The Journal of Theological Studies, NS 13(1962) 401-408 -- Review by Robert A. Kraft of Les Testimonia dans le christianisme primitif: l'E/pi^tre de Barnabe/ I-XVI et ses sources. By PIERRE PRIGENT. Pp. 240. (E/tudes Bibliques.) Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961. N.F. 32. As its lengthy title indicates, this recent addition to the collection E/tudes Bibliques deals with two closely related areas of investigation: (I) the [402] general 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 detailed 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 Testimonia, "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 Testimonia theories, form the pioneer work of Credner (1838) and Hatch (1889) down to the present day (pp. 16- 28). That Testimonia 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 Testimonia 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 Testimonia (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; Testimonia 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 Testimonia). These anti-cultic Testimonia, 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 Testimonia", which concentrate on the passion-resurrection story about Jesus. As to their literary form, these Testimonia differ slightly from the anti-cultic materials already discussed, and in content 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 New Testament Apologetic: the Doctrinal Significance of the O.T. Quotations (SCM, 1961). Whereas Prigent approaches the Testimonia 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 single- 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, while Prigent rejects Dodd's thesis as equally oversimplified and continues the search for a more acceptable attitude towards the Testimonia problem. ----- \1/ C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: the Sub-Structure of N.T. Theology (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, Novum Testamentum, iii (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, Theol. Zeitschrift, XV (1959), p. 430: "Without doubt the problem does not have one 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: kai\ e)mpai/cousin au)tw=| kai\ mastigw/sousin au)to\n kai\ a)poktenou=sin. . . . 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 mastigw/sousin 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 (ei)s ma/stigas ... ei)s r(api/smata ... ou)k a)pe/streya a)po\ ai)sxu/nhs e)mptusma/twn), 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 mastigw/sousin 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 Handbuch z.N.T. Supplement, 1920), which is used with great profit by Prigent. For one thing, Prigent's care in using the term "anti- cultic-" rather than the conventional and misleading "anti-Jewish" 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 Jewish 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 (Spec. Leg. i. I- II, Qu. Gen.iii..47; 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.-like- 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 Testimonia, 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",Tarbiz, xi (1939- 40), pp. 23-38, which recently has been brought to the attention of the English-speaking world by S. Lowy, Journal of Jewish Studies, 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 final form 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 Testimonia 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 Heilsgeschichte; (4) hymns which originated in its own particular tradition. ----- \3/ On these and other matters discussed in this review, see the reviewer's Harvard Ph.D. Thesis (published in microfilm) on The Epistle of Barnabas: its Quotations and their Sources (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 seemed to come in the flesh or only seemed 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 this same Jesus 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 (ui(o\s a)nqrw/pou) but as Son of God, but manifested in the flesh by a type (tu/pw| de\ e)n sarki\ fanerwqei/s)." His interpretation of tu/pw| "as a reservation, a restriction caused by the affirmation of the incarnation" (thus, "manifested in the flesh in semblance", taking e)n sarki/ 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 tu/pos 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, tu/pw|). 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 *Au)sh=s to *I)hsou=s. 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]]