THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS:
ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

by Robert Alan Kraft

PhD Thesis (Harvard University) April 1961

---

SUMMARY

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

PhD Thesis (Harvard University)

Robert Alan Kraft

April 1961

One of the major concerns which faced the early Christian Church from the very first was how to assess its relationship to its Jewish heritage and to the Judaism with which it was contemporaneous. For example, the Gospel of Matthew highlights elements of promise and fulfillment in the story of Jesus; Paul understands his mission to the Gentiles in terms of the continued working out of the history of salvation; Acts depicts the gradual development of Christianity from a Palestinian Jewish sect to a universal church; the Book of Revelation adapts the thought- categories of apocalyptic Judaism to Christian purposes. On the other hand, early Christianity was not without those like Marcion, who attempted a radical divorce between the church and the Jewish religion.

The Epistle of Barnabas, which is of undetermined authorship and circumstances of origin, but must date, at the latest, from the first half of the second century, deals with the same problem in a manner which is unique in preserved early Christian literature. It is extremely outspoken in its denial that cultic-Judaism (centered in the Temple ritual) has any validity for the worship of God. Nevertheless, both [[2]] the sources on which this alleged "anti-Jewish" attack is based, and the methods by which the sources are interpreted, show a definite dependence on hellenistic late Jewish thought.

Barnabas contains over 100 explicit quotations (i.e. prefaced with introductory rubrics), all of which occur in chapters 1-17. More than one-fourth of these citations can be traced directly or indirectly to the Septuagint translations of Isaiah and Psalms, but many of the remaining "quotations" differ widely from known text forms of the Old Testament (although they are very similar to Old Testament ideas and vocabulary).

Has the author of the Epistle willfully manipulated his Jewish sources in such a way as to turn them against the very Judaism from which they came? Many interpreters of Barnabas have claimed this in the past. A close examination of the "peculiar" quotations and their relationship to quotations in other late Jewish and early Christian literature, however, reveals that very little Christian tampering is demonstrable. On the contrary, in most instances the materials used by Barnabas seem to have been taken with little change from a pre-Christian hellenistic Jewish school-tradition in which cultic Judaism already had been minimized, if not renounced.

That some aspects of hellenistic Judaism had reacted against blind, literalistic adherence to the Mosaic legislation in general and to the Temple ritual in particular, is [[3]] attested strongly by the Alexandrian tradition of Aristobulus, the Epistle of Pseudo-Aristeas, and Philo. Even semitic speaking Judaism sometimes was critical of the cultus, as the recent discoveries from Qumran illustrate. In its "anti-cultic" polemic, Christianity did not need to create new arguments or radically to emend older materials -- the pattern already had been set by such Jewish schools.

Both in its use of isolated quotations and in the larger "tradition blocks," the Epistle of Barnabas represents an early stage in the Christian adaptation of such Jewish materials. Barnabas shows relatively little interest in subjects which held the attention of much other early Christian literature -- the life and teachings of Jesus, the work of the Spirit, the organization and institutions of the Church. Instead, the Epistle tries to spell out the real meaning of God's covenant in the light of the present eschatological crisis. Jewish/Christian "gnosis," or "Pneumatic" interpretation of the history of salvation, holds the key to the real meaning of God's dealings with Ancient Israel. Abraham was the father of "nations," not simply of the Jews, and looked forward symbolically to Jesus and the cross. Moses received a covenant of righteous actions, not of ritualistic restrictions, and made for Israel signs of Jesus' cross. The real "promised land" into which Jesus/Joshua leads still is in the future -- it is the eschatological "new creation" which follows the [[4]] "sabbath rest" and for which Christians wait.

In the Epistle, the Jewish sources have been Christianized by means of editorial comments which hold the traditional materials together. But is it possible to identify with more precision the type of Judaism from which Pseudo-Barnabas obtained the materials which he has edited in the Epistle? Certainly it was from a hellenistic Jewish school tradition, but probably not directly from the Alexandrian school, which seems to lack the eschatological orientation of Barnabas. Possibly the Essene-like Therapeutae described by Philo, or a similar Jewish community near Alexandria (?), provided the seed-bed for Barnabean thought. The same emphases on the history of salvation, apocalyptic and "gnostic" interpretation, and formal ethical admonition seem to be common to Barnabas and the Essenes. Thus Barnabas provides an important witness both to the kinds of sources available to early Christian authors, and to the actual transition between a sophisticated hellenistic Judaism and Christianity in its earliest stages.

[[Title page, i]]

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS:
ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

A thesis presented
by
Robert Alan Kraft
to
The Committee on Higher Degrees
in the History and Philosophy of Religion
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
New Testament and Christian Origins


Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 1961

[[ii]]

The literary rights to this manuscript, including those of publication, copying extracts, or closely paraphrasing,
are explicitly reserved by Harvard University and by the author.
If the reader obtains any assistance from this volume, he must give proper credit in his work.

[[iii]]

CONTENTS

AIDS TO THE READER

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

General Footnoting Procedures.-- In citing general literature on the Epistle of Barnabas (see that section of the Bibliography), usually only the name of the author or editor is given (e.g. Windisch, Heer, etc.). For other modern literature, the name of the author, title of the writing, and date of publication are given at the first mention of the work; thenceforth, only the author's last name and an abbreviated title are given (e.g. Swete, Intro). For ancient literature, see the abbreviations and editions listed below.

Translated Materials.-- The writer is responsible for all translations from the Epistle of Barnabas and for the eclectic Greek text on which they rest. Translations from other Greek and Latin writings also are the writer's unless otherwise indicated (@@ps-Philo, LAB, is from M.R.James' translation). In the materials which have been translated anew for this investigation, an attempt has been made to reproduce the flavor of the original as closely as possible, even where this results in unpolished English construction.

Illustrative Texts.-- The TEXTS provide a sampling of various kinds of problem quotations in the Epistle. There the Latin version of Barnabas has been reproduced as faithfully as possible from the edition of Heer (filling out strange orthography and most abbreviations by means of parentheses, and capitalizing the most interesting differences from the Greek text). The major variations within the Greek witnesses to Barnabas also are presented as fully as possible (omitting obvious scribal errors, orthographical differences, and some of the variations within family G).

ABBREVIATIONS OF MODERN LITERATURE

Current Periodicals.-- Standard abbreviations based on Biblica 41 (1960), III\*/- VI\*/, and/or Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fuer Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete 6 (1958/59), iv-xi, are used in citing current periodical literature. See Biblica ??vol?? (1950-51), for more complete lists. [[viii]]

Series, Encyclopedias, older Periodicals, etc.--

• CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, editum consilio et impensis Acadmiae Litterarum (Caesareae) Vindobonensis (now Academiae Scientiarum Austriacae). Vienna, 1866- .
  
• Encyc Encyclop(a)edia, e.g. Brit(tanica), Jewish.
  
• Exp The Expositor. London, 1875-1925.
  
• GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte, herausgegeben von der Kirchenvaetercommission der Koeniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (now der Kommission fuer spaetantike Religionsgeschichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin). Leipzig-Berlin, 1897- .
  
• HDAC Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed by J. Hastings in 2 vols. New York, 1916-18.
  
• LexTK Lexikon fuer Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed by J. Hoefer and K. Rahner. Freiburg, 1957- .
  
• Loeb Loeb Classical Library.
• NieuwTTijd Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift. Haarlem, 1912-46.
  
• PG Patrologiae cursus completus, ... series graeca, @@accurant J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1857-66.
• PL Patrologiae cursus completus,...series prima, secunda [latina], @@accurant J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1844-64.
• RAC Reallexikon fuer Antike und Christentum, ed by T. Klauser. Stuttgart, 1950- .
• RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed by K. Galling. Tuebingen, 1957- .
• TTijd Theologisch Tijdschrift. Leiden, 1867-1919.
• TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur: Archiv fuer die griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig/Berlin, 1882- .
• ZWT Zeitschrift fuer die wissenschaftliche Theologie. Jena/Halle/Leipzig/Frankfurt, 1858-1913. [[ix]]

ANCIENT LITERATURE: ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

Biblical

• MT Masoretic Text. Biblia Hebraica, ed by R. Kittel et al. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, 1954.
  
• LXX/OG Septuagint/Old Greek (used loosely for extant MSS and eds). Brooke- The Old Testament in Greek I: The Octateuch, McLean ed by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean. Cambridge (Eng.), 1906-17. Septuaginta (Vetus Testamentum Graecum), Societatis Scientiarum/Litterarum Go%ttingensis auctoritate. Rahlfs X. Psalmi cum Odis, ed by A. Rahlfs. 1931. Ziegler XIII. Duodecim Prophetae, ed by J. Ziegler. 1943. XIV. Isaias, ed by Ziegler. 1939. XV. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae, ed by Ziegler. 1957. XVI:1. Ezechiel, ed by Ziegler. 1952. SVI:2. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, ed by Ziegler. 1954. Holmes- Vetus Testamentum Graecum, ed by R. Parsons Holmes and J. Parsons. Oxford, 1798-1827.
  
• Hatch-Redpath A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, ed by E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath. Oxford, 1892-1906.
  
• Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt..., ed by F. Field. Oxford, 1875.
  
• verss Versions. [Since the notations in the above MT and LXX/OG eds differ, the following abbreviations have been employed: in most cases, the verss are cited on the authority of the above eds.]
• Arab Arabic
  
• Arm Armenian
  
• Bo Bohairic
  
• Co Coptic (Bo+Fay+Sah)
  
• Compl Complutensian Vulgate (121 n3)
  
• Eth Ethiopic
  
• Fay Fayyumic
  
• OL Old Latin (Sabatier ed)
  
• Sah Sahidic
  
• Syh Syro-hexaplar
  
• Syp Palestinian Syriac
  
• Syr Syriac Peshitta
  
• Symm Symmachus
  
• Targumim The Bible in Aramaic, ed by A. Sperber. Leiden, 1959- . The Targum of Isaiah, ed by J.F. Stenning. Oxford, 1949. [See also the Polyglott editions]
  
• Vg Vulgate (see also Compl)

[[x]]
Late Jewish and Rabbinic

• The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed by R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1913.
• The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament, ed by M.R. James. London, 1920.
• Assump The Assumption of Moses, ed by R. H. Charles. Moses London, 1897.
• II Baruch Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch, ed by B. Violet. GCS. Leipzig, 1924.
• Syriac Baruch. and the Baruch- The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of cycle the Year 136 A.D., ed by J.R. Harris. London, 1889.
• Daniel- cycle Les Apocalypses apocryphes de Daniel, ed by F. Macler. Paris, 1895. "'Prie\re de Nabonide' et autres e/crits d'un cycle de Daniel," ed by J.T. Milik, RB 63 (1956), 407-15.
• I Enoch Slavonic Enoch. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch, ed by R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1912. Ethiopic Enoch. II Enoch The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, ed by W. R. Morfill and R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1896.
• Epistle of Pseudo-Aristeas The so-called Epistle of Aristeas to Philocrates, ed by H.St J. Thackeray as an appendix to H.B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge (Eng.), 1900 (1914\2/). See also Aristeas to Philocrates, ed by M. Hadas. New York, 1951.
• IV Ezra The Fourth Book of Ezra, ed by R.L. Bensly with an Introduction by M.R. James. Texts and Studies 3:2. Cambridge (Eng.), 1895. See also B. Violet's ed above under II Baruch.
• Josephus Complete Works ed by B. Niese. Berlin, 1887-90. Antiq Jewish Antiquities. See also the Loeb ed by H.St J. Thackeray and R. Marcus. Cambridge (Mass.), 1930- .
• Jubilees The Book of Jubilees of The Little Genesis, ed by R. H. Charles. London, 1902.
• Mekilta Mekilta, ed by J.Z. Lauterbach. Philadelphia, 1933.
• Midrash Midrash Rabbah, ed by H. Freedman and M. Simon Rabbah (Soncino ed). London, 1939. Cited as GenR, ExR, etc. [[xi]]
• Odes of Solomon The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, ed by J.R. Harris. Cambridge (Eng.), 1909, 1911\2. Re-edited by Harris and A. Mingana.
• Philo Complete Greek Works ed by L. Cohn and P. Wendland, with an additional Index vol by J. Leisegang. Berlin, 1896-1930. See also the Loeb ed by G.H. Whitaker and F. H. Colson, Qu Gen, Qu Ex with supplementary vols containing Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin et Exodum in an English trans from the Armenian by R. Marcus. Cambridge (Mass.), 1929-62.
• Ps-Philo Pseudo Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, ed by G. Kisch. Notre Dame (Ind.), 1949. Most of the selections are taken from The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, trans by M.R. James. London, 1917.
• Ps.Sol (see Odes of Solomon)
• Qumra^n Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I: Qumran Cave 1, ed by D. Barthe/lemy and J.T. Milik, et al. Oxford, 1955. The Dead Sea Scrolls and More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, by M. Burrows (with translations). New York, 1955, 1958. The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation, by T. H. Gaster. Garden City (New York), 1956 1964\2. CDC The Damascus Document or Zadokite Fragment IQS The Sectarian Manual of Discipline 1QIsa\a/ The Large Isaiah Scroll 4Q Florilegium "Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature" 4Q Testimonia and "Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological MIDRASHIM," ed by J.M. Allegro, JBL 75 (1956), 182-87, and 77 (1958), 350-54.
• Talmud The Babylonian Talmud, ed by I. Epstein (Soncino ed). London, 1935-52. Mishna(h) Mishna ed by H. Danby. Oxford, 1933.
• Test The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ed by R.H. Charles. Oxford, 1908. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, trans by R.H. Charles. London, 1908. [[xii]]

Early Christian

• The Apocryphal new Testament, ed by M. R. James. Oxford, 1953 (corrected ed; 1st ed 1924).
• Act Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ed by R.A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet in 3 parts. Lipsius, 1891-1903.
• ApCo Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed by F.X. Funk. Paderborn, 1905. See below for Didasc.
• Aphrahat Demonstrationes I-XXII, ed by R. Graffin and J. Parisot in Patrologia Syriaca I. Paris, 1894.
• Archelaus Acta Disputationis cum Manete. [PG 10:1429-1528] Beeson, GCS 1906.
• Arnobius Disputationum Adversus Gentes. PL 5:713-1290.
• Ath Athanasius of Alexandria (PG 25-28). Cited on the authority of LXX/OG editors and Heer.
• Aug/Ps-Aug Augustine of Carthage Hippo (Pl 32-47; CSEL). Cited on the same basis as Ath [see, e.g. p. 109].
• A-Z The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, ed by F.O.Conybeare in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series 8. Oxford, 1898. See below for T-A.
• Barn The so-called Epistle of Barnabas. For eds, see below, Barn\L/ pp. 25ff. For the textual notations for Barn, see below, pp. 27-32.
• Ps-Barn A convenient designation for the final author/editor of the Epistle of Barnabas [see below, p. 11].
• BasN Basil of Naziensis [below, p. 41 or 43].
• Chr John Chrysostom. Cited on same basis as Ath, or occasionally from PG 47-64.
• Ps-Chr Diatriba ad Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum. PG 56: 601-946.
• Cl.A Clemens Alexandrinus, ed by O. Staehlin. GCS. Leipzig, 1905-36; re-edited for GCS by Freu%chtel, 1960 Strom I-VI GCS 52.
• Cl.R The so-called "First" Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth, ed by O. de Gebhardt and A. Harnack in Patrum Apostolicorum Opera I:1. Lipsius, 1876\2. See also the Loeb ed by K. Lake, Apostolic Fathers, Cambridge (Mass.), 1912.Syr Lat [[xiii]]
• II Clem The so-called "Second" Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth. See the eds listed under Cl.R.
• Ps-Clem The so-called Homilies and Recognitions of Clement. Hom Die Pseudoklementinen: I Homilien, ed by B. Rehm. GCS. Berlin, 1953. Recog S. Clementis Romani Recognitiones, ed by E.G. Gersdorf in Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Selecta I. Lipsius, 1838.
• Cyp/Ps-Cyp S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia, ed by W. Hartel in 3 parts. CSEL III. Vienna, 1868-71.
• Cyr Cyril of Alexandria (PG 68-77). Cited on same basis as Ath. Did Didache. From Loeb ed listed under Cl.R. Didasc Didascalia (Latin and Syriac). See under ApCo.
• EpAps Epistle of the Apostles.
• Eus Eusebius. Sometimes cited on same basis as Ath. HE Kirchengeschichte, ed by E. Schwartz in 3 parts. GCS, 1903-9. DemEv Demonstratio Evangelica, ed by I.A. @@Heikal. GCS, 1913. See also The Proof of the Gospel, trans by W.J. Ferrar in 2 vols (??date??). Pr Ev Paraeparatio Evangelica, ed by K. Mras in 2 parts. GCS, 1954-56. See also the trans by E.H. Gifford in vol 3 of his ed of Evangelicae Praeparationis. Oxford, 1903.
• Ps-Eustathias Commentariae in Hexaemeron. PG 18: 707-94.
• Greg Naz Gregory of Nazianzus (PG 35-38). Cited on same basis as Ath.
• Ps-Greg Testimonia Adversus Judaeos attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, ed by L.A. Zacagni in Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum I. Rome, 1698, pp. 288-329. Reprinted in PG 46: 193-234.
• Gnostic Coptic Works Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo I, ed by P. Labib. Cairo, 1956. Evangelium Veritatis, ed by M. Malinine, H.C. Puech, and G. Quispel. Zurich, 1956. The Gospel According to Thomas, ed by A. Guillaumont et al. New York, 1959.
• Heg Hegesippus. Cited on the authority of Eus.
• Hi Hieronymus=Jerome. Works ed by Vallarsi and Maffaei in PL 22-30 (commentaries on the prophets in PL 24-25). Sometimes also cited on same basis as Ath. [[xiv]]
• Ps-Hi Commentarius in Evangelium Secundum Marcum. PL 30: 609-68.
• Hipp Hippolytus of Rome Ref Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, ed by P. Wendland. GCS, 1916.
• Ps-Hipp Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften, ed by G.N. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis. GCS, 1897.
• Ign Ignatius of Antioch, ed by T. Zahn in Patrum Apostolicorum Opera II. Lipsius, 1876. See also Loeb ed under Cl. R. Ps-Ign The Long Recension of the Ignatian Epistles, ed by J.B. Lightfoot in his Apostolic Fathers II:2. London, 1885.
• Iren Irenaeus. AH Adversus @@Haeresus: the standard system of numbering used by Massuet (1734) and Stieren (1853) has been followed, with the numbering of W.W. Harvey's ed (Cambridge, Eng., 1857) included in brackets where it differs. AP Apostolic Preaching, based on the trans by J.A. Robinson (London, 1920) and compared with A. Harnack's German trans in the ed of the Armenian by K. Ter-Merkerttschian and E. Ter-Minassiantz (TU 31:1-2, 1907).
• JM Justin Martyr. Ap The so-called "First" Apology, ed by J.C.T. Otto in Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi I:1. Jena, 1876\3/. D Dialogue with Trypho, in Ibid. I:2 (1877\3/). See also the trans by A.L. Williams. London, 1930. For both Ap and D, see also E.J. Goodspeed, Die aeltesten Apologeten. Goettingen, 1914. Lact Lactantius, Divine Institutes, ed by S. Brandt. CSEL 19: 1, 1890 [also Epitome of the Div.Inst].
• Max Taur Maximus Taurinensis (PL 57). Cited on same basis as Ath.
• Melito Homily on the Passion ed by C. Bonner [Beatty-Michigan Papyri]. St. and Docs 12. London, 1940; ed by M. Testuz. Papyrus Bodmer 13 (1960).
• Meth Methodius. Symp Symposium, ed by G.N. Bonwetsch. GCS, 1917. Serm Sermo de Simeone et Anna. PG 18: 347-82. (Ps-Meth ?)
• Nov Novatian. Trin De Trinitate. PL 3: 885-952. See also the ed by W.Y. Fausset (Cambridge, Eng., 1909) and the trans by H. Moore (London, 1919). CibJud De Cibis Judaicis. PL 3: 953-64 (Ps-Tert, Ps-Cyp). See also the ed by G. Landgraf and C. Weyman, Archiv fuer lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 11 (1898), 221-49.
• OdesSol Odes of Solomon (see @@PssSol [Jewish texts]).
• Origen Opera Omnia, ed by C.H.E. Lommatzsch in 25 vols. Berlin, 1831-48. CCels Contra Celsus, ed by P. Koetschau in 2 vols. GCS, 1899. {@@RAK-- Here is the bibliographic listing for Sources Chre/tiennes: Origene: Homiles sur Josue/,. texte Latin Sources Chre/tiennes Editions @@des Cerf Catalogue Number BR 45 S68 71 } Do you want Sources Chre/tiennes listed here? Do I code it as SC? Do you want Annie Janbert's name with the source? es} [[xv]]
• Physiologus Ed by F. Sbordone. Mediolani, 1936. Physiologus Latinus, ed by F.J. Carmody. Paris, 1939.
• P-P Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, ed by A.C. McGiffert, Dialogue Between a Christian and a Jew. New York, 1889. Ps Pseudo. See under the respective pseudonyms.
• S-T Evagrii Altercatio Legis inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum, ed by E. Bratke. CSEL 45, 1904.
• T-A Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. See above under A-Z.
• Tert Tertullian. Most recently ed for Corpus Christianorum Series Latina in 2 parts. Turnholt, 1954. See also the partial eds in CSEL 20 (A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, 1890), 47 and 70 (A. Kroymann, 1906 and 1942), and 76 (V. Bulhart and P. Borleffs, 1957). AM Adversus Marcionem AJ Adversus Judaeos APrax Adversus Praxean, etc.
• Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, ed by Otto in the same series as JM. Jena, 1861.
• Thd Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cited on same basis as Ath.
• Tht Theodoret of Cyrus. Sometimes cited on same basis as Ath. Qu See also PG 80-84. Comm Theodoret von Kyros Kommentar zu Jesaia, ed by A. Moehle. Goettingen Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 5, 1932.
• TractOrig Tractatus Origenis, ed by P. Batiffol. Paris, 1900.
• Tyc The Book of the Rules of Tyconius, ed by F.C. Burkitt in Texts and Studies 3:1. Cambridge (Eng.), 1894. Victorinus of Pettau Ps-Vig Vigilius Tapensis (PL 62). Cited on same basis as Ath. Vision of "A Collection of Old Latin Bible Quotations: Somnium Nero Neronis," ed by E. von Dobschuetz in JTS 16 (1914/15), 1-27. [[xvi]]

Secular Sources

• Aelian On the Characteristics of Animals(=De Natura Animalium), ed by A.F. Scholfield in 3 vols. Loeb, 1958-59.
• Aristotle Works ed by I. Bekker. Berlin, 1831-70. Generation of Animals(=De Generatione Animalium), ed by A.L. Peck. Loeb, 1943.
• Artemidor Oneirocriticus, ed R. Hercher. Leipzig, 1864.
• Diodorus Siculus The Library of History (fragments), ed by F.R. Walton. Loeb vol XI, 1957 (note that the sections in book XXXII are not in sequence at the end of the vol).
• Horappollo Hieroglyphica, ed by C. Leemans. Amsterdam, 1835.
• Lucian Luciani Samosatensis Opera, ed by C. Jacobitz in 3 vols. Lipsius, 1874-77.
• Ovid Metamorphoses, ed by F.J. Miller in 2 vols. Loeb, 1916.
• Pliny the Elder Natural History ed by H. Rackham and W.H.S. Jones in 10 vols (proposed; 9 have appeared thus far). Loeb, 1939- .
• Pliny the Younger Letters, ed by W. Melmoth and W.M.L. Hutchinson in 2 vols. Loeb, 1915-47.
• Plutarch Moralia V: Isis and Osiris, ed by F.C. Babbitt. Loeb, 1936, pp. 6-191. Lives I: Theseus, ed by B. Perrin. Loeb, 1914, pp. 1-87.
• Pollux Onomasticum, ed by I.H. Lederlinus and T. Hemsterhuis in 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1706.
• Strabo Geography, ed by H.L. Jones in 8 vols. Loeb, 1917-32.
• Ulpian [[?? get]]
• Varro On Agriculture(=Rerum Rusticarum or Res Rusticae or De Re Rustica), ed by W. D. Hooper and H.B. Ash. Bound in the same vol as Marcus Porcius Cato, On Agriculture, Loeb, 1934. [[xvii]]

MISCELLANEOUS ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS

• apud indicates immediate source from which material is taken
• (9:2)a above in the verse ( )c near the center of the verse ( )b below in the verse
• bce before the common era (=BC)
• c./ca. approximately, when before a number
• c. century, when after a number ce common era (=AD)
• ch(s) chapter(s)
• cod(d) one or more (but not every) MS contains the reading
• col(l) column(s)
• ed(s) edition(s), or edited (for either book or editor)
• f(f) and the following page(s), verse(s), chapter(s), etc.
• fol(s). folio(s) l(l).
• line(s) [p.125 n.18]
• mg margin
• MS(S) manuscript(s)
• n(n). note(s)
• no. number
• om "omits" in a neutral sense=lacks (in textual notations)
• (Iren)\P/ partial support, when the same passage is quoted in differing forms by the same father
• p(p.) page(s)
• par(r) parallel(s), in Pentateuchal and Synoptic materials
• passim here and there throughout the work or passage
• rell the rest of the witnesses
• trans translated or translation
• trsp(s) transpose(s)
• v(v). verse(s)
• var variant reading
• vol(s) volume(s)
• vs. versus, in opposition to, opposes
• = equals
• / alternative reading or idea
• + plus, includes, adds
• * first hand (\*c/, corrected by the first hand) [[xviii]]

GLOSSARY OF SOME POSSIBLY MISLEADING EXPRESSIONS

• "apocalyptic" is used in a general sense to indicate speculation about the last times which emphasizes the descriptive details of that period as revealed to chosen individuals.
• "early Christianity" is used as a general designation for Christian thought prior to the great councils -- thus roughly the same as ante-Nicene Christianity.
• "gnosis"/"gnostic" is used to refer to a type of thought in which extraordinary spiritual knowledge is emphasized, leading to "perfection" in a (closed) spiritual community, and not necessarily to refer to "Gnostic" Christian sects as condemned by Iren, Hipp, et al.
• "hellenistic" is used (especially in connection with Judaism) primarily with reference to language and culture (in contrast to "semitic"), and not in necessary distinction from "Palestinian."
• "late Judaism" (=Spaejudentum) refers to Judaism from approximately the 3rd c. bce to the 2nd c. of the present era.
• "LXX/OG" is used in a very loose sense to refer to extant collated MSS of the Old Greek Jewish Scriptures (see below, pp. 71f).
• "midrashic" exegesis is used to refer to running commentary on small portions of scriptural text.
• "parenetic" (or paraenetic, from parainei=n) indicates exhortation in a formal setting, as the admonishing of catechumens. Cp. C.H.Dodd, Parables (Fontana 1961\2/), 101 n.28.
• "targumic" is used to refer to periphrastic treatment of scripture (with various degrees of freedom) in any language.

[[1]]

INTRODUCTION

\1/Edwin Hatch, in his study of early LXX/OG quotations in Essays in Biblical Greek (1889), p.133, lamented that "the quotations from the LXX in the Greek Fathers are an almost unworked field," and attempted to alleviate the situation somewhat through an analysis of selected citations found in Philo, the NT, Cl.R, Barn, and JM. H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the OT in Greek (1900, with slight revision in 1902 and reprinted with supplementary notes by R.R. Ottley in 1914), added more material of the same sort in his ch. on "Quotations from the LXX in Early Christian Writings" (the Apostolic Fathers, Iren, JM, Hipp, and Cl.A; pp. 406-32). Other noteworthy contributions to such a study of Barn's quotations include J.M. Heer, Die Versio latina des Barnabasbriefes und ihr verhaeltnis zur altlateinischen Bibel (1908), and H. Windisch, Der Barnabasbrief (Ergaenzungsband 3 in Lietzmann's Handbuch zum NT, 1920).

\2/Most recently, J. Danie/lou, The/ologie du Jude/o- Christianisme (1958), pp. 101-29, has tried to illuminate Christian origins through an examination of the quotations in Barn and other early Christian sources. See also J. Klevinghaus, Die theologische Stellung der apostolischen Vaeter zur alttestamentliche Offenbarung (1948), pp. 15-44 (on Barn).

The tools for such an investigation are, for the most part, readily available. For Barn, Gebhardt's critical text remains as the standard, supplemented by Funk and Heer (see below, pp. 25ff). Critical editions of most of the other early fathers have been provided by GCS, CSEL, and similar endeavors.\3/ Use of materials from intertestamental and Rabbinic Judaism is greatly facilitated through the translations of R.H. Charles, I. Epstein, H. Freedman, and others.\4/ Both Philo and Josephus also are available in excellent critical editions,\5/ and the LXX/OG projects at Cambridge and Goettingen currently are providing up- to-date tools for the study of the Greek Jewish scriptures.\6/ Unfortunately, however, only a small part of the recently discovered and extremely relevant treasures from Qumran and Nag Hammadi have been [[3]] published thus far.\7/

\3/See above, p. viii.

\4/See above, pp. x-xi (and p. ix, Targumim).

\5/See above, pp. x-xi.

\6/See above, p. ix.

\7/See above, pp. xi (Qumran) and xiii (Gnostic works).

The following investigation of Barn's quotations is divided into three parts: I General Orientation; II The Tradition behind the Quotations; and III Conclusions. In the first Part, the basic groundwork for the entire study will be laid out -- the state of knowledge about the Epistle, the problem of its text, the quotations and their formulae, and the possible sources available to the author. Part II will consist of a section by section analysis of quoted material in Barn 1-17 (there are no explicit quotations whatsoever in the "two ways" section of 18-21), with special attention given to similar quotations or interpretations in other ancient writings. In this way the emphases and affinities of Barn will become clear, and a fresh evaluation of the Epistle's relationship to both early Judaism and early Christianity will be possible.\8/

\8/An example of this kind of "tradition analysis" with reference to Barn 12 and its parallels in Jewish and Christian literature is found in L. Wallach, "The Origin of Testimonia Biblica in Early Christian Literature," RevRel 8 (1943/44), 130- 36. W. Bousset applies the same general methodology on a larger scale in his Juedisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (1915). See also P. Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die aelteste Christliche Exegese (1908).

Although the primary emphasis in Part II will fall on [[4]] the quotations in Barn which deviate significantly from extant text of the Jewish scriptures (especially LXX/OG), an attempt has been made in the notes to indicate how Barn's more Septuagintal citations are related to other LXX/OG witnesses. Actually, little has been done in this area since Swete's cursory analysis, and the Epistle warrants a systematic evaluation of its evidence concerning the Greek Jewish scripture texts used by early Christianity.\9/

\9/Swete, Intro., p. 413: "As the Epistle of Barnabas is not improbably a relic of the earliest Alexandrian Christianity, it is important to interrogate its witness to the text of the LXX." See also the present writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony Book' Hypothesis," JBL 79 (1960), 336-50 (especially nn. 10-11).

[[5]]

PART I

ORIENTATION

[[6]]

Chapter 1
THE ENIGMAS OF THE EPISTLE

It is not the aim of this study to provide a general introduction to the entire Epistle. Nevertheless, it is necessary to survey the various opinions on the problems of Barnabean "higher criticism" in order to bring the subsequent investigation into clearer focus. The following literature, arranged in chronological order,\1/ is of special interest for a contemporary treatment of such introductory matters. Most of the opinions attributed to other authors in the discussions of this chapter are derived from these sources: ---

\1/For a chronological listing of literature prior to 1875, see the ed of Barn by Gebhardt-Harnack, pp. XL-XLIV. ===

1877 Milligan, W. "Barnabas, Epistle of," Dictionary of Christian Biography I, 260-65. 1897 Harnack, A. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, pp. 410-28. 1901\2/ Funk, F.X. Patres apostolici I (1878\1/), pp.XX-XXXII. 1902 Kohler,K. "Barnabas, Joses," Jewish Encyc II, 538. 1903 Bareille, G. "Barnabe (Epitre dite de Saint)," Dict. de Th. Cath. II, 416-22. 1904\1/ Veil, H. "Barnabasbrief," Hennecke's NT Apokryphen, pp. 143-50 (abridged in 1924\2/). 1910 d'Herbigny, M. "La date de 'l'E/pi^tre de Barnabe/," RechSR 1, 417-43 and 540-66. 1910 Bartlet, J.V. "Barnabas (The Epistle of Barnabas)," Encyc Brit.\11/ III, 408-9. [[7]] 1916 Hamilton, H. "Barnabas, Epistle of," HDAC I, 139-42. 1920 Windisch, H. Der Barnabasbrief. 1921 Schla%ger, G. "Die Komposition des Barnabasbriefs" Nieuw @@Theol. Tijdschr. 10, 264-73. 1929 Muilenburg, J. The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 1933 Williams, A.L. "The Date of the Epistle of Barnabas," JTS 34, 337-46. 1940 Meinhold, P. "Geschichte und Exegese im Barnabasbrief," ZKG 64, 225-303. 1942 Goodspeed, E.J. A History of Early Christian Literature, pp.30-35. 1944 Thieme, K. Kirche und Synagoge, pp.27-65, 224-36. 1946 Burger, J.-D. "L'Enigme de Barnabas," Museum Helveticum 3, 180-93 (defends Apostolic authorship of the Epistle, following d'Herbigny's arguments). 1948 Kleist, J.A. "The Epistle of Barnabas: Introduction," Anc. Chr. Writers 6, 39-36. 1949 Andry, C.F. Introduction to the Epistle of Barnabas (Harvard PhD thesis). 1950 Ruiz Bueno, D. Padres Apostolicos, pp. 729-69. 1950 Quasten, J. Patrology I, 85-92. 1950 Schmid, J. "Barnabas: IV. Barnabasbrief," RAC I, 1212-17. 1952 Oesterreicher, J. and Thieme, K. "Um Kirche und Synagoge im Barnabasbrief," ZKT 74, 63-70. (An exchange of letters.) 1957 Schuetz, R. "Barnabasbrief," RGG\3/ I, 880-81 1957 Kraft, B. "Barnabasbrief," LexTK I, 1256f. 1958 Barnard, L.W. "The Problem of the Epistle of Barnabas," ChQR 159, 211-30; "The Date of the Epistle of Barnabas -- A Document of Early Egyptian Christianity," JEArch 44, 101-107. 1959 Barnard, L.W. "Judaism in Egypt -- A.D. 70-135," ChQR 160, 320-34. 1961 Prigent, P. [[?? add details]] 1962 Eltester, W. "Barnabas, Epistle of" Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible I, 357f. [[8]]

Unexcelled in this literature is the commentary of Windisch, with its stimulating insights and depth of treatment compressed into a scant 115 pages. Of the more recent work on Barn, the summary article by Schmid and the more comprehensive introduction by Ruiz Bueno deserve special notice. Despite the length of the list of discussions, however, very little advance has been made in the higher criticism of the Epistle since Windisch's commentary. Much of the recent discussion has centered around the relationship of Barn 18-21 to Did,\2/ but this has failed to provide a key to the unsolved problems of Barn. The most recent attempts to make a fresh approach to the Epistle have been to suggest that Barn is primarily a liturgical/catechetical composition,\3/ [[9]] or that the Epistle reflects the survival of an ancient "covenant formula" pattern from the religion of Israel.\4/ Nevertheless, no convincing new arguments have been introduced with regard to the authorship, occasion, date, place of origin and destination, or integrity of Barn, although old positions have sometimes been revitalized with new vigor. ---

\2/Muilenburg's bibliography (at front of Lit. Relations) lists older material on this subject. Noteworthy treatments in the past 30 years include F.C. Burkitt, R.H. Connolly, J.A. Robinson, and B.H. Streeter in JTS 33-38 (1931- 37); H.J. Cadbury, "The Epistle of Barnabas the Didache, JQR 26 (1936); and E.J. Goodspeed, "The Didache, Barnabas and the Doctrina," @@AnglTr 27 (1945). Most recently, the evidence from Qumran has been introduced into the discussion: see J.-P. Audet, "Affinite/s litte/raires et doctrinales du 'Manuel de Discipline,'" RB 59 (1952), 219-38 (with an excellent bibliographical note on p. 220), and 60 (1953), 41-82; L.W. Barnard, "Problem," and "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Observations," ScotJT 13 (1960), 52-59. {@@RAK-- Do you want "AnglTr" or "AnglTR?" es}

\3/So Barnard, "Problem" and "Judaism"; see also his "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Tannaitic Catechism," AnglTR 41 (1959), 177-90, and G. Schille, "Zur urchristlichen Tauflehre: Stilistische Beobachtungen am Barnabasbrief," ZNW 49 (1958), 31- 52. In some ways Barn does show such an emphasis, but it is doubtful whether the entire Epistle can be interpreted in this manner. {@@RAK note in margin: add Eltester, Prigent(+/-) }

\4/K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (1960), pp. 128-31. [[??get ET info]] Actually, the hypothesis of Baltzer resembles Barnard's "Tannaitic Catechism" (see pp. 180-89) at many points (the basic patterns suggested by both authors include the rehearsal of God's acts in Heilsgeschichte, ethical injunctions, and a section on penalties and rewards [blessings and curses]), and is subject to similar criticisms. ===

Authorship. -- The battle of whether the Barnabas of Acts 4-16 was the author of this anonymous Epistle was fought in the 18th and 19th centuries. Since then, few have dared seriously to suggest that that Apostle (see Acts 14.4,14) could have penned the Epistle, although the external evidence for his authorship is strong and fairly early.\5/ [[10]] Many arguments based on internal evidence have been advanced against the traditional view, but few of them have independent value today.\6/ ---

\5/Milligan and Burger are almost convincing in their defense of the possibility that Paul's companion may have written the Epistle; similarly, Thieme considers this to be "unwahrscheinlich, aber doch nicht voellig ausgeschlossen" (p.225), and notes Veil's suggestion that the Epistle may well come from the School of Barnabas if one considers Hebrews to be from the pen of Barnabas himself (so Tert). For an extensive list of earlier advocates of the traditional authorship of Barn, see E.C. Richardson, "Bibliographical Synopsis," in the Supplementary Index vol of the American ed (under A.C. Coxe) of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (1877), p. 19, and add the names of Moesl (1774), Freppel (1870), and Jungmann (1882) on the authority of Funk, p. XXII [defenders include Voss, Dupin, Nourrius, Gallard, Henke (1827), Roerdam (1828), and Franke (1840)]. Richardson also lists opponents of the traditional authorship, such as H. Menard, D. Papebrochius (1898), N. Alexander, R. Ceillier, Ittigius, Moschemius, Lumperus, Hugius, Ullmanus, Neander, Mynster, Winer, Hefele\4, Dressel.

