in 
the N.T. to the leading ideas of Isa. liii] indicate that the 
whole passage Isa.lii. 13-liiii. 12 was accepted by the first 
Christians as a prophetic account of what had happened to Jesus, 
his sufferings, death, and exaltation" (p. 79). Thus whenever 
anything connected with the passion story remotely echoes the 
words or ideas of Isa. liii (Hebrew or LXX), Lindars hastens to 
explain it in the light of his (and Dodd's) approach -- "there is 
probably ... a hint of Isa. liii. 5 [wounded ... [405] bruised 
... chastisement ... stripes] in the use of 
<gk>mastigw/sousin</gk> Mark x. 34, ...though it is not found in 
the Septuagint of this verse" (p. 81). Prigent, on the other 
hand, is more concerned with conscious "proof-text" quotations or 
allusions than with partly submerged testimony contexts; thus he 
sees Mark x. 34 as a paraphrase of Isa. l. 5-6 (<gk>ei)s 
ma/stigas ... ei)s r(api/smata ... ou)k a)pe/streya a)po\ 
ai)sxu/nhs e)mptusma/twn</gk>), which is never quoted in the N.T. 
(nor does Lindars refer to it) but is frequently found in early 
Patristic literature -- "the presence of <gk>mastigw/sousin</gk> 
in Mark x.34 is proof that this prediction of the passion rests 
on precise and immediate references to the O.T. prophecies" (p. 
205)! 

     In many ways, Prigent's work distinguishes itself as one of 
the most important investigations of the Epistle of Barnabas to 
be published since the appearance of H. Windisch's magnificent 
little commentary (in the Lietzmann <t>Handbuch z.N.T. 
Supplement</t>, 1920), which is used with great profit by 
Prigent. For one thing, Prigent's care in using the term "anti-
<e>cultic-</e>" rather than the conventional and misleading 
"anti-<e>Jewish</e>" to describe the Epistle's attitude to Jewish 
ritual observances is of great help in attempting to characterize 
Barnabas. It is not difficult to show that many of the "anti-
cultic" criticisms raised in Barnabas were also current in 
<e>Jewish</e> circles which were critical of the Jerusalem 
cultus. To the same degree that it is meaningless to call such 
Judaism "anti-Jewish", it is misleading so to describe Barnabas. 
Unfortunately, Prigent is not consistently careful on this 
matter; for example, he calls Barn. ix. 6 "anti-Jewish" (pp. 58, 
60) despite the fact that almost the same observations as are 
found there concerning the extent of the rite of circumcision 
among Near-Eastern peoples are made by Philo (<t>Spec. Leg. i. I-
II, Qu. Gen.iii..47</t>; apparently Prigent is unaware of these 
parallels). One would do well to dismiss this term altogether 
from descriptions of the Epistle. 

     Another valuable contribution of Prigent's investigation is 
the way in which it focuses attention on the various kinds of 
"scriptural" source materials available to early Christian 
writers. The modern commentator on early Christian literature 
need not feel despair when he is confronted by an O.T.-<e>like-
</e> quotation which is not exactly paralleled in extant older 
literature. The once overworked appeal to "citation from memory" 
is only one among many possible explanations, which include the 
use of <t>Testimonia</t>, targumic or midrashic rewriting of 
scripture, psalmic compositions, scriptural commentary tradition, 
and the like (cp. Lindars, pp. 272 ff.). For example, Prigent's 
conclusion that a (Jewish) midrashic tradition lies behind such 
passages as Barn. vii-viii (following J. Danie(/)lou and others) 
becomes all the more significant in the light of the similar 
suggestions (from the viewpoint of Rabbinical studies) made [406] 
by the late G. Allon in his stimulating (modern Hebrew) article 
on "Halakah in the Epistle of Barnabas",<t>Tarbiz</t>, xi (1939-
40), pp. 23-38, which recently has been brought to the attention 
of the English-speaking world by S. Lowy, <t>Journal of Jewish 
Studies</t>, xi (1960), p. 24 (where a brief summary is given). 
Qumran also has opened new horizons in this area. 

     Finally, Prigent deserves commendation for the sober way in 
which he handles the (often perplexing) textual problems of the 
Epistle throughout his investigation, and for his refusal to 
consider the passages by which the final form of the Epistle 
usually has been dated (iv. 3-5 and xvi. 3-4) as of any special 
value in that regard (pp. 83, 152, 219 f.). The realization that 
the author-editor of the Epistle made extensive use of various 
types of earlier sources greatly complicates the question of 
dating, and greatly reduces the significance of the quest for a 
precise dating of the <e>final form</e> of Barnabas. 