\6/Milligan lists the following as arguments which have been used against the view that the Apostle Barnabas could have written the Epistle (see Hefele\4, p. XII): (1) the Epistle was not received as canonical by the later Church; (2) the Apostle Barnabas died before the fall of Jerusalem in 70; (3) the reference to the Apostles as "sinners" in Barn 5:9 could not be by an Apostle; (4) the patent ignorance about animals and their habits in Barn 10 is unworthy of an Apostle; (5) the inclusion of Syrians among the circumcised people in Barn 9:6 is erroneous in the light of Josephus (but this rests on a misuse of Josephus, says Milligan), and thus cannot be from the Apostle of Cyprus and Antioch; {@@RAK note in margin: "(6)" ? the allegorical trifles in chs. 5-11 could not be by the eloquent Apostle (Hefele) (Hefele does not list "g" separately but adds the observ.)} (7) the errors concerning Jewish ritual in Barn 7-8 could not have been made by Barnabas the Levite; (8) the exaggerated anti- Judaic arguments of the Epistle cannot have been written by a Jew, especially since (9) the Apostle Barnabas seems to have been pro-Jewish according to Galatians. Milligan shows, and rightly so, that none of these argument have any compelling force (even in his day, although Funk, pp. XXIIf, still used some of them). Nevertheless, we continue to find brash statements of similar nature being made in the middle of the 20th century: "No Apostle could have brushed the Mosaic Law aside as a deception of an evil spirit" (Kleist, p. 33); "Modern research has definitely established that the Apostle Barnabas was not the author of this Letter, because of the decidedly harsh and absolute repudiation of the Old Testament. Because of this pronounced antipathy to everything Jewish, Barnabas cannot possibly come into consideration as the author of the Epistle" (Quasten, p. 89). Actually, as we hope to show in this study, the Epistle of Barn and early Judaism are not at all so mutually exclusive as has often been claimed. If one is willing to argue that the Epistle was written in the first century, other grounds must be found for doubting the traditional authorship if one wishes to be dogmatic on that point. See Burger's positive arguments in favor of the Apostle. ===

It is true that if Barn is to be dated from around the time of the second revolt (132-35; see below), or if the author [[11]] is considered to be a Gentile Christian, the Barnabas of Acts cannot have written the Epistle. On the other hand, if the reliability of historical details in Acts is questioned, there is no reason to deny that there might have been a well-known person by the name of Barnabas in the earliest Church, and that this Barnabas could have been both an "apostle" (in the sense of "missionary"\7/) and the author of our Epistle. In any case, precise knowledge about the author of Barn no longer is available, and it best fits the mood of contemporary scholarship to refer to him as Pseudo-Barnabas (the Epistle itself gives no indication of its author's name, except in the title prefixed in extant MSS). ---

\7/See J. Munck, "Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve," ST 3 (1949), 96ff. Note also that Cl.A describes the author of Barn as the companion of Paul and one of "the seventy." ===

Beyond these direct questions concerning the name and identity of the author, however, other related problems remain: (1) was the author a Jewish or a Gentile Christian, and (2) was he a Christian "Teacher" in a technical sense? Most commentators agree with the implication of Barn 1.8, 4.6 and 4.9 that the author was a "Teacher,"\8/ but Barnard [[12]] is not so sure.\9/ On the problem of his racial/religious background, recent years have witnessed a growing tendency to view the author as a converted Jew,\10/ although this position almost had been abandoned among Christian scholars earlier in the 20th century.\11/ {@@RAK notes on a page inserted between pages 10 and 11: W. Eltester. "Barnabas, Ep. of." I: 357f. Interp. Dict of the Bible (1962) in outline, Barn "suggests the baptismal catechisms of a later period. Hence we have before us in the Epistle of B. @@thr written result of baptismal instruction." Author incapable of tying material together Uses sources, @@mainly/namely Jewish scriptures, testimonies not necessarily Matt. Common 2 ways Source Used. "author was at home in a heathen proselyte community which in its initial stages developed from the Judaism of the Dispersion and thus" remit. to Cl.R. date ca 130, though also earlier evid. Barn\L/ ms = 9-10 c. _____ Add lit from Funk-Bihlmeyer-Schn. (1956) L. Wohleb on Barn\L/ (cf.) G. Schla%ger, "Die Komposition des Bbr," Nieuw Th. Tijd 10(1921), 264-73. } --- *** {@@RAK-- Did you add "***?" es }

\8/Compare Barn 9:9 and 21:6. On the office of "Teacher" (dida/skalos) in early Christianity, see Acts 13:1, I Cor 12:28f, Eph 4:11, Heb 5:12, James 3:1, Did 11:1f and 15:2, etc. Compare Rom 2:20 on Jewish teachers of Law, I Tim 2:7=II Tim 1:11 on (Ps-) Paul as teacher of the Gentiles, II Tim 4:3 on false teachers in Christianity, and Ign, Eph 15:1 and Mag 9:1f, on Christ as the one teacher (Matt 23:8-10).

\9/Barnard, "Problem," p. 215: "Barnabas himself makes no claim to be a teacher (1:8) ... yet he reverenced the prophets and teachers of the past and present (1:7, 2:4)." See also Kleist, p. 168 n. 12 (on Barn 1:8): "Is Barnabas perhaps thinking of Matt 23:8ff, where the Apostles are admonished not to call themselves Rabbis or teachers [sic!]? Or was he conscious that he did not qualify as a 'prophet' or a 'teacher,' but merely as an 'apostle' (Did 11:3 and 13:2 ...), who, after visiting the Church here addressed wished to keep in communication with it by means of this letter?" L.-M. Froidevaux, "Sur trois textes cure/s par Saint Ire/ne/e," RechSR 44(1956), 408-21, suggests that Ps-Barn may have been one of the "elders" cited by Iren.

\10/So Thieme (following the old view of Guedemann (1876), Funk, and others); Schmid discusses the problem at some length and seems to tend towards this view; Muilenburg and Barnard even call Ps-Barn a converted Rabbi. Bartlet has the more moderate view that Ps-Barn perhaps had been a proselyte to Judaism who later became a Christian. {@@RAK note on facing page: Eltester: The "author was at home in a health on proselyte community which in its initial stages developed from the Judaism of the Dispersion" and thus Barn has a background very similar to Cl.R. }

\11/See Hamilton, Windisch, Meinhold, Quasten, et al. ===

Place of Origin and Destination. -- Closely connected with the discussion of authorship is the problem of whence the Epistle came and where it was sent. The most obvious answer to both these questions is Egypt, and especially Alexandria;\12/ [[13]] it is from Alexandrian authors that our first definite knowledge of Barn comes,\13/ and it is into the pattern of Alexandrian biblical exegesis that Barn best fits. Nevertheless, as A.L. Williams pointed out, such a solution has arisen as much from our lack of knowledge about Judaism and early Christianity in other Hellenistic centers as it has from the apparent relations which exist between Barn and Alexandria. ---

\12/Among the authors who refer the Epistle "probably" to Alexandria are Schenkel (1837), Hilgenfeld (1866), Lightfoot (1891), Harnack, Hamilton, and Altaner. Barnard thinks it was written from Alexandria to Christians in Middle Egypt; Bartlet sees in Ps-Barn an Asian teacher writing to Lower Egypt; B. Kraft also identifies the Epistle with Egypt in general, and "probably" with Alexandria; Meinhold thinks that Alexandria, or possibly Palestine, was its home.

\13/Cl.A quotes the Epistle seven times by name ("Barn"), and attributes it to the Apostle Barnabas (see below p. 32); Origen calls it a "catholic Epistle." Later explicit witnesses to the Epistle include Eus, Jerome (perhaps the sole western witness, in addition to Barn\L/!), Serapion of Thmuis, John of Philopon (early 6th c; kaqolikai=s e)p., refers to names used by Barn & their meaning), Anastasius of Sinai (died 599; Quast. et Resp. concerning the 60 Books, puts Barn. among NT apocrypha, with MCCCVI stichoi), Codex Claromontanus List, the 9th century Stichometry of Nicephorus, the "catalogue of the sixty books," and the Armenian chronist Mkhitar (13th c.). Attrib. to Barn but not in Ep. (Hilg. xxix f } from cod. Barocc 39 (statements of divine & secular authors) - ed Grabe Spig.I (1700\2/), 302. BARNA/BAS O( A)PO/STOLOS E)/QH: E)N A(MI/LLAIS PONHRAI=S E)QLIW/TEROS O( NIKH/SAS O(/TI E)PE/RXETAI [leg. A)P.- ?] PLE/ON E(/XWN TH=S A(MARTI/AS (nothing like this in Journeys & Martyrdom of Barn, ed Tischendorf) from Greg. Naz. Orat. 43, 32 alludes to Jer 1, 18 and Ps 117, 12. EI) DE/ TI KAI\ BARNA/BAS, O( TAU=TA LE/GWN KAI\ GRA/QWN PAU/LW SUNHGWNI/SATO, PAU/LW| XA/RIS TW=| PROELO/MEN W| KAI\ SUNERGO\N POIHS?ME/NW| TOU= A)GWNI/SMATOS {@@RAK-- I think that you incorporated the text from a note on the facing page into footnote 13. I added the greek text. es} {@@RAK note on facing page: Also known to (cf Hilg. XXIX_ the following by name. John of Philopon (early 6\th/ c) = KAQOLIKAI=S EP=. mentions names used by Barn & their meanings Anastasius of Sinai (died 599) Auaest. et Rewsp. re 60 Bks. -- puts Barn. among NT apocrypha, MCCCVI Stichoi Niceph (died 828) ---> {@@arrow symbol pointing to the right. } ===

Other suggestions for the origin and/or destination of the Epistle include: Rome (Volkmar [1856] and Lipsius [1869]), Asia Minor (Mueller [1869], see Bartlet), and Antioch-Syria (Pfleiderer [1902]). Several commentators, however, prefer to leave this as a relatively open question.\14/ A further aspect of the problem of destination is the racial/religious nature of the Epistle's recipients. They are Jewish-Christian for d'Herbigny, a mixed congregation of [[14]] Jews and Gentiles for Cunningham (1877) and Andry, and Gentile-Christians for Harnack and Schuetz. ---

\14/Windisch, and Veil before him, listed Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor as live options (but in 1924\2/, Veil seems to favor Egypt-Alexandria). Schuetz concurs in this judgment, while Schmid consciously pushes the problem to the side as insoluble. Similarly, d'Herbigny considers Barn as coming from the Orient, whether Judea, Syria, or Egypt. ===

Occasion. -- Why was Barn written? Windisch states that "ein aktueller Anlass konnte nicht endeckt werden" (p. 411), since the Epistle is really a general tract (see below). Barn itself claims to be written to impart a measure of "gnosis," that is, to give to its recipients the correct understanding of the Lord's ordinances (1:5, 9:8f., 21:5, etc.), and seems to reflect a lively polemic against cultic Judaism.\15/ This latter fact has lead most commentators to conclude that Barn was written either soon after the first rebellion (66-70 A.D.), before Jewish hopes extensively faded, or during the reign of Hadrian (117-38), when Jewish hopes were fanned in connection with the second revolt.\16/ Thus most discussions of the occasion presupposed by the Epistle [[15]] revolve around the general problem of the relationship between Church and Synagogue\17/ and become subsumed under the problems of dating Barn. ---

\15/The so-called anti-Judaism of Barn has been variously assessed: Thieme plays it down; see also F.M. Braun, "La 'lettre de Barnabe/' et l'E/vangile de Saint Jean," NTS 4 (1958), 120: "The antijudaism of the writing is only the envers of a positive doctrine." Lightfoot (1891) points out that Barn is unique in using an almost Rabbinic respect for scripture in its attack on Judaism. Most commentators find that Barn also is singular in the bitterness of its polemic against the Jewish cultus.

\16/For example, Barnard ("Catechism," p. 177) thinks that Barn was written in opposition to he efforts "of militant Judaisers who had been impressed by Hadrian's promise that the Jerusalem Temple would be re-built." In connection with the dating of Barn in the reign of Hadrian, one should keep in mind the strong probability that Egyptian Judaism did not regain its previous prestige and influence after the revolt in 115-117; see V.A. Tcherikover (and A. Fuks), Corpus Papyrorum Judicarum I (1957), 85-93.

\17/Antithetical views are seen in Barnard ("Cathechism," p. 178), who holds that Barn may have been read in synagogue services at one time, and Schuetz, who reflects the more prevalent view that Church and Synagogue had already become widely separated by the time Barn was written. ====

Date. -- There are two passages in Barn which have been used as primary evidences for dating the Epistle: (1) 4:4f, which presents quotations from apocalyptic material which resembles Dan 7:7-24, and (2) 16:3-7, which speaks about the destruction and rebuilding of a Temple. Thus the terminus a quo for the final form of Barn is the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.,\18/ while the terminus ad quem is Cl. A (c. 190), who quotes the Epistle by name.\19/ ---

\18/According to Meinhold and Altaner, who follow B. Violet (Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch [GCS, 1924], p. XCII) at this point, the terminus a quo must be later than the Apocalypse of Baruch, which they consider to be the source of Barn 11:9 and which is itself dated 115/6. Windisch also thinks it possible that the Epistle knows Hebrews, in which case, he says, Barn must be later than 80. Similarly, the dating of Barn is affected by theories of dating IV Ezra if the latter is used by the former.

\19/Windisch and others push this date back to c. 140 by suggesting that the Epistle already is used by JM (see Gebhardt- Harnack, p. XLV n.2); so Muilenburg finds it "difficult to resist the belief that Justin had read the Epistle of Barnabas" but also thinks that a common source or common acquaintance with current tradition may be the answer (p. 24). Andry, pp. 57f, lists numerous parallels to Barn in the earliest extra-canonical Christian literature. Quasten, p. 151, states that Barn was also used by the Epistle of the Apostles (which he dates between 140- 160), but gives no further details (see Ep. Aps 17[28]=Barn 15:8f, on ogdoad as Lord's Day). {@@RAK-- There is an arrow drawn in the margin pointing to the text. es} ====

[[16]] The use of Barn 4:4 to date the Epistle more precisely has proved to be particularly precarious, since it is a difficult matter to determine which Roman rulers are equivalent to the apocalyptic "kingdoms," or even whether the quotation was meant to suggest any absolute historical parallelism to the first readers of Barn.\20/ The reference to Temple rebuilding in ch. 16 is more helpful in that it obviously is intended to call attention to a peculiar event in the time in which Barn was written; nevertheless, there is very little convincing historical evidence from other sources that an official attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem had begun (or had even been planned) at any time between 70-135. Perhaps the erection of a pagan Temple in Jerusalem is the event behind Barn 16,\21/ but it is equally possible [[17]] that Ps-Barn is speaking of the spiritual rather than the actual Temple.\22/ ---

\20/Harnack, pp. 419-23, thinks that the passage cannot be used at all in dating the Epistle; d'Herbigny, on the other hand, builds his entire case on the identification of the BASILEI=AI here, and offers some very convincing arguments (he is followed by Burger in this).

\21/Barn 16:4 reads: "For on account of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies, and now the very servants (Barn\S/, "they and the servants") of the enemies will rebuild it." Thus, according to Windisch (pp. 388-90), Barn\HGL/ seem to refer to the pagan temple of Jupiter Capitolina erected on the site of the Jewish Temple, while Barn\S/ may mean that the Romans and Jews were working together to rebuild the Jewish Temple. There is some late evidence for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple under Hadrian (add Gennadius, Dialogue [ed Jahn (1893), fol.130r], to Windisch's list), but it is by no means conclusive -- "It seems to me most probable that the whole tradition arises from agitations during the period of revolt [Bar Kocheba]" (Windisch, p. 389). This leads Windisch to interpret the text as referring to the Temple of Jupiter (following Lipsius [1869] and Harnack), built c. 135.

\22/See especially d'Herbigny; also Hilgenfeld (1866), van Manen and Duker (1871), Riggenbach (1873), Milligan, Lightfoot (1891), Ramsay (1893), Funk, van Veldhuizen (1901), Bardenhewer (1902), Knopf (1905), Haeuser (1912), Hamilton, Selwyn (1919), Burger, et al. The emphasis of Barn in general and of Barn 16 in particular (especially vv. 7-10) lends support to such an interpretation -- the Jews, once again, were deceived into trusting the physical thing (the Temple) rather than its spiritual significance; thus the Lord predicted that the Temple should be destroyed, and it was; nevertheless a Temple does exist, for "he dwells in us, ... this is a spiritual temple build for the Lord" (see below, ch. 11). ===

In the light of this highly ambiguous evidence, suggested dates for the publication of the Epistle have tended to cluster around the reign of Vespasian (70-79)\23/ or the reign of Hadrian (117-38), especially the critical years preceding Bar-Kocheba's revolt in 132.\24/ Some older commentators maintained intermediate positions and identified Barn with the reigns of Domitian (81-96),\25/ [[18]] Nerva (96-98),\26/ or Trajan (98- 117),\27/ but the more recent tendency is to shy away from too much precision in dating Barn,\28/ or to take the safest alternative, 130-35.\29/ ---

\23/So Weizsaecker (1863), Alzog (1866), Heydecke (?; 1874), Milligan, the earlier Funk (1877\1/ and 1887\2/, but not 1899\3/), Grisar (?; 1879), Cunningham (1877), Jungmann (1882), Westcott (1899), Freppel (1890), Nirschl (1881), Ramsay (1893), Lightfoot (1891), Bartlet, Gwatkin (1909), d'Herbigny, Hamilton, Selwyn (1919), and Burger.

\24/So the later Hefele (1855, but not 1849), Volkmar (1856), Baur (1858), Tischendorf (1863, but not in 1857), Keim (1867), Lipsius (1869), Mueller (1869), Loman (1884), Schuerer (1901\3/), Ladeuze (1900), Kohler, Harnack, Veil, Muilenburg, Meinhold, Kleist, Schmid, Altaner, and Barnard.

\25/So Wieseler (1870), Riggenbach (1873), and Luthardt (1874).

\26/So Hilgenfeld (1866), Ewald (1868), the later Funk (1899\3/, but not 1877\1/ or 1887\2/), Bardenhewer (1902), Knopf (1905), and Poelzl (c. 1910). {@@RAK note in margin: on Paul -- 1911 }

\27/So the early Hefele (1840, but not 1855), Hug (c. 1840), Luecke (1852), and Joel (1880).

\28/Williams (following Tischendorf in 1857, but not in 1863) dates the Epistle between 70-100; see also V. Burch, Testimonies II (in conjunction with R. Harris, 1920), who refers to Ps-Barn as "another first century writer" (p. 86). @@B. Kraft says that Barn was produced in the first half of the second century; H. Koester, Synoptische Ueberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vaetern, TU 65 (1957), seems to accept Windisch's dating (131-35) on p. 124, but then suggests a possible date late in the first century on p. 158. {@@RAK-- "B." Kraft? es} {@@RAK note: 28. add Prigent} {@@RAK note on a page inserted between pages 17 and 18: Re footnote 28 I think Koester (in Synoptische U%berlieferung, p. 158) when he says he wants to date Barnabas nearer the turn of the century is dating it in the early part of the second century "perhaps in the time of Ignatius." But it's quite true that in his Introduction to the NT, he does suggest a date before the end of the first century. jct}

\29/Harnack, Windisch, Muilenburg, et al. {@@RAK note: 29. add Eltester (ca. 130, but earlier trads) } ===

Form, General Content, and Integrity. -- Barn 1:1-8 and 21:7-9 give to the entire composition the appearance of a letter. Nevertheless, most modern commentators feel that the Epistle-form is an artificial device; in reality Barn is a general tractate rather than a true Epistle to any one specific community.\30/ Muilenburg argues for the real [[19]] epistolary character of Barn,\31/ and Schmid admits that it has the earmarks of both a "Brief" and an "Abhandlung," but there is no widespread tendency among other authors to accept the Epistle as an epistle. ---

\30/Indeed, Origen calls it H( BARNA/BA KAQOLIKH\ E)PISTOLH/ (CCels I:63); according to Windisch it is "kein Brief, sondern ein leicht in Briefform gekleideter erbaulicher Traktat ... mit brieflicher Einleitung und brieflichem Schluss" (p. 411) -- nevertheless, the Epistolary form is not considered as an intentional "fiction" by Windisch; Altaner calls it a "didactic devotional treatise"; Schille describes it as a postbaptismal "Lehrvortra%ge"; Quasten simply dubs it as "theological tract." See also Bousset, Schulbetrieb, pp. 312f. \31/Muilenburg, pp. 48f: "The Epistle of Barnabas is what it purports to be, a letter addressed by a Christian teacher to a community of Christians. There is no need to adopt the view of Van Manen in its epistolary character is factitious and represents merely a literary guise, or the similar view of Wendland .... The number of personal references, as well as the length and character of the introduction, is too great to make us suppose that the writing is no more than a general treatise. Moreover, the salutation has been shown by Professor Goodspeed ["The Salutation of Barnabas," JBL 34 (1915), 162-65] to be 'a genuinely epistolary greeting,' in harmony with the usage in Egypt during the second century and later. Deissmann's numerous letters from papyri point to the same conclusion, and offer, besides, an insight into the literary character of our document by showing their kinship with it, especially in matters of style .... The theory of a factitious form cannot be supported without violence to the writing." See also E. J. Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature (1942), p.31: "The Letter of Barnabas begins not in the usual Greek letter fashion but in the informal epistolary style used in family letters." {@@RAK note in margin: om title} ===

As we shall see, there is good reason to questions whether Barn originally was composed in the form in which we find it in our best Greek manuscripts. The Epistle is obviously divided into two large blocks of material, 2-16 and 18-20/21, which differ both in method of presentation and in basic content. Chs. 2-16 are full of quotations introduced by definite formulae, while the "two ways" section (18-20/21) is devoid of any explicit quotations. The first part of Barn primarily deals with the relationship of [[20]] Christianity to Judaism in the light of a "gnostic interpretation of "the prophets," while the "two ways" section is concerned with ethical behavior. Furthermore, the ancient Latin version of Barn(see below, ch. 2) does not include 18-21 and has a generally shorter text than the Greek witnesses in 1-17. A close analysis of the "tradition blocks" in 2-16 (see below, Part II) reveals further obvious seams in Barn which may indicate a process of development behind the present form of the Epistle. {@@RAK-- Please note that I moved the following note to the paragraph to which it was nearest. Did you move this note as part of your revisions? es } {@@RAK note on the facing page: Eltester: Ps-Barn was incapable of tying his materials together} Windisch, pp. 408-11, briefly describes previous theories about the composition of Barn (especially Heydecke and Voelter, Mueller and Haeuser), and then present the results of his own investigations in this connection. For Windisch, there are basically three types of material in Barn: @@(1)"Didachestoff" -- especially the "two ways" section, @@(2)"Testimonienstoff" - - including simple strings of quotations and midrashic exegesis, and @@(3) the remarks of the editor(s) which produce the Epistolary appearance of Barn (1:1-8, 17:1-2, 21:7-9) or which have been woven into the other materials as glosses (1:6, 2:2f[?], 4:9, 5:3f[?], 6:5, 7:1[?], 8:4, 12:11a[?]). Not only does Windisch find these two types of sources used by Ps-Barn, but he also concludes that there were two editions of Barn, roughly equivalent to the shorter Barn\L/ (although it has been expanded in the same direction as the later edition) and the longer as represented by Barn\Gk/. The [[21]] shorter edition may have appeared near the end of the first century, while the final form must come from around 135, probably by a different editor.\32/ ---

\32/A. Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk (1950), p. 30, is critical of Windisch's emphasis on written (vs. oral) tradition behind Barn, and thinks that the Epistle was finally edited by the same author who began it. Similarly, Mueller (1869) considered chs. 18-21 to be a later addition by the same author as chs. 1-17. ===

Many commentators, however, feel that they cannot deny the integrity of at least 1-17.\33/ Muilenburg is emphatic in his attacks on Windisch in this regard (pp. 109-11; see also Veil in 1924\2/), and even argues that Barn 18-21 was included in the Epistle from the very first:\34/ [[22]] No one would venture to say that there are no contradictions or inconsistancies in Barnabas, but that is by no means to admit that the whole Epistle is not the work of one man. Windisch yields to the temptation of constructing an account of the Epistle which is in accord with the principles of scientific dissection, perhaps, but not in accord with the idiosyncrasies of a writer, who was in all liklihood @@sic he product of a civilization like that of Alexandria, or of a period in religious life like that of the second century. As our examination ... will show, ... nothing less than the integrity of the entire Epistle can provide a @@plausive explanation. Windisch submits the Epistle to an extreme analysis. He gathers all his numerous fragments together, divides them into certain logical categories, and then tries to give some sort of consistent account of the literary history of the Epistle .... But he leaves so many loop-holes in his account that one is, even at first view, prejudiced against the hypothesis .... Of an original Testimonienstoff ... and Didachestoff there is no evidence, at least so far as Barnabas is concerned .... One is further prejudiced against Windisch's hypothesis by the extraordinary complexity of its literary history, which must have been complete by the time of Clement of Alexandria, who quotes the Epistle frequently, including chapter 21.\35/ {@@RAK-- 1. Do you want "inconsistancies" or "inconsistencies?" 2. Do you want "sic" in the latin font and in brackets. 3. Do you want "plausive" or "plausible?" "Plausible" is in the original text. Is this my typing error or a revision? es } ---

\33/Veldhuizen, ch. 3, argues against older views which deny the integrity of Barn; see also Cunningham (1877), pp. xviii-xx. Among the older supports of Barn's unity in 1-17 are Hefele, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt-Harnack, and Hamilton. According to Andry, p. 207, "from the seventeenth century until the present time the integrity of chapters 1-17 has been almost universally accepted." \34/Connolly, Burkitt, and Robinson (see above, n. 2) are in general agreement with Muilenburg here. Andry concludes that "they have established the unity of Barnabas so firmly that their considerations seem conclusive" (p. 234). Nevertheless, in the next paragraph Andry admits that Goodspeed (see above, n. 2) has attacked their ideas on the origin of the "two ways" and thus on the originality of Barn 18-21 to Ps-Barn. For Goodspeed, a shorter (ch. 1-17) and a longer form of Barn existed in the second century. In spite of this, Andry (p. 252) concludes: "The unity of the Epistle of Barnabas remains unshaken. The analyses and conclusions of Robinson, Muilenburg, and Connolly are so thorough and convincing ... that we must crown their studies with a note of authority and scholastic triumph." \35/According to Windisch, however, the Epistle reached its final form (B\2/) around the year 135, while its earlier form (B\1/) dates from the end of the first or beginning of the second century. Windisch claims that the "glosses" are, for the most part, comments of the final editor. ===

While it is not unlikely that Windisch @@sometimes has been overzealous in his analysis of Barn, it is also sure that Muilenburg's "solution" is much too simple. Even Muilenburg must admit that Barn does use some sources -- the large number of scriptural quotations and allusions found in the Epistle is enough to show this. The fact that Barn 1-17 and 18-21 show "the same diction, purpose, theological interest, literary style, and use of sources [sic!]" (p.135), [[23]] neither refutes the idea that Ps-Barn used ready-made collections of scriptural excerpts, nor proves that "the Two Ways chapters ... are the original work of the writer of the remaining chapters of the Epistle" (p.9).\36/ ---

\36/Audet, "Affinite/s," pp. 222f, also emphasizes the fact that to say that the same hand is visible throughout the Epistle as we now have it tells us nothing about any sources which may lie behind this final editing. ===

Recent discoveries of Testimonienstoff and Didachestoff alike in the Qumran caves\37/ now make Muilenburg's assertions even less tenable. It is, therefore, more likely that Windisch's general lines of investigation will be more rewarding than Muilenburg's in the study of Barn.\38/ The further problem of whether the traditional materials (oral and written) came to Ps-Barn piecemeal or already were transmitted in a larger arrangement only can be answered on the basis of a detailed discussion of the entire Epistle in its relationship to other late Jewish and early Christian writings.\39/ ---

\37/See Barnard, "Observations," and Audet, "Affinite/s," for the latter; on the testimony literature problem, see J.A. Fitzmyer, "'4Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," TS 18 (1957), 513-37, and the present writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text." \38/Quasten, p. 91, thinks that "Muilenburg has ... successfully established that the document is from beginning to end by one and the same author and that not subsequent additions are discernible .... Nevertheless, ... the author ... had at his disposal not only this common ["two ways"] source [with Did] and the Sacred Scriptures but also others that cannot now be identified." Windisch might even agree to this! {@@RAK note on facing page: 38. cp Eltester - sources include Jewish scriptures, testimonia (not necessarily Matt!) } \39/The same problem is evidenced in the sectarian literature from Qumran. It is not impossible that exposition followed by didache (haggada-halakah) may even be a traditional Jewish combination. See Baltzer, Bundesformular. ===

[[24]] Evaluation. -- If one admits that much of the material found in the final form of the Epistle already existed in earlier forms, questions such as authorship, occasion, date, destination, and place of origin are exposed as, in some senses, illegitimate. Thus it is possible that indications for different dates of composition may be found side by side in the Epistle because parts of it were composed at different times. Similarly, peculiarly Jewish materials may also have been welded together with basically hellenistic or strictly Christian traditions in the same context, thereby presenting conflicting evidence concerning the supposed author, occasion, recipients, etc. Once the traditional nature of the material in Barn is admitted, there remains no easy solution to most of the problems of higher criticism of the Epistle. What first is necessary is a closer analysis of the tradition embedded in Barn and its relationship to the form(s) of the Epistle now known to us.

[[25]]

Chapter 2

THE TEXT OF BARNABAS

The complete text of Barn 1-21 is preserved only in two Greek MSS, Sinaiticus (=Barn\S/) and Constantinopolitanus (or Hierosolymitanus, =Barn\H/), which have been brought to light within the past century. Several MSS of Barn 5:7b-21:9 (=Barn\G/) also are known, and an old Latin version (=Barn\L/) of chapters 1-17 in a somewhat shorter form that in the Greek MSS (=Barn\Gk/). Thus a critical Greek text of the entire Epistle has been possible only since 1862. Before discussing the textual witnesses in greater detail, we will list chronologically the publications which are most relevant: 1642 Ussher, J. apud Backhouse, J.H. The Editio Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas by Archbishop Ussher, as printed at Oxford A.D. 1642, {@@RAK addition: and preserved in an imperfect form in the Bodelian Library; with a dissertation on the literary history of that edition. } ... [1883] (Ussher used Barn\L/ and a MS like Barn\G/{@@RAK addition: G\c(b)/}; while the ed was still in the press, a fire destroyed it. {@@RAK addition: Oxford: @@Clarendon Press, 1883} 1645 Menard, H. (ed of Barn prepared c.1638 from Barn\L/ and some MSS of Barn\G/ [bcn ?] and published posthumously by L. D'Archery). 1646 Voss, I. (ed of Barn with both Greek and Latin texts). 1685 LeMoyne, S. Varia sacra I (claims to use a newly discovered Greek MS, and does indeed differ in minutiae from known MSS of G). 1857 Dressel, A.R.M. (re-collated many MSS of G for his ed). 1857 Migne, J.-P. PG 2, 647-782 (reproduces the introductions from previous important eds of Barn, and gives both Greek and Latin texts). {@@RAK note on facing page: As early as 1640, Ussher planned & was having printed his ed. of Polycarp & Ign.; later, after meeting Voss, they decided to include Barn. Ussher's original ed. bore the date 1643, Ignatii, Polycarpi et Barnabae Epistolae atque martyria. the pages of Barn had already been printed in 1642 and were awaiting appearance in the finished vol. Apparently it was delayed (if the fire was in Autumn 1644), and in 1644 after the fire the material from Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae was issued separately (but did not appear until 1645, probably in March). Pp 1-239 of the "1643" ed. are virtually identical with "1644" ed. (Llewellyn [1646!] @@?/>) The fire took place in 1643 (Fell & later add) or 1644 (Oct 6, apud Backhouse p viii n. 2 etc) Pp. 239-270 [p 301 = Barn 21:4] (+?) = the Barnabas (& Martyria) portion of the orig. ed, alone was destroyed (div. 5) in the "1644" ed, pp 239-242 = Errata 241-247 = Praemonitis to Barn (Fell reproduces pp. 241-246 of this) Fell knew at least pp 249, 50, 54, 55, 57, 65, and 70 (cites 13 variants) in 1648, Ussher published the Martyria in his Appendix Ignatia, but he never did publish Barn & Voss' notes to it, although there are indications that he had planned to do so. Possibly this is because Voss' ed. of them had already appeared by 1648. The reports that the "copy" (ms?) as well as the printed pages of Barn were destroyed are probably erroneous. In any event, Uss used transcripts of L (via Voss via Salmas via Cordes) and of one of the mss of family G (via Voss via Salmas via Schott), not any actual mss. } {@@RAK-- I Capitalized Voss. es} [[26]] 1863 Tischendorf, A.F.C. NT Sinaiticum sive NT cum Epistola Barnabae et fragm. Pastors. 1863 Weizsaecker, K. Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaitious. 1871 Hilgenfeld, A. "Der Brief des Barnabas in altlateinischer Uebersetzung," ZWT 14, 262-90 (based on a new collation by Bonnell). 1877\2/ Hilgenfeld, A. Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum; Barnabe Epistula [1866\1/] (uses Barn\H/ for the first time, supplied by P. Bryennios; see also Hilgenfeld in ZWT 21 [1878], 150 and 295, and Bryennios' notes in his 1883 ed of Did). 1878\2/ Gebhardt, O. and Harnack, A. con. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera I: 2 [1875\1/] (test and introduction to textual matters by Gebhardt, notes and general introduction by Harnack). 1880 Funk, F.X. "Der Codex Vaticanus gr. 859 und seine Descendenten," TQ 62, 629-37 (argues that, generally speaking, Barn\G/ is descended from MS v). 1880 Sharpe, S. The Epistle of Barnabas from the Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible with a Translation. {@@RAK addition: 1883 Bryennios, P. Didache } 1901\2/ Funk, F.X. Patres apostolici I [1878\1/] 1901 van Veldhuizen, A. De Brief van Barnabas. 1908 Heer, J.M. Die Versio Latina des Barnabasbriefes und ihr verhaeltnis zur altlateinischen Bibel (contains an exact transcription of Barn\L/, then Barn\Gk/ and Barn\L/ in parallel columns with an extensive critical apparatus, and a Latin-Greek concordance to the Epistle). 1909 Heer, J.M. "Der lateinische Barnabasbrief: ein Nachwort," Roemischen Quartalschrift 23, 215-44 (contains corrections and answers to critics). 1911 Lake, Helen and Kirsopp. Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (facsimiles, Barn is on fols.135-41). 1912 Baumstark, A. "Der Barnabasbrief bei den @@Syrernn," OrChr 2, 235-40 (evidence for Barn 18, 19:1f and 8, and 20:1 in a Syriac translation). [[27]] {@@RAK note on facing page: 1913 Wohleb, L. "Zur Versio latina des Barnabasbriefs" Berlin @@philol. Wochenschrift 33, 1020-24. 1914 Wohleb, L. (same) Ibid. 34, 573-75 } 1924 Bihlmeyer, K. Die apostolischen Vaeter: Neubearbeitung der @@Funkomschen Ausgabe reprinted with added noted by W. Schneemelcher, 1956\2/). {@@RAK note on facing page: 1927 PSI 757 } 1940 Klauser, T. Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum, Barnabae Epistola, in Florilegium Patristicum I. For a more complete bibliography of published texts of Barn, see Gebhardt-Harnack, pp. Xf, and Heer, pp. XVIIIf. The most detailed discussions of the individual MSS are in Hilgenfeld\2/, pp. XIV-XVII; Gebhardt, pp. VII-XXXIX; Heer, pp. LXII-LXXIV; Veldhuizen, pp. 3-34; and Andry, pp. 277-87. {@@RAK note in margin of text: ambig. }

Barn\L/. -- Sometime around 1638, Hugo Menard brought to light in the Benedictine monastery at Corbey a Latin Codex which contained @@Philastrius, De Haeresibus, (Ps-) Tert (Nov ?), De Cibis Judaicis, Epistola Barnabe, and Epistola Jacobi. The MS, "Codex Corbeiensis," soon was moved to the Royal Library at Paris (St. Germain), and around the year 1805 it was taken to its present home in Leningrad (then St. Petersburg). The entire codex apparently had been copied by the same hand in the 10th century,\1/ but now is bound in [[28]] two parts, with @@Filastrius on fols.1-69 and the remaining three works on fols.70-93. {@@RAK-- Please note that you have 2 spellings for "F/Philastrius. es} ---

\1/This dating of L now is commonly accepted (see Quasten, p. 91), but it sometimes has been considered older than the 10th century. According to Heer (p. XIII) and Andry (p. 283), L was dated from the 8th century or earlier by Tischendorf, Mueller, and Krueger; Marx, Landgraf-Weyman, Dressel, Cunningham, [Souter], and the earlier Gebhardt though it was a 9th century copy; the later Gebhardt, Holder, Wordsworth, Hort, and Heer subscribe to the 10th century date. Heer conjectures that it may have been copied at Corbey itself, or at Tours. {@@RAK addition: 9-10\th/ c = Windisch, Funk-Bihl, Lightfoot-Harmer correct to "9\th/ century" on basis of Dobias{@@upside down caret mark}, 155!} {@@RAK note on facing page: Souter, JTS 11 (1909-10), 138 (rev. of Heer) > 10th C. w/ Holder } ===

Heer thinks that the original translation of Barn into Latin probably took place in third century Africa.\2/ The absence of harmonizations to Vulg in Scriptural quotations and the close relationship of the same quotations to Tert and Cyp are the primary grounds upon which such a conclusion rests. Despite its age, however, the value of Barn\L/ as a textual witness frequently has been challenged, especially by writers who believe that chapters 18-21 were composed at the same time as 1-17.\3/ Actually, as we shall see, Barn\L/ is [[29]] as often as not a slavishly literal equivalent to Barn\Gk/ 1-17, and often is of high value for the textual criticism of individual passages.\4/ ---

\2/See Heer, pp. XL-LIX, for earlier views and his own arguments. Quasten (p. 91) and Andry (p. 229) accept the third century dating of the original translation without argument. According to G. Bardy, La Question des langues dans l'E/glise ancienne I (1948), p. 107, "The date of this version [which probably was made at Rome, not Africa] is unknown, but cannot be later than the third century." C. Mohrmann, "Les origines de la latinete/Chre/tienne a\ Rome," VigChr 3 (1949), 103f, accepts Bardy's judgment in this matter. \3/So Muilenburg, pp. 15-16, is overly harsh with Barn\L/: "The value of the Latin version has been greatly exaggerated. The translator renders his source freely, @@makes numerous changes, and leaves out not merely phrases and clauses, but whole passages. He revises to suit his own notions, corrects where he feels so inclined, .and cuts down the wordiness of the Greek version. The omission of the last five chapters by such a translator is not difficult to explain .... To hold the translator of L responsible for the omission of these last chapters from the Epistle should occasion no surprise on the part of anyone familiar with that version. L is notoriously willing to make changes as he sees fit." The footnotes in Gebhardt, pp. XXVff, are full of instances where the readings of Barn\L/ have been challenged. Andry, pp. 208-27, has collected all the differences between Barn\L/ and Barn\Gk/ according to Heer's parallel texts. {@@RAK-- 1. You have underlined part of "makes." 2. Do you want the quotation in footnote 3 indented. es} \4/Windisch's balanced judgment is noteworthy: "Die lateinische Uebersetzung ist oefter frei und lueckenhaft, hat viele Auslassungen, ist gelentlich aber doch von groesster Wichtigkeit und Zurverlaessigkeit" (p. 301). Many commentators, for example, consider Barn\L/ 4:6 ("et dicunt qui testa-m-[en]tu-[m] illoru-[m] et nostru- [m] est: Nostru-[m] {@@math division symbol} [est] aute-[m] ... ") to be the true text where S (O(/TI H( DIAQH/KH H(MW=N ME/N) and H O(/TI H( DIAQH/KH U(MW=N U(MI=N ME/NEI) are corrupt (see below, p. 131). Hilgenfeld and Heer hold similarly favorable views on the value of Barn\L/, although Heer argues that in the OT quotations, L usually has not made a translation of Barn\Gk/, but has substituted instead the ready-made Old Latin Bible translation (see especially p. LXXIV). Heer's thesis, however, cannot universally be applied to all the LXX quotations in Barn. ===

Barn\G/. -- The family of MSS in which Barn 5:7 (TO\N LAO\N TO\N KAINO/N/KENO/N) follows without a break after Polycarp Phil 9:2 (KAI\ DI) H(MA=S U(PO/) is designated as "G" by Gebhardt (Funk and Heer use only "V" [Vaticanus Gr. 859] as the apparent archetype of the family and includes the following codices: {@@RAK note: 13th (Diekamp) } (1) v = codex Vaticanus Gr. 859 from the @@11th c., used by early eds and re-collated by Dressel; contains the long recension of Ign (11 epistles, mutilated at the beginning), then Polycarp-Barn. {@@RAK addition: plus many other writings} (2) o = codex Ottobonianus 348 from the 14th (Dressel) or early 16th (Funk {@@RAK addition: \1-2/} {@@RAK addition: + Lightfoot\1+2/}) c., used by early eds and recollated by Dressel; same contents as v, also has many marginal notes, corrections, and conjectures. (3) f = codex Florentinus {@@RAK addition: Lauren} Mediceus plut. VII N.2 {@@RAK addition: Cod. 21} from the 15th (Dressel, Bandini) or 16th (Funk {@@RAK addition: \1-2/ + Lightfoot\1-2/}) c., used by Voss; contains Ign and Polycarp-Barn (as in v), plus some writing of Hipp (and Ps-Hipp). {@@RAK note in margin: Lightfoot (II. 1\2/ 113f) thinks it is a direct copy of @@D} {@@RAK note on facing page: Diekamp (1913), XXXVIIf has v (13\th/c) {@@RAK addition: = Jacobsen }same XXXVIIIf. has o (early 16\th/ c) - copy of v (p XLII) }archetype XXXIXf. has f (early 16\th/ c; older dating = 15) }@@XIII So @@Gebl\2/ @@, @@Dress XL has p (16\th/ c) XL also speaks of Paris Suppl gr. 341 (@@med 16\th/c ? various hands) with same contents as ofp XLIII claims it + f. are copies of o XLIV sees p as copy of f. XLIV has c (16\th/ c; prev. 15\th/) XLVf has b (17\th/ c) -- not sure of its @@bkgrnd } [[30]] (4) p = codex Parisinus (or Colbertinus 4443) N. 937 from the late 16th c. and collated by Harnack (possibly used by Cotelier under the name codex Thuaneus); same contents as f. (5) b = MS Barberinus 7 is a transcript made by Holsten (died 1661) of the mysterious "Theatine" codex (used by Voss) from the library of S. Silvestri in Quirinali, collated with MS v; according to Funk (1880) + Lightfoot (I, 549), the @@original Theatine codex still exists, but others say it has disappeared or was destroyed (Cunningham). {@@RAK note in margin: [t] } {@@RAK-- There is an arrow drawn next to "original." } (6) c = codes Casanatensis G.V. 14 from the 15th c., possibly used by Voss and re-collated by Dressel; contains 8 epistles of Ign in the middle recension, along with Polycarp-Barn; has some marginal notations. {@@RAK notes in margin of text: 1. Lib. of Minerva at Rome. 2. Funk\2/ says 16th c 3. in different hands (Lightf.) es} (7) n = codex Borbonicus (or Neapolitanus) II.A.17 from the 15th c., collated for Gebhardt by Martini; contains works of Athanasius, Anastasius, and Methodius, as well as Polycarp-Barn. To these should be added (8) a= codex Andrius, which contains several patristic works including the Hodegus of Anastasius and (Polycarp- ?) Barn 5:7b-19:2, and first was published by C. @@Pleziotes in 1883,\5/ {@@RAK addition: and (9) S = codex } {@@RAK note in margin: Salamanierais } {@@RAK-- 1. You have inserted a page of notes. 2. Do you want "C. Pleziotes" or C. Plegiotes?" es} {@@RAK notes on the facing page: 1. Funk\2/ (1901), under Polycarp pp XCVIIf. says the Theatine codex is now "Alexandrino - Vaticano 11" - he had not seen it himself. cf Lightfoot II.1 (1889\2/), 549 Cod MSS Grace Pii II in Bibl. Alex - vab (Duchesne, 1880), p. 10 2. (9) Lightfoot II.2 (1885) mentions in connection with Polycarp, p 900 F, the existence of S = Salmasianus check II.1 (Intro.) (1889\2/), p 549 II.3 (1889\2/), 319f - S = MS used indirectly by Ussher ({@@ arrow facing down}) 3. Summary of Lightfoot 1889\2/ ed. II.1 p. 548 ofp descend from v [also II.3 (1889\2/), 320] p 549 cb descriptions t = Cod MSS Graec Pii II in Bibl. Alex-Vab. p 10 (Duchesne p 880) n = 15\th/ c s = Salmasianus (see II.3, 319 = ms known to Ussher via Voss who got it from Cl. Salmasius who got it from A. Schott a = same type as cbns III.1 pp. iii-114 (Ignatius) 111f. v = 11\th/ c not 13 apud Dressel 112f o = 16\th/ c (so Funk) - possibly copy of v; clearly lineal desc. fr. it my notes in diff hand. 113f f = 16\th/ c, probably {@@symbol?} @@: direct copy of o? (cf Polge. 9.2 HWS note) 114 p = 16\th/ c -- {@@a} facsimile of f directly, or copy of its protype. } ---

\5/See Veldhuizen, p. 7; Muilenburg, p. 12; Andry, p. 286. {@@RAK addition: J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers II:1 (1885), p. 533. (1889\2/ 549. According to the colophon, it was purchased in 1656 by a certain Athenian Monk named Nathaniel. Pleziotes' publication appeared in DELTI/ON TH=S I(STORIKH=S KAI\ E)QNOLOGIKH=S E(TAURI/AS TH=S H(LLADOS I (1883), 209 ff (the editor thought he had found the remainder of Polycarp in Greek!). The MS is paper, and the last page is lacking (Barn 19:2 ff). See also ZWT (1886), 183 and Funk\2/, XCVIII (Funk had not seen the actual ms). } ===

The suggestion of Funk (1880), that Vaticanus gr. 859 is the common archetype for Barn\G/, has gained general acceptance. The family certainly is in close harmony, and significant variants rarely occur within the MSS. Nevertheless, as Funk recognized, there are some variants in Barn\G/ which cannot be explained as direct developments on the basis of the reading in MS v; if MS v is the archetype, other MSS of Barn also may have been consulted occasionally by later copyists. MSS o-f-p seem to stand closest to MS v, while b-c-n have a [[31]] more divergent form of the text.

Barn\S/, -- Tischendorf's timely rescue of codex Sinaiticus (=Hebrew alef in some notations) from the monastery of St. Catherine in 1859 opened a new era in the textual criticism of Barn. Not only was the initial portion of the Epistle finally available in Greek, but the date of Barn\S/ (4th/5th century) invited critics to place a great deal of confidence in its readings (see especially Gebhardt). The Epistle directly follows the Apocalypse of John and is followed by the Shepherd of Hermas. Occasionally the text of Barn\S/ has been corrected on the basis of another MS by a later hand (=Barn\Sc/; early 7th century apud Tischendorf), and corrections by the first hand (=Barn\Sc*/) also appear. Thus, for some readings, Barn\S/ may represent two Greek witnesses rather than one.

Barn\H/. -- Bryennios' codex Constantinopolitanus was found in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery at Constantinople around 1875 and was transferred to Jerusalem in 1887 (thence the confusion in names and symbols\6/). The MS was written in the year 1056 and includes Barn between Chr's "Synopsis of the Old and NT" and Cl. R's Epistle to the Corinthians. The codes never has been published as a whole, but Hilgenfeld [[32]] used Bryennios' collation in 177, and Bryennios himself included some notes on Barn\H/ in his 1883 @@edition princeps of the Didache.\7/ {@@RAK note in margin: see microfilms by K.W. Clark (1950 +/-) AGI/OU TA/QOU 54 folia @@39-51\@@b/ } ---

\6/In Funk and Heer, the symbol "H" is used for Barn\H/. We have followed Gebhardt in most critical notations. \7/Facsimiles of Did were published by J.R. Harris in 1887. {@@RAK note on facing page: \7/Pp. civ-cviii. These notes are corrections to Helgenfeld's 1877 reading for H, but unfortunately, subsequent editors and commentators on the Epistle do not seem to be aware of Bryennios' corrections! } ===

Barn\Cl.A./. -- According to Eus, HE VI: 13-14:1, Cl.A had more than s superficial knowledge of Barn; not only does Eus mention that Cl.A cited Barn in the Stromateis, but he makes special note of the fact that in his (lost) "Hypotyposes," Cl.A. even commented on the antilegomena of "Jude and the other catholic epistles and (TE) Barnabas and (KAI/) the Apocalypse attributed to Peter." Indeed, we find that eight times in Strom, Cl.A claims to be quoting the apostle Barnabas ("one of the seventy and a co-worker with Paul" Strom II (20) 116:3). In one of these instances the passage so identified comes from Cl.R (who also is cited a few lines later where another [unacknowledged] passage from Barn is found), but the other seven quotations clearly are from our Epistle: Barn 1:5 and 2:2f Strom II:(6):31:2 4:11 II:(7):35:5 6:5 and 8-10 V:(10):63:1-6 10:10 and 1 II:(15):67:1-3\8/ 10:11f and 4 V:(8):51:2-52:2 16:7-9 II:(20):116:3-117:4 21:5-6 and 9 II:(18):84:3 [Cl.R 48:4 as 'Barn' VI:(8):64:3] [[33]] These quotations from Barn are, in general, both lengthy and very precise, and do not seem to have been made from memory. The eds of Barn by Gebhardt, Funk, and Heer include some (but not all) of the variants from Barn\Cl.A/ in their respective critical notes. ---

\8/In some ways, this is the freest use which Cl.A makes of Barn in these explicit quotations. Barn 10:10 is cited with additional (traditional?) material included (see below, p. 213), then Barn 10:1 is quoted. As sort of an after-thought Cl.A closes the section with TAU=TA ME\N O( BARNA/BAS (there is no precise indication of the beginning of this material). Some of the additional material included in the quotation of Barn 10:10 is reminiscent of Barn 10:3f. No doubt the catechetical school of Alexandria was quite familiar with the arguments reflected in Barn 10. ===

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Cl.A is the earliest witness to Barn, his evidence has been little used in general discussions concerning the textual criticism of the Epistle.\9/ Certainly there are dangers in placing too much value on Barn\Cl.A/: (1) variants from the MSS of Barn may be errors or changes made by Cl.A rather than true readings derived from the MS(S) of Barn which he used,\10/ (2) there may be secondary corruptions of transmission in the text of Cl.A (there is only one MS extant for Strom I-VI), and (3) the text of Cl.A may have been re-collated with a later MS of Barn in the course of history. It is, however, worthwhile to examine [[34]] in detail the relationship between Barn\Cl.A/ and the later Greek MSS of Barn (S,H,G; comparing L) as an illustration of the complex textual problem in the Epistle.\11/ Apart from orthographical and semi-orthographical differences,\12/ the following variations appear: ---

\9/Heer, p. LXXIV, suggests that the Greek Vorlage of Barn\L/ may be even older than Cl.A's text of Barn. Gebhardt, p. XXXVIII, makes a partial collation of Barn\Cl.A/ with other witnesses as an afterthought in his discussion of text.

\10/So Heer, pp. LXXIIf, points to two difficulties in using Barn\Cl.A./: (1) the reliability of citations in general, and (2) Cl. A has commented on Barn and occasionally may have emended the text as a "Teacher" himself (see above, n. 8).

\11/The quotations in Cl.A are taken from the ed by Staehlin in GCS, which is based on the text of MS Laur. V 3.

\12/Orthographical problems include: MWSH=S/MWUSH=S in 6:8 and 10:12; 'ISA/K/'ISAA/K in 6:8, OU)DE//OU)/TE in 10:1 and 4, DABI/D/DA(UEI/)D in 10:10, and PTHNA//PETEINA/ in 10:10. Closely related letter-variants which have little value for determining textual affinities include: 6:8 EI)SE/LQETE (HG\c/Cl.A)/--ATE (SG\vop bn/) 10:1 KO/RAKAN (Cl.A)/KO/RAKA (rell) :1 O(/S (rell)/O(/ (G\vo*p/) :4 I_KTI=NAN (Cl.A)/IKTI=NA (rell) 10:11 KOLLA=SQAI (SGCl.A)/KOLLA=SQE (HL) {@@RAK note: 10:11 DIXHLOU=N (rell)/-HLON(H)} 16:7 EI)DWLOLATRI/AS (Cl.A)/--EI/AS (rell) :7 DIAMO/NWN (Cl.A)/-I/WN (rell) :8 GENW/MEQA (Cl.A)/-O/MEQA (?L)/see SHG 21:6 EU(/RHTAI (Cl.A)/--HTE (H)/see SG === {@@RAK-- Please note that you have underlined and circled a lot of the text on pages 34-37. I typed what I think is the final revision. es} (1) Readings of Barn\Cl.A/ unsupported by the other MSS 1:5 A)F' PI)= (FHSI/N) E)/LABON ME/ROUS (beginning of the quotation)] SH (comp. L) have PERI\ U(MW=N TOU= ME/ROS TI METADOU=NAI A)F' OU(= E)/LABON :5 lacks the phrase O(/TI E)/STAI MOI - MISQO/N, which is found in SH and L. :5 PE/MYAI] SH, PE/MPEIN; L has "mittere" 2:2 TH=S ME\N OU)=N PI/STEWS U(MW=N] SH(L), TH=S OU)=N PI/STEWS H(MW=N :2 OI( SULLH/PTORES] SH, BOHQOI/; L has "adiutor est" 4:11 PAR' E(AUTOI=S] H(=LXX), E)N E(AUTOI=S; S, E(AUTOI=S; L has "sibi soli" {@@RAK note in margin: Cl.A = H} :11 PNEUMATIKOI\ GENW/MEQA] SH, GENW/MEQA PNEUMATIKOI/, GENW/MEQA; L has "simus spiritales simus ... " {@@RAK note in margin: Cl A = H } [[35]] 6:8 H(\N W)/MOSEN KU/RIOS O( QEO/S (see earlier in verse)] GSHL lack{@@s} O( QEO/S :8 O( QEO\S A)BRAA/M] GSH(L), TW=| A)BRAA/M :9 GH=S] GSH, TH=S GH=S; L has "terra" :10 KU/RIOS] GSH, O( KU/RIOS; L has "d[omi]n-[u]s-" 10:4 OU) @@FAGH| (see 10:1,5)] S, OU)/TE FA/GH|; H, OU)DE\ FA/GH|; G, OU)DE\ MH\ @@FA/GH| FHSI/N L has "nec manducabis inquit" :4 [ - ] ... KAI\ ... KAI/] SHG, OU)DE\ ... OU)DE\ ... OU)DE/ (OU)/TE, S); L has "aut ... [omit] ... aut" :4 OU) KOLLHQH/SH| FHSI/N] SHG, OU) MH/ FHSI/N KOLLHQH/SH|; L has "hoc dicit non adiunges te..." :4 TOI=S A)NQRW/POIS TOU/TOIS] SHG, A)NQRW/POIS TOIOU/TOIS; L has "talibus hominibus" :4 OI(\ OU)K I)/SASI DIA\ PO/NOU] SHG, OI(/TINES OU)K OI)/DASIN DIA\ KO/TOU; L has "qui nesciunt per laborem" :4 E)N A(RPAGH=| KAI\ A)NOMI/A| BI/OUSIN] SHGL, A(RPA/ZOUSIN TA\ A)LLO/TRIA E)N A)NOMI/A| AU)TW=N etc. {@@RAK note in margin: ----- accent } 10:10 TH\N GNW=SIN] SGH lack TH/N :10 @@SEI)S A(RPAGH\N E(/TOIMA] SHGL, (TA\, G) KAQH/MENA EI)S A(RPAGH/N :11 KAI\ META\ TW=N MELETW/NTWN] SHG lack KAI/ (comp. L) @@:12 H(MEI=S] SHL add DE/; G adds OU)=N 16:7 A)LHWQ=S] SHG, W(S A)LH|QW=S; L has "sicut" :8 lacks the phrase OI)KODOMHQH/SETAI - KURI/OU which is included by SHGL in one form or another. :8 TOU= KURI/OU] G, KURI/OU; SH(L), TOU= QEOU= 21:5 DW/|H KAI\ U(MI=N] SHG lack KAI/ :5 KAI\ @@SU/NESIN E)PISTH/MHN] SH lack KAI/; G lacks KAI and trsps :6 GI/NESQE OU)=N] SG, GI/(G)NESQE DE/; H, GI/NESQE :6 O( KU/RIOS] SHG lack O( :6 lacks KAI\ POIEI=TE, which SHG include (2) Readings which find support only in L 1:5 KAI\ TH\N GNW=SIN (L has "et scientiam")] SH lack KAI/ 2:2 FO/BOS KAI\ U(POMONH/ (L has "timor et sustinentia")] SH lack KAI/ :3 @@TA\ PRO\S TO\N KU/RION MENO/NTWN (L has "apud dn-m- permanent")] SH, MENO/NTWN PRO\S KU/RION {@@RAK note on facing page: 2:8 AGAPATW } 10:10 [twice] OU)DE/ (L has "nec")] SHG, KAI\ ... OU)K 16:7 OI)KHTH/RION (L has "habitatio" [see below, n. 13])] SHG, KATOIKHTH/RION :8 GENW/MEQA (L has "sumus" [=GENO/MEQA ?])] SHG/2.3\ (G\o\c//), E)GENO/MEQA; G\o*v/, E)GENW/MEQA

[[36]] There are, of course, numerous instances where Barn\Cl.A/ and Barn\Gk/ agree against Barn\L/ -- especially where L is shorter -- but there is little value in listing them.\13/ ---

\13/The evidence of Barn\L/ 16:7 ("habitatio," see above) is not entirely clear: in 6:15 (compare 16:8), KATOIKHTH/RION = "inhabitatio," and in 11:5 and 16:8, KATOIKEW = "inhabito." Nevertheless, KATOIKE/W also = "habito" in 6:14, 10:5, and 16:9f. Nor does OI0KHTH/RION occur elsewhere in Barn\Gk/. In Barn 1:4, E)GKATOIKW/W= "habito." In Iren, both KATOIKHTH/RION and OI)KHTH/RION are rendered by "habitaculum" (see AH I:21:4 [=14:3] and III:9:2), while "habitatio" = OI)/KHSIS and "inhabitatio" = KATOIKI/A; "inhabito" usually stands for KATOIKE/W, but "habito" is used for both forms of the verb. See B. Reynders, Lexique compare/ ... de l'"Adversus Haeresomes" (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 141-42, @@Subsidi/a 5-6, 1954). ===

(3) Agreements with G against SH 6:9 TI/ LE/GEI (so L)] SH, TI/DE\ LE/GEI :10 TH\N R(E/OUSAN (see L)] S\c/H, GH=N R(E/OUSAN; S*, TH=| R(E/OUSIN 10:1 E)N AU)TW=|] SH, E)N E(AUTW=|; L has "in se" {@@RAK addition: 10:4 TORIZEIN EAUTOIS] trsp SH (cf L) } :10 KAQW/S (1) (so L)] SH add KAI/ :12 KU/RIOS] SH, O(* KU/RIOS; L has "dn-s-" {@@RAK addition: 16:7 TOU= H(MA=S (G, cf L)] TOU= U(MA=S SH } 16:8 PROSE/XETE (see L)] SH, add DE/ :8 KURI/OU] SH, QEOU= {@@RAK addition: (see L) } Agreements with S*H against G(S\c/) 6:8 O( A)/LLOS PROFH/THS (SH)] lacking in GL :9 A)/NQRWPOS GA/R (SHL)] G lacks GA/R :10 EI)S TH\N GH=N (SHL)] G lacks EI)S :10 A)DELFOI/ (SH)] lacking in G and L 10:11 @@SE)STI\N E)/RGON (SH)] trsp in G (see L) :11 A)NAMARUKWME/NWN (SH)] G, MARUK-; L lacks entire section 16:7 EI)DWLOLATR(E)I/AS KAI\ H)=N OI)=KOS (SH, see L)] G, EI)DWLOLATREI/AS OI)=KOS (H() EI)DWLOLATREI/A H(=N OI)=KOS :8 TO\ O)/NOMA (S*H)] S\c/ adds KURI/OU; G, TW=| O)NO/MATI (/-MA, v\*/o) (+KURI/OU b\t/cn); L has "in nomine dn-i-" {@@RAK-- For the next two lines I reversed the text as your note indicated. es} 21:5 @@SOU/NESIN E)PISTH/MHN (SH)] G trsp :5 U(POMONH/N (SH)] G, E)N U(POMONH=| (4) Agreements with S against H(G) 2:2 SUMMAXOU=NTA] H, SUMMAX (abbreviation? ) 4:11 TOU= QEOU= (see L)] H, KURI/OU [[37]] 6:8 TI/ LE/GEI] H, lacks TI/; G (see L), LE/GEI DE\ KAI/ 10:4 OU)DE\ O(MOIWQH/SH| (see L)] H, H)\ O(MOIWQH/SH|); G lacks @@{@@RAK note in margin: (@@ AI (?)} 21:5 O( TOU= PANTO/S] H, O( TOU= SU/MPANTOS G, O( PANTO\S TOU= Agreements with (S\c/)H(G) against S\*/ 2:3 TOUTW=N OU)=N (H, see L?)] S, lacks OU)=N {@@RAK text in margin: 4:11 E)NW/PION AU)TW=N (H)] S ENWPION EAUTWN, L apud se 4:11 E)D' O(/SON E)STI\N E)A' H(MI=N (H)] S {@@symbol} E)N H(MI=N, L in quantum est in nobis } 4:11 I)/NA E)N TOI=S DIKAIW/MASIN AU)TOU= EU)FRANQW=MEN (S\c/H)] S\*/ lacks E)N and AU)TOU= EU)FRANQW=MEN; L lacks entire phrase 6:8 MW(U)SH=S AU)TOI=S (HG, See L)] S lacks AU)TOI=S :8 KATAKLHRONOMH/SATE AU)TH/N (S\c/HG, see L)] S\*/, -A/TW TH/N 10:1 PA/NTA (HG[o*v, PA=N]L)] lacking in S :1 LEPI/DA (S\c/HG, see L)] S*, MERI/DA {@@RAK-- Please note that 10:4 is crossed out? Do you want "H" typed in as an addition? es} :10 O( XOI=ROS (HGL)] S, OI( XOI=ROI :11 TO\N LO/GON KURI/OU (HG)] S, } {L lacks TO\N LO/GON TOU= KURI/OU } entire :11 @@SO( DI/KAIOS KAI/ (HG[bcn omit } section KAI/])] S trsp :12 LALOU=MEN (HGL)] S, DIKAI/WS LALOU=MEN (see earlier in verse) 16:7 H)=N \(@@t)/ (HG, see L)] lacking in S :9 AU)TOU= (HG)] lacking in S 21:6 QEODI/DAKTOI (HG)] lacking in S (5) Agreements with (S\c/)H against S*(G) 2:3, 4:11, 4:11, 4:11, 4:11, see above {@@RAK-- Please verify the text on the previous line. Thank you. es} 6:9 FHSI/N (HS\c/L)] lacking in S*G {@@RAK note in margin: +H } 10:11 DIKAIW/MATA] SG, TA\ DIKAIW/MATA {@@RAK note in margin: +H } :11 O( MWUSH=S (H)] SG lack O( 21:6 EU(/RHTAI (H, EU(/RHTE)] S, EU(REQH=TAI G, SWQH=TE Agreements with S(G) against H 2:2, 4:11, see above 6:9 FANEROU=SQAI U(MI=N (SG)] H trsp; L lacks U(MI=N :10 AU)TOU= (SG)] H, E(AUTOU=; L has "suum" 10:1 XOI=RON (SG)] H, XOI/REION (=L, "porcinam" ?) :11 E)N TOU/TW| TW=| KO/SMW| (SG)] H lacks TOU/TW|; L lacks whole section :11 MWUSH=S KALW=S (SG)] H trsp (see L, "spiritaliter ... Moyses") 21:9 Barn\Cl.A/ includes a passing allusion to the words A)GA/PHS TE/KNA KAI\ EI)RH/NHS which are included in SG but are lacking in H [[38]] General Results. -- This comparison of the witnesses to the text of Barn in a few passages chosen by Cl.A, demonstrates the complexity of the textual problems. On the one hand, Muilenburg's claim that "the text of the Epistle of Barnabas is on the whole well preserved, especially in comparison with other writings of the same general period" (p.14) is substantiated -- few of the above variants are particularly significant in themselves. On the other hand, the textual affinities of the quotations in Barn\Cl.A/ are not always what we should expect on the basis of the dating of the other witnesses. In the 48 instances of non-orthographic variation among the Greek MSS (excluding the unique readings of Barn\Cl.A/), the following statistical situation obtains:

Against Barn\Cl.A/

S\*/ 21 27 S\c/ (52 cases)\14/ 24 28 H 30 18 G (43 cases) 26 17 ---

\14/We have not made a separate collation of Barn\Cl.A/ With S\c/; there is no instance in which these two witnesses agree against S\*/HG, but in four readings S\c/ differs uniquely from the other witnesses including Barn\Cl.A/: 4:11 I(/NA A)GWNIZW/MEQA] rell lack I(/NA 6:8 KU/RIOS TOI=S PATRA/SIN U(MW=N] S\*/HG, KU/RIOS; Cl.A, KU/RIOS O( QEO/S 16:8 TO\ O)/NOMA KURI/OU] see under "Agreements with S*H ..." 19:9 O(/PWS] rell have PW=S ===

Despite its antiquity, Barn\S*/ has a tendency to unique readings, many of which results in a shorter text. Thus Barn\Cl.A/ shows a much closer affinity with Barn\H/, and even [[39]] where these two diverge, the variants are usually less significant than the differences between Barn\Cl.A/ and Barn\S/. Barn\G/ also stands closer to Barn\Cl.A/ than does Barn\S/, although not as close as Barn\H/. Occasionally Barn\Cl.A/ indicates that readings supported only by Barn\L/ cannot be ignored. In short, if the quotations in the only extant MS of Strom are accepted as representing the oldest known witness to the text of Barn and are used as a control by which to evaluate the other witnesses, Barn\H/ has some claim to be considered (in general) as the 'best' text (so Hilgenfeld), and Barn\S/ must be used with special caution in its unique readings (especially {@@RAK addition: where a shorter text results} @@from 'omissions'). Furthermore, the large number of unique readings in Barn\Cl.A/ may indicate that there was even greater textual variation in minutiae among ancient MSS of Barn than our present witnesses betray. {@@RAK: 1. Is "from" your addition? es} 2. Do you want single quotation marks in the above paragraph? es} In their general examinations of the textual situation throughout the entire Epistle, both Gebhardt and Heer find that S and H are often in agreement against G and L. This relationship is not so close, however, as to entirely overshadow the less frequent agreements of HG, SG, etc.\15/ Although he tends to favor S, Gebhardt remarks that "in all [[40]] the codices, Sinaiticus not excepted, the genuine is mixed with the false" (p.XXXVI). This means that each variant reading in Barn ultimately must be judged on its own merits rather an simply on the general evaluation of the MS in which it is found. ---

\15/Indeed, Heer (p. LXXIV) concludes that SH must be treated as a single witness where these MSS agree; usually the same is true for GL, and sometimes for SG. Readings in HG, @@SL, Cl, SG (usually), or even GL (sometimes), on the other hand, textually are most significant for Heer. ===

Special Considerations. -- The investigation of Barn's explicit quotations is beset with special textual problems over and above these general observations. Where @@near- Septuagintal wording occurs in Barn, later copyists might tend to "correct" the passages to conform with the LXX texts with which they were familiar (e.g. see the collations below, pp. 103ff, and Barn\Sc/ to 15:4 [below, p. 258 n.1]). Similarly, they might add more of the LXX context (or a related passage) or even subtract "superfluous" portions of a familiar quotation (e.g. see below, p.55 n.73). In the introductory formulae, more precise information as to the source of a quotation might also be introduced (via the margin; see below, p. 45 n.16). A similar situation might obtain with reference to well-known traditional materials used in Barn. {@@RAK-- I kept "near-Septuagintal" hyphenated. es} By analogy to the textual criticism of the LXX itself, our first impulse, is to accept as original to Barn those variants in the Septuagintal quotations which differ as much as possible from known LXX MSS. To put it another way, the fact that in many variants found in Barn's quotations, Barn\H/ has the LXX wording while Barn\S/ does not, led Gebhardt to discredit [[41]] the readings of Barn\H/ in favor of Barn\S/'s more difficult texts (p.XXXVI, n.2). Although this criterion ("lectio difficilior") has an inner logic to it, there is a danger of making it the sole determining factor in the textual criticism of such Septuagintal material; we must also remember that our LXX MSS are not the only LXX text types which existed in antiquity, and that scribal errors will create texts which differ from the LXX but which are not for that reason original. Furthermore, as we have seen in the preceding textual analyses, it is important to assess the textual character of each witness (e.g. the tendency of Barn\S/ to unique readings) before attempting to determine whether an apparent lectio difficilior is original. Among the other factors which must be considered in determining the exact text of Barn's quotations are parallel quotations in other early literature. Of major importance is the form of such quotations in Cl.A, since he knew Barn well and often follows a similar line of interpretation. There are undoubtedly several places where Cl.A unconsciously (or informally) bases some of his Septuagintal and traditional material on Barn rather than on the primary sources.\16/ [[42]] It may well be that other "peculiar" OT-like quotations which are found both in Barn and in another father have a direct or indirect significance in determining the original text or Barn (or of his immediate source). ---

\16/(Gebhardt-) Harnack, p. XLVII n. 10, lists some of this material: for example, Strom VI:(8):65:2 obviously is from Barn 6:10; although the source is not here acknowledged by Cl.A; similarly, Barn 11:9 (citation and interpretation) is quoted as a prophetic word in Strom III:(12):86:2, without further clue to its source. In the following investigation many similar instances will be noticed. On the other hand, however, it is also possible that Cl.A had access to some of Barn's sources, and thus may give a Barn-like citation which was not drawn from the Epistle itself. ===

[[43]]

THE EXPLICIT QUOTATIONS

Basically Barn 2-16 is a presentation of traditional materials upon which further comment frequently is made. It contains close to 100 quotation formulae which introduce material derived from Isaiah, Psalms, Pentateuch, Jeremiah, Zachariah, Daniel, Proverbs, and other sources which are more difficult to identify (possibly Ezekiel, Enoch, and Matthew should also be included; see below, pp. 56f). It is only in @@chapter 8, which certainly employs traditional matter, that no clear quotation occurs.\1/ By way of contrast, 9:1-3 alone contains 8 short quotations concerning "hearing" and "ears." Elsewhere, the passages cited sometimes cover several consecutive OT verses,\2/ but usually they are considerably shorter "proof-texts" or are synthesized from two or more OT passages.\3/ There is no single methodology by which the quotations are employed; "stichwort" collections,\4/ longer [[44]] topical arrangements,\5/ running (midrashic) commentary,\6/ and typology/allegory\7/ all are included in the course of Barn 1-17. There also are occasional reflections of a lively discussion in the background of Barn's presentation\8/ which are reminiscent of early Christian "dialogues with Jews" (see below, pp. 83f). {@@RAK note in margin: ch. } {@@RAK-- Do you want "ch." to replace "chapter?" es} ---

\1/Unless 8:1, E)NE/TALTAI, and 8:2, LE/GEI U(MI=N are treated as introductory formulae. \2/See especially 2:5 (Isa 1:11-13[14?]), 3:1-2 and 3-5 (Isa 58:4b-5 and 6-10a), and 11:6-7 (Ps 1:3-6). \3/Examples of composite and conflate quotations are: 2:7f (Jer 7:22 + Zach 7:10/8:17), 5:13 and 6:6 (Psalmic conflations; see below, p. 56), 11:2f (Jer 2:12f + Isa 16:1f), and 16:2 (Isa 40:12 + 66:1). \4/See 9:1-3 on "hearing" and "ears." \5/See chapters 2-3 on sacrifice and fasts, and 9:4-8 on circumcision. \6/See 10:10 (Ps 1:1), 11:8ff (Ps 1:3-6), and 15:1-6. \7/Especially chapters 7-8, 10, and 12. \8/For example, 6:3, 9:6, 13:1 and 6g, 14:1, 16:8f. ===

The Formulae Citandi. -- it is rarely that formulae used to introduce Barn's quotations betray any precise awareness of the source from which the material derives.\9/ There are, for example, about 20 separate citations which clearly are based on the LXX of ISAIAH, but it is only in Barn\@@med. Lat/ 12:11 (Isa 45:1) that the prophet is mentioned by name as the source.\10/ DAVID is quoted as the source of Ps 1:1 [[45]] (Barn 10:109\11/ and 109:1 (Barn 12:10),\12/ although in Barn 11:6f a quotation from Ps 1:3-6 is introduced by the words KAI\ PA/LIN E)N A)/LLW PROFH/TH LE/GEI.\13/ Explicit reference also is made to ENOCH in Barn 4:3,\14/ and to DANIEL in 4:5.\15/ There is a strong probability, however, that some of these precise identifications have crept into the text from later marginal glosses.\16/ Possibly Barn 6:9 (TI/ LE/GEI H( GNW=SIS; [[46]] ... FHSI/N ...) should also be included as reference to a specific source. {@@RAK-- Do you want "Formulae Citandi" labelled as latin text? es} ---

\9/For a concise but excellent general discussion of "Bibelgebrauch in Barn," see Windisch, pp. 313-16. On formulae in Philo, see H.E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (1895), pp. xvi-xxv and x1vf.

\10/KAI\ PA/LIN LE/GEI ... (HSAI=/AS (G\b/ has ... H( BASILEI/AS !). Barn\L/ also explicitly mentions "ESAIAS" in (1) 5:12, where Barn\Gk/ has LE/GEI (GA\R) O( QEO/S followed by words which resemble Zach 13:6f, while L has "dicit autem ESAIAS [then Isa 53:5b, which has some similarities to Zach 13:6 and was already cited in Barn 5:2] ... et alius propheta [then Isa 53:5f, which has some similarities to Zach 13:6 and was already cited in Barn 5:2] ... et alius propheta [then Zach 13:7 in the form found in Matt 26:31]," and (2) 11:4 (Isa 45:2-3) which is introduced by KAI\ PA/LIN LE/GEI O( PROFH/THS in Barn\G/ while L has "et iterum dicit ESAIAS." {@@RAK note on facing page: 11/12/84 TLG Gk Bank KAI PALIN LEGEI - never in Or\Gk/ 3 times cl Al. HSAIAS (O( PRODHTHS) DA/SKH|/DASKUN/DHSIN [= ClAl] LEGAI (once) [freq in Cl Al] MARTURHSEI ... GEGRAPTAI @@LELEXDAI PROEIPEN ONOMAZOMENON/ONOMAZEI PARESTHSEN }

\11/DABI/D/DAUEI/D KAI\ LE/GEI (so L). Note that Ps 1 is not attributed to David in the MT or LXX texts known to us, although the inscription for the whole Psalter in Rahlfs' LXX witnesses R\s/ and La\R(s)/ [a later hand in both Greek and Latin texts of MS R] include David's name (so also Holmes- Parsons, "in quibusdam Codicibus"). Other early Christian writers who link Ps 12 with David include Iren (AP 2), Cl.A (Strom II:[15]:67, citing Barn), compare JM (Ap 40-41). \12/AU)TO\S PROFHTEU/EI O( DABI/D (H; S has @@DA-O(-, without an article), where G simply has LE/GEI (later in the verse), and L has "iterum dicit DAVID." \13/But L has "et iterum DAVID dicit." \14/GE/GRAPTAI W(S (ENW\X LE/GEI, but L has "scriptum est sicut DANIEL dicit." The allusion to TO\ TE/LEION SKA/NDALON to which the formula refers is reminiscent of Dan 9:24 (see also 9:27, 12:11) as well as Enoch 89:61-64 or 90:17f; see below, pp. 120ff. \15/LE/GEI DANIH/L, see Dan 7:3-8 and 17-24 which also are reflected in the preceding quotation attributed to O( PROFH/THS in Barn 4:4. {@@RAK note in text: Cl Al Str. 1.4.25.3 DANIEL O( PRODHTHS ... DHSIN } {@@RAK note on facing page: AUTOS PRODHTEUEIN - never in Cl Al\TLG/ GEGRAPTAI WS = Cl Al @@Str 5.4.25.1 EN PARABOLH Origen: ClAl (relatively infreq.) W(S ... LEGEI (also WS DHSIN) PLATWN Kels 2.60.11, 4.20.16 (POU OU(/TW) H( GRADH Kels 5.59 PAULON IEZEKIHL (OPOU) KELOOS } \16/The margin of Barn\H/ provides excellent illustrations of how this happens: (1) at the end of the quotation from Isa 1:11-13 in Barn 2:5, H\mg/ adds O(/TI OU)DENO\S XRH/ZEI O( DESPO/THS 'HSAI=/OU. (2) Similarly, in Barn 2:10 the formula is the general O(/UTWS LE/GEI in all the MSS, but the margin of H comments, YALM. @@N' KAI\ E)N A)POKALU/YEI 'ADA/M. (3) Then in Barn 4:4 the formula is LE/GEI ... O( PROFH/THS in all the MSS, and H\mg/ adds DANIH\L KAI\ E)/SDRAS A)PO/KRUFOI. (4) Again, in Barn 5:4 (Prov 1:17) H\mg/ adds PAROIMIW=N to the general formula LE/GEI H( GRAFH/. (5) In 5:12, where Barn\L/ has "Dicit autem Esaias [53:5b] ... et alius propheta [Zach 13:7 as in Mt 26:31]" and Barn\Gk/ has LE/GEI O( QEO/S, H\mg/ adds at the appropriate place @@ZAXARIOU IG'. It is doubtless from such marginal notations as these that in some passages the exact sources presupposed by Barn's quotations have come to be named in the text (especially in Barn\L/). Windisch, p. 319 (following Loman), entertains the possibility that "ENOCH" might be a gloss in 4:3; and on p. 373 (citing Clericus) he thinks that Barn 12:11 could also be taken as a gloss (or as from a testimony source where it was coupled to Ps 109:1; see Harris, Testimonies I, p. 37). ===

PENTATEUCHAL material frequently is associated with MOSES, or sometimes is identified with even greater precision: 10:2 LE/GEI AU)TOI=S E)N TW=| DEUTERONOMI/W| (?? where?) 13:4 E)N A)/LLH| PROFHTEI/A| LE/GEI FANERW/TERON O( I)AKW\B| PRO\S II)WSH/F\17/ (material from Gen 48:9-20 is used here) 13:7 TI/ OU/=N LE/GEI TW=| A)BRAA/M (? see Gen 15:6, 17:4f) 15:1 PERI\ TOU= SABBA/TOU GE/GRAPTAI E)N TOI=S DE/KA LO/GOIS W)B IU)=S E)LA/LHSEN E)N TW=| O)/REI SINA= PRO\S MWUSH=N (? quotation is not strictly from "decalogue" as we know it) 15:3 TO\ SA/BBATON LE/GEI E)N A)RXH=| TH=S KTI/SEWS (Gen 2:2) General references to MOSES also occur in the following formulae: 6:8 LE/GEI O( A)/LLOS PROFH/THS\18/ MWUSH=S AU)TOI=S (?? where?) {@@RAK note on facing page: PERI ... GEGRAPTAI freq. in Cl.Al. GEGRAPTAI EN -- never in ClAl\TLG/ but G. W(S E)N -- once LEGEI EN (TW| EH)AGG.) -- once ClAl\TLG/ } [[47]] 10:1 MWUSH=S\19/ EI)=PEN\20/ (see food laws in Lev 11 = Deut 14) {@@RAK addition to text: 10:11 PALIN LEGEI MWOHS (or ALL EIPEN M.)} {@@RAK note in margin: 10:11 GL ALL) EIPEN MW?. } 12:2 LE/GEI DE\ PA/LIN E)N\21/ TW=| MWUSH=| (? see Ex 17:8-13) 12:6 MWUSH=S E)NTEILA/MENOS (see Lev 26:1, Deut 27:15) 12:7 EI)=PEN DE\ MWUSH=S (? see Num 21:6ff) 12:8 TI/ LE/GEI PA/LIN MWUSH=|S (allusion to Num 13:7?) 12:9 LE/GEI OU)=N MWUSH=S\22/ (?see Ex 17:14) 14:3 (see 4:7f) KAI\ EI)=PEN KU/RIOS PRO\S MWUSH=|N\23/ (? see Deut 9:9-17 and parr) ---

\17/L has "iterum dixit Jacob Josep." \18/So SH; GL have LE/GEI DE\ KAI/. \19/Strangely, H has A)ETO/S (=AU)TO/S ?) here (see the context, where the "eagle is mentioned). \20/So SH; G has EI)/RHKEN and L has "dicit" (LE/GEI). \21/So GL, making "MOSES" the name of the source (Pentateuch); SH lack E/N and thus have "MOSES" as the indirect object. In any case, later in 12:2 "the spirit speaks EI/S TH\N KARDI/AN MWUSEWS." \22/L has "clamavit MOYSES ... et dixit." {@@RAK note in margin: EIPEN -- So tendency seems} \23/L lacks reference to MOSES here (but not in the parallel in 4:8, where Barn\Gk/ lacks it). This "formula" may also be treated as part of the larger quotation in 14:2-3(=4:7-8). ===

For the most part, however the formulae in Barn are of general nature and fall into the following patterns: (1) LE/GEI H( GRAFH/ and GE/GRAPTAI 4:7\24/ (see Deut 9:9ff) 4:1 (? "ENOCH") 4:11 (Isa 5:21) 4:14 (Matt 22:14 ?) 5:4 (Prov 1:7)\24a/ 5:2 (Isa 53:5 and 7) 6:12 (Gen 1:26) [7:3 (see Lev 23:29 ?)]\25/ 13:2 (Gen 25:21-23)\25a/ 11:1 (Jer 2:12f + Isa 16:1f) 16:5 (? Enoch?) 15:1 (? "Decalogue") 16:6 (? see Dan 9:24ff) {@@RAK notes on facing page: 1. LEGEI ... PALIN - freq. in Cl Al. 2. cp. B.F. Westcott, "The Use of the OT in the Ep. to the Hebrews," in Comm. on Hebs p. 476 "The citations are without exception made anonymously. There is no mention anywhere of the name of the writer. (4.7 is the exception to this rule)." } 3. ORIGEN'S formulae (11/84) [never LEGEI H( GR. {@@RAK addition: = ClAl 4 times } in exactly that form but H( GR. LEGEI {@@RAK addition: = ClAl 7 or so} once Kels 5.59 (7)] GEGRAPTAI ~ with + without further specification - freq. in Cl Al. e.g. KAQA/PER G. O(/TI Kels Prol. 3(17) PERI\ ... G. 1.5 (19) W(S G. E)N ... 1.36(10) e.g. in law of Jews, in Ep. Barn, in Acts of @@Epc., Isa G. ... EI)RHKE/NAI 2.2(5) } ---

\24/The parallel in 14:2 has LE/GEI O( PROFH/THS. \24a/L lacks the word scriptum, leaving only dicit enim (LEGEI DE !) \25/PERI\ TOU/TOU PEFANE/RWKAN OI( I(EREI=S ... GEGRAMME/NHS E)NTOLH=S. \25a/L has sic scriptum est where Gk has TI LEGEI @@H\ G RADH ===

[[48]] {@@RAK-- Please review item (2), you have many notes in English and Greek next to it. {@@RAK note written on a page inserted between pages 47 and 48: cc 7.44 MHDEN MIKRON ZHTEI=N } (2) LE/GEI O( PROFH/THS or similarly 4:4 (?? source?) 11:2 (Jer 2:12f + Isa 16:1f) 6:2 (Isa 28:16) 11:4\28/ (Isa 45:2f) 6:4 (Ps 117:22) 14:2 (see Deut 9:9ff) 6:6\26/ (Psalmic conflation) 14:7 (Isa 42:6f) 6:7 (Isa 3:9f) 14:8 (Isa 49:6f) 6:10\27/ (?? source?) 14:9 (Isa 61:1f) LE/GEI E)N TW=| PROFH/TH| 7:4\29/ (?? source?) 9:1\30/ (Ps 17:45 = II Sam 22:45) LE/GEI O( PROFHTEU/WN 5:13 (Psalmic conflation) E)KH/RUCEN O( PROFH/THS 6:13 ("good land" + Gen 1:28) E(/TEROS PROFH/THS LE/GEI 11:9 (?? source?) E)N E)TE/RW| PROFH/TH| LE/GEI 6:14\31/ (?see Ezek 11:19/36:26) 12:4 (Isa 65:2) E)N A)/LLW| PROFH/TH| LE/GEI\32/ 11:6\33/ (Ps 1:3-6) E)N A)/LLW| PROFH/TH| LE/GONTI\34/ 12:1 (?? source?) E)N A)/LLH| PROFHTEI/A| LE/GEI\35/ (Jacob) 13:4 (Gen 48:9ff) {@@RAK notes on facing page: 1. ORIGEN predominantly OI( @@PROQH/TAI singular 1.34 Isaiah @@prophecy 1.48 any other prophet 1.49 * 1.35 O PR ... LEG. 4.72 O PR LEGEI 7.20 Ezekiel 2. Cl Al\TLG/ - usually [note use with DIA] O( PR. LEGEI (EIRHKEN once) (LEG GAR O PR. [once]) = Barn !] H( PROD H TEIA LEGEI LEG. DE KAI\ ALLOS PROD. A)/KOUE PA/LIN PRODHTOU @@LEONTOS ... O PR. TH\N XARIN LEGWN DI) A)/LLOU PRODHTOU LEGEI DRONHSIS GAR H( GNWSIS DIA TOU AUTOU PR. MHXEUETAI LEGONTOS O( AUTOS PR. SUNBOULEUUN HMIN LEGEI W(S OI( PRODHTAI LEGONSIN PRODHTIKUS LEGUN RW PRODHTIKH| LEGOUTI 3. E)N ALL ... Cl.Al occasionally [but more often DIA] KHRU ... PRODHT Cl Al. ARA KHRUSSOUSA H( PRODHTEIA ---

\26/L lacks "propheta."

\27/L\2/ has "per prophetas," but L\*/ is probably correct in reading "propheta."

\28/L has "dicit ESAISAS."

\29/L has "dicit propheta."

\30/L has "dixit per prophetam." {@@RAK note: cf n. 38}

\31/L lacks both formula and quotations.

\32/See also 6:8 where SH call Moses{@@RAK addition: O( A)/LLOS PRODH/THS (om L). \33/L has "DAVID dicit." Note also the variation in L for 5:12 ("et alius propheta") discussed in n. 10 above. {@@RAK note: and n. 28 above} \34/S has LE/GW O(/TI for LE/GONTI. \35/See n. 17 above for L's reading. ===

[[49]] {@@RAK-- Please review items (3) and (4). You have many notes in the margin. es} (3) The Lord or God or the Spirit speaks\36/ LE/GEI KU/RIOS 4:8 (see Deut 9:9ff) 6:13 ("last as first") 6:16\37/ (Psalmic conflation ?) 9:1\38/ (Ps 17:45 = II Sam 22:45) 16:2 (Isa 40:12 + 66:1) LE/GEI O( QEO/S 5:12\39/ (see Zach 13:6f) TO\ PNEU=MA PROFHTEU/EI 9:2\40/ (see Ps 33:13 + Isa 50:10 ?) TO\ PNEU=MA LE/GEI\41/ 12:2 (allusion to Ex 17:8ff) EI)=PEN KU/RIOS 6:12 (Gen 1:28) 14:3 (see Deut 9:9ff) EI)=PEN O( QEO/S\42/ 5:5 (Gen 1:26) {@@RAK-- You have many notes on the facing page for items (3) and (4). You drew arrows indicating the section of text to which they apply. I typed these notes in a column. es} {@@RAK notes on facing page: LEGEI O( KW- (@@3) = DHSIN O( KS- (frequent!) * Cl Al 41 times but <--- always in quoted materials! (no LEGEI GAR OUTWS " " KS- " " PALIN LEGEI DE 4) but never KS- ! ) Cl Al never <--- Cl Al. <--- TO PNA ... DHSIN ... LEGEI DIHGHSETAI Cl Al only once, in a quote <--- Cl. Al only in a quote (1) <--- Cl Al (5) <--- esp @@KY PALIN LEGEI } ---

\36/No sharp distinction between LE/GEI and EI)=PEN is obvious in Barn's formulae. For example, 4:8 and 6:12a have the former while their respective parallels in 14:3 and 5:5 have the latter. Barn\Gk/ also uses EI)=PEN in formulae in 6:12b, 10:1 and 3 (see G), 10:11, 12:7. Note that in every formula occurrence of EI)=PEN, Moses or God is the subject, while LE/GEI frequently is used in a more general manner.

\37/L lacks KU/RIOS.

\38/L has only "dixit" (EI)=PEN). {@@RAK note: cf n. 30}

\39/For L, see above n. 10.

\40/SH lack entire formula. {@@RAK note: probably correctly}

\41/L has "dixit" (EI)=PEN).

\42/H has O( KU/RIOS. ===

{@@RAK-- Please review item (4). You have many notes in the margin. es} (4) Formulae without any expressed subject PA/LIN LE/GEI 2:7\43/ (Jer 7:22 + Zach 7:10/8:17) 5:14 (Isa 50:6f) 6:4\44/ (Ps 117:24) [6:13\45/ a general transition formula] 9:1 (Isa 33:13) 9:2 (general OT, especially Jer) 9:3 (three times; Isa 1:2, 28:14, see 40:3\46/) ---

\43/L, "dicit iterum dn-s-." {@@RAK-- Footnote #44 is crossed out. Please advise as to whether you want the original text, a correction or the footnote deleted. The original text is:

\44/L lacks formula es}

\45/G lacks LE/GEI, S adds KU/RIOS.

\46/L does not repeat "dicit" in the third formula here. ===

[[50]] PE/RAS GE/ TOI LE/GEI 10:2\47/ (? "Deuteronomy") (see 12:6) 15:6 (see Ps 23:4) {@@RAK note : 15:8 (Isa 1:13) ( 5:8 - not formula)} 16:3\48/ (? see Isa 49:17) OU(/TWS LE/GEI 2:10 (traditional expansion of Ps 50:19) 5:2 (Isa 53:5 and 7) {@@RAK note in margin: 3:3 Lat} TI/ LE/GEI 6:1\49/ (see Isa 50:8f) 6:3\50/ (? compare Isa 28:16b) 6:10 (see Deut 31:20) 9:5\51/ (Deut 10:16) 11:10\52/ (see Ezek 47:1-12?) 13:5\53/ (see Gen 48:13-20) 13:7\54/ (see Gen 15:6 and 17:4f) {@@RAK-- Please review the next section. You have many notes written in greek. es } LE/GEI 3:3 (Isa 58:6-10) 6:3\55/ (see Isa 50:7) 6:16\56/ (Psalmic conflation? ) 9:5 (Jer 4:3f) 9:8\57/ (see Gen 17:23 + 14:14) {{?? where is note 58 in text?? rak}} {@@RAK-- I added note 58 below. es} LE/GWN\58/ 2:4 (Isa 1:11-13) {@@RAK notes on facing page: 1. PERAS GE T. L. 2. never in Cl Al. <--- (PERAS not used in formulae cit.) never in Cl Al <--- except within a quote never in Cl Al <--- except in quotes from Barn (2) and Str 6.12.97.3.1 KY TI/ LEGES (@@resumptive) but TI DHSI(N) } ---

\47/H lacks GE/.

\48/G has GOU=N for GE/TOI in SH; SHG add PA/LIN before LE/GEI; L has simply "et iterum" (not "ad summa dicit") here.

\49/H lacks TI/, L has "quit dicit" (see also 12:8, 13:7).

\50/H lacks TI/, L has "qui dicit" (see also 7:4).

\51/@@G\b/*\cn/ lack the formula, L has simply "et."

\52/L has "quod dicit" (see also 15:5 where there is no real formula in Barn\Gk/).

\53/L lacks the formula.

\54/Se above n. 49.

\55/L lacks both @@the formula and quotation. {@@RAK-- Did you add "the" to the previous line? es}

\56/So HG; S lacks LE/GEI, L has "ionquit" (FHSI/N).

\57/L lacks the formula.

\58/Compare 15:4, AU)TO/S MOI (om, G) MARTUREI= LE/GWN @@[see Ps 89:4], which resembles Philo's formula in Somn II:172. {@@RAK-- I revised the "[]"'s to "()"'s. es } ===

[[51]] FHSI/N 7:7\59/ (see Lev 16:8ff) [7:11 a word of the Lord?] {@@RAK-- I added the brackets where you indicated. es} 10:3-8\60/ (food laws) E)NETEI/LATO\61/ 7:6 (see Lev 16:7ff) LA/BE PA/LIN 9:5\62/ (Jer 9:25f) {@@RAK notes on the facing page: Cl Al. Str 6.1.1.2.2. <--- O( KS ENETEILATO KAI POU O( @@PA. LEGES Cl Al never in fomula <--- } ---

\59/L lacks FHSI/N.

\60/There is a great deal of textual diversity in this passage regarding the inclusion of FHSI/N, which is used to set off both the basic quotation ("it says") and the interpretation ("it means") in the same verses. It may well be that the interpretation is also part of the tradition used by Barn here, and thus is as much part of the quoted material as are the (supposed) quotations proper concerning food restrictions. See below, pp. 198ff. For the other occurrences of FHSI/N as a formula included in quoted and/or interpreted material, see Barn 6:9, 11:8, and 11, 12:2 and 7.

\61/Compare 12:6, MWUSH=S E)NTEILA/MENOS (see {@@RAK note: Lev 26:1 and} Deut 27:15).

\62/So SH; G\vop/ have PA/LIN, G\rell/ have KAI\ PA/LIN, L has "dicit autem iterum." {@@RAK note: probably a corruption of LEGEI DE PALIN. } ===

Occasionally it is possible to interpret KAI/ as the indication of a new quotations, although the KAI/ also might be treated as part of the citation itself (especially in conflated materials).\63/ Similarly, it is not always possible to distinguish the use of LE/GEI or FHSI/N in introductions ("it says") from their use in explanations ("it means").\64/ ---

\63/See 5:13, 6:6, 9:1, 11:5, 15:5, etc.

\64/For examples, see above n. 60. As in II Clem 2:2,4; 12:4f, TOU/TO LE/GEI in Barn often is the formula of explanation (see 11:8-11, 15:4-5, etc.). ===

Some of the formulae citandi make reference to the object of the quotation -- what it is about, for whom it was written, [[52]] or to whom it applies. For example, Gen 1:26 twice is introduced as the as the words of God to the Son/Lord (Barn 5:5 and 6:12\65/). The Psalmic (traditional) conflation in Barn 5:13 is attributed to "the one who prophesies concerning him (E)P) AU)TW=)," and Isa 53:5 and 7 is said to be "written concerning him" (Barn 5:2)@@.\66/ In Barn 12:2, "the spirit speaks into the heart of Moses" (see above, n. 21); in 14:3, "the Lord said to Moses" (see above, n. 23); and in 12:8 f, Moses speaks to Jesus/Joshua. Likewise, in Barn 13:7, the formula designates Abraham as the addressee. We should also include in this general category (1) Barn 3:1 (concerning Jewish ritual), (2) Barn 4:3-5 (concerning the TE/LEION SKA/NDALOV, (3) Barn 9:1-3 (concerning the ears), and perhaps (4) Barn 15:6 ("to me he witnesses," see above, n. 58). {@@RAK-- I changed the "," to a "." es} ---

\65/In 6:12, L lacks the reference to the Son.

\66/Similarly, in 11:5, G has EO)=TA TI/ LE/GEI E)N TW=| UI(W=| (Isa 33:16-18 excerpts) where SHL have not @@formula as such. {@@RAK correction in margin: /? } {@@RAK-- I typed the spelling correction for "formulae." es} ===

Most characteristic of Barn's formulae, however, is the distinction which is made between quotations written "for THEM" (Jews) and those "for US" (Christians).\67/ It is along these lines that the central theme of Barn 1-17 is [[53]] made clear, as the excerpts on p. 91 (below) illustrate. @@Such emphases are included in the following formulae: {@@RAK-- Please verify that this is not a new paragraph. es} A(\ ME/N PRO/S TO\N I)SRAH/L\68/ A)/ DE\ PRO\S H(MA=S 5:2 (Isa 53:5 and 7) E)PI\ TO\N I)SRAH/L 6:7 (Isa 3:9f) 11:1 (general introduction) PRO\S AU)TOU=S PRO\S H(MA=S 2:7 (Jer 7:22f + 3:3 (Isa 58:6-10) Zach 7:10/8:17) 6:13\69/ ("last as first") 3:1 (Isa 58:4f) 9:5 (Jer 4:3f) PERI\ H(MW=N 12:7 (see Nu 21:8f) 6:12 (Gen 1:26) AU)TOI=S H(MI=N 6:8 ("enter the good land") 2:4 (general introduction) 10:2 (see Deut 4:1, 5?) 2:10 (see Ps 50:19 ?) 15:8 (Isa 1:13) [see also 6:16-19] {@@RAK notes on the facing page: 1. TON ISRAHL 2. not used by Cl Al. this way. 3. Cl Al seems to have similar stuff {@@arrow pointing left to this note} } {@@RAK note on a piece of paper you inserted between pages 52 and 53: 11/20/84 clues to exact quote DHSI TO LEGEI TO; person LEGEI ?? OTI {@@arrow pointing to text on p. 53} META TAUTA KAI THS ECHS KAI TA LOIPA ______{@@line drawn in your text} "Prophets" used in Pss. intros. } ---

\67/Notice also the frequent reference to the Jews are E)KEI=NOI (in contrast to "US") in ed contexts: see 2:9, 3:6, 4:6, 8:7, 10:12, 13:1, 14:5 (compare 9:6, 13:3). On a similar phenomenon in the "Western" text of Acts 7 ("Stephen's Speech"), see E.J. Epp, Theological Tendence in the Textual Variants of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Acts (Harvard Dissertation, 1961), p. 128.

\68/L characteristically renders I)SRAH/L as "populum Judaeorum" as also in 4:14, 5:8, 8:1, 11:1, 12:2 and 5, 16:5, or simply as "Judaei" in 6:7, 8:3, 12:2. The only occurrence of "ISRAHEL" in Barn\L/ is in the quotation of 9:2. \69/H lacks PRO/S, L has "vobis" (U(MA=S). ===

Relation to the LXX/OG. -- When we turn to the quotations we find that they can be divided into different categories by means of various criteria. One of the most natural questions to ask is what relationship do the citations have to known OT texts? Or, to put it another way, to what extent do the OT quotations in Barn show the influence of the LXX translation?\70/ Although the present investigation [[54]] cannot pursue this question with the necessary detail, a general survey of the situation is not out of place here. ---

\70/Swete, Intro, pp. 412f, divides Barn's quotations into six categories with reference to the LXX: (1) exact or nearly exact, (2) partly exact, partly free, (3) free, (4) free with fusion, (5) free summary, (6) very loose citation. Hatch, Essays, pp. 207ff, treats the composite quotations separately. We must also be aware of unidentified and non- Septuagintal citations. ===

(1) In eight instances, the text of the quotation is at least one of the MSS of Barn\Gk/ is in EXACT agreement with extant LXX MSS: 4:11 (Isa 5:21) 9:1a (Ps 17:45=II Sam 22:45) 6:4a (Ps 117:22) 10:10 (Ps 1:1) 6:7b (Isa 3:9f) 12:10 (Ps 109:1) 6:12b (Gen 1:28) 15:5a (Gen 2:2) Three of these quotations (6:12b, 9:1a, 15:5a) are of limited value because of their brevity.\71/ One could also add to this list the material from Isa 66:1 in Barn 16:2, which is also in exact agreement with some LXX MSS, but forms the last part of a composite quotation (coupled to Isa 40:12, see below, p. 267 n. 2).\72/ Indeed, this and several [[55]] other quotations show only MINOR VARIATION from known LXX texts (use of synonyms, omissions or minor additions, transpositions, etc.), and should be treated in connection with the above list:\73/ 2:5 (Isa 1:11-13) 9:3 (Isa 28:14) 5:2 (Isa 53:5 and 7) 11:4 (Isa 45:2f) 5:4 (Prov 1:17) 11:5 (Isa 33:16f) 5:5 (Gen 1:26) 11:6f (Ps 1:3-6) 5:14 (Isa 50:6f) 12:4 (Isa 65:2) 6:2b (Isa 28:16a) 14:7 (Isa 42:6f) 6:4b (Ps 117:24) 14:8 (Isa 49:6f) 6:12a (Gen 1:26) 14:9 (Isa 61:1f) 9:1 (Isa 33:13) 15:8 (Isa 1:13) 9:3a (Isa 1:2a) 16:2 (Isa 40:12 + 66:1) ---

\71/Note also that 15:5a refers back to the larger quotation of Gen 2:2 in Barn 15:3b, where the text is somewhat different (see below, pp. 64ff.). \72/The composite quotations are listed above in n.6. Note that there are sometimes textual problems which affect the identification of composite quotations; for example, in Barn\L/ 11:4f, Isa 45:2f is in composition with 33:16-18, whereas Barn\Gk/ separates these references with a KAI/ (and G further subdivides Isa 33:16ff by means of a unique formula noted above, n.66). A similar situation is found in Barn\L/ 6:4, where there is no formula to separate Ps 117:22 from from 24. On the other hand, Barn\L/ 6:6b contains a formula which makes Ps 21:19 into a separate citation rather than the final element of a Psalmic conflation. \73/It should be noted that L sometimes gives an exact Septuagintal (OL) form of a quotation which varies greatly from the material in Barn\Gk/@@: {@@;?} for example, Isa 28:16b in Barn\L/ 6:3, Ps 50:19 in Barn\L/ 2:10, and Isa 45:1 in Barn\L/ 12:11 (compare Ps 117:24 in Barn\L/ 6:4b). Elsewhere L sometimes has a longer Septuagintal form of the quotation, as in 2:5 (+ Isa 1:14a), 5:2 (+ Isa 53:7b), 5:12 (+ Isa 53:5b) and 11:2 (+ Jer 2:13b). Finally, L sometimes lacks whole quotations with their fomulae, as in 6:3b (Isa 50:7 ? which already was quoted in 5:14), 6:14 (Ezek 11:19/36/26??), and 6:18 (Gen 1:28, which already was quoted in part in 6:12b). ===

(2) In addition to these 28(29f?) citations which show little deviation from the LXX, there are a number of passages which strongly and clearly rest on specific SEPTUAGINTAL contexts, but which have special problems: 2:7 (Jer 7:22 + Zach 7:10/8:17) TEXT I, p. 98 3:1-2 (Isa 58:4b-5) } TEXT III, pp. 100f 3:3-5 (Isa 58:6-10a) } the text of the Epistle is corrupt 6:1-2a (Isa 50:8-9) TEXT VI, p. 152 6:3b (Isa 50:7 ?) } These sections are [6:18 allusion to Gen 1:28] } lacking in L, see n. 73. 9:5 (Jer 4:3f) } 9:5 (Deut 10:16) } TEXT VIII, pp. 188ff 9:5 (Jer 9:25f) } [[56]] 11:2f (Jer 2:12f + Isa 16:1f) TEXT IX, p. 223 12:11 (Isa 45:1) TEXT X, p. 244 13:2 (Gen 25:21-23) TEXT II, p. 248 13:4-5 (Gen 48:9-20) + 25:23 TEXT XII, pp. 249f 15:3b (Gen 2:2) {@@RAK addition: [see p. 65, below]} In the same general category are the PSALMIC conflate quotations, which again are composed from Septuagintal phraseology but require separate treatment: 5:13 (see Ps 21:21a+118:120+21:17+85:14) TEXT IV, p. 146 6:6 (see Ps 21:17+117:12+21:19) TEXT V, p. 147 6:16a (see Ps 41:3+Isa 49:5 ??) } united in S, 6:16b (see Ps 34:18+107:4=56:10+21:23) } see n. 56 above (3) There remain numerous quotations which reflect particular OT passages and even have some Septuagintal wording, but which also deviate to such an extent from the LXX that they must be considered separately:\74/ 2:10 (see Ps 50:19) TEXT II, p. 99 4:4f (see Dan 7:7-24) 4:7f{@@RAK addition: =14.2f} (see Deut 9:9ff and parr) 5:12 (see Zach 13:6f) 6:8 (see Deut 31:20 and passim 6:14 (see Ezek 11:19/36:26) 9:1b (see Jer 4:4 ?) } 9:2a (OT passim, especially Jer)} TEXT VII, pp. 180f 9:2b (see Ps 33:13+Isa 50:10) } 9:3b (see Isa 40:3) } 10:1,3-5,11 (see Lev 11=Deut 14) 11:10 (see Ezek 47:1-12 ?) 12:6 ("Moses," see Lev 26:2 and Deut 27:15) 15:1b,6 (see Ps 23:4 + "decalogue") 15:2 (see Ex 31:13-17, Isa 56:1-7 ?) ---

\74/We have not listed those passages where OT narrative is alluded to (but not really quoted), sometimes in connection with formulae (see especially 12:2-7). Nor have we included the allusions to Num 19 in Barn 8. ===

(4) Finally, there are a number of explicit quotations [[57]] which show virtually no verbal relationship to the LXX, although for some of these, parallels exist in non-LXX sources: 4:3 (see I Enoch 89:61-64, 90:17f) 4:14b (see Matt 22:14 ?) 6:3a (see Isa 28:16b) 6:9 (?? "Gnosis") 6:10 (?? "parable of the Lord") 6:13 (compare Rev 21:5) 7:3,4,6f (see Lev 16) 10:6-8 (?? see Num 11=Deut 14) 11:9 (compare II Baruch 61:7) 12:1 (see IV Ezra 4:33, 5:5) 15:4b (compare Ps 89:4 and II Peter 3:8) 16:3 (compare Isa 49:17) 16:5 (compare I Enoch 89:55-67) 16:6 (compare Dan 9:24 ff)

Relation to the MT. -- Despite frequent claims to the contrary,\75/ there is no reason to suppose that Ps-Barn or his his immediate sources either had a first-hand knowledge of Hebrew or had used the MT (in conscious distinction from LXX) in particular instances. The few passages which have been used as evidence of such a situation all can be explained as easily on the basis of actual or probable [[58]] Greek parallels.\76/ Neither the quotations in 2:5 (Isa 1:11-13[14a]),\77/ 2:7f (Jer 7:22f + Zach 7:10/8:17),\78/ 6:4 (Ps 117:22 and 24),\79/ and 11:3 (Isa 16:1f),\80/ nor the possible allusions [[59]] in 6:2 (see Isa 8:14),\81/ 8:5 (see Num 19:6),\82/ 9:3 (see Isa 40:3),\83/ and 9:6 (see Jer 9:25f, list of circumcised nations),\84/ give any grounds for attributing a knowledge of Hebrew to Ps-Barn.\85/ There remain, however, four passages which cannot be dismissed without a more detailed discussion. ---

\75/So Mueller, p. 76: "Hier [Barn 2:5] stossen wir nun aber auf den interassanten Fall, dass der des Hebraeischen urkundige Verfasser unseres Briefes mit dem hebraeischen Text gegen die 70 stimmt. Dieser Fall kehrt wieder 6:2, 4 [sic, 9 ?]; 8:5; 9:3 (mit var); 11:2; 16:3 [sic, 15:3]"; Windisch, p. 315: "Gleichwohl ist an einzelnen Zitaten doch festzustellen, dass der Vf. oder seine Vorlage eine, dem hebraeischen Text naeherkommende Uebersetzung der LXX vorgezogen hat s.zu 2:5,7; 6:2; 9:8; 11:2; 15:3'; Swete, Intro, p. 413: "Occasionally the text used by Barnabas seems to have been revised from the Heb.; e.g. in Jer 2:12 [Barn 11:2] ...; Gen 2:2 [Barn 15:3]"; etc. {@@RAK-- Is "wieder" correct? I don't know if I typed it incorrectly or if you corrected it. es}

\76/Muilenburg denies that Ps-Barn knew Hebrew on somewhat different grounds: "Was Barnabas acquainted with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament? Several passages in the Epistle follow the Hebrew more closely than the LXX, and other agree in certain phrases with the Hebrew against the LXX [he lists 11:2, 15:3, and 9:8 as primary evidence; 2:5, 6:2 and 4 (sic, 9 ?), and 9:6 as less convincing possibilities] .... If our contention heretofore urged that the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas was an Alexandrian Jew and a popular preacher (Maggid) well versed in the methods of the rabbi is correct, then none of these passages need cause surprise, for occasional agreement with the Hebrew text is exactly what we should expect ... even though he himself was unfamiliar with the Hebrew language" (pp. 88f).

\77/There is absolutely no point at which this quotation in any of the MSS of Barn leaves the LXX form in favor of the MT unless it is the absence of KAI\ TA\S NOUMHNI/AS U(MW=N from Barn\L/'s additional material for Isa 1:14a (but this phrase is also lacking in several LXX witnesses). Rather, the quotation in Barn agrees with @@LXX in numerous places against MT, and where it infrequently diverges from @@LXX it is farther {@@further?} from the MT (see below, p. 104). Windisch, ad loc., gives no reason for his claim cited above in n. 75. {@@RAK-- Do you want LXX to have a "the" before it ? es}

\78/On the quotation of Jer 7:22f, Windisch's unexplained claim that "Barn. steht dem Urtext [=MT?] naeher" (p. 312) is misleading. Barn differs here in many details from the LXX MSS, but none of these variations bring Barn closer to the MT. Nor does the Zach citation which follows have close affinities with the MT, although it differs from LXX (see TEXT I, p.98).

\79/Barn's only addition (H( MEGA/LH KAI\ QAUMASTH/) not represented in L) to the exact LXX equivalent of Ps 117:22 and 24 is also contrary to the MT (see below, p. 155 n.66).

\80/Despite Muilenburg's faux pas (through misinterpreting an ambiguous statement in Hatch, Essays, p. 208) that "Barnabas' most conspicuous agreement with the Hebrew appears in his substitution of SIMA= for SIW=N, which is found in all MSS of the LXX" (p. 88), Isa 16:1 in the MT also has "Zion," not "Sinai" -- in no sense is Barn 11:3 closer to MT than to LXX (see TEXT IX, p. 223).

\81/If it were not for the close association of Isa 8:14 (MT) with 28:16 in Rom 9:33 and I Pet 2:6ff, it is doubtful that anyone would have suggested such a close affinity between Barn 6:2 (E)PEI\ W(S LI/QOS I)SXURO\S E)TE/QH EI)S SUNTRIBH/N) and Isa 8:14f. Barn 6:1-4 explains 5:7b in picturing Jesus as the eschatological judge -- he is like a stone which crushes (note that L takes this to refer to Jesus' affliction), a chief cornerstone, a strong rock, the "day" of the Lord. No one passage lies behind 6:2; it is reminiscent of Dan 2:34f and 44f, as well as Isa 8:15, but it also strongly reflects Isa 13:6 (E)GGU\S GA\R H( H(ME?RA KURI/OU KAI\ SUNTRIBH\ PARA\ TOU= QEOU= E(/CEI); compare also Sirach 6:21. An appeal to the MT is unnecessary here (see below, p. 155 n.66).

\82/Mueller, ad loc., gives no reason for his claim cited above in n. 75.

\83/Mueller thinks the variant of Barn\Gb*c/ (BOW/SHS) is closer to MT Isa 40:3 than is the BOW=NTOS of rell and LXX. Other commentators rightly ignore this claim.

\84/There is nothing either in the quotation from Jer 9:25f or in the list of nations connected with it which requires any knowledge of Hebrew or of the MT.

\85/Cunningham, pp. xxvff, also clearly recognized this. ===

(1) Barn 6:9 contains the mysterious reference to "what H( GNW=SIS says" (a source?): "Hope on that Jesus/Joshua who is about to be manifested to you in flesh; for man is GH= PA/SXOUSA, for from the face of the GH=S came H( PLA/SIS of [[60]] Adam." The Semitic word play on Adam=man (Hebrew text) and adama=land or earth (Hebrew text) obviously lies in the background of this passage. Nevertheless, Semitic etymologies are used and developed in numerous other Greek sources of the same general period (see Philo,\86/ Christian fathers, gnostic writings, magical papyri, etc.). Thus such evidence cannot be used to prove that Ps-Barn himself knew Hebrew or Aramaic, or even that he was conscious of the Semitic word-play implied in the tradition he used. In fact, the quotation makes perfect sense in a primitive Hellenistic Gnostic @@context.\87/ {@@RAK-- Is "context" correct? I don't know if "contact" was my typing error or your correction. es} ---

\86/On Philo's etymologies of personal names, see P. Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die aelteste christliche Exegese (1908), pp. 109-112. {@@RAK-- You drew a line in the margin next to footnote 86. es}

\87/See, for example, the Nag-Hammadi "@@Apocryphon of James" described by W.C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (1960), pp. 80-88. This primitive Gnostic document, if we can call it Gnostic (van Unnik hesitates on p. 87), does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh (p. 85), yet the path to heaven seems to involve escape from man's captivity in this "suffering land" (the physical world and body, see p. 84). Neither Barn, nor Cl.A after him, are very far from a moderate form of Gnosticism (see below, pp. 168f). === (2) In Barn 9:8 we find the famous gematria about Abraham circumcising 318 men of his household (sic, a conflation of Gen 17:23-27 with 14:14), which symbolically speaks of Jesus (IH = 18) and the cross (T = 300). The text of Barn is hopelessly corrupt in the details of this argument, but it is probable that the number of Abraham's servants was given as "16 and 300" (or perhaps as "10 and 8 and 300" with [[61]] Barn\G/) rather than "300, 10 and 8" as it is found in most LXX MSS of Gen 14:14. Since the MT of Gen 14:14 gives the number as "8, 10, and 300," it often has been suggested that Barn used, in a modified form, the Hebrew order here. Nevertheless, there are several LXX cursive MSS which follow the MT order, and one uncial MS (D according to Grabe's collation) agrees with Barn\G/. Even if Barn does not reflect the knowledge of such a LXX MS, there is no reason to suppose that Ps-Barn (or his tradition) could not have transposed the LXX's order for the sake of his argument. The fact that even in some LXX passages the majority of of MSS give numbers in the "Hebrew order" (see Num 7:13 ff; "30 and 100") makes it even more unlikely that Barn 9:8 can be used to support the claim that Ps-Barn knew Hebrew.\88/ In fact, one must argue in the opposite direction since the GNW=SIS offered in Barn 9:8 demands the Greek abbreviation for 318, and is meaningless on the basis of the Hebrew.\89/ --- {@@RAK-- I inserted spaces between verse listed in footnote 88. es}

\88/Hatch, Essays, p. 155: "There is a similar variety in the MSS in other enumerations of numbers, e.g. Gen 5:6, 7, 8, etc., and it is difficult to determine whether the LXX originally [1] followed the Hebrew in placing the larger number last so that the text of the uncial MSS (of LXX) ... here is due to Hellenizing copyists, or [2] followed the Greek usage in placing the larger number first, so that the text of Barnabas, and of the MSS which agree with him, is due to a Hebraizing revision." Probably the "original LXX" was not consistent.

\89/So Cunningham, p. xxvii. Hilgenfeld, p. 98, says that the Hebrew equivalent for 318 is Hebrew text, and refers to Rabbinic interpretations where the name "Eliezar" (Hebrew text) is equivalent to 318 (see below, p. 194 n. 20). Had Barn known this tradition, we wonder what he could have done with Gen 15:2, where Abraham laments the possibility that his servant Eliezer might be his heir. === [[62]]

(3) Much stronger evidence for he influence of the MT is found at the beginning of the quotation from Jer 2:12 f in Barn 11:2 (see TEXT IX, p.223), although the last part of the same citation stands in general accord with LXX against MT:

Hebrew E)PI\ TOU/TW| KAI\ E)PI\ TOU/TW| textKAI\ E)/FRICEN PLEI=ON FRICA/TW E)PI\ PLEI=ON SFO/DRA H( GH=LE/GEI KU/RIOS.... .... ... ---

\90/The most important variants are: (1) MS 538 and Cyr lack O( with MT; (2) MSS 36 and 87, Syh\mg/, Bo, and many Greek and Latin fathers include H( GH= after E)/FRICEN (see Isa 1:2a); (3) MSS 22-48-51-96-231-311- 736-130-613 239 544 and a few Greek and Latin fathers include H( GH= after PLEI=ON; (4) SFO/DRA is not found in 88-Syh, 130\txt/, 239, Bo, Arm, Cl.A, Cyr, and Tht; (5) many Greek and Latin fathers lack LE/GEI KU/RIOS. \91/L has "horruit celu-(m) et in hoc plurimum {@@plurinum?} expavit terra ... ," G lacks PLEI=ONt (H, PLE/ON), and H has FRI/CON (S\*/, FRA/CATW). \92/For the first part of the verse (to Hebrew text), Aquila and Symm (apud Syh in Ziegler) have E)CAPORH/QHTI OU)RANE/ E)PI\ TOU/TW| KAI\ PU/LAI AU)TOU= E)RH/MOUSQE SFO/DRA (but Hi notes that they have "caelos" where Theodotion has "caelum"); Vulg also has "portae eius" (Hebrew text) where MT has "shudder." For ("be desolate"), the LXX and OL read Hebrew text ("greatly"), while the Syriac reads Hebrew text ("tremble"). Kittel\3/ suggest that the second couplet should read Hebrew text ("and tremble greatly, earth"). ===

It is clear from this comparison that the quotation in Barn actually has very little affinity with the MT. Whereas [[63] MT exhorts the "heavens" (or the singular, "heaven," also is a legitimate translation of Hebrew text\93/) to "be astonished," "shudder," and "be desolate," Barn has the expected parallelism between "heaven" and "earth as witnesses (see Isa 1:2a [Barn 9:3], Deut 32:1, Ps 49:4)\94/ as do many Fathers and some (especially the "Lucianic") LSS MSS (Aquila, Symm, and Vulg have parallelism between "heaven[s]" and "his gates"). Barn does agree with MT in having imperative verbs (but Barn\L/ agrees more with LXX here) and lacking the article with (the vocative) "heaven"; but it differs from both MT and LXX in the position of KAI/ and PLEI=ON. The absence of LE/GEI KU/RIOS in Barn and many other Fathers also indicates an early form of the text at variance with our present LXX and MT MSS. Thus there is absolutely no compelling reason to believe that Barn has been haphazardly harmonized to "the Hebrew" in this quotation. We would do better to suppose that Barn here reflects an ancient form of the Greek text of Jer 2:12 which has not been preserved in extant MSS.\95/ That diversity of this type was possible in the Greek OT (especially [[64]] in the Prophets) of the first and second centuries A.D. is clear from the extant LXX fragments from that period and earlier (not to mention other ancient Septuagintal quotations). ---

\93/So LXX often; see Hi, in Jer 2:12 (PL 24:717f@@.): "Hebraicum enim SAMAIM communis est numeri, et tam coeli quam coelum eodum appellantur nomine." {@@RAK note: See P. Katz, Philo's Bible (1950), pp. 141-46. } {@@RAK-- Should "Philo's Bible" have a code? es} \94/See H.B. Huffmon, "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets," JBL 78 (1959), pp. 285-95 (see also below, pp. 182ff). \95/See (Geb.-) Harnack, p. 49: "Verisimilius est, Barnabam textus LXX formam, quae nos nunc fugit, respexisse." ===

(4) Finally, the quotation of Gen 2:2 in Barn 15:3 has seemed to some commentators to presuppose a knowledge of the MT. As was the case with Jer 2:12, however, this situation is extremely complicated and demands detailed analysis (see the parallel texts on the next page). On the one hand, it is clear that Barn's quotation of Gen 2:2 has some unique features in comparison to LXX and MT: (1) the opening words that "God made the works of his hands in six days" are possibly a summary of Gen 1:31-2:1 in terms of LXX Ex 20:11 or 31:17; (2) the order of the various phrases is unique; and (3) a great deal of LXX and MT material is omitted in Barn. On the other hand, the wording of the quotation in Barn 15:3, and especially the allusions back to it in the comments of 15:4-5, clearly show that the author knows the LXX tradition. In fact, the eschatological interpretation that the Lord will consummate everything in 6000 years (15:4) only is possible on the basis of the LXX text form! Thus the one phrase which seems to reflect the MT, "and he completed on the 7th day," becomes all the more confusing since it contradicts the verse which claims to interpret and apply it. Nevertheless, the extant MSS of Barn give no reason to doubt that the phrase is original to Barn, [[65]] [[col. 1]]

Hebrew text 3 LXX-A Ex 31:17b ...E)N E(\C H(ME/RAIS E)POI/HSEN KU/RIOS TO\N TE OU)RANO\N KAI\ TH\|N GH=N KAI\ TH=| H(ME/RA| TH=| E(BDO/MH| E)PAU/SATO KAI\ KATE/PAUSEN. {@@RAK note on facing page: Martyr. Pet. et Pauli 2. IG GA\R E)N TH=| H(ME/RA| TOU= SABBA/TOU KATE/PAUSEN O( QEO\S A)PO\ PA/NTUN TU=N E)/RGWN AU)TOU= } ---

\96/In LXX Gen 2:2, several cursive MSS, Chr, and Iren lack E)N; many MSS and several fathers include E)N after the KATE/PAUSEN (this also is true in Ex 20:11).

\97/L has "die sexto" in 15:3, but "in sex dies" in 15:4. L also lacks TW=N XEIRW=N and KAI\ H(GI/ASEN AU)TH/N, and adds "die" after AU)TH=: in 15:3; in 15:5a, L includes "deus" as the subject. S lacks @@E)N in its last two @@occurances in 15:3 and in 15:5b, and has EZ (?,Z= 7) where HG have D(BDO/MH: in 15:5a. H lacks TH=: before H(ME/RA: in 15:3. {@@RAK-- 1. Is E)N underlined? es} 2. Do you want "occurances" or "occurrences?" es} {@@RAK note in margin: began to write @@EBDOMIS,then put Z}

\98/Two of Kennicott's MSS (apud Hatch, Essays, p. 145) lack the first Hebrew text. At that place, LXX, OL, Syriac, and Samaritan read Hebrew text ("sixth"), while the MT ("seventh") is supported by Aquila, Symm, Theodotion, Targum Onkelos, Arab, Vulg, Tht\codd/, and Ath. ===

[[66]] and the difficult argument about the "8th day" in 15:8 seems to presuppose that God creates the 8th day during the 7th day (of eschatological rest). For Barn 15:8, then, the 7th day must be both the day of completing creation and the day of rest, although in another sense it is the 6th day in which creation was completed.\99/ ---

\99/See below, pp. 262f, for similar ambiguity in Philo, Cl.A, and Theophilus. ===

In short, the evidence is clear that Barn 15:3-5 rest primarily on the LXX as we now have it. Whether the problem phrase shows a direct knowledge of the MT is extremely difficult to judge. Certainly Ps-Barn did not need to know Hebrew or the MT to incorporate this phrase; he could have rearranged his LXX text to suit his needs, or a variant LXX LXX text which conformed more closely to the MT may have been introduced into Greek exegetical discussions. In the absence of any other solid evidence that Ps-Barn or his immediate sources knew Hebrew, there is no reason to accept Barn 15:3 as support for that claim.

The Quotations and the Problem of Sources. -- The lack of any quotation or even any allusion to the Historical Books of the OT ("Former Prophets") in Barn is most striking.\100/ Philo [[67]] does not make extensive use of these books either, but he clearly is acquainted with them (often by name; see Ryle, pp. xxvff) although his primary interest is in the Pentateuch itself. Barn's favorite scripture (whether consciously or unconsciously) is Isaiah. Approximately one- fourth of the OT quotations are verbally dependent on the LXX of Isaiah. The only possible citations from Isaiah which differ greatly from our LXX MSS are (1) Barn 9:3b, which emphasizes the catch-word A)KOU/SATE (TE/KNA FWNH=S) rather than the allusion to Isa 40:3 which is coupled to it, and (2) Barn 16:3, which seems to be from a Jewish eschatological writing based on OT discussions (Ezra-Nehemiah) about the rebuilding of the Holy City and its Temple rather than a direct quotation of Isa 49:17.\101/ {@@RAK note on the facing page: J:P. Audet, La Didache\: Instructions des Apo^tres (Paris, 1958), p. 129 "Les nombreuses citations d' Isai%e ... Sont de toutes les qualite/s, depuis l'exactitude parfaite jusqu'a\ l'extre^me limite de divergence ou\ un texte peut encore e^tre reconnaisable. Un passage simple et familier comme @@celice de Gen., 1:26, apre\s avoir e/te/ cite/ une premie\re fois sous une forme assey rapproche/e de celle des LXX (Barn., 6:12), reparai^t quelques lines plus loin (6:18) partiellement amalgame/, sans raison apparent, sous une forme nouvelle, avec Gen, 1:28. On pourrait relexer d'autres curiousite/s de cette sorte. Mais ce sont des curiositie/s: rien de plus." [arg. that diffs. between Barn & Did. in order of 2 ways can be explained as Barn's method of using sources: earlier refers to W. Sanday, Gospel in 2\nd/ C. (1876), 31-36 re Barn's quotes]. } ---

\100/The quotation in Barn 9:1 from Ps 17:45 also is found in II Sam 22:45, since the entire Psalm is paralleled there.

\101/See below, pp. 270f. A general discussion of the Isaiah quotations may be found in this writer's article, "Barnabas' Isaiah Text," pp. 337ff (especially n. 8). See also hatch, Essays, pp. 180f and 207f; Swete, Intro, p. 413. ===

Barn's use of Psalms also is frequent, although it is not so consistently faithful to the LXX as are the citations from Isaiah.\102/ Conflations of phrases drawn from several Psalms and moulded into a single quotations are conspicuous in Barn (see above, p. 56). Barn also uses Pentateuchal material [[68]] in a large number of quotations, but it seldom shows a close dependence on any known text-forms of the OT. Ps-Barn or his tradition seems to have exercised a great deal of freedom in using the Pentateuch, especially with regard to its narrative materials. ---

\102/For textual analyses of some of Barn's Psalm citations, see Hatch, Essays, pp. 180f and 207f; Swete, Intro, p. 413; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien 2 (1907), pp. 202f. ===

Next in descending order of popularity would come Jeremiah, which again is based on the LXX but shows a greater variance from our LXX MSS than do the quotations from Isaiah (and some of the Psalm citations). Such a situation is not unexpected, however, since the inner LXX textual problems are greater in Jeremiah than in either Isaiah or Psalms. Verbal reminiscences of Zachariah, Ezekiel, and Daniel also are found in Barn, but the text of Barn deviates widely from extant LXX MSS in these quotations. Proverbs once is cited, in accord with our LXX text. Some form of the Enoch cycle also is presupposed by Barn, and possibly also IV Ezra and II Baruch. There are, in addition, several unidentified sources from which quotations in Barn have been derived. All of the immediate sources seem to have been written in Greek. When we look back at the way in which all these quotations are introduced into the text of Barn, however, it becomes clear that the author seldom shows any consciousness of the precise origin of his quotations. He uses "scripture," or "the prophet," or "the Lord" to describe every kind of [[69]] material (pentateuchal, psalmic, prophetic, apocalyptic, etc.). Even where he claims to quote from "Deuteronomy" or "the Decalogue" or "Daniel," he is at great variance from the text-forms known to us. It is only in the Isaiah quotations that one might suspect a close dependence on an actual MS of the prophet; nevertheless, the brevity of many of these citations and the failure explicity to mention "Isaiah" in the formulae citandi for most of these references warns against any overconfidence that Ps-Barn did indeed use such a MS.\103/ It is necessary, therefore, to ask what sources might have been available to a Greek author in the late first and early second century A.D. before we turn to a detailed analysis of the quotations themselves. {@@RAK notes in margin of text: 1. [Psalms?] 2. ! } ---

\103/Windisch's conclusions, although in some senses overstating the case, are worth noting: "Die ganze Zitationsweise lehrt (1), dass dem Vf. das ganze AT eine einheitliche, unterschiedslose, auch den Christen unbedingt verpflichtende, inspirierte Urkunde ist und (2), dass er nicht direkt aus der LXX und nicht auf Grund eigner Sammlungen zitiert, sondern in der Hauptsache aus einem Tesimonienbuche, ... wie es zuerst nachweislich von Melito zusammengestellt worden ist ... (Euseb. hist. eccl. IV:26:13) und von Cyprian und Ps.-Gregor uns erhalten geblieben ist" (p. 314). ===

[[70]]

THE AVAILABLE SOURCES

Our general examination of the formulae citandi and of the explicit quotations has indicated that one must not immediately jump to the conclusion that Barn's citations usually were derived directly from actual copies of the OT books themselves. To say, as is customary, that Ps-Barn often "appears to trust to memory, and not to concern himself greatly about the words of his author"\1/ -- or what is worse, that "Barnabas never hesitates to reword the LXX when it suits his purpose"\2/ -- is to overlook the possibility that the secondary collections of scriptural materials which sometimes diverge from the LXX may have been available for the author, and that he actually quotes these with a high degree of fidelity.\3/ Somewhere in the investigation of Barn's explicit quotations, therefore, one should ask what sources were available for a Greek author of the late first or early [[71]] second century writing within the Judaeo-Christian religious environment? In this chapter we will discuss briefly a number of categories of sources which seem to be especially relevant for the present study. ---

\1/Swete, Intro, p. 412.

\2/Kleist, p. 177 n. 125. The same view is expressed by Muilenburg, p.85 ("he feels himself quite superior to the succession of words of the LXX"); Andry, pp. 142f ("he feels at liberty to change the scriptures at will, at time throwing good order into confusion, rearranging the word order, making both omissions and additions..."), and numerous other commentators.

\3/Quasten's concluding observation (above, p. 23 n. 38) is worth repeating in this connection. ===

The Septuagint. -- Foremost among these sources is, of course, the Old Greek translation of the OT. Since we are concerned especially with this translation as it existed in the years prior to the second revolt, however, we must use a great deal of caution in describing it from our 20th century perspective. The term "LXX" itself hides many basic problems. Historically, it refers to the Alexandrian translation of the Pentateuch which became current in the third/second centuries B.C.\4/ As other books of Hebrew religious literature were translated into Greek (where and when is a separate problem for each book), the designation "LXX" (unconsciously ?) was extended to include them.\5/ After the large codex form had replaced collections of individual scrolls or smaller codices, "the LXX" became the name of a more closely delimited corpus of literature with a large-scale textual history.\6/ Finally, [[72]] with the advent of the printing press and the distribution of various editions of "the LXX" with which we are familiar with the Greek OT available at the close of the pre-Christian era. ---

\4/For introductory discussions of he history of the term "LXX," see Swete, Intro, pp. 23ff; R.H.Pfeiffer, Introduction to the OT (1941), p. 107; and B.J. Roberts, The OT Text and Versions (1951), p. 103.

\5/This is already true for JM (D 68:7. 71. 84:3) writing around the middle of the second century.

\6/On this problem see the excellent articles by E. Bickerman, "Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint," Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, English Section (1950), pp. 149-78, and "The Septuagint as a Translation," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 28 (1959), 1-39. ===

In several ways, such an identification is unfortunate and misleading. From what little we can discover about the textual forms in various portions of the pre-Christian Greek OT, great diversity prevailed, especially outside of the LXX proper -- the Pentateuch. Equally significant is the fact that before the codex came into wide usage (third/fourth century A.D.), individual scrolls of small portions of the Greek OT had to be used for a first-hand knowledge of that "Book." In itself, such a situation would be both expensive and cumbersome for the average Jew or Christian, and would be a definite burden for the itinerant preacher or teacher. A priori, then, we might expect that someone who went to all the trouble of culling his OT quotations directly from an OT MS (1) would tend to give extensive quotations, and (2) often would show an awareness of the exact source form which the quotation comes. Our texts of Philo, JM, and Theophilus of Antioch, for example, frequently exhibit such a first-hand knowledge of the Greek scriptures (although they sometimes [[73]] contain significant textual variation from extant LXX MSS). Barn, however, is particularly weak in both regards.

Scriptural Commentary. -- There is no doubt that second century Christianity had access to much Jewish commentary material on the Scriptures. Cl.A.'s dependence on the Philonic exegetical tradition is patent, and both JM and Theophilus clearly reflect Jewish haggadic exegesis in numerous places, although apparently none of these authors is of Jewish birth.\7/ It is difficult, however, clearly to classify the different types of commentary material which already were available in pre-Christian Judaism.\8/ By way of illustration, it is instructive briefly to consider the methodology of a few particular commentary specimens. {@@RAK note on facing page: On Philo's Use of Sources, cf Knox, Hell. Els., 47-54 Bousset, Schulbetrieb, 43ff + passim. Stein in Z.A.Q. 1938/29, 1931/32 B. Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo For Philo's use of OT in particular, cf Knox, JTS 41 (19 ) with critique by Colson in ibid, 163f, 237ff. } ---

\7/See W. Bousset, Schulbetrieb, pp. 155-271, on Cl.A (especially pp. 198ff); A.@@H.. Goldfahn, Justinus Martyr und die Agada (1873); A. Harnack, "Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho," TU 39:1 (1913), pp. 61-73; R.M. Grant "Theolphilus of Antioch to Autolycus," HarvTR 40 (1947), 232.

\8/for a disucssion of this problem (and of ancient commentaries in general) see the lengthy Harvard Dissertation (1958) by L.G. Lewis,The Commentary: Jewish and Pagan Backgrounds of Origen's Commentaries with Emphasis on the Commentary on Genesis, especially pp. 199-206 (on the relationship of Qumranic and Rabbinic commentary). ===

Philo himself shows great variety in his methods of explaining scripture. Within the Philonic hermeneutic one could say that the Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin and in Exodum are much more exegetical than is De Fuga et [[74]] Inventione (on Gen 16:6-12), to point up two extremes.\9/ The biblical commentaries from Qumran are, again, both similar to and different from Philo's exposition; the former are eschatologically oriented and apocalyptically-typically interpreted in terms of Heilsgeschichte, while Philo seldom is concerned with eschatology but interprets his texts in terms of current philosophical and psychological interest. There is possibly another type of commentary attested at Qumran, in which a scriptural passage is explained primarily in terms of other scriptural passages which seem to be related to it.\10/ The result is strikingly similar in externals to so-called Testimony Books (see below), although the principle of organization differs. ---

\9/The word "exegetical" in this connection, however, has little relationship to modern historico-culturo-grammatical exegesis. The point is that Philo stays closer to his springboard texts in the Qu than in Fuga. \10/W.R. Lane, " A New Commentary Structure in 4 Q Florilegium," JBL 78 (1959), 343-46. lane concludes the "4Q Florilegium" is not to be "identified with testimonia literature as such. The scroll is apparently a collection of two (or more) independent works .... Both of these works are biblical commentaries, but different in character from the other existing peher literature. Actually they belong to a more complex type of pesher -- one that employs additional biblicatl material to expound the biblical passage under consideration." ===

Scripture Reworked. Several writings produced by late Judaism may generally be described as expansions of scriptural texts. They provide, in a sense, commentary on certain passages, but they show little consciousness of any [[75]] distinction between the scripture itself and the commentary (compare the "unofficial" Targumim). The Book of Jubilees\11/ and the so-called Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran illustrate this type of literature. One might also include here such "evolved" literature as the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (and their genre, which may include the "Oration of Moses" from Qumran\12/), although to do so is by no means without problems. The so-called Jewish histories like the Antiquities of Josephus and Ps-Philo also deserve notice in this category.\13/ {@@RAK note on the facing page: cf @@also M. Gasters' "Intro" to his ed of Asatir (1927), esp. pp. 119f. } ---

\11/See Lewis, Commentary, pp. 207-21, on the relationship of Jewish apocalyptic interpretaiton (especially Jubilees) to the development of biblical commentaries.

\12/See T.H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation (1956), pp. 233-36.

\13/Gaster, Dead Sea Scriptures, p. 232, also lists "the Book of Jashar, the Chronicle of Yosippon, the Samaritan Stories (Asatir) of Moses, the Byzantine Palaea, the Historia Scholastica of Petrus Comestor, and the celebrated Bible Historiale" as "popular 'expansions' of Holy Writ." F.M. Cross Jr. called attention (in private communication) to the "paraphrases of Pentateuch and Former Prophets narrative (unpublished) at Qumran," which also fit into this category of free Targum. Qumran also provides examples of @@Targumim in a stricter sense (on Lev, Job). ===

A very different type of literature which implicitly employs scripture and which passed through various stages of evolution is the apocalyptic tradition attested by Revelation, IV Ezra, II Baruch, and to varying degrees by the Ascension of Isaiah, I and II Enoch, Assumption of Moses, etc. Biblical [[76]] catalysts to this kind of source primarily are Daniel and Ezekiel (which, however, are not necessarily the originators of the apocalyptic tradition). The evidence of this body of literature has been ignored too often by commentators dealing with Daniel-like quotations. It is highly probable that this apocalyptic tradition existed in a great many forms which now are lost to us\14/ and was, because of its traditional nature, not entirely clear to the writers who preserved and expanded it. ---

\14/Qumran has emphasized this point through tis "rich and extensive apocalyptic literature" which contains "cycles of Enoch literataure, Testaments literature, Daniel literature, pseudo-Jeremianic literature, and pseudo-Mosaic literature, as well as a score of apocalyptic types hitherto unknown" (F.M. Cross Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship [1958], p. 147). On the Enoch cycle see also the discussion by H. Odeberg, "'ENW/X" in Kittel's Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament II (1935), 553-57. ===

Again, the literature of early Christianity and its Jewish heritage attests a liturgical use of scripture which deserves notice here. The "Benedictions" from Qumran basically are elaborations of one scriptural passage (Num 6:24ff), while the "Hodayot" seem to be secondary Psalmic compositions in which a variety of scriptural phrases and constructions have been reworked.\15/. In early Christian sources, the "hymns" [[77] of Luke 1 and the Apocalypse show similar characteristics. Such hymnic literature as the Odes of Solomon also illustrates this type of source on a larger scale.\16/ Near the end of the last century, E. Hatch suggested that early Christian writers sometimes quoted from "psalms ... which breathed the spirit, and adopted the Greek phraseology, of the existing psalms, but which were never incorporated into the psalter." His primary evidence was the Psalmic material in the Epistle of Barn.\17/ ---

\15/For a list of OT allusions in the Hodayot, see J. Carmignac, "Les citations de l'Ancien Testament, et spe/cialement des Poeme\s du Serviteur, dans les Humnes de Qumra^n," RQum @@2 (1960, 357-94. He concludes "l'auteur est surtout nourri d'Isaie et des Psaumes" (p. 391).

\16/Quasten, Patrology I, p. 161, notes that the Odes employ "an idiom strongly reminiscent of the Old Testament" in a conscious imitation of "the psalms and their language."

\17/Essays, p. 181. See also pp. 207f, where Hatch suggests that "the quotation [in Barn 5:13b] is not from the LXX but from a psalm based upon the LXX, a "composite psalm." Note that what appears to be a psalmic composition in Rom 3:13-18 actually is found in almost all LXX MSS of Ps 13:3. ===

Anthologies. -- The use of brief excerpts from a large body of literature is well-attested in the hellenistic world at the time of the inception of Christianity.\18/ Bousset suggested that ancient school-activity in Alexandria and Rome relied heavily on GRA/MMATA U(POMNHMATIKA/ which served the [[78]] same general purpose as modern college classnotes or syllabi,\19/ and Kenyon notes the "frequent reference to the use of notebooks (tabellae, pagillares) which could be carried on the person and used for casual annotation or for rough copies of poems."\20/ In fact, the younger Pliny preserves the following remarkable picture of how his tireless Uncle (Pliny the Elder, died A.D. 79) gathered information from his own studies: ---

\18/For a discussion of later MSS which contain such Florilegia, see T. Birt's edition of Claudii Claudiani Carmina (1892) in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, pp. CLXXIII-CLXXX ("De Excerptorum Codicibus"). In his Kritik und Hermeneutik, nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens (1913), p. 36 n. 1, Birt refers to an actual "Beispiel eines Florilegiums aus vorchristlicher Zeit." On the use of excerpts in general in the first and second centuries of our era, see Bousset, Schulbetrieb, passim.

\19/Schulbetrieb, pp. 1-7.

\20/Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome (1951\2/), p. 92. ===

After returning home, whatever time was left he gave to studies. Very often after lunch ... he used to lie in the sun and have a book read, from which he made notes and excerpts. In fact, he read nothing without making excerpts from it -- indeed, he used to say that no book is so bad but that some part if it has value .... [After bathing], as though it were another day, he would study at dinner; at that time a book was read and certain running (rapid) notes were made. ... He left to me 160 note-journals of selections (electorum commentaries) which were, indeed, written on both sides (opistographos) and in the most minute characters.\21/ ---

\21/Epistles III:5. It is difficult to determine the exact format of the elder Pliny's notes. The first part of the quotaiton suggests single papyrus leaves (KOLLH/MATA, the raw material for scrolls) such as were used in antiquity for letters, military dispatches, and th like (see Kenyon, Books, pp. 52 and 57 n.1). The later reference to commentarios opistographos, however, may indicate scrolls on which finely written notes were inscibed. It is not likely that the latter commentarios were of different format from the former notes, since the educational efficiency of the elder Pliny (as eulogized in the Epistle) would preclude copying the contents of individual note-sheets onto longer scrolls. Thus it would seem either that the commentarios were packets of note-sheets or that the notes originally had been taken on scrolls (Kenyon, Books, p. 51, refers to small pocket-scrolls). According to F.M. Cross Jr. (in private communication), "Cave IV Qumran contains a great many documents written on leather 'leaves' or papyrus sheets which appear never to have been stitched (leather) or glued (papyri) into scrolls. In particular, the papyrus documents are interesting .... Ofen we have both sides inscribed, but with different works. I suspect 'boxes' of sheets as well as papyrus rolls were frequent at Qumran. True codices do not appear." In its other rare occurrences in antiquity, O)PISQO/GRAFOS seems to refer to scrolls written on both sides in order to conserve on space and cost (see Lucian, Vitarum Auctio 9, where the ideal philosopher travels freely with his leather pouch full of O)PISQOGRA/FWN BIBLI/WN), or is ambiguous (Ulpian, in Digesta Justini Augusti XXXVII:11:4, where even something recorded "in opisthographo" is as valid as if it were written "ad novam chartam or "ad deleticiam"). There is an example of a magical scroll written on both sides in the British Museum (p. 121) -- compare Ezek 2:10 and Rev 5:1. For a further discussion of opisthographos, see M. Thompson, Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (1912), p. 50; T. Birt, Kritik, pp. 301f; and Kenyon, Books, pp. 63 and 91. ===

[[79]] Excerpts (E)PITOMAI/) and florilegia compiled in similar says undoubtedly were passed down through the Hellenistic schools to Jewish and Christian authors. Not only were these materials used in Alexandria at an early date (see Philo and Clement), but Theophilus of Antioch also seems to have used selections from the Greek poets and the Greek philosophers provided by second century anthologies.\22/ {@@RAK note on facing page-- Knox, Hell. Els. 30ff: "In a curiously neglected passage of the Talmud [@@Sotah 49\b/], R. @@Gamaliel is reported as saying that his father R. Simeon b. @@Gamaliel II had in his house 500 lads learning the wisdom of the Jews and another 500 learning the wisdom of the Greeks... There is no reason to doubt that the rabbis of the first century A.D. were alive to the need of such a dual curriculum [despite the obvious exaggeration of the number involved]. It was customary to invite visitors to address the synagogues of the Dispersion.... Such emissaries [from Jerusalem] should be able to speak in a style which educated Jews + interested Gentiles would regard as reasonably good. ... Jewish preachers would further need a smattering of popular philosophy, particularly of that mixture of Stoicism and Platonism which was peculiarly congenial to Jewish missionary propaganda, and a knowledge of Greek literature so far as it could be derived from popular handbooks; it would seem that Judaism had its own \30@@/31/ compilations of this type, composed of real or alleged extracts from the great writers of antiquity, designed to prove that the wisdom of the Greeks really taught @@an ethical monotheism, derived by unacknowledged borrowing from Moses. The poets were made to @@support the philosophers in the interests of Judaism; it was of course no objection that many of the extracts were the production of Jewish imitators." [cf Schu%rer, @@Tn. 595] On Philo's use of sources cf ibid. pp. 47-54 (@@cp above, p. 73\x/). "various philosophical tracts are incorporated more or less wholesale at various points in Philo's writings" (p. @@47 -- cf Cohn-Wendland notes). } {@@RAK-- Please note that for for the text "\30/31/," the "/" is a slash and not coding to indicate superscript text. es} ---

\22/So Bousset, Schulbetrieb, passim, and Grant, "Theophilus," pp. 242f. Indeed, Cl.A Strom I:(1):11:1 and 14:1 @@refers to the U(POMNH/MATA which he has stored up EI)S GH=RAS, and which he received from his most blessed and learned teachers (probably Tatian, Theodotus, and especially Pantaenus). {@@RAK-- Should "refers" be "refer?" es} ===

It frequently has been conjectured that this practice of collecting excerpts also was exercised by Jews and/or Christians as early as the first century in connection with [[80]] the sacred scriptures.\23/ The first known Greek writer to edit such a "Testimony Book" seems to have been Melito of Sardis (c. 200 A.D.) who, according to Eus, made E)KLOGA\S E)/K TE TOU= NO/MOU KAI\ TW=N PROFHTW=N PERI\ TOU=- SWTH=ROS KAI\ PA/SHS TH=S PI/STEWS H(MW=N (HE IV:26:13). Around the middle of the third century, Cyp's Ad Quirinum: Testimoniorum Libri Tres appeared in Latin, and a few decades later (c. 315) Eus published his EU)AGGELIKH\ A)PO/DEICIS which showed how Christianity was the fulfillment of OT prophecy. A negative aspect of the latter treatise was its apologetic against the Jews, which also was a prime feature in Ps-Gregory's E)KLOGAI\ MARTURI/WN PRO\S I)OUDAI/OUS (c. 400) and other related "testimony literature" (see below). ---

\23/Modern impetus for this hypothesis came from Hatch Essays, p. 203 ("On Composite Quotations from the Septuagint"): "It may also be supposed, if we take into consoderation the contemporary habit of making collections of excerpta and the special authority which the Jews attached to their sacred books, that some of these manuals ["of morals, of devotion and of controversy" used by "Greek-speaking Jews"] would consist of extracts from the Ol,d Testament." For discussion of the subsequent developments of this idea, see K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its use of the OT (1954), pp. 207-17; J.A. Fitzmyer, "'4Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," TS 18 (1957), 513-37, and the present writers's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text," pp. 338-40. ===

Questions as to the origins of the testimony literature (Jewish or Christian?) and its antiquity have received partial answer from the Qumran fragment known as "4Q Testimonia." According to its editor, this short collection of scriptural [[81]] texts made by Jewish sectarians in Hebrew (dated by F. M. Cross [privately] before the middle of the 1st c. @@B.C.) "appears to be almost complete ... but it is clearly not a part of a scroll," nor is it "inscribed on the reverse."\24/ "The whole collection is not so much 'messianic' as eschatological" and concludes with a relatively long quotation from a hitherto unknown source ("4Q Psalms of Joshua").\25/ The precise function of such a "testimony page" (on leather, not papyrus) in the Qumran sect is not clear (see also above, n.10), but it is quite possible that "4Q Testimonia" is an example of the earliest written stages of testimony literature, from which later collections later developed.\26/ We may safely suppose that a similar practice was not unknown in the hellenistic Jewish communities of that early period, and that Christianity adopted this practice from her @@[Semitic] parentage.\27/ {@@RAK note in margin of text: Jewish } {@@RAK-- 1. You had a caret symbol inserted between "c." and "B.C." I inserted a space there. 2. Do you want "Jewish" to be inserted in your text with "[Semitic]?" or as a correction for "[Semitic]?" es } ---

\24/J.M. Allegro, "Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature," JBL 75(1956), 182.

\25/Ibid., p. 187. '4Q Psalms of Joshua' also exists in other fragments from Qumran.

\26/See the present writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text." According to F.M. Cross Jr. (private communication), "'oral testimonia' clearly existed in the Qumran school," and frequently circulated accompanied by characteristic interpretations, but "most of his was put down late."

\27/It is not impossible that IV Macc 18:10-19 is relevant to this discussion in that a short collection of OT quotations and allusions are there presented (in a hellenistic Jewish writing) in the context of scriptural instruction given by a father to his children at home. ===

[[82]] Evidence that Christianity knew or created similar florilegia is not lacking from the earliest Christian sources. In Romans, for example, Paul frequently attests the practice of using scriptural testimonies in the same manner (especially 3:10-18 on human perversity [but see above, n. 17] and 15:9-12 on the Gentiles' worship of God), and to an even greater degree, Hebrews contains collections of scriptural excerpts (see 1:5-13 and 2:6f on the "Son" [compare Cl. R 36], and 2:12-13 on the saved community). Cl. R's Epistle to the Corinthians also shows the testimony phenomena (see ch. 15 on hypocrisy and 26:2f on resurrection), and the list of quotations in Act Pet 24 on the origin of Jesus Christ illustrates the use of testimonies which is widely attested elsewhere in second century Christian literature.\28/ ---

\28/In addition to the anti-Judaica and Dialogues which are about to be discussed, testimonies are used on a large scale in such 2nd c. literature as Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, and Iren, AH and AP. Bousset claims to find evidence of a tractate on prophetic predictions behind AH IV:20:8-12, 21, 25:2, and 33:10-14; A.B. Starratt, in his Harvard dissertation, The Use of the Septuagint in the Five Books against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons (1952), p. 187, concluded that Iren "relied chiefly on Testimony collections for his quotations from the Old Testament." ===

Straightforward (non-polemical) anthologies of scriptural texts were not the only form in which early Christian testimony literature took shape.\29/ Origen, in answer to [[83]] Celsus' attacks on Christianity, describes the (now lost) I)A/SONOS KAI\ @@PAPI/SKOU A)NTILOGI/AN PERI\ XRISTOU= which elsewhere is attributed to Aristo of Pella (c. 140), in the following manner:\30/

\29/The "Testimony Books" of Cyp and Ps-Greg are organized according to certain topics with little comment between the supporting quotations. Headings common to both collections include: Circumcision, Baptism, Sacrifices, Jews and Gentiles, Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Passion, Cross and Darkness, Resurrection, and Ascention/Glorification. These topics are not treated in th same order in each work. For introduction to this literature, see R. Harris and V. Burch, Testimonies (2 Vols, 1916 and 1920); N.J. Hommes, Het Testimoniaboek (1935); and R.P.W. Stather Hunt, Primitive Gospel Sources (1951).

\30/CCels IV:52. Extant fragments for the Dialogue may be found in PG 5:1277-86. According to a certain Celsus Afer, who apparently translated the dialogue into Latin sometime before the fifth century, Jason was a Jewish-Christian and Papiscus was an Alexandrian Jew who finally was converted through the discussion. It is Maximus Confessor (7th century) who claims that the Dialogue was written by Aristo, although Maximus says that in the Hypotoposes, Cl.A attributed it to Luke! See the literature cited in the next note, especially Juster, p. 54. {@@RAK note in margin of text: confused with Ep. Hebs??} {@@RAKnote on facing page:

Testimonia Lit. -- P. Prigent Le Testimonia...: Barnabas (1961), Intro, Fitzmyer F.C. Synge, Hebrews & the Scriptures (1959) } \31/For extensive discussion and enumeration of such anti- Judaica in general, see the "Introduction" to McGiffert's ed of P-P; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'emipre Romain I (1914), pp. 53-76; and A.L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos (1935). Further discussion about the Dialogue form may also be found in Conybeare's ed of A-Z and T-A, pp. xxxiv-lvii; and A.B. Hulen, "The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity," JBL 51 (1932), 58-70. {@@RAK -- Note in margin: Oepke, pp. 281 @@ff. } ===

There is yet another closely related way in which Christianity presented anthologies of scriptural excerpts. The title of the "Testimony Book" of Ps-Greg betrays this literary device, which conveniently may be described as Contra Judaeos (see n. 31 above). Among the most ancient examples of this kind of testimony literature are the tracts of (Ps-?) Tert and Ps-Cyp (c. 260). Later we find Chr, Tht, Isidore, Bar Salibi, et alii writing similar apologies Contra Judaeos. In many of these treatises, little more is done than to hurl the Jewish scriptures back into the faces of the Jews as proofs of Christianity's message, and thus they are really "Testimony Books" of a particular type (anti-Judaica).

\32/On lectionary problems in general, see A. Buechler, "The Reading of the Law and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle," JQR 5(1892/3), 420-68, and 6(1893/4), 1-73; J. Jacobs, "Triennial Cycle," Jewish Encyc 12 (1906), 254-57; H.St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (1921); J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (first of 3 Vols, 1940- ). On the use of Psalms in the lections, see E.G. King, "The Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the Psalter," JTS 5 (1903/4), 203-13; L. Rabinowitz, "Does Midrash Tillim Reflect the Triennial Cycle of Psalms?" JQR 26 (1935/36), 349- 68; and A. Guilding, "Some Obscured Rubrics and Lectionary Allusions in the Psalter," JTS 3 (1952), 41-55. On the possible relationship of Jewish lections to the NT, see R.G. Finch, The Synagogue Lectionary and the NT (1939), and A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (1960). Guilding's study is an over-zealous attempt to prove lectionary influence behind every part of the Gospel of John and, indeed, behind much of the remainder of the NT (and even Did). {@@RAK note in margin: Elbogen } ===

Peculiarly Christian Materials. -- This brief discussion of relevant sources available to a Christian author at the beginning of the second century would not be representative without mention of the Christian preaching in general and the gospel tradition in particular.\33/ Justin speaks of the apostolic "memoirs"\34/ which were read regularly in Christian services;\35/ Papias seems to have collected and commented on Dominical "logia";\36/ and various sayings of Jesus (and sometimes also Gospel narrative materials) are found scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second century.\37/ [[88]] By the time of Irenaeus, our Gospels definitely were treated on a par with the Jewish scriptures,\38/ and there are isolated instances in earlier writings where material paralleled in the gospel tradition is introduced by formulae usually reserved for "scripture."\39/ The saying of Jesus seem to have carried an independent authority for Christians from the earliest times, when they were transmitted primarily through the oral gospel of Christian preaching and teaching. ---

\33/On the latter, see H. Koester, Synopt. Ueberlief., and E/. Massaus, Influence de l'E/valgile de S. Matthie sur la litte/rature cgre/tienne avant S. Ire/ne/e (1950).

\34/For example, in Ap 66:3, OI) GA\R A)PO/STOLOI E)N TOI=S GENOME/NOIS U(P) AU)TW=N A)POMNHMONEU/MASIN A(\ KALEI=TAI EU)AGGE/LIA. See R. Heard, "The Apomnemoneumata in Papias, Justin and Irenaeus," NTS 1 (1954/5), 122-34, for other references.

\35/Ap 67:3, KAI\ TA\ A)POMNHMONEU/MATA TW=N A)POSTO/LWN H)\ TA\ SUGGRA/MMATA RW=N PROFHTW=N A)NAGINW/SKETAI.

\36/Eus, HE III:39:1, where the title given to Papias' five volumes is L OGI/ON HURIAHW=N E)CHGH/AEIS. The exact meaning of @@Papias' "logia" has been much discussed. See J.V. Bartlett, "@@Papias's 'Exposition': Its Date and Contents," Amicitiae Corolla (festschrift J.R. Harris, ed H.G. Wood, 1933), pp. 15-44; and R.M. Grant, "Papias and the Gospels," AnglTR 25 (1943), 21 8-22. {@@RAK-- You have both "Papias'" and "Papias's" in the previous paragraph. I think that "Papias's" is the name in a title. es}

\37/See L.E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as quoted in the Literature of the Second Century (1952, from a Harvard Dissertation in 1945); A. Resch, Agrapha (1906\2/); Oxford Society, The NT in the Apostolic Fathers (1905).

\38/See Iren, AH III:1:1 and 11:8, where the Gospels are attributed great authority, although they are not expressly called "scripture." Theoph. III:12, shares this view of the "inspiration" of the Gospels.

\39/See II Clem 2:4 and Barn 4:14. ===

We should not close this section without mention of the remainder of the NT writings as possible sources.\40/ The earliest evidence for the identification of the Pauline Epistles with scripture seems to be II Peter (3:16), and the Epistles were quoted in part as early as the end of the first century.\41/ Marcion used ten of Paul's Epistles as religious [[89]] authority in the first half of the second century, and by the end of that century Iren and the "Muratorian Canon" show knowledge of the entire Pauline corpus. For the other books of the NT, little can be said with assurance before Iren and the Muratorian Canon except that Cl. R (ch. 36) shows a definite relationship to Hebrews, and the Papias fragments show knowledge of I Peter, I John (see also Polycarp 7:1), and Revelation (Justin also knew Revelation). ---

\40/We have omitted any discussion of possible liturgical/catechetical sources in early Christianity (see Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism [ 1940]) since such materials necessarily overlap with the synagogue instrucion mentioned above. \41/Cl.R 47:1 refers to I Corinthians. Early in the second century, Polycarp remind the Philippians (3:2) that Paul "wrote letters to you," and cites I Cor 6:2 as Paul's teaching (11:2; it is possible that the subsequent verse refers to Paul's Philippians). In 12:1, Polycarp seems to refer to Ephesians as "scripture." ===

Summary and Conclusions. -- From this brief survey of possible and actual, oral and written types of sources which many have been available to the author of Barn, it is possible to glimpse the complexity of the problems involved in any analysis of quoted material in Jewish and Christian authors of the same general period. We have not pretended to describe all the available kinds of sources, especially those of "secular" nature, but have concentrated on those which are most relevant for the present investigation. Nor have we attempted to comment on the accessibility of these materials to an early Christian author like Ps-Barn. Certainly a person writing from Alexandria, for example, would find most of these sources at hand in the school tradition of Alexandrian Judaism. The precise relationship of the Epistle of Barn to such materials next remains to be seen.\42/ ---

\42/On Barn and the NT, see NT in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 1-23, and Koester, Synopt. Ueberlief., pp. 125ff. ===

[[[---NOTE--- what follows needs even more proofing,  formatting, editing, etc.]]]
[[90]] 
                         <ch>PART II 
 
                 THE TRADITIONAL BACKGROUND
               OF THE QUOTATIONS IN BARNABAS  </>
 
[[91]] 
     The overall theme of Barn 1-17 clearly is expressed in the first chapter and becomes a running thread of emphasis throughout the tract (see also below, pp. 118f).\1/ 

  1:5b  ... That along with your faith you might have <gk>GNW=SIN</>
        which is perfect.  
  1:7   For to US the master made known (<gk>E)GNW/RISEN</> through 
        the prophets the things which have come to pass (<gk>TA\
        (<gk>PARELHLUQO/TA</>) and the present situation (<gk>TA\
        E)NESTW=TA</>), and he gave US a foretaste of those things 
        which are about to happen (<gk>TW=N MELLO/NTWN</>). 
  2:1   Therefore, since the days are evil and the one who 
        is active (<gk>TOU= @@E)NERGOU=NTOS</>) himself has the power,
        WE OUGHT, while paying strict attention to ourselves,
        to seek out <gk>TA\ DIKAIW/MATA KURI/OU</>  
  3:6   To this end, therefore, brethren, the Long-suffering 
        One ... made plain to US beforehand (<gk>PROEFANE/RWSEN
        H(MI=N</>) concerning all things .... 
  4:1   Thus it is necessary that We diligently inquire <gk>PERI\
        TW=N E)GESTW/TWN</> to seek out those which are able to
        save US. 
  5:3   WE OUGHT to abound in thanks to the Lord because TO
        US he made known <gk>E)GNW/RISEN</>) <gk>TA\ PARELHLUQO/TA</> and he
        enlightened (<gk>E)SO/FISEN</>) US <gk>E)N TOI=S E)NESTW=SIN</>
          and we
        are not <gk>A)SU/NETOI EI0S TA\ ME/LLONTA</>. 
  7:1   ...  The good Lord made all things plain to US   before-
        hand, so that we might know (<gk>GNW=MEN</>) .... 
  9:4   But THEY transgressed, because an evil angel <gk>E)SO/FIZEN</> 
          THEM.  
 10:12  But how could THEY perceive (<gk>VOH=SAI</>) or understand
        (<gk>SUNIE/NAI</>) these things?  But WE who have righteous 
        perception (<gk>VOH/SANTES</> speak the commandments as the
        Lord desired.  For this reason he circumcised OUR
        ears and hearts, that WE might understand (<gk>SUNIW=MEN</>)
        these things [L lacks this sentence].  
 12:8   ... The Father reveals (<gk>FANEROI=</> all things concerning
        the son .... 
 13:7   ... We have the perfection <gk>TH=S GNW/SEWS H(MW=N</> ....

[[{@@RAK notes on the facing page: 

1.  Hipp, <ts>AntiX</> II:
<gk>OI( MAKA/RIOI PRODH=TAI O)DQALMOI\ ... OU) MO/NON TA\
        @@PARW|XH?O/TA EI)PO/NTES 
A)LLA\ KAI\ TA\ E)NESTW=TA KAI\ TA\ ME/LLONTA A)PAGGEI/LANTES</> 
(cf Hipp on <ts>Blessing of Jacob 10 [TU 38:1,23], cited in Windisch, p. 307) 

2.  <u-head>1 Q Mysteries (=27) 1:3ff</> (cf. F.F. Bruce,
    <tm>Bib Exeg. in Q.Txts</>, 74): 
They knew not the mystery that is to be 
and the former things they understood not 
They knew not what was to come upon them  
nor could they deliver themselves from the mystery that is to be.... 
[when @@evil is defeated] and all who restrain the wonderful @@mysteries
     will be no more,
Knowledge will fill the world....  }  ]]

     It is, therefore, somewhat strange that the conclusion in chapter 17 implies that the author has spoken only of those [[92]] things (past) which are necessary <gk>EI)S SWTHRI/AN</>, "for if I write you <gk>PERI\ TW=N E)NESTW/TWN H)\ MELLO/NTWN</>, you will never perceive (<gk>NOH/SHTE</>) since they are set in parables" (17:2).  

     Nevertheless, it is true that most of the material in Barn 2-16 does deal with "that which he made plain to use beforehand."  It is only in ch. 4 that Ps-Barn clearly deals with present and future events <em>as
such</>, and even this is in terms of prophetic texts to which is attached the frustrating conclusion that "you ought to understand" (4:6a).  Elsewhere Ps-Barn sometimes speaks of what will happen (see 6:19, 16:7), but this is in terms of what has happened@@.  Most often he concentrates on the rudiments of salvation by appealing to the Jewish prophetic scriptures and explaining their real ("gnostic") meaning for the Christian.  In this way he challenges his readers to avoid the errors of the unperceiving Jews and to understand the covenant and its rites (part of <gk>TA\ PARELHLUTO/TA</>) as God had intended them to be
understood -- in terms of Christian <gk>GNW=SIS</>. 

     Barn 18-20 is entirely different in its basic thrust.  As the author/editor says in 18:1, it is <gk>E(TE/RAN GNW=SIN KAI\ DIDAXH/N</>.  It is not the same sort of instruction found in 1-17 since it has nothing to do with prophetic/parabolic utterances which need proper interpretation.  It aims not so much at true understanding as at right action.  Nevertheless, as Muilenburg and others have shown, clear similarities exist between [[93]] Barn 1-17 and 18-21 which are best explained if the same person edited the Epistle in its present form.\2/  On the other hand, the material used by Ps-Barn in the Epistle often betrays its
traditional ancestry when it is examined over against the editorial "cement" which holds it together.\3/  In addition to the clear break between chaps. 17 and 18, either seams are partially visible in Barn 2-16 which reveals the following, loosely connected "traditional blocks":   

[[94]] 

  1.    THE TRUE ORDINANCES -- Sacrifice and Fasting                  2:4-3:6\4/ 

  2.    (Originally may have been several smaller units) 
    a.  THE PRESENT CRISIS                                                   ch. 4 
    b.  THE LORD ENDURED FOR OUR SALVATION          chs.5-6 
    c.  THE LORD'S SUFFERING WAS FORETOLD               chs.7-8
 
  3.    HE CIRCUMCISED OUR EARS AND HEARTS            chs.9-10
 
  4.a.  THE WATER AND THE CROSS WERE FORETOLD          11:1-12:7 
    b.  WHOSE SON IS JESUS?                                                       12:8-11
 
  5.    WHO IS THE TRUE HEIR AND RECIPIENT 
            OF THE COVENANT?                                                chs.13-14 
 
  6.    THE TRUE SABBATH                                                    ch. 15
 
  7.    THE TRUE TEMPLE                                                       ch. 16
 

     The validity of this working outline, of course, depends upon the detailed investigation of each unit.  In the following chapters, each section will be analyzed in an attempt to uncover the background of its quotations and to show their significance for the study of the Epistle.  

[[95]] 

                          <ch>Chapter 5
                 TRUE SACRIFICES AND FASTING</> 
 
     Barn 2:(1)4-3:6 is centered around the them that Christian worship in this time of eschatological crisis (2:1 and 10b, 3:6b) is not centered in literal Jewish sacrifices (2:4-8) or fasts (3:1-2), but rather, in spiritual offerings (2:10a) and fasting (3:3-5).  
 
  2:1   [see above, p. 91 and p. 94 n. 4] ...
  2:4   For he made it clear to us through all the prophets
        that he need neither sacrifices nor holocausts nor 
        offerings, saying, in the first place: 
   :5     [Isa 1:11-13(14a)] 
   :6   Thus he rendered these things as useless, so that the
        new law of our Lord Jesus Christ which is without the
        yoke of necessity might have the offering which is 
        not man-made.  
   :7   And again, he says to them:  
          [see Jer 7:22f plus Zach 7:10/8:17]
   :9   Therefore we ought to perceive, sine we are not  
        without understanding, our Father's beneficient
        disposition; for he speaks to us, desiring that we,
        who are not erring like they did,\1/ seek how we might 
        approach him (or offer to him).

   :10  Therefore he speaks to us thus:  
          [see Ps 50(51):19 plus ??] 
        Therefore we ought  thoroughly to understand, brethren,
        concerning our salvation, lest the evil one should 
        hurl us away from our life by making a deceitful 
        entrance among us. 

  3:1   Therefore he speaks again concerning these things to 
        them:  
          [Isa 58:4b-5]
   :3   But to us he says: 
          [Isa 58:6-10a] 
   :6   To this end, therefore, brethren, the Long-suffering 
        One foresaw how the people whom he prepared in his 
        beloved would believe in guilelessness, and made all  [[96]] 
        things clear to us beforehand so that we might not 
        be dashed to pieces like proselytes\2/ to their law. 

     Of the five explicit quotations (or four, if Isa 58:4b-10a is treated as a unit) introduced into this section, only those from Isaiah are clearly Septuagintal in origin.  These Isaiah citations are among the longest explicit quotations in the Epistle, but their value for determining the type of LXX text reflected by Barn is severely limited because of textual corruption within the MSS of Barn itself.\3/  The remaining citations, in Barn 2:7-10, have fewer textual problems within MSS of the Epistle but do not show a close relationship to extant LXX codices:  (1)  Barn 2:7f clearly reflects the LXX phraseology of Jer 7:22f and Zach 7:9f=8:16f, but is by no means a mechanical composition of the forms in which we now know these texts;\4/ (2)  Barn\Gk/ 2:10a begins with an abridged parallel to [[97]] Ps 50(519:19a and continues with a quotation attributed to the (lost) "Apocalypse of Adam" by Barn\Hmg/ (Barn\L/ has only a longer version of Ps 50:19).\5/ 

     It is, therefore, significant that both of these peculiar quotations are paralleled in other patristic sources.  They occur in the same context in Cl. A (<ts>Paed</> III:90-91), while Iren knows the latter (AH IV:17:2 [= 29:3]) and Ps-Greg has part of the former (<ts>Test</> 12).  It has been established (see above, pp.32ff) that Cl. A is intimately familiar with Barn, although he does not point to the Epistle as his source for these peculiar quotations (despite the fact that <ts>Paed</> III:89-91 shows several other minute affinities with Barn 2-3).  There is no clear proof that either Iren or Ps-Greg knew the Epistle.\6/  Thus a closer examination of this evidence is [[102]] necessary in order to determine the relationships between these authors and their parallel quotations. 

[[98]] 

                         <text>TEXT I</>

Ps-Greg, Test 12 (compare JM, D 22, for another strange form)

<gk>PERI\ QUSIW=N:     O(MOI/WS O( QEO\S BOA= LE/GWN: 
  ZW= C)GW\ LE/GEI KU/RIOS, O(/TI PERI? QUSIW=N KAI\ O(LOKAUTWMA/TWN
  OU)K E)NETEILA/MHN PRO\S TOU\S PATE/RAS U(MW=N, A)F' H(=S H(ME/RAS
  A)NH/GAGON AU)TOU\S E)K GH=S AI)GU/PTOU KAI\ E(/WS TH=S H(MW/RAS TAU/THS: 
H(SAI/AS:  MH\ E)GW\ ... QUSI/<v+>AN</></> (as Barn\Gk/ 2:7, except <gk>PROSENE/GKWIN</> in some MSS of Ps-Greg). 

[[99]] 

                         <text>TEXT II</> 

  <ts><u-head>

[[100]]

                        <text>TEXT III</>   

{@@RAK--  Please note that for this first column: 
1.  I typed what I thought were your revisions. 
2.  I did not know how to incorporate the underlining and lines
that you wrote in the text so I did not include these notations. 
3.  For the latin text I used the following coding: 
 a line above a letter           = -  after the letter to which it applies
a dot in the middle of the line = :  after the letter to which it applies

es} 

col3 (continued)
     <gk>OU)D' A)\N KA/MYH|S</> 
     same 
     <gk>SOU</> 
     same 
{@@RAK--  Please note that you crossed out the text for this and
the next line.  es}

     <gk>U(POSTRW/SH|</> (var, <gk>-SH|S</>) 
     same 
     same    {@@RAK note:  var <gk>WS</>) 


  6  <gk>OU)XI\ TOIAU/THN 
     NHSTEI/AN 
     E)GW\ E)CEL.</> 
     same 

     lacking (=Barn\H/_ 

     =Barn\S/ 

     =Barn\H/ 



     same 
     same 
     same 
     same 
     trsp to 1243 
     same 

[[101]]
[[column 3]] 
 7  <gk>DIA/Q.  PEINW=NTI</>
    same 
    <gk>KAI\ PTWXOU\S 
 **{A)STE/GOUS EI)/SAGE 
 **{EI)S TO\N OI)=KO/N SOU</> 
    trsp to 231 
    same 



    no equivalent 


    <gk>KAI\ A)PO\ T. OI)K.  </> 

    same 
***{<gk>OU)X U(PERO/YH|</> 

 8  same 
    same 

 =Barn\Sc*/(var=Barn\L/) 

    <gk>TAXU\ A)NAT.  </> 
 =Barn\S/ 
    same 
 =Barn\H/ 
    same 
    same 
 9 =Barn\H/ 

    same 
    =Barn\H/(see MS 239') 

    same 
    same 
    same 
    same 
    same 
    same 
10  same 
    <gk>T.  A)/R.  </>  (var + <gk>SOU</>) 

    same 

    same 

    =Barn\H/(see Sah) 


[[102, continued]] 

     <h1>Clement of Alexandria</>.  -- <ts>Paed</> III:(12):84-101 is the concluding section of the entire <ts>Paedagogus</>.  In it Cl. A presents a collection of scriptural texts on "the life of Christians" (or, "the most excellent life") to support the description he has given in the previous chapter.  The actual "instruction" from scripture begins in 87:1 with the exhortation to "hear, O child" followed by a quotation from Ps 1:6 on the "two ways."  After a short discourse on the "treasures" of Isa 45:3 which are "unseen" by the nations but seen "by us," Cl. A makes reference to the moral precepts of the "decalogue" and repeats the words of ethical exhortation in Isa 1:16-18. 

     Against this background, Cl. A then brings several additional quotations organized under specific topical headings:  

  89:3  Concerning prayer:  [compare Prov. 15:8?, "good works 
          are an acceptable prayer"]  
    :4    And the manner of prayer is prescribed: 
            [Isa 58:7b-8] 
    :5    What, then, is the fruit of such prayer?  
            [Isa 58:9a] 
  90:1  And concerning a fast:  
            [Isa 58:4b-5] 
    :2    What, then, does the fast signify?  
            [Isa 58:6-7a] 
  90:3  Furthermore, concerning sacrifices: 
            [Isa 1:11-13] 
    :4    How, then, shall I sacrifice to the Lord? 
            [Ps 50:19a] 
          How, then, shall I crown or annoint with myrrh? 
          Or what shall I burn as incense to the Lord?  
            ["Apcl Adam?"]  
[[103]]
          These are crowns and sacrifices and perfumes and
              and flower buds of God. 
  91:1  And concerning forbearance:  [Luke 18:3f] 
    :2    On the one hand, to soldiers ... [??] 
          But also to householders [Prov 13:11]  
  91:3  Furthermore, concerning love:  [I pet 4:8]  
        And concerning citizenship:  [Mark 12:17 parr]  
        And concerning an oath and bearing malice:  
            [see Jer 7:22 f plus Zach 7:10/8:17] ...
  92:4  And concerning the faith ...
  93:4  And concerning sharing ...

After adding to this section a catena of apostolic texts on the Christian life, Cl. A. concludes the work with a prayer to the "paedagogue."  

     It is clear from the preceding outline that Cl. A does not borrow his material directly from Barn 2-3.  The introductory rubrics differ, the quotations are given in a different order and sometimes are in smaller sections (Isa 58:7b-8, 9a, 6-7a; Ps 50:19a; and "Apcl Adam?" all are introduced separately), additional material is cited (mostly from NT) and Isa 58:9b-10a is lacking in Cl. A (as is a phrase from 58:4b).  Nevertheless,
the similarities between the two passages are too close to be coincidental. 

     A textual analysis of the quotations common to Barn 2-3 and <ts>Paed</> III:89-91 illustrates the complexity of the problem:

<ts><u-head>Isa 58:4b-9a</></> (TEXT III, pp. 100f) 

  Cl. A and Barn\Gk/ agree against Ziegler's LXX:  
    58:4--  <gk>LE/GEI KU/RIOS</>  (LXX and MT omit  = Barn\L/)
    58:5--  order of <gk>ANQRWPON TAP.</>  (LXX trsp) 

    58:6--  <gk>I)DOU\ AU(/TH</>  (<gk>H(</>)  <gk>NHSTEI/A H(\N</>...(see Tht; LXX deviates) 
    58:6--  <gk>A)/DIKON SUGGRAFH/N</> (LXX trsp =  Barn\L/) 

[[104]]
  <u-head>Cl. A agrees with LXX against Barn\Gk/:</>  
    58:5--  <gk>KAI\ H(ME/RAN</>  (Barn corrupt?) 
    58:5--  <gk>OU)D' A)\N KA/MYH|S...SOU...U(POSTRW/SH|</>
              (Barn has plural, Barn\H/ deviates) 
    58:7--  <gk>PEINW=NTI</>  (see 58:10; Barn has <gk>PEINW=SI[N]) 
    58:7--  <gk>KAI\ PRWXOU/S</>-<gk>U(PERO/YEI</>  (LXX, -<gk>YH|</>) 
              (Barn is much trspd and corrupt?) 

    58:8--  <gk>TAXU/</>  (Barn, <gk>TAXE/WS</>) 

  <u-head>Relation of Cl.A to variations within Barn\Gk/:</> 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
{excludes 58:8   <gk>IAMATA</> (S\c/H) 
{                <gk>IMATIA</> (L) 
{         58:10  (not in Cl.A) <gk>EL EHOHS</> (S?), <gk>EMPLHSH|S</>  } 

[[col. 1]]
    <u-col>agrees with Barn\S/</>
    58:5--<gk>OU)D' A)\N</>  (=LXX)

{@@RAK note in margin: 
58:5    <gk>EGW</>  (LXX var)  } 

{@@RAK--  Please note that text for 58:5 is crossed out.  You have written in the margin: 

      { 
cf H  { 
      { 

    58:5--<gk>U(POST</>.  (=LXX)  }

{@@RAK--  Please note that you have crossed out the text for 58:5
and 58:8.  es} 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

58:6  <gk>STRAGGALIAS</> (=LXX)  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

58:7  <em>if</> Cl.A. has <gk>U(PERO/YEI</> = Barn\H/  } 

    58:8--<gk>PROPOREU/SETAI</> (=LXX) 

[[col. 2]] 
    <u-col>agrees with Barn\H/</>
    58:5--lacks <gk>LE/GEI KS</>  (=most LXX)
    58:5--<gk>H(ME/RAN</> (=LXX) 

{@@RAK addition: 
58:5  <gk>TAPEINOU=N</> (=LXX)  } 

    58:6--<gk>H( NHSTEI/A</> 

{@@RAK note in margin:  <em>elite</>.  } 

    58:6--lacks <gk>OU)K A)NQ.</> -<gk>A)LLA/</> 
          {@@RAK addition:  LXX, <gk>ALLA</>) 

{@@RAK additions: 
    58:6--<gk>PANTA</> (=LXX) 
    58:8--<gk>PRWIMON</> (=@@some LXX)  } 

{@@RAK-- Please note that you have crossed out the text for 58:8.  es} 

    58:8--<gk>H( DIKAIOSU/NH SOU</> 
                      (=LXX) 
    58:9--<gk>TO/TE</>  (=LXX); {@@RAK addition:  but S\c/
    probably = S\*c/ here]} 

  <u-head>Cl. A differs from both Barn\Gk/ and LXX</> 
    58:4--lacks <gk>W(S SH/MERON</> throught <gk>U(MW=N</> 
    58:6--<gk>A)PO/LUE</>  (so Aquila) where others have <gk>A)PO/STELLE</> 
    58:8--<gk>FANH/SETAI</> where others have <gk>R(AGH/SETAI</> 
    58:8--<gk>E)/MPROSQEN</>  (see Barn\S/?) where others add <gk>SOU</> 
    58:9--<gk>E)PIBOH/SH|</> where others have <gk>BOH/SH|</>
            (-<gk>SEIS</>, Barn\S/) 
    58:9--<gk>U(PAKOU/SETAI</>  (see Barn\S/?) where others have
            <gk>EI)OSAK</>-. 

<ts><u-head>Isa 1:11-13</> 

  <u-head>Cl. A and Barn\Gk/ agree against Ziegler's LXX:</> 
    1:12--<gk>MOU TH\N AU)LH/N</>  (LXX trsp to 231) 
{@@RAK note in margin: 
see below p. 143 n. 48  } 
    1:13--lack <gk>KAI\ H(ME/RAN MEGA/LHN</> (no LXX MSS agree; see
           below, p. 155 n. 66) 
 
  <u-head>Cl. A agrees with LXX against Barn\Gk/:</> 
    1:13--<gk>NOUMHNI/AS</> with most MSS (Barn and some,
                <gk>NEOMHNI/AS</>  ) 
  <u-head>Cl. A agrees with Barn\H/ and LXX against Barn\S/:</> 
    1:11--<gk>KRIW=N</> (lacking in Barn\S/) 
    1:13--lack <gk>OU)DE/</> before <gk>E)A\N FE/RHTE</> 

  <u-head>Unique to Cl. A:</> 
    1:11--<gk>E)RI/FWN</> for <gk>TRA/GWN</> (see below, p. 174 n. 115) 

[[105]]
  <ts><u-head>"Apcl Adam?"</>  (TEXT II, p. 99)</> 

  <u-head>Cl. A agrees with Barn\H/ against Barn\S/:</> 
    <gk>QUSI/A TW=| KURI/W|</>  (<gk>Q.  TW=| QEW=|</> in LXX-Rahlfs; Barn\S/;
      Iren; 
      Cl.A, <ts>Strom</> II:79:1 [see n.7, below]) 

  <u-head>Unique to Cl. A:</> 
    <gk>PNEU=MA SUNTETRIMME/NON</> (Barn; Iren; Cl.A, <ts>Strom</> II:79:1; 
      use the next element of Ps 50:19a, 
      <gk>KARDI/A SUNTETRIMME/NH</> [note case change]) 
{@@RAK note in margin: 
?  necessary to syntax!  } 

    <gk>EU)WDI/AS TW=| QEW=|</> (so Iren; Barn has <gk>E.  TW=| KURI/W|</>) 

  <ts><u-head>Jer-Zach</>  (TEXT I, p. 98)</> 

  <u-head>Cl. A and Barn\S*H/ against Barn\Sc/:</> 
    <gk>KARDI/A| AU)TOU=</> (S\c/ has <gk>KARDI/A| E(AUTOU=</>) 

  <u-head>Cl. A differs from Barn\Gk/:</> 
    <gk>A)LLA\ TOU=TO</> (see Barn\L/, "<lt>sed hoc</>"; Barn\Gk?
      has <gk>A)LL' H)\ TOU=TO</>) 
    lacks <gk>KAKI/AN</>  (see Barn\L/?  "<lt>non habeat malitiam</>" may be
      equivalent for <gk>MH\ MNHSIKAKEI/TW</>) 
    lacks <gk>KAI/</> before <gk>O(/RKON</> (Barn and LXX include) 
    <gk>A)GAPA/TW</> (compare Barn\L/, "<lt>non habet</>" [corrupt
      for "<lt>non amet</>"?];
      Barn\Gk/ and LXX have <gk>A)GAPA=TE</>) 

     In summary, the quoted materials are closely (but not necessarily directly) related, while the editorial contexts in which they are found in Barn and Cl. A have almost no similarity.  The situation is seen to be even more complex when Cl. A, <ts>Strom</> II:(18):79, is introduced into the discussion with its string of phrases from Prov 15:8, 16:7; Isa 1:11, 58:6; "Apcl Adam?"; Prov 11:1; etc., on the life of true piety.\7/ 

[[106]]

     <h1>Irenaeus</>.  --  Leaving Cl. A's witness aside for the
moment, let us turn to the argument of Iren, AH IV:17[=29-30]. 
The topic under consideration is the relationship of the
Christian to the law.  In the preceding section, Iren has
concluded that the Decalogue is binding on the Christian, but not
the "<lt>praecepta servitutis</>" which were given for a sign "to
them" but are now cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. 
Indeed, Iren continues, God never needed their oblations and
sacrifices; proofs of this fact are offered from the following
passages:  

  17:1  <lt>... dicebat eis Samuel quidem sic</>:  [I Sam 15:22] 
        <lt>David autem ait</>:  [Ps 39(40):7] ... 
        <lt>Manifestius autem adhuc in quinquagesimo Psalmo de
        his ait</>: 
          [Ps 50(51):18-19] 
        <lt>Quoniam ergo nihil indiget Daue, in eo qui est ante
        hunc psalmo ait</>:  [Ps 49(50):9-13]
        <lt>Deinde ... consilium ei dans</>:  [Ps 49:14 f] 
        <lt>Hoc idem autem et Esaias ait</>: 
          [Isa 1:11a] 
        <lt>Et cum abnisset holocaustomata ... intulit ... </>
          [Isa 1:16-18] ...
    :2  <lt>Quemadmodum alibi ait</>:  
          ["Apcl Adam?"] ...
        <lt>Nam per Hieremian cum dixisset</>:  [Jer 6:20] 
        intulit</>@@; [Jer 7:2-4]

{@@RAK-- Should the ";" be a ":?"  es} 

        <lt>Et iterum significans, quonium non propter hoc eduxit 
        eos de Aegypto, ut sacrificia ei offerant ... per 
        eundem Hieremiam ait</>: 
          [Jer 7:21-25] 
        <lt>Et iterum per eundem ipsum dicens</>:  [Jer 9:24], 
        <lt>sed non in sacrificiis, ned in holocaustomatibus, 
        nec in oblationibus.  
        ... iterum Esaias ait</>:  [composition of phrases from
        Isa 43:34f + 66:2 + Jer 11:15 + Isa 58:6-9]   
    :3  <lt>Et Zacharias autem in duodecim prophetis ... ait</>: 
          [Zach 7:9-10] 
        <lt>Et iterum ... inquit</>: 
          [Zach 8:16-17]  

[[107]]
        <lt>Et David autem similiter ... inquit</>:  [Ps 33(34):13-15] 
    :4  <lt>Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, quia non sacrificia 
        et holocaustomata quaerebat ab eis Deus, sed
        fidem, et obedientiam, et justitiam, propter
        illorum salutem</>.   

     Iren continues with further support from the Minor Prophets
and the NT, but the foregoing outline of the argument suffices to
show that basically the same four quotations found in Barn 2-3
also are found in Iren.  Notice, however, that Iren betrays a
good deal of precise knowledge as to the origin of his material -
- it is from Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zachariah -- he
even cites the 49th and 50th Psalms by number!\8/  But despite
the fact that he already has quoted Ps 50:9 in context and in
general accord with the LXX, Iren includes in his list the
anonymous Palmic quotation from "Apcl Adam?."  Furthermore, he
gives a Septuagintal form of Jer 7:22f in its larger context, and
later gives both Zach 7:9f and 8:16f in agreement with the LXX,
but shows no knowledge {@@RAK addition:  here (but see AH IV:36:2
for @@Zech 7:9f plus the last phrase of 8:17)} of the conflated
form of this material in Barn 2:7 f.\9/  [[108]]  In short,
neither the editorial context nor the quotations themselves
encourage the supposition that Iren was using Barn directly as a
source for AH IV:17.\10/  Nevertheless, some sort of relationship
must exist here -- at least for the "Apcl Adam?" quotation. 

     <h1>Ps-Gregory of Nyssa</>.  -- The 12th chapter of Ps-Greg's <ts>@@Testimonies</> is entitled "concerning sacrifices" and argues in the following manner:  

  In like manner God cries out saying:  [see Jer 7:22 in a  strange form]
  Isaiah:  
    [see Jer 7:22 almost exactly as in Barn 2:7] 
  and again: 
    [Isa 1:11-14a in a form very close to Barn\L/] 
  and again:\11/  [Isa 1:16] 
  David:          [Ps 49:13-14]  
    and again:    [Ps 49:9]
    and again:    [Ps 49:14] 
  Amos:           [Amos 5:21-23] 
  Malachi:        [Mal 1:10 f]\12/ 
 
Once again we find no evidence for a direct use of Barn -- the [[109]] Zach-like portion of Barn 2:7f is not paralleled and the first part of  that citation is attributed to Isaiah, while the quotation from Isa 1:11-14a is longer than in Barn\Gk/=Cl. A (but see Barn\L/.  There is no hint of Isa 58:4-10 or Ps 50:19 (with or without "Apcl Adam?") in Ps-Greg.  

     <h1>Supplementary Evidences</>.  --  The striking characteristic of the passages described above is not simply that the same basic OT quotations concerning cultic observances occur together  --  we should expect this to happen frequently. What is important is that such peculiar forms of these quotations recur in the variant settings.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that not every Christian author who treated the same subject bound his argument to Isa 1:11-14, 58:6-10, Jer 7:22 and Ps 50-19.  For example, Cyp uses only Isa 1:11-12, Ps 49:13-15, 49:23, 4:5, and Mal 1:10 f in his collection of testimonies on Sacrifice (I:16).  Similarly, Aphrahat's <ts>Dem. 15:  De Distinctione Cibus</> 7 argues the same point from Isa 1:11 and
13 f, Ps 49:13-15, Amos 5:21 f, 5:25, Zach 7:6, Isa 66:3, I Sam 15:14 f, 15:22, Prov 15:8, etc.  Aug, <ts>Civ Dei</> X:5, uses Ps 15:2, 50:18 f, 49:12 f, 49:14f, Mic 6:6-8, and Hos 6:6. 

     On the other hand, there is some positive evidence that especially Isa 1:11-13 and Ps 50:19 tended to be quoted together as a habit:  in <ts>TractOrig</> 10 (p. 107) we find that combination followed by a reference to II Cor 2:15 ("<lt>bonus [[110]] odor Xpisti sumus</>"; in (Ps-?) Tert, AJ 5:4 f, Isa 1:11-13 (in a somewhat transposed form) follows Ps 50:19; in <ts>ApCo</> VI:22, the sequence in Jer 7:21 f, Isa 1:11-14 (as in Ps-Greg and Barn\L/), and a brief allusion to Ps 50:19.\13/  It should also be noted that JM, <ts>Ap</> 37, contains a jumbled sequence of phrases from Isa 1:11-14 and 58:6-7, and Hi refers to a garbled form of Isa 58:6ff and other ethical injunctions in his commentary to Zach 7:5 ff. 

     <h1>Summary and Conclusions</>.  It is difficult to see how Barn 2-3 could have been the original source from which Cl. A, Iren, and Ps-Greg derived their peculiar quotations.  If this were the case, we should expect a higher degree of correspondence between the contexts in which the citations occur than actually is found.  A related possibility is that Cl. A, Iren, and Ps-Greg did not directly use Barn, but knew sources which were based on Barn.  In this instance, we must conclude that the Epistle was much more
popular in antiquity than usually is supposed, and that Cl. A used an expanded and reworked form of Barn 2-3, while Iren had a form which was completely rewritten by means of careful comparison with the
presupposed OT texts (and yet retaining the "Apcl Adam?" quotation in anonymity), and Ps-Greg had a third form which was both significantly abridged and slightly expanded.  To [[111]] suppose that Barn itself was dissected, restudies, and recompiled in a manner which can satisfy these conditions is indeed a risky hypothesis. 

     Perhaps the unique quotations from Barn 2:7 and 2:10 found their way to Ps-Greg and Iren respectively in isolation from their original context in Barn 2-3.  This is always possible -- an early reader of Barn may have culled out singular quotations for re-use elsewhere  --  but it is much more likely that Barn as well as the later writers took these quotations from an older source (or sources) now lost to us.  The evidence does not favor the view that Ps-Barn created either the combination of texts or the peculiar textual forms in Barn 2-3.  In fact, the evidence from Iren and especially from Cl. A suggest that at one time the basic structure of Barn 2-3 existed in separation from the remainder of the Epistle.  Here, if anywhere, is strong reason to view Barn as a re-editing of older traditional materials. 

     If it is true that Barn 2-3 rests on an older tradition, how
and whence did this tradition originate?  Despite their
peculiarities, the quotations themselves show no sign of
Christian <@@lt?>Tendenz</>.  In fact, the quotations are not so
much anti-Judaic in flavor as they are pro-ethical.  Notice that
the emphasis in Barn is positive:  God does not need sacrifices,
but he does command an upright life; he is not pleased with the
externals of fasting, but enjoins social justice on his [[112]]
people.  The emphases in Cl. A as well as in Iren also are
clearly ethical.  But with many of the later writers including
Cyp and Ps-Greg, the emphasis falls more heavily on worship ("the
sacrifice of praise," or "of the lips") being the Christian
equivalent for the rejected Jewish ritual, and the strongly
ethical emphases (Zach 7:10/@@8:17, Isa 58:6-10) tend to fall out
of the argument. 

     It often has been emphasized that Rabbinical Judaism was
forced to reassess its attitude to sacrifice after the fall of
the Temple in 70 A.D.\14/  In the Talmud and related literature,
the following suggestions are found:  (1)  God accepts the
reading of the laws of sacrifice in place of actual
sacrifice,\15/ (2)  fasting is a valid substitute for
sacrifice,\16/ [[113]] (3)  the prayers of a man of contrite
heart fulfill the role of offerings,\17/ and (4)  charity and
justice are more acceptable than sacrifice.\18/  It is not
necessary, however to conclude that such interpretations of the
sacrificial cult did not already exist in pre-70 Judaism.  After
all, this was not the first time in her history that Israel had
been deprived of the possibility of sacrificing in the Temple. 
Prophetic passages like Zach 7-8, for example, presuppose a
situation like that which later confronted Rabbinic Judaism. 

     Furthermore, "intertestamental Judaism" sometimes expressed
scepticism about the validity of its sacrifices.  The words of
rebuke to the priesthood in Mal 1:6 ff find an echo in I Enoch
89:73  --  {@@RAK addition:  [ "you offer polluted bread on my
altar" (<lt>apud</> Charles)]}.  Sirach 34:18-35:12 (<lt>apud</>
RSV;31:21-32:15 in [[114] Swete's LXX) clearly subsumes sacrifice
under ethics, although not condemning the former:   

  34:18  If one sacrifices from what has been wrongly obtained,
             the offering is blemished.  
         The gifts of the lawless are not acceptable. 
    :19  The Most High is not pleased with the offerings of
             the ungodly,
         And he is not propitiated for sins by a multitude 
             of sacrifices ....
    :26  So if a man fasts for his sins, and goes again and
             does the same things, 
         Who will listen to his prayer?  
         And what has he gained by humbling himself?  ...
  35:2   He who returns a kindness offers fine flour, 
         And he who gives alms sacrifices a thank-offering ....
    :7   The sacrifice of a righteous man is acceptable 
         and the memory of t will not be forgotten ....
    :12  Do not offer him a bribe, for he will not accept it;  
         And do not trust to an unrighteous sacrifice,
         For the Lord is the Judge, and with him is no 
             partiality. 

     Philo argues similarly in <ts>Spec Leg</> I:270:83 (compare
<ts>Plant</> 107 f), when he says that God does not honor the
sacrifices (=bribes) of a man who is immoral in action or in
thought.  On the other hand,
 
     <qu>though the worshippers bring nothing else, in bringing
     themselves they offer the best of sacrifices, the full
     and truly perfect oblation of noble living, as they
     honor with hymns and thanksgivings their Benefactor and
     Savior, God.  (272, Loeb translation)  </>

{@@RAK note in margin: 
trans.  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
IV Ezra  1:  } 

Although the precise attitude of the Essenes towards animal
sacrifices is not clear,\19/ they seem to have shared many of
[[115]] the same sentiments.\20/  Finally, a strange statement
from the Assumption of Moses 4:8 (usually dated early 1st c.
A.D.) should be noted: 
 
{@@RAK --  Please note that you have a note on the facing page
about <ts>T. Levi 3:5f</>  This note is in English and Greek. 
es} 


     <qu>And the two tribes [Judah and Benjamin] will continue
     in their prescribed faith, sad and lamenting because
     they will not be able to offer sacrifices to the Lord
     of their fathers.\21/</> 
 
--- 

    \19/See the discussion in Cross, <tm>Ancient Library</>, pp.
74-77.  It is not impossible that Essene-like sects in
hellenistic Judaism (like the "<lt>Therapeutae</>" of Philo's
<ts>Vita Contemp</>) were more radical in their objection to
literal sacrifice than were their Palestinian counterparts.  In
any case, the Essene emphasis on scriptural ethics as basic to
true sacrifice fits well into the pattern indicated by Sirach and
Philo. 

    \20/So Philo, <ts>Quod Omn Prob Lib Sit</> 75.  IQS IX:4-5
looks to the time when perfect righteousness obtains in the elect
community, with the result that "atonement will be made for the
earth more effectively than by any flesh of burnt-offerings or
fat of sacrifices.  The oblation of the lips will be in all
justice like the erstwhile pleasant savor on the altar;
righteousness and integrity like that free-will offering which
God deigns to accept" (Gaster's translation).  Compare Odes of
Solomon 20:  "I am a priest of the Lord and to Him I do priestly
service and to Him I offer the sacrifice of his thought....The
sacrifice of the Lord is righteousness, and purity of heart and
lips..." (from J.R. Harris' ed in 1909).  Also II Enoch 45:3: 
"When the Lord demands bread, or candles, or flesh, or any other
sacrifice, then that is nothing; but God demands pure hearts, and
with all that <em>only</> tests the heart of man" (from Morfill's
ed, 1896).  See also the ethical emphases in Sib Or 2:82f and
8:390ff, and in the description of John the Baptist in Josephus,
<ts>Antiq</> XVIII:(V:2):116-19. 

{@@RAK notes in margin: 
1.  Borrows 
2.  <ts>Sib Or</> 4:24ff  } 

    \21/From R.H. Charles' ed, 1897, where he also discusses some
other passages in which related ideas are found. 

=== 

     The original <ts>Sitz im Leben</> of the tradition used in
Barn 2-3 may well have been a collection of texts for first
century hellenistic  Jewish instruction on the true meaning of
sacrifice and fasting, or commentary on some of the difficult
prophetic passages.\22/  Probably the quotation from the "Apcl
[[116]] Adam?" occurred in that document in a section dealing
with Adam's penitence.\23/  The conflation of phrases from Jer
7:22 f and Zach 7:10/8:17 presupposes an interpretation of true
sacrifice in accord with Jewish concepts of true religions as
right action, and the passage from Isa 58:6-10 strengthens this
emphasis. 

--- 

    \22/In hellenistic Judaism, such materials probably were used
in school discussions (arising from contacts with the
philosophies, especially Stoidism) concerning "what the Lord
needs" (see Barn 2:4).  Christianity was quick to adopt this
tradition in its anti-cultic and anti-Judais polemic.  See Philo,
<ts>Quod Det Potiori Insid Soleat</> 54-57 (<gk>OI( ME\N
DESPO/TAI U(PHRESI/AS E)NDEEI=S, O( DE QEOS OU) XREI=OS</>),
<ts>Mut Nom</> 28 (<gk>XRH=|ZON E(TE/ROU TO\ PARA/PAN
OU)DENO/S</>), <ts>Leg Alleg</> II:2, III:181, etc.; II Macc
14:35; III Macc 2:9; Acts 17:25; Cl.R 52:1 (<gk>O( DESPO/THS ...
OU)DE\N OU)DENO\S XRH/|ZEI</>); Barn\Hmg/ 2:5 (<gk>OU)DENO\S
XRH/|ZEI O( DESPO/THS</>); JM, Ap 13:1 and D 23:2; etc.  For a
fuller list of parallels in pagan, Jewish, and Christian
writings, see R. Knopf, <tmgr>Die Lehre der zwoelf Apostel, Die
zwei Clemensbriefe</>, in Lietzmann's <tmgr>Handbuch</>
<gr>Ergaenzungsband</> (1920), pp. 129f (to Cl.R 52:1), and
Windisch, pp. 310f (to Barn 2:4).  On the probable Jewish
background of Barn 2:4-3:5, see also W. Bousset, <tmlt>Kyrios
Christos</> (1921\\2), p. 223 n. 5. 

{@@RAK Note in margin: 

Jos,
Ant VIII:III

Philo 
Spec Leg 
I:271 
Vitz @@Mas
@@L:57  } 

{@@RAK--  Please note that you have 5 notes on the facing page (I
don't know if they apply to your text or your footnotes): 

1.      <ts>Diod Sic 12.20.2  {@@arrow symbol}  Pythagorian @@Salenius 
        @@Porphigry Vit Pyth  27:122 
2.      "What God Requires" 
        also a theme in Pagan Religion 
        Pythagorian  @@ cf Apollonius of @@Tyana @@op. Eus,
        <ts>@@Prop Ev.</> IV:13 
        "He needs nothing":  don't sacrifice, etc. 
3.      Philo frg. #8 to Q. Gen (unidentified in Marcus, Loeb Suppl @@II, 235. 
        <gk>E)N QEW=| MO/NON TO\ TE/LEION KAI\ A)NERDEE/S, E)N DE\
        A)NQRW/PW|</>/-<gk>POIS TO E)PIDEE\S KAI\ A)TELE/S</> 
4.      Ps-Aristeas 211:  <gk>O( QS= DE\ APROSDEH/S D)STI...</> 
5.      Porphyry (neo-Platonism) <lt>de abstin</>.  2@@37 (cf 2@@.34).  } 

    \23/So M.R. James, "Notes," p. 410.  {@@RAK addition:  cf
also his <tm>Lost Apocrypha of the O.T.</> (1920), p. 1ff.  } 

=== 

     Thus the tradition-block in Barn 2-3 seems to contain the
following general features which may provide clues to the origins
of the sources used by the Epistle: 
 
  (1)  The distinctively "Christian" elements are confined to
       the editorial comments, and are not integral to the
       quoted materials themselves. 
 
  (2)  The quotations seem to arise from a type of thought in
       which an ethical emphasis predominates and replaces
       the cultic ritual (sacrifice, fasting). 
 
  (3)  Although the source from which Barn 2-3 drew its
       quotations seems to have been used widely (in varying
[[117]]
       forms\24/) in early Christianity, Barn's closest
       affinities are with the form of the material familiar to the
       Alexandrian catechetical school represented in Cl.A
       (which itself was influenced strongly by Philonic
       Judaism). 

In the subsequent investigation of the rest of Barn's quotations,
we shall see to what extent these characteristics hold true for
the Epistle as a whole.

--- 

    \24/The close verbal relationship between the parallel texts
in Barn, Cl.A, Iren, and Ps-Greg, demand that the material (in
part or in whole) circulated in written form, while the
differences between these fathers show that it was not a static
tradition from which they drew. 

=== 
[[118]]
                      <ch>Chapter 6 
        THE THINGS WHICH ARE ABLE TO SAVE US </>

     In its present form, Barn 4-8 is a relatively coherent section
which deals with the anticipated success of the Christian's covenant 
where ancient Israel failed.  In a general sense, it is true, the whole
of Barn 1-17 may be described in these terms.  But because of the
unusually large proportion of editorial comment in chs. 4-8, and the 
repeated emphasis on the work of "God's Son" in preparing a righteous  
community in these last days, this section has its own distinctive unity 
within the general argument of Barn 1-17.  A few selected excerpts will
serve to illustrate this:  
 
  4:1  It is necessary, therefore, that we diligently inquire
       concerning the present situation and seek out the things
       which are able to save us.  Therefore let us completely 
       flee from all the works of lawlessness, lest the works
       of lawlessness overcome us.  And let us hate the
       deception of the present time, so that we might be loved
       in the time which is about to come. 
   :8b Their covenant was broken to pieces, so that the
       covenant of the beloved one, Jesus, might be firmly 
       sealed in our heart in hope of his faith. 
   :9b Wherefore, let us take heed in these last days; for 
       the whole time of our faith/life\1/ will profit us
       nothing unless now, in the lawless time and in the
       scandals which are to come, we resist as is fitting 
       for God's children, lest the "Black-one" should gain
       entrance. 

--- 

     \1/H, "our life"; S, "your faith"; L "our life and faith." 
In general, the variants in this translated material have not
been noted. 

=== 

[[119]]
   :13  so that we might never sleep in our sins by 
        relaxing as "called ones" -- and when the wicked <lang?>archon</>
        gets the authority over us he will thrust us away 
        from the Lord's Kingdom!  
  5:1   For this is why the Lord submitted to deliver his 
        flesh to corruption, that we might be made holy by 
        the forgiveness of sins ...   
  5:4b  ... a man deserved to perish who departs into the say 
        of darkness although he has <gk>GNW=SIN</> of the way of 
        righteousness. 
   :6-7 And he submitted in order that he might destroy
        death and exhibit the resurrection of the dead, ...
        so that he might fulfill the promise to the fathers ...
        and, after he prepared the new people for himself,
        demonstrate ... that he will judge. 
   :9f  He manifested himself to be God's Son, for if he had
        not come in the flesh, how could men be saved by
        seeing him? 
   :11  Wherefore the Son of God came in the flesh for this 
        reason, to sum up all the sins of those who persecuted
        his prophets to death -- for this reason, then, he
        submitted.  
  6:11  ... He made us new through the forgiveness of sins ...
        he re-created us [see below, pp. 160 ff]. 
   :17ffThus we ... shall live as rulers of the earth ... when 
        we ourselves have been perfected so as to become 
        heirs of the Lord's covenant. 
  7:2   Since, then, God's Son -- who is Lord and is about to 
        judge the living and dead -- suffered in order that 
        his wound might give us life, let us believe -- because 
        the Son of God could not suffer except for us!  
   :11  Thus he says, those who wish to see me and possess
        my Kingdom ought to receive me through tribulation
        and suffering.  
  8:5b  Those who hope on him shall live forever. 
   :6f  In his Kingdom there shall be evil and foul days, in
        which we shall be saved...; and for this reason, what 
        has happened is thus clear to us, but to them it is 
        dark, because they did not hear the Lord's voice.   
 
     The kind of materials incorporated into these five chapters,
however, is by no means uniform:   
 
  4:3-5   contains apocalyptic quotations. 
   :6-9a  concerns the Mosaic covenant (see also 14:1-6) 
   :9b-14 is a warning against over-confidence and an
          exhortation to obedience in these last times.  
[[120]]
  5:1-2,5-12a deals with the incarnation and submissiveness
           of Christ. 
  5:12b-14 and 6:6-7 deal with his passion.  
  6:1-4    refers to the eschatological judgment though Christ. 
           in contrast to his previous rejection. 
  6:8-19   discusses the new creation through Christ.  
  7:2-8:7  pictures the suffering and exaltation of Christ by
           means of a typological interpretation of Jewish 
           sacrificial ritual (Day of Atonement and Red Heifer). 
 
Generally speaking, ch. 4 emphasizes the eschatological immediacy
of the  situation, chs. 5-6 explain Jesus' sacrifice and its
results, and chs. 7-8 show how all this was foretold (and
misunderstood) in Judaism.   While it would be impractical here
to examine in detail all the various evidences of traditional
material in these chapters, some of the  clearest examples will
be discussed. 

     <h1>The "Final Stumblingblock</>."  --  Numerous attempts
have been made to find in Barn 4:3-5 a clue for determining when
the Epistle was composed (see pp. 15 f above).  In these verses,
two (or three?) apocalyptic quotations are given to impress upon
the readers the fact that they live in a time of <em>crisis</>
(compare 4:1) -- the <gk>TE/LEION SKA/NDALON</> is at hand, and
it is assumed that the reader, without any further explanation,
"ought to understand" what this means (4:6a). 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
"@@Skandulon"  } 

     The quotations themselves agree with no sources known to us,
and the formulae used to introduce them only serve to complicate
the mystery:  

  3.  The <gk>TE.LEION SKA/NDALON</> is at hand, concerning which it
      is written  --  as Enoch [Barn\L/ has "Daniel"] says.  For this
[[121]]
      reason the master shortened the times and the days so
      that his beloved might hasten and reach his inheritance. 
  4.  The prophet also speaks thus:\2/ 
        Ten kingdoms\3/ shall reign on the earth;
        And there shall rise up after them\4/ a little king, 
        Who shall humiliate three of the Kingdoms\5/ together.\6/  
  5.  Similarly Daniel says concerning the same one: 
        And I saw\7/ the fourth beast, wicked and strong and 
        more (cruel) than all the beasts of the sea.\8/  
        And that ten horns arose from him, and from them a 
        little horn offshoot (<gk>PARAFUA/DION</>),
        And that it humiliated three of the great horns
        together.\9/ 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
(dangerous?)  } 

{@@RAK-- You added parenthesis around "cruel."  Do you want
"dangerous" to be typed next to "cruel" or as a correction for it?  es} 

  6.  Therefore you{@@RAK additions:  \9a/simultaneously} ought
        to understand. 

{@@RAK-- 

1.  Please note that you added footnote 9a. 
2.  Please note that you added "simultaneously." 
3.  Does the footnote for "9a" go before or after "simultaneously?" 
es} 

--- 

{@@RAK note:  <gk>DANIH\L KAI\ @@E)/SDRAS         A)PO/KRUDOI</>} 

     \2/According to H\mg/, "Daniel and Esdras apocrypha." 

{@@RAK note:  "Apocrypha of Daniel and Esdras"  (?)  } 

     \3/So S (<gk>BASILEI=AI</>) and L ("lt>regna</>"), but H has
<gk>BASILEI=S</> (Kings) in accord with almost every Greek MS of
Dan 7:24 (967 has <gk>BASILEAI</> [<lt>sic</>] and 538 has
<gk>BASILEI=AS</> [so Eth, Compl]); compare Dan 2:44.  {@@RAK
addition:  See also Hipp, Anti X 27 (below, p. 127)  IV Ezra
12:23 @@had "Kingdoms" but @@rell "kings." 

     \4/HL lack "them." 

     \5/"Kings" in Barn\Gk/ (<gk>BASILE/WN</>), but L's "<lt>de
regnis</>" is probably correct here.  Note that in Dan 7:17, LXX
and most MSS of Theodotion refer to the four <gk>BASILEI=AI</>
where some MSS of Theodotion have <gk>BASILEI=S</> (=MT). 

     \6/In the Loeb edition, Lake translates <gk>U(F' E(/N</> here and
in the following quotation as "under one," but see Windisch, p.
319. 

{@@RAK notes in margin: 
so Lightfoot
Goodspeed 

so Kleist  } 

     \7/So S (<gk>EI)=DON</>) and L ("<lt>vidi</>"), but H has
<gk>EI)=DE</> ("he saw," as in Dan 7:1). 

     \8/So HL (see Dan 7:3), but S has "earth" as in Dan 7:17, 23. 

     \9/In v.5, Barn\L/ has several minor differences from Barn\Gk/
which bring L closer to "Theodotion's" version of Dan 7:8.  See
Heer, pp. xxxif, on this problem. 

{@@RAK addition: 

    \9a/So HS, but L has "we" (<lt>debemus</>).  } 

=== 

     In the first place, it should be noted that Barn\L/ is probably 
correct in interpreting the phrase "as Daniel [SH, Enoch] says" to 
refer back to the <gk>TE/LEION SKA/NDALON</> and [[122]] not as an
introduction to what immediately follows.\10/  The style of Barn 4:3b
(<gk>EI)S TOU=TO...I(/NA...</>) is characteristic of editorial comments
throughout the Epistle (and especially in chs. 4-8).\11/  Apparently 
Ps-Barn is interpreting the simultaneous subjection of three 
kingdoms/horns by the little king/horn as both a shortening of the 
eschatological timetable\12/ and the "final scandal."  

--- 

    \10/"<lt>Consummata enim temptatio de qua scriptum est sicut
Daniel dicit adpropinquavit</>."  In the Loeb translation, Lake
prefers the other alternative. 

    \11/See 3:6, 5:1, 5:11, 7:10, 14:5, and compare 1:4 and 6:13. 
This construction is not found in any of Barn's explicit
quotations. 

    \12/See Mark 13:20 (=Matt 24:22) and compare IV Ezra 2:13. and II
Baruch 20:1.  For a discussion of the passages, see Koester,
<tm>Synopt. Ueberleif</>., pp. 129f. 

=== 

     The identification of the <gk>TE/LEION SKA/NDALON</> with the "Enoch" 
literature, however, raises problems.  There is no passage in I Enoch
which even remotely parallels the ideas of Barn 4:3.\13/  Possibly 
II Enoch 34:1-3 could be considered as the intended reference: 

--- 

    \13/So R.H. Charles, <tm>The Book of Enoch or I Enoch</> (1912),
p. 1xxxi.  Other commentators (e.g. Lake; see Windisch) have
suggested I Enoch 89:61-64 and 90:17f, which picture the
excessive punishment dealt to the "sheep" by the "shepherds" and
the subsequent wrath of the Lord, as the source of this material. 

=== 

  <qu>... And they will fill all the world with wickedness and 
  iniquity and foul impurities with one another, sodomy and 
  all other impure practices ...  And on this account I will 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
caution  --  not in shorter form of @@Slav. Enoch (cf. @@Rubensh} 

[[123]]
  bring a deluge upon the earth and I will destroy all, and
  the earth shall be destroyed in great confusion.\14/  </>

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
@@primary ref is <@@ts>Noah</>.  

--- 

    \14/W.R. Morfill and R. H. Charles, <tm>The Book of the Secrets
of Enoch</> (1896). 

=== 

     It seems more likely, however, that Ps-Barn (or a later
reader prone to elucidate the text in this fashion; see above, p.
45 n. 16) knew an appropriate passage from Enoch literature which
no longer is preserved ad thus made the identification.  The
probability that the Enoch cycle of apocalpytic writings was even
more extensive than our preserved texts is supported by several
unidentified references to the book of "Enoch the righteous" in
the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs.\15/  Actually, Barn\L/'s
reference to "Daniel" is much more appropriate in the light of
such passages as Dan 8:13, 9:26f, 11:31 and 12:11 (see Mark 13:14
and parr)  --  but this fact in [[124]] itself may be a forceful
argument against the originality of the reading.  Apparently
there one was an "Enoch" passage about the "final skandalon" and
perhaps also about the shortening of the time, and to it the
present text of Barn\Gk/ 4:3 alludes.  

--- 

    \15/Translated from Charles' Greek ed (1908); <ts>Reub</>
5:4, "your sons shall be corrupted by fornication, and the sons
of Levi shall perform unrighteous deeds with a sword" (compare
Zach @@13:6f ??); <ts>Levi</> 10:5, "the house which the Lord
shall choose shall be called Jerusalem"; 14:1, "At the last you
will act impiously to the Lord ... and you shall become mockery
to all the nations" (see also 16:1 var); <ts>Judah</> 18:1 var,
"I have read in the book<@@v+>s</> of Enoch the righteous how
many evils you will do in the last days"; <ts>Dan</> 5:6, "your
ruler is Satan, and the spirits of fornication and of arrogance
will conspire (?) to stay with the sons of Levi to make them sin
before the Lord"; <ts>Naph</> 4:1, "you will apostatize from the
Lord, walking in all the lawlessness of the gentiles, and you
will perform all the evil of Sodom"; <ts>Benj</> 9:1, "you will
perform the fornication of Sodom ... and the Kingdom of the Lord
will not be in you."  Some of these passages may stem from II
Enoch 34:1-3 (cited above; see Morfill-Charles, pp. xxiiif), but
others have no known parallel.  On the Enoch cycle, see also
Odeberg's article noted above, p. 76 n. 14. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  Simeon} 

=== 

     The two quotations which follow, in Barn 4:4-5, present
further enigmas.  Both are similar in content to the vision of
Dan 7:7-8 and its interpretation in 7:19-24, but the wording of
Barn differs greatly from both the Old Greek and "Theodotion's"
version of Dan 7.  Furthermore, in Barn 4:4-5 the Danielic
interpretation precedes the symbolism, and the <lt>formulae
citandi</> indicate that Ps-Barn did not think that he was citing
from the same source in both instances.  Finally, the quotation
introduced under the name of Daniel is even farther from the
precise wording of the extant Greek versions of Daniel than is
the anonymous quotation which precedes it. 

     A survey of early Christian literature in search of
illuminating parallels to Barn 4:4-5 yields rather startling
results.  With the exception of JM, Iren, Hipp, and Eus,
Christian writers prior to Hi (insofar as their writings are
preserved and indexed) are silent about these parts of Dan 7 (but
compare the apocalyptic tradition in Rev 13 and IV Ezra 11-12). 
The vision of the "ancient of days" and the "son of man" in Dan
7:9-14 are, on the other hand, extremely popular (although Barn
shows no knowledge of them).  Nor do Philo and [[125]] Josephus
refer to the vision of the beasts and the horns, although
Josephus does interpret Dan 8:1-14 (in general agreement with
8:19-25) for his readers (<ts>Ant</> X:[11:7]:263-81).\16/ 

--- 

    \16/On Josephus' use of Daniel, see L.E. Froom, <tm>The
Prophetic Faith of our Fathers</> I (1950), 167-69 and 197-202. 
Froom also gives a general survey of the use of Danielic material
throughout late Judaism and Christianity. 

=== 

     JM, D 31, quotes Dan 7:9-28 (with few variations from the
Old Greek text) in support of the two advents of Christ; his
exegesis sheds no light on Barn 4:4f.  Iren, AH V:25:2, conflates
phrases from Dan 7:8 with 7:20-25 (with few variations from
"Theodotion's" version) in a general reference to the last times. 
The allusion in Eus, <ts>Dem Ev</> 15,\17/ although more brief,
is somewhat more illuminating in that it uses the phrase <gk>KAI\
TRI/A KE/RATA U(F' @@E(NO\S SUNTRIBO/MENA</>\18/ with reference
to the vision of Dan 7:8.  This at least raises the possibility
that sources may have existed in which some of the peculiar
wording of Barn 4:4 f was found. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
cf also Lact. <ts>Div. Inst.</> VII 16  [=Epit. 66]  } 

--- 

    \17/Actually, we have no MS of the last half of <ts>Dem Ev</>,
but there are occasional excerpts and references in later
literature.  In his GCS edition of <ts>Dem Ev</> (1913), pp.
493f, I.A. Heikel includes an excerpt from Book 15 (first
published by A. Mai) in which the reference to Dan occurs. 

    \18/GCS, p. 493 1.17.  In Barn 4:4f we find reference to the
<gk>MIKRO\S BASILEU/S O(/S TAPEINW/SIN TREI=S U(F'  E(\N TW=N
TASILE/WN</> (-<gk>EI/WN</>?) and to the <gk>MIKRO\N KE/RAS
PARAFUA/DION</> who <gk>E)TAPEI/NWSEN U(F) E(\N TRI/A TW=N
MEGA/LWN KERA/TWN</>  The nearest parallel in the Old Greek
version of Dan 7 is the <gk>E(\N KE/RAS ... MIKRO/N</> which will
arise and through which three of the former horns
<gk>E)CH/RQHSAN</> (7:3, compare 8:9)  --  there is nothing even
this close in "Theodotion" of Dan 7.  Compare also LXX Zach 11:1. 

=== 

[[126]]
     It is the evidence from Hipp which turns this light
possibility into strong probability.  In addition to a commentary
on Daniel, Hipp composed a treatise <ts-lt>De Antichristo</>
(partly incorporated into "Ps-Hipp"'s <ts-lt>De Consumm Mundi</>)
in which he interprets in detail the beasts and horns portions of
Dan 7.\19/  The <lt>lemma</> of the latter passage (GCS I:2, pp.
15f) follows "Theodotion's" version of 7:2-14 (2-8 in Ps-Hipp;
GCS I:2, p. 294 but in the subsequent commentary the following
citation is found: 
 
  <gk>A(/PER LE/GEI DANIH\L: 
        PROSENO/OUN TW=| QHRI/W| 
        KAI\ I)DOU\ DE/KA KE/RATA O)PI/SW AU)TOU= 
          E)N OI(=S A)NABH/SETAI E(/TERON MIKRO\N W(S
          PARAFUA/DION 
        KAI\ TRI/A TW=N PRO\ AU)TOU= E)KRIZW/SEI:</>\20/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

cp.  <ts>Sib. Or. III 396-400 (dated pre 140 B.C. by Charles, Pseudep.). 

@@Yet after leaving one root, which the Destroyer shall cutt off 
from among ten horns he shall put forth a side shoot 
.... 
.... 
and then a parasite horn shall have dominion. 
<gk>PARADUO/MENON</>  } 

--- 

    \19/Edited for GCS by H. Achelis, <ts>Hippolytus Werke</> I:2
(1897).  Appendix II contains the similar tract of "Ps-Hipp."  In
both works, the fourth beast is the Roman kingdom, the 10 horns
are equated with the toes of the image in Dan 2:41, the little
horn is the Antichrist who will restore (<gk>A)NASTH/SEI</>) the
Jewish kingdom, and the "three horns" which are uprooted signify
Egypt, Lybia, and Ethiopia (see Dan 11:43, Nahum 3:9). 

    \20/Sec. 25 (=Ps-Hipp sec. 16 with slight variation).  Later in
the same section ([and again in] 53), the phrase <gk>TRI/A DE\
KE/RATA LE/GWN U(P' AU)TOU= E)KRIZOU=SQAI</> (compare Eus) is
found.  The citation given above has only minor affinities with
the extant Greek versions of Daniel. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
[ ] compare @@sec.  } 

{@@RAK--  Please note that I typed the parentheses and brackets
that you added to your text.  Please verify that I typed the "[" correctly.  es} 

=== 

     Of great significance here is the use of <gk>PARAFUA/DION</>
which (to the present writer's knowledge) is found elsewhere only in
Barn 4:5 among ancient authors.\21/  Undoubtedly some relationship
exists between <gk>PARAFUA/DION</> and the Old Greek [[127]]
version of Dan 7:8 (<gk>KAI\ A)/LLO E(\N KE/RAS A)NEFU/H A)NA\
ME/SON AU)TW=N MIKRO/N...</>) and 8:9 (<gk>KAI\ E)C
E(NO\S AU)TW=N A)NEFU/H KE/RAS I)SXURO\N E(/N...</>). 
In fact, Hipp also emphasizes the <gk>A)NAFU/EIN</> of Antichrist:\22/  

  sec. 28  --   <gk>KE/RAS E(/TERON MIKRO\N A)NAFUO/MENON</> 
  sec. 43  --   <gk>KAI\ W(S TO\ KE/RAS TO\ MIKRO\N E)N AU)TOI=S
                A)NAFU/HSETAI</> 
  sec. 47  --   <gk>TOUTE/STI TO\ A)NAFUE\N MIKRO\N KE/RAS</> 

Furthermore, in sec. 27 the editor prefers the reading of MS H,
<gk>DE/KA BASILEI=S</>, where MSS ERS have <gk>DE/KA
BASILEI=AS</> (see Barn 4:4 and above, n. 3).  A final minor similarity
between Barn 4:5 and the Hipp commentary tradition is the word order
<gk>TE/TARTON QHRI/ON</> (Greek version trsp) which is supported
by Ps-Hipp's quotation of Dan 7:7 (but not by Hipp).  

--- 

    \21/It is not even listed in the Lexicons of Liddell-Scott-Jones
or Preisigke.  Arndt-Gingrich and Goodspeed refer only to Barn
4:5.  The noun, <gk>PARAFUA/S</>, is applied to docetic heresies
by Ign (<ts>Trall</> 11:1), and Hermas uses it frequently in
<ts>SIM</> VIII to refer to the "green and budded" <gk>R(A/BDOUS</>. 
It occurs six times in the LXX (<lt>apud</> Hatch-Redpath) for the
twig or bud of a branch, sometimes with eschatological overtones
(Ps 79 (80):11, Ezek 12:22, 31:3-8, IV Macc 1:28).  The additional uses
in Symm and Theod are similar. 

    \22/<gk>A)NAFU/EIN</> is used four other times in LXX for "coming
up" in general.  In Symm Job 14:9 it is used in connection with a
tree's branches, and in Aquila Zach 6:12, <gk>A)NAFU/H</> is the
name of the eschatological "branch" (MT, <hb>Hebrew text</> [see
also Isa 4:2, Jer 23:5, 33:15, Zach 3:8]; LXX, <gk>A)NATOLH/</>)
who will rebuild the Temple.  Possibly it was in this connection
that the <em>Anti</>-Messiah came to be called <gk>PARAFUA/DION</>? 

=== 

     Although Hipp does not illuminate the quotations from Barn 4:4 f
in every detail (and thus can hardly be accused of using the Epistle
in this connection), his evidence (especially <gk>PARAFUA/DION</>) 
encourages the hypothesis that Ps-Barn quotes from apocalpytic 
traditions available to him, but no longer [[128]] extant today.  It 
is clear that the Daniel cycle of literature extended beyond the MSS
we now possess.\23/  The unique quotation found in Hipp itself attests 
the existence of such material circulating under the name of Daniel. 
No doubt Barn 4:3ff has drawn on apocalyptic sources related to the
Enoch and Daniel cycles (and perhaps other), which came to him through 
late Judaism, possibly <lt>via</> a commentary tradition concerning 
the "final skandalon."  In the light of the traditional background of
Barn 4:3 ff, it is precarious to place much importance on that passage as
a clue to the dating of the Epistle!\24/ 

--- 

    \23/For example, see F. Macler, <fr-tm>Les Apocalypses Apocryphes
de Daniel</> (1895); J.T. Milik, "'<fr>Prie\re de Nabonide' et
autres e/crits d'un cycle de Daniel</>," RB 63 (1956), pp. 407-
15; Cross, <tp>Ancient Library</>, pp. 123f, 147 (cited above, p.
76 n. 14). 

    \24/For a summary of past attempts, see Windisch, pp. 319f, and
above, pp. 16f.  These considerations also cast serious doubt on
the identification of the "final skandalon" with the rebuilding
of the Jewish Temple (so Kleist, Barnard, Thieme); on the
contrary, the destruction and desecration of the Temple, and the
moral decay of the times, are more likely candidates (but see
Hipp on the Anti-Christ from the tribe of Dan who rebuilds
Jerusalem, etc.  --  compare Iren <lt>apud</> Froom). 

=== 

     There is one further piece of evidence which, although not
dealing with explicit quotations as such, forms an appendix to
this discussion about the apocalyptic tradition behind Barn 4. 
Windisch and others have noticed that 4:6b-9a intrudes into the
basic unity of Barn 4.  It is also well known that Did 16:2b is
almost exactly paralleled by Barn 4:9b.  A closer comparison of
Did 16 with the way in which the argument of Barn 4:1-6a, 9b-14
is formulated strengthens the probability that somewhere in the
clouded background of both passages lies a common tradition
concerning [[129]] the eschatological crisis:  

  <qu>  Both are filled with warnings to watchfulness, see 
      especially Did 16:1 and Barn 4:9b, @@11(a); 

{@@RAK-- "()b?" is written in the margin next to "11a?"  Is
"11b?" or "11(a)" correct?  I also typed in the parenthesis that
you wrote around the "a."  es} 

  Both encourage "meeting together," 16:2a and @@4:10(a);

{@@RAK-- "()b is written in the margin next to "4:10a."  Is
"4:10b" or "4:10(a)" correct?  I also typed in the parenthesis
that you wrote around the "a."  es} 

  Both emphasize that this is the crucial time with respect
      to salvation, 16:2b and 4:9b;
  Both warn of lawlessness ad error in the last times, 
      16:3-4 and 4:1-3a; 
  Both imply that false security may lead to final rejection,
      16:5b and 4:12-14; 
  Each uses similar "son of God" terminology but in different
      ways, 16:4b and 4:9b (compare 5:8); 
  Each refers to "signs and wonders" in different connections, 
      16:4b and 4:14a (compare 5:8); 
  Note also the exhortation to patient endurance in 16:5b, 
      and the explanation of Christ's submission in 5:1a.</> 

     Many of the differences between these passages are due to the
note of urgency in Barn -- these are not future events for which
Ps-Barn looks, but these are now present.  Thus it would seem
that the basic form in which the tradition is found in Did in some
ways may be more original than that in Barn (which is not to say
that Did was written before Barn).  In the Epistle it has been reshaped
to emphasize how decisive were the days in which the readers lived. 
In such a transition, this apocalyptic tradition has lost most of its
organization and some of its intelligibility in the interest of eschatological
immediacy.  Nevertheless, Ps-Barn did not create the basic concepts with
which he worked -- they were already there in the tradition he used.\25/ 

--- 

    \25/For a detailed analysis of Did 16 in relation to the Synoptic
apocalypse material, see Koester, <tm>Synopt. Ueberlief.</>, pp.
174-90.  {@@RAK addition:  See also B.C. Butler, "The Literary
Relations of Didache, Ch XVI," JTS 11 (1960), 269-75, who argues
that Did used Barn.  } 

=== 

[[130]]

     <h1>The Reception of the Covenant</>.  -- Barn 4:7-8 related
the story of Moses on Mount Sinai, receiving the covenant from
the Lord,  and the subsequent breaking of the tablets when Moses
saw the sin of Israel (the golden calf incident).  This material
is introduced as "scripture" (<gk>LE/GEI GA\R H( GRAFH/</>), but
does not correspond closely to any single Pentateuchal context
known from extant LXX MSS.  In its general content, Deut 9:9-16
provides the nearest OT parallel, while particular phrases of
Barn 4:7f also reflect the LXX wording of several passages in
Exodus.  Nevertheless, some of the elements in Barn's version of
the events are lacking in our LXX passages (see below, p. 136 f). 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
pp.  } 

     As we already have noticed, Barn 4:6b-9a seems to be an
intrusion into the eschatological exhortation which surrounds it. 
It forms a historical back-flash in a passage which deals with
"the present situation" (4:1), and seems to be an independent
unit in itself.  The fact that basically the same description of
Moses on Sinai also is found in Barn 14:2-3 suggests that it is,
indeed, traditional material which at one time was transmitted
separately from the context in which it now is found in Barn 4. 
The minor differences between Barn 4:7f and 14:2f prove that Ps-
Barn did not mechanically reproduce the latter from the
former\26/ -- either this is [[131]] material with which he was
intimately familiar (and thus he needed to make no cross
references), or which had come down to him in slightly different
forms in his tradition, or which he slightly modified in two
directions in the Epistle.  In any case, as the following
comparison illustrates, both passages in Barn reflect the same
origin and presuppose a fairly fixed form of this material prior
to the final composition of the Epistle as we now have it.\27/   

--- 

    \26/Or <lt>vice versa</> if we suppose that the Epistle went
through several stages of evolution and revision under the pen of
the final editor (Ps-Barn). 