     There are, of course, points at which Prigent's study is 
open to objection. Perhaps most striking is his attempt to 
derive the Epistle from a Syrian milieu, and his occasional 
counter-polemic against a possible Alexandrian setting. The 
point cannot be argued here at length, but the parallels between 
Barnabas and the Alexandrian tradition are much stronger than 
Prigent admits and are certainly as strong as the parallels he 
finds in the "Syrian" Odes of Solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, 
Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc. It is true that, because 
of our lack of surviving sources from other areas of pre-
Christian hellenistic Judaism, the case for Alexandrian origins 
has often been exaggerated. Note, for example, the complete 
difference in attitude towards apocalyptic-eschatological thought 
between Philo, who shows no concern for it, and Barnabas, which 
is filled with it. Nevertheless, certain portions of Barnabas 
strongly reflect an interest closely related to the tradition 
which we know from Aristobulus, Ps.-Aristeas, Philo, Clement of 
Alexandria, and Origen -- for example, the moralistic 
interpretation of Mosaic food laws in ch. x, especially verses I, 
3-5, 11 (despite Prigent's curt dismissal of this chapter on pp. 
115 f. and his fairly accurate statement that "the whole 
contemporary world" knew similar superstitions to those in x. 6-
8); the emphasis on circumcised ears and hearts in ix. I-6; the 
contrast between the "younger" and the "elder" in ch. xiii (which 
is not even discussed by Prigent: see pp. 116 n. 2, 146, 218); 
and the <t>Testimonia</t> concerning "What the Lord Needs" in ch. 
ii-iii. At one point in his discussion of the anti-cultic 
polemic, Prigent notices the possible relationship between 
Barnabas and the Therapeutae described by Philo (p. 132). This 
would seem to provide a more satisfactory milieu for the Epistle 
than Syria --a milieu (I) close to the [407] Alexandrian 
tradition, but probably also close to the eschatological 
orientation of Essen-ism; (2) Greek language, but quite possibly 
in close relationship to Semitic thought like that known from 
Qumran; (3) anti-cultic, but also extremely interested in 
<gn>Heilsgeschichte</gn>; (4) hymns which originated in its own 
particular tradition<n(3>. 

-----

\3/ On these and other matters discussed in this review, 
see the reviewer's Harvard Ph.D. Thesis (published in microfilm) 
on <t>The Epistle of Barnabas: its Quotations and their 
Sources</t> (1961). 

=====

     Similarly objectionable is Prigent's description of the 
christology of Barn. v (and xii. 10a) as "docetic". It may be 
true that the author-editor of the Epistle falls short of later 
"orthodox" standards in his treatment of the pre-existent Son of 
God who has come in the flesh ("there is a separation of natures 
in the Christ, and , correlatively, a docetic tendency" p. 158; 
see also pp. 159, 162 f., 198, 219), but there is no hint in 
Barnabas that Jesus only <e>seemed</e> to come in the flesh or 
only <e>seemed</e> to suffer. In fact, the consistent theme of 
Barn. v-viii is that it was necessary for the Lord, the pre-
existent Son of God, to be manifested and to suffer and to endure 
in the flesh, and that <e>this same Jesus</e> is said to be the 
eschatological judge. As additional support for his accusation 
of "docetism", Prigent appeals to Barn. xii. 10a: "See again 
Jesus, not as a human (<gk>ui(o\s a)nqrw/pou</gk>) but as Son of 
God, but manifested in the flesh by a type (<gk>tu/pw| de\ e)n 
sarki\ fanerwqei/s</gk>)." His interpretation of <gk>tu/pw|</gk> 
"as a reservation, a restriction caused by the affirmation of the 
incarnation" (thus, "manifested in the flesh in semblance", 
taking <gk>e)n sarki/</gk> as a reference to the incarnation; pp. 
123 f.) seems to be an unnecessarily forced exegesis of this 
difficult passage. In the first place, this is not the normal 
sense of <gk>tu/pos</gk> as it is used elsewhere in the Epistle 
(see vii. 3, 7, 11; viii. I; xii. 2, 5ff.; cp. vi. II and xix. 
7). Secondly, xii. 10a provides a fitting conclusion to the 
material which precedes it in xii. 8-9; in fact, the ancient 
Latin version of the Epistle understood xii. 10a in just that 
connexion (although it has no equivalent for the problem word, 
<gk>tu/pw|</gk>). Prigent himself comments on the Joshua typology 
of xii. 9a (p. 122, n. 2) which alludes to Moses changing 
Joshua's name (in Greek) from <gk>*Au)sh=s</gk> to 
<gk>*I)hsou=s</gk>. Barn. xii. 9b tells about this "Jesus" 
(Joshua, who had led Israel to temporary victory over Amalek) 
writing about ("Jesus") the eschatological Son of God, who would 
finally defeat the forces of Amalek in the last times (cp. 
Rabbinic traditions on Amalek symbolism!). Thus xii. 10a 
emphasizes the fact that the "Jesus" who is important here is not 
the ancient human leader ("son of Naue") but the eschatological 
divine victor ("Son of God"), who was manifested in the flesh in 
a type (Joshua conquering Amalek). [408] 

     Lesser criticisms are not lacking, but in raising them the 
reader usually finds that he has profited greatly from the 
stimulating way in which even the objectionable material has been 
presented. For example, Prigent's agreement with the growing 
tendency to see the background of Barn. vi. 8-19 in a baptismal-
eucharistic liturgy both distresses this reviewer and, by causing 
distress, shows how difficult the passage is to interpret today. 
A similar reaction is felt to his argument that the author-editor 
of the Epistle used both the Gospel of Matthew (p. 157) and the 
Didache (pp. 153 ff.), but to disagree is not to refute -- and 
refutation in such matters is a difficult (impossible?) task. 
Thus, to the author and publishers alike, thanks are due for this 
rewarding contribution to the study of Christian origins -- and 
for the appended bibliography and index of citations, which 
enhance its value and increase its usefulness. 

                                   ROBERT A. KRAFT 

[[end]]