    \27/The exact verbal correspondences (in Greek) between the
passages are denoted by solid underlining.  Broken underlining
indicates that the same roots are used in different forms.  Only
the most significant textual variations will be noted. 

=== 

{@@RAK--  For the next section I typed the columns separately.  I
used the following notations to indicate underlining: 

<v+> ... </>  =  solid underlining 
<v-> ... </>  =  broken underlining 

es} 
         
[[col. 1]] 

      <ts><u-col>Barn 4:6b-9a</></>
  6b  And I also ask you this,
      as one of you and as
      personally also loving
      you all more than my own
      soul,
      guard yourselves\28/
      and do not be like those
      [who heap up] @@your sins

{@@RAK Note:  our (H)  } 

      by saying that
      your covenant
      remains to you.\29/

[[col. 2]] 
      <ts><u-col>Barn 13:6-14:6</></> 
13:6  Do you see on whom he 
      [Jacob] placed (his hand) 
      [see preceding context]?  
      This people (the younger) 
      is to be first, and heir
      of the covenant.  
      ....
14:1  But let us inquire
      whether he has given

{@@RAK Notes in margin: 
1.  adding to  } 
2.  You drew an arrow in the margin. es} 

      the covenant which he
      promised the fathers
      he would give to the
      people? 
       
{@@RAK note on facing page: 
(Please note that these notes appear to be written in columns.  es): 

[[col. 1]] 
do not be like certain ones  [Teachers - cf Wind] 
by heaping sin upon sin 
      claiming
while saying that your covenant
is irrevocably yours. 

[[col. 2]] 
resting as "called" 
i.e. <em>false security</>  } 

--- 

    \28/Barn\S/ adds <gk>NU=N</> in accord with the
eschatological emphasis on the surrounding context (4:1b, 9b,
etc.), but it is lacking in HL. 

    \29/See above, p. 29 n. 4.  If the reading of Barn\H/ is
accepted (as translated above), the recipients would seem to be
Jewish.  Possibly L is correct in reading "...who @@compound up
THEIR sins and say that THEIR covenant also is OURS.  But it is
OURS...," or H should be corrected to read @@"...who heap up
THEIR sins, saying:  'Your covenant is still binding'...."  The
heaping up of sins may be a satirical reference to Jewish
accusations against those who denied that the ritual law was
still valid (they heap these sins to your account), or may refer
to refusal of the Jewish cultists to accept Jesus' forgiveness of
sins (they multiply their sins by clinging to the cultic law). 

{@@RAK--  Please note that you changed "heap" to "compound."  es} 

=== 

[[132]]

[[col.1]] 
      But they completely\30/
      lost it in this manner,
      after Moses already
      received it

  7   <v+>for</> the scripture <v+>says</>:
      <v+>And Moses was
      <v+>in</> the <v+>mountain fasting


      <v+>40 days and 40 nights</>,
      <v+>And he received
        the covenant</>
        from (<gk>A)PO/</>) the <v+>Lord</>,
      stone <v+>tablets</>
      <v+>written with the finger
        of the Lord's hand</>. 




  8   But when they turned to   
      the idols, they lost it   
      For the <v+>Lord</> speaks thus: 
      <v+>Moses, Moses,
      descend immediately   
      because your people
      have sinned</>,
      whom <v+>you led out of the
        land of Egypt

      <v+>And Moses understood</>



      <v+>and he threw down</>
        <v+>the</> two <v+>tablets</>
        <v+>from</> his <v+>hands</>
      <v+>and</> @@their <v->covenant
        was smashed</>, 
{@@RAK note in margin: 
i.e. the <em>tablets</> 

[[col.2]] 

      He has given (it).  
      But they were not worthy
      to receive (it) because 
      or their sins. 
  2   <v+>For<v+> the prophet  <v+>says</>:  
      <v+>And Moses was</>
      <v+>fasting in mount</> Sinai
      to receive <v+>the</> Lord's
      <v+>covenant</> to the people
      <v+>40 days and 40 nights,
      <v+>And</> Moses <v+>received</>

        from (<gk>PARA/</>) the <v+>Lord</> 
      the two <v+>tablets</>
      <v+>written with the finger
        of the Lord's hand</>
      @@in the spirit.  

{@@RAK-- Please note that you have drawn an arrow next to the
previous line.  You also wrote a question mark next to the arrow. 
Do you want this line typed at another location?  es} 

      And when he received (them),
      Moses brought (them) down 
      to give to the people. 


  3   And the <v+>Lord</> said to Moses: 
      <v+>Moses, Moses,
      descend immediately
      because your people</>

      which <v+>you led out of the
        land of Egypt 
      have sinned.</> 
      <v+>And Moses understood</>
      that they had again made
        molten-images for
        themselves,
      <v+>and he threw down
        from</> (his) <v+>hands 
        the tablets</>
      <v+>and</> the tablets of the
        Lord's <v->covenant were
        smashed</>. 
  4   Moses, indeed, received (it)
      but they were not worthy. 

--- 

    \30/<gk>EI)S TE/LOS</> = "<lt>in perpetuum</>."  Does it mean
that they lost it forever at Sinai, that they finally lost it
when Messiah came, or that they lost it until the end (when God
would re-visit them with blessing)?  The context clearly supports
the first alternative.  See the discussion between Oesterreicher
and Thieme in ZTK 74 (1952), 63-70. 

=== 

[[133]]
[[col.1]] 




      so that the (covenant)
        of Jesus, his beloved
      might be @@[inscribed] into
{@@RAK note:  "sealed"}
        our heart, in hope
        of his faith

[[col.2]] 
      But how did we receive it? 
      Learn: 
      Moses received it as a
      servant,
      But the Lord himself gave
        it to us, to a people
        of inheritance, when
        he submitted for us. 
  5   And he appeared ... (etc.) 

     In Barn 14, the tradition about Moses' receiving the covenant
is an intricate part of the argument (see below, pp. 246 ff):  there are
two people, the older and the younger, and the younger ultimately
received God's blessing (13:1-6); the younger are the "nations" of
whom Abraham also is farther (13:7) and with whom God established
Moses' covenant through <gk>I)HSOU=S</> (ch. 14).  

{@@RAK-- Please verify that the previous paragraph is about Barn 14
and this paragraph is about Barn 4.  es} 

     In Barn @@4, the example of Moses' receiving the covenant is
not entirely irrelevant to the surrounding argument. 
Unfortunately, one of the key phrases which links 4:6b-9a with
the larger context is badly corrupted in the witnesses and this
makes it difficult to recover the detailed argument (see above,
n. 29).  Apparently, Ps-Barn is warning his readers not to lapse
into cultic Judaism, since the fall of the "final skandalon."  By
implication (but not expressly), Ps-Barn seems to hold the view
that God gave two covenants through Moses:  the true covenant,
which was lost <em>as a written code</> when Israel made the
calf, consisted only of the Decalogue (to mankind in general);
this was replaced by the second [[134]] tablets (given to sinful
Israel, who misinterpreted them) which included the whole Jewish
Torah but are irrelevant when Messiah comes and establishes
righteousness.\31/  Thus the "heaping up of sins" mentioned in
Barn 4:6b would refer to that Judaism which continues to enjoin
literal obedience @@to the <em>written</> covenant
(instituted because of sin) even in [[135]] these last days.  As
a matter of fact, argues Ps-Barn, the only <em>true</> covenant
which remains after the original tablets were smashed is the
covenant written on the heart and understanding of those who are
worthy (notice, {@@blank space} "and Moses understood").\32/ 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
??  } 

{@@RAK-- "to" is duplicated in the original.  I revised this.  es} 

--- 

    \31/The Rabbinic sources betray the fact that many of these
ideas came under discussion in ancient Judaism:  see L. Ginzberg,
<te>Legends of the Jews</> III (1911), p. 90-144 (on the giving
of the two sets of tablets on Sinai), and VI (1928), pp. 43-62
(notes on the Rabbinic statements and their sources).  <ts>ExR</>
46:1=47:7, for example, reflects the tradition that the first
tables (which Moses smashed) "only contained the Ten
Commandments, but in the tablets (which the Israelites finally
received)...there will also be halakot, midrash, and haggadot"
(see Soncino trans, pp. 527 and 543); in the same source (47:2),
the statement that God wrote the first tablets but Moses wrote
the second (see Ex 31:18) is emphasized.  On the problem of
Jewish sources which anticipate the end of Mosaic Torah when
Messiah comes, see W.D. Davies, <tm>Torah in the Messianic Age
and/or the Age to Come</> (JBL Monograph Series, 7, 1952); Moore,
<te>Judaism</> I, pp. 363ff; P. De/mann, "<fr>Moise et la Loi
dans la pense/e de saint Paul</>," in <tm-fr>Moise, l'homme de
l'alliance</>, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), 209ff.  Christian
sources handle the "two covenant" theme in various ways:  Tert,
AJ 2, emphasizes the unwritten law given to all men (at creation;
compare Sirach 17:12 and Jewish concepts of Noachian law) as
anterior to Jewish Torah through Moses; Iren, AH IV:15-16,
distinguishes between the decalogue written in human hearts and
the "yoke of bondage" given to idolatrous Israel; JM, D 11ff,
emphasizes the Moses' law came because of Jewish sins (see
especially 19:5f); "Stephen's speech" in Acts 7:38-43 probably
stands closest to the ideas of Barn, that Moses first gave
"living oracles" but that Israel's idolatry led to disaster.  It
is probable that a related complex of ideas lies behind Paul's
often enigmatic statements about the "law" (see, for example, II
Cor 3, Gal 3-4, Rom 9-11).  Notice also that among the Ebionites,
laws given after the incident of the golden calf were considered
invalid (see Schoeps, <fr-tm>Theologie und Geschichte des
Judenchristentums</> [1949], pp. 148ff and ,lt>passim</>). 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
                                crucial
On the "Golden Calf' as Israels major national sin , cf (W.L. Knox,
<tm>Paul + Gentiles</>, 29 n4) 

Ps- Philo <ta>Bib Ant</> 12:3f. ~ God will forsake @@them, later will make
                                    peace,
                                  Israel will build <em>house</>
                                    which later will be destroyed. 

Ps-Clem, <ts>Recog</> I:35ff ~ Golden Calf's Head (cf Lact Div Inst IV:10!)
                                 like <@@ts>Apris</> of Eg. 
                               Thus Moses allowed sacrifice
                                 until prophet like M. 

J.M. <ts>D</> 18-22 (cp 27) ~ because of G. Calf, God gave cultic law 

Acts 7:40 ~ after @@living oracles were received by Moses, people worship
              <em>idol</> 
            thus God gave them up to serve host of heavens 

Iren <ts>AH</> IV:15.1 

Tert <ts>AJ</> 3\b/ 

Lact <ts>D.I.</> IV:10 

Orig <ts>c.Cels</> II:74 

Didasc VI:16:6 

ApCo VI:20:@@4ff 

on Rabbi's, cf Moore, <te>Judaism</> I:53{@@7?} @@'the Great Sin
of Israel."  }

{@@RAK -- Do you want single or double quotes on the previous line?  es} 

    \32/See also Barn 10:1, 12; compare Origen, <tm>Comm in
John</> VI:2 (Lommatzsch, p. 180; "Moses understood in his mind
(? <gk>E(W/RA TW=| @@NOI)</> the truth of the law and the
allegorical references (<gk>KATA\ A)NAGWGH/N</> of the histories
written by him."  Note also the emphasis on Moses' understanding
in Ps-Philo 19.  {@@RAK addition:  Possibly the concluding <gk>EN
TW| PNEUMATI</> of Barn 14:20 is intended to go with "Moses
received," and indicates Moses' @@gnosis at Sinai. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On 'Moses understood' cp. also Acts 7:25 - [M.] <gk>E)NO/MIZEN
DE\ SUNIE/NAI TOU=S A) DELDOU=S O(H/ O( QS= DIA\ XEIRO\S AU)TOU=
DI/DWSIN SWTHRI/AN AU)TOI=S: OI( DE\ OU) SUNH=KAN</>. 

cp. also Philo, <ts>Vit. Mos.</> I:3-9 

=== 

     Barn never speaks of the "old covenant," although reference
is made to "the new law" (2:6; see Barn\L/ 9:5) and "the new
people" (5:7, 7:5; see 14:6, 15:7, 16:8), and there is a definite
contrast between "their" (Jewish) covenant and that of Jesus
(4:8, 14:5; see 4:6, 6:19, 9:6, 14:7, and Barn\L/ 16:9). 
Nevertheless, God only gave <em>one</> covenant (13:1,6) in
fulfillment of the promise to the fathers (especially Abraham,
see 13:7-14:1), and it was this covenant which Moses received and
destroyed on Sinai, because the Jews "were not worthy to receive
it" (14:1,4).  Apparently, for Ps-Barn, this is the same covenant
which Jesus now has given "US" in the last times (13:1,6; 14:4). 
Thus the references to "their covenant" are either unresolved
inconsistencies inherited from the traditional materials used, or
betray an implicit covenant-theology in which the "new" covenant
is really the reaffirmation of the covenant which God tried to
[[136]] give through Moses. 

     Against this background, Barn 4 emphasizes that the Jews
lost the covenant at the time it was received by Moses, and thus
can offer no help in the eschatological crisis -- in fact, their
example is presented as a warning against overconfidence (4:14,
compare Rom 11:21f).  On the other hand, Barn 14 emphasizes that
the promised covenant was given through Moses, but that its
intended recipients did not prove to be worthy -- thus the Lord
himself gave it to his new people (14:4 ff). 

     As we have noted, the general outlines of this picture of
Moses on Sinai are paralleled in the Greek Pentateuch. 
Nevertheless, the exact form in which Barn 4:7f=14:7f presents
the material could have been derived from the LXX only by means
of summarization, conflation, and emendation, as the following
analysis illustrates: 

  1.  Moses in the mountain           =Ex 24:18b, 34:28 
        40 days and 40 nights           Deut 9:9, 10:10 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
cf <ts>Apcl. Ab</>}  

  2.  Fasting                         ? compare "he ate no bread
                                        and drank no water" in
                                        Ex 34:28, Deut 9:9b, 18
  3.  Moses received tablets          see "Lord <em>gave</> tablets" in
                                        Ex 31:18, Deut 9:10 f
  4.  Written by finger of            see "... by finger of God" in 
        the Lord's hand                 Ex 31:18, Deut 9:10 (so Barn\L/) 
  5.  Lord addresses Moses by         ??
        "Moses, Moses"                  (see Ex 3:4)
  6.  Commands to descend, etc.       =Ex 32:7, Deut 9:12
  7.  People made images/idols        see "an image" in
                                        Ex 32:8, Deut 9:12 
  8.  Moses understood                ??
  9.  Moses threw down tablets        =Ex 32:19b, Deut 9:17
 10.  Covenant/tablets were           see "Moses broke tablets" 
        smashed                         Ex 32:19b, Deut 9:17
 
[[137]]

     Notice that Deut 9 is the common denominator of the
Pentateuchal passages, but in Deut 9, Moses is speaking in the
first person, while Barn tells about Moses in the third person. 
Furthermore, both passages in Barn agree in minor details which
differ from all the Pentateuchal references:  (1)  The word order
<gk>H(ME/RAS</>/<gk>NU/KTAS TESSARA/KONTA</>
is reversed in all known LXX and other Greek witnesses; (2)  Moses
was "fasting"; (3)  Moses "received" the covenant; (4)  "finger of the
hand of the Lord"; (5)  the address as "Moses, Moses," which is not
paralleled in the Sinai passages, but is found in the episode of
the burning bush (Ex 3:4); (6)  Moses "understood"; (7)  tablets
(or covenant) were smashed (passive). 

     Other Christian writers repeat the tradition that Moses was
"fasting" on the mountain\33/  --  TractOrig 8 (p. 87) even uses
this as an argument that Moses disobeyed the law which forbids
fasting on the sabbath.\34/  

--- 

    \33/Cl.R 53:2; Tert, <ts>Ieiunio</> 6:5; ApCo V:20:15;
Archelaus (late 3rd c.), <ts>Disp cum Manes</> 44 (p. 10). 
Notice that Josephus (<ts>Ant</> III:(5:8):99), Philo
(<ts>Somniis</> 1:36, <ts>Vita Mosis</> II:68-70, <ts>Leg
Alleg</> III:142), and Cl.A (<ts>Strom</> III:(7):57:3) are aware
of the Pentateuchal statement that Moses has neither bread nor
water, but they do not say that he "fasted" (see also <ts>Yoma</>
75b, p. 367).  {@@RAK note:  on Abr. cf Apcl. Abr  } 

    \34/"<lt>Moyses ipse in mente non habuit diem sabbati, qui
quadraginta diebus ieiunans frequenter dies sabbatorum
transmisit, quos utique profanabat impastus si sabbato ieiunare
non licet ... qui quadraginta diebus ieiunans sabbatum non
servavit</>."  Behind this argument may be the fact that the
sabbath is a <em>feast</> day according to Lev 23.  According to
Tert, <ts>Corona</> 3:4, one of the <em>traditions</> (with no
positive injunction) of his church was the prohibition of fasting
(and of kneeling for worship!) on the Lord's Day. 

=== 

[[138]]
     More significant, however, is the way in which Cl. R 53
eulogizes Moses as an example of sacrificial love: 

  2  For when Moses has ascended into the mountain and 
     had passed 40 days and 40 nights in 
     fasting and in humility,
     God said to him: 
       Moses, Moses, 
       descend from here immediately 
       because your people have sinned, 
       whom you led out of the land of Egypt,
       they have departed quickly from the way 
         which you commanded them, 
       they have made for themselves molten-images.\35/  
  3  And the Lord said to him: 
       [see Deut 9:13f almost exactly]
  4  And Moses said: 
       [compare Ex 32:32 with significant variation] ... 

Notice that the material @@[from] Deut 9 is found, as in Barn, in
the third person (not the first), and that the double vocative
(<gk>MWUSH=, MWUSH=</> also is employed.\36/  Otherwise Cl. R
gives more material than does Barn which is in verbal agreement
with Deut 9, and also introduces another parallel Pentateuch
passage into the context.  

{@@RAK note in margin: 

[resembling]  } 

{@@RAK-- 1.  I included the brackets you wrote around "from" 
         2.  Do you want this replaced with "resembling"? 
es} 

--- 

    \35/The preceding quotation reproduces the wording of Deut
9:12 almost exactly, with the exceptions noted below.  The
parallel passage in Ex 32:7f differs slightly from Deut 9:12, and
differs even more in its parallel to Deut 9:13f (which is cited
next in Cl.R). 

    \36/Note, however, that there is no equivalent for "Moses,
Moses" in the versions (Ancient Latin, Syriac, Coptic) of Cl.R
53:2. 

=== 

     Whether a common <em>written</> source is necessary to
explain these passages in Barn and Cl. R may be debated.  But it
seems quite clear that such a use of synthetic Pentateuchal
[[139]] narrative must be traced behind these early Christian
writings to a setting in which this kind of
homiletical/historical composition took place (see above, pp. 74
f).  In short, its most likely place of origin is the
(hellenistic?) Jewish Synagogue and its school tradition.  There
is not compelling reason to believe that the material used in
Barn 4:7f=14:2f was first put into this basic form by Ps-Barn
himself, or even by a <em>Christian</> predecessor.
     <h1>The Smitten Shepherd</>.  --  Several quotations are
incorporated into the discussion in Barn 5 about the Lord's
submission in the flesh.  Phrases from Isa 53:5 and 7 (in general
agreement with LXX){@@RAK addition:  \36a/} are used in 5:2 and
are followed by a parenthetical warning that there is no excuse
for the failure of a man who has right <gk>GNW=SIN</> (5:3-4,
using Prov 1:17 approximately as in LXX).  After the explanation
of why the Lord of the world (see Gen 1:26) had to come and
suffer in the flesh (5:5-11), a cluster of supporting quotations
is presented.  As we shall see, each of these quotations has
marked peculiarities when compared with extant LXX MSS of
parallel OT passages: 
 
  12  For God says, the smiting of his flesh is from them;\37/ 
        When they shall strike their shepherd, 
[[140]]
        then the sheep of the fold will be destroyed.\38/  
  13  And he willed to suffer thus, for it was necessary 
      that he should suffer on a tree.\39/ 
      For the one who prophesies says of him:  
        Spare my soul from the sword,  
        And nail my flesh, 
        Because a synagogue of evildoers have risen against
          me.\40/  
  14  And again he says: 
        Behold, I have placed my back for beating, 
        And my cheeks for blows, 
        But my face I set like a firm rock.  

--- 

{@@RAK addition: 

   \36a/Most peculiar is the position of <gk>A)/QWNOS</> in the
material Isa 53:7.  That this is not accidental to Barn is proved
by the @@same peculiarity in Act Phil and Melito's <ts>Paschal
Homily</>.  see JBL (1961).  } 

    \37/The wording for this phrase closely resembles Isa 53:5b
and Zach 13:6.  Barn\L/ explicates the former alternative by both
quotation and formula:  "<lt>dicit autem Esaias, plage corporis
illius omnes sanati sunt</>."  Barn\GS\c// include a <gk>O(/TI</>
after "flesh" and thus clearly make this phrase part of the
introduction formula.  In Barn\S*H/ it may be considered part of
the quotation. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
see above
p 44 n 16} 

    \38/Barn\L/ makes this a separate quotation which accords
with the Synoptic quotation of Zach 13:7 (Matt 26:31=Mk 14:27)  -
-  "<lt>et alius propheta:  Feriam pastorem et dispargentur oves
gregis</>."  Barn\G/ is in general agreement with L but includes
the <gk>O(/TAN ... TO/TE</> framework.  S\*/ reads "their own
(<gk>E(AUTW=N</>) shepherd" where H has <gk>AU)TW=N</>, and has
<gk>@@A)POLI/PETAI</> ("@@[will be] abandoned") where H has
<gk>A)POLEI=TAI</> (which could mean "be lost" as well as "be
slain").  For the latter reading, S\c/ has what appears to be a
conflation of G (see L) and H, <gk>SKORPISQH/SETAI @@KAI\
A)PO/LITAI</>.  The LXX variants for the final verb are either
some form of <gk>DIASKORPISQH/SESQAI</> or <gk>E)KSPA/SATE</>
(see below, n. 41). 

{@@RAK Note in margin: 

[] are (?)  } 

{@@RAK-- Do you want this note to replace "will be?"  es} 

    \39/<gk>@@E)PI\ CU/LOU</> (see 8:5, 12:1).  The entire clause
(from "for it was ...") is lacking in L. 

    \40/For the variants in this verse, see TEXT IV, p. 146 and
n. 48 below. 

=== 

     It is impossible here to make a detailed investigation of
Barn 5:12 because of the numerous problems involved.  In the LXX
MSS of Zach 13:6 f themselves, there is a great deal of diversity
in important details, with codices A and B representing different
traditions.\41/  Nor is the textual [[141]] situation in Barn any
simpler; in fact, it is possible that Barn 5:12 (or at least the
first part) should be taken as an allusion rather than a
quotation, despite the apparent <lt>.formula citandi</>.\42/ 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
But note that it is <em>not</> a usual formula!  } 

--- 

    \41/For the Greek texts in a convenient form, see Stendahl.
<tm>School</>, p. 80, and Koester, <tm>Synopt. Ueberlief</>., pp.
128f.  The major differences between A and B in Zach 13:6-7 are: 

<ts>LXX-A</>  --  I will say ... my     <ts>LXX-B</> --  He will say ... my
shepherd ... his countryman ...         shepherds ... my countryman ...
Smite (sing.) ... sheep of the          Smite(pl.) ... sheep...
fold will be scattered ...              draw out (or "redeem"?) ...
shepherds.                              little ones. 

[[no columns]] 
LXX MS Q agrees with A except in the apparently conflate reading,
"and the sheep will be scattered, draw out the sheep." 

    \42/See Barn\ScG/, "For God says <em>that</> ... <em>when</>
... <em>then</> ..."; on the textual problem in general, see
above, nn.37-38. 

=== 

     A glance at other early quotations of Zach 13:6f is
instructive.  Relatively speaking, it is not a popular
"testimony" in preserved Christian writings prior to Eus,\43/
despite the fact that it is found on the lips of Jesus in the
Synoptic records.\44/  Nevertheless, the great variety of textual
forms in which Zach 13:6 f appears in these quotations
illustrates the amount of fluidity which was possible.  It would
be very dangerous to exclude the possibility that Barn 5:12 is
quoting with a fair degree of accuracy from a secondary form in
which the Zach material was available to him.\45/ 

--- 

    \43/It is found in JM, D 53:6 (similar to LXX A, but with
some striking peculiarities) Iren, AP 76 (with only one
difference, "my countryman," from LXX A); Tert, <ts>Fuga</> 11:2
(in a condensed form with elements resembling both LXX A and LXX
B).  It also is quoted in CDC 9:3 in general harmony with MT. 
Later quotations (<lt>apud</> Ziegler) include Thd, Tht, Cyr, Hi,
Greg Naz, Eus (ecl), and Bas N. 

{@@RAK note next to first sentence in note 43: 

(Jn 16:32) 
Didasc. 6:14 
@@Taygum Frag.  } 

    \44/Matt 26:31=Mk 14:27.  See Stendahl, <tm>School</>, pp.
80-83, for a discussion of the Synoptic peculiarities in relation
to LXX and MT. 

    \45/Compare Koester, <tm>Synopt. Ueberlief</>., pp. 128f. 
Notice what was done with such "sheep-shepherd-sword" imagery in
I Enoch 89-90.  Possibly the apocalyptic tradition used by Barn
(or his source) contained the Zach-like quotation under
discussion (compare Barn 16:5b).  One could also argue that the
juxtaposition of the quotations in Barn 5:12 and 13 reflects an
earlier stage in their use where they were brought together by
means of the <tm>Stickwort</> <gk>R(OMFAI/A</> -- "Awake,
<em>sword</>, against my shepherd ..." (Zach 13:7), "Spare my
life from the <em>sword</> ..." (Ps 21:21, see below).  The
present text of Barn, however, shows no consciousness of the
reference to the sword in the former passage. 

=== 

[[142]]
     In any case, the main point in Barn 5:12 is that the
responsibility for the sounding of God's Son falls directly on
"Israel."  Even if Barn\L/'s reference to Isa 53:5 at the
beginning of the verse is to be rejected, there certainly is a
connection in the argument used by Ps-Barn between 5:2 (Isa 53:5-
7, <gk>@@A(\ ME\N PRO\S TO\N I)SRAH/L...</>), 5:12 (<gk>TH\N
PHGH\N ... AU)TOU= E)C AU)TW=N</>), and 6:7 (Isa 3:9f, <gk>E)PI\
TO\N I)SRAH/L</>).  It is in the way in which the Zach-like
material of Barn 5:12 is handled that we get the first really
strong evidence for suggesting that particularly Christian
influences may have been at work in the quotations of Ps-Barn or
his tradition.\46/  Nevertheless, even here it is not impossible
that such texts could have existed in pre-Christian Jewish
thought.\47/ 

--- 

    \46/Assuming, of course, that Barn\SH/ are correct in reading
"when they will smite their (own) shepherd ...." 

    \47/Compare I Enoch 89, on the rebelliousness of the Jews
against their (gentile) rulers=shepherds, and Wisd 2:12 (based on
Isa 3:10; see below, pp. 158f), on the rejection of the righteous
man. 

=== 

     The second supporting quotation is a psalmic composition
made up of phrases paralleled in Ps 21(22):21a, 118(119):120a,
[[143]] 21(22):17, and 85(86):14 (see TEXT IV, p. 146).\48/  The
fact that Iren, AP 79, cites exactly the same material raises the
questions again whether Iren knew and used Barn.\49/  The larger
context of Iren does not favor the hypothesis that he used Barn
in a direct manner, although several of the "proof texts" given
are not uncommon in early Christian literature, including Barn: 

    <u-head>Apostolic Preaching 79-80 (adapted from Robinson)</>
  79  And again, concerning his cross, Isaiah says thus: 
        [Isa 65:2, see Barn 12:4 with variations]
      for this is an indication of the cross.  
      And still more clearly David says: 
        [Ps 21:17, see also the phrase in Barn 6:6]
      And again he says: 
        [Ps 21:15 with trsp from LXX order]
[[144]]
      And again he says: 
        [parallel to Barn 5:13]
        with these words he indicates .... 
      And Moses says the same thing to the people
        in the following manner: 
        [Deut 28:66]
  80  And again David says:  
        [Ps 21:18b-19, see also the phrase in Barn 6:6] .... 

--- 

    \48/The <gk>E)PANE/STHSAN</> in Barn\SG/ can be paralleled in
several LXX passages, and <gk>E)PANE/STHSA/N MOI</> is found in
Ps 26(27):12 (see also Job 19:19 and 30:5), which Windisch, p.
332, sees reflected in Barn 5:13b.  We have indicated Ps
85(86):14 as the closest parallel because a possible
<tm>Stichwort</>, <gk>SUNAGQGH/</> occurs in the context.  It is
also probable that Barn\L/'s "in me" points to an original
<gk>E)P</>) <gk>E)ME/</> which later became streamlined to
<gk>MOI</> --  according to Froidevaux, "<fr-tm>Trois textes</>,"
pp. 413f, the Armenian of Iren's parallel citation also pre-
supposes <gk>E0P) E)ME/</> not <gk>MOI</>.  Notice also the non-
LXX word order in Barn\Gk/, <gk>MOU TH=S YUSXH=S</> and <gk>MOU
TA\S SA/RKAS</>.  This same phenomenon frequently occurs in the
remainder of the Epistle, especially in citations.  The following
additional examples have been noted:  2:5 (<gk>MOU TH\N
AU)LH/N</>), @@4:8b (<gk>AU)TW=N H( DIAQH/KH</>), 5:14 (<gk>MOU
TO(N NW=TON</>), 7:11b (<gk>MOU TH=S BASILEI/AS</>), 13:5
(<gk>SOU TH\N DECIA/N</>), 15:2 (H, <gk>MOU OI( UI(OI/</>, or
possibly <gk>MOU TO\ SA/BBATON</> in SG); and outside of
quotations in 5:1 (H, <gk>AU)TOU= TOU= AI(/MATOS</>), 6:15
(<gk>H(MW=N TH=S KARDI/AS</>).  Compare Acts 2:26 (Ps 15(16):9)
in many NT MSS.  {@@RAK addition:  See also Jn 6:54, 56; 1 Cor
11:24 (<lt>vs</> Synops, JM,); @@MK 10:37 (<lt>vs</> Mt 20:21);.} 
 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Philo <ts>Vit Mos.</> I:279 has <gk>MOU I( YUXH/</> in @@paraph.
of LXX Nu 23:10, <gk>H( YUXH/ MOU</>.  } 

    \49/See above, pp. 97 and 106ff.  Froidevaux, "<fr-tm>Trois
textes</>," pp. 413f, concludes that Iren took this psalmic
citation "either from some source used by Barnabas, or, perhaps
more probably, from Barnabas himself. 

=== 

     The intimate relationship between phrases from Ps 21(22) and
the story of Jesus' passion is widely attested,\50/ and is
obvious in the argument of Iren.  It is not surprising,
therefore, that the Psalm is found embedded in hymnic
formulations such as Barn 5:13 and 6:6 (see TEXT V, p. 147),
which were used in early Christianity.  Whether we must assume a
Christian origin of this secondary material (which seems so
"Christian" to us) is difficult to answer.  Certainly it is not
much different from some of the Qumran hymns, as the following
excerpts indicate (adapted from Gaster's translation):  

  <qu>You have made me a reproach and a derision 
    to those who live by deceit ...
  The hordes of the wicked rage against me (II:7-11) 
  .... 
  Because I clung to your covenant 
  Fierce men sought after my life ...
  Mighty men have pitched their camp against me
  Their weapons have compassed me (II:21-27) 
  .... 

[[145]]

  They have thundered abuse against me ... 
  Ruin and devastation beset me, 
  Horrendous anguish and pain like the throes of travail.  
  My heart was distraught within me ...
  My tongue cleaved to the roof of my mouth (V:29-31)
  .... 
  My arm is wrenched from its socket ... 
  My bones are out of joint (VII:2-4)
  .... 
  Grevious was my pain, and could not be stayed ...
  My spirit was sunken low among the dead, 
  My life had reached the pit
  And my soul waxed faint day and night without rest ... 
  All my strength had ceased from my body, 
  And my heart was poured out like water 
  And my flesh melted like wax (VIII:28-33).</> 

--- 

    \50/See Mk 15:24-34 and parr; Matt 27:43; John 19:24; JM, D
98-106 and Ap 38; Iren, AH IV:33:12 [=55:3]; Tert, AJ 10:4 and
13; ApCo V:14:10-15; etc.  According to M. Dibelius, <tm>From
Tradition to Gospel</> (trans by B. L. Woolf, 1935, from that 2nd
German ed in 1933), p. 187, "it is obvious that Jesus' dying has
been @@modeled on these passages" from Ps 22 (LXX 21), 31 and
69. 

{@@RAK--  I changed "modelled" to "modeled."  es} 

=== 

     Such examples could be multiplied.  Whether these hymns were
written with a Messianic or near-Messianic figure in mind, or
whether they are meant to depict the struggle of every righteous
soul, is irrelevant to the present argument.  They vividly
illustrate that it is unnecessary to hold that Barn 5:13 was
composed specifically as a Christian "testimony."  At least some
branches of pre-Christian Judaism continued to produce hymns
which were well suited to the needs of later Christianity.  That
Ps-Barn used such hymns we cannot prove; possibly primitive
Christianity itself followed the precedent set by its Jewish
environment and synthesized its own materials.  In any case, it
is more likely that Iren and Barn drew this peculiar Psalmic
quotation from a common source than that Ps-Barn was the first to
combine these phrases in this manner and that Iren culled the
reference (as a word of David) directly from the Epistle. 
[[146]]
                        <text> TEXT IV</> 

{@@RAK note on facing page 

cf Melito, <ts>Pascha</>\Lab/ line 53  --  <@@lt>a ... tyranno
clavis configatur</>  } 

[[col. 1]] 
<ts><u-col>Barn\L/</></>

  (same) 
  (same) 
<lt>parce 
anim(a)e 
me(a)e 
a gladio 


et 

confige 
clavis 
carnes 
meas 





quia 


nequissi- 
  moru-(m) 
conventus 






insurrex-
  erit 
IN ME:</> 


<ts><u-col>Iren, Ap 79 (adapted from Robinson)</></> 
 
And more clearly says David:  [Ps 21:17] 
And again he says:  [Ps 21:15] 
And again he says: 
  Spare my soul from the sword 
  And nail my flesh, 
  For an assembly of evildoers 
    has risen up against me. 
In these words he designates his
crucifixion in a lucid manner. 

[[col. 2]] 

<ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 5:13</></> 

<gk>LE/GEI GA\R 
O( PROFHTEU/WN E)P'  AU)TW=|: 
FEI=SAI/ 

        {TH=S  YUXH=S</> (SHG\rell/) 
<gk>MOU {TH\N YUXH\N</>  (GP) 
<gk>A)PO\ R(OMFAI/AS</> 

(+<gk>KAI\</>, SH) 


<gk>KAQH/LWSO/N 


MOU TA\S SA/RKAS





O(/TI 

{SUNAGWGH\ 
{  PONHREUOME/NWN</>  (SH) 
{<gk>PONHREUOME/NWN 
  SUNAGWGAI\</>  (G) 







{<gk>PERIE/SXON ME</>  (H) 
{<gk>A)PANE/STHSA/N MOI</>  (SG) 


[[col.  3]] 



    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):21</></> 
    <gk>R(U=SAI 
    A)PO\ R(OMFAI/AS
    TH\N UYXH/N MOU 
    KAI\ E)K XEIRO\S KUNO\S
    TH\N MONOGENH= MOU</> 

    <ts><u-col>Ps 118(119):120</></>
*** <gk>KAQH/LWSON
    E)K TOU= FO/BOU SOU
    TA\S SA/RKAS MOU
    A)PO\ GA\R TW=N KRIMA/TWN SOU
    E)FOBH/WHN</>

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):17</></>
    @@O(/TI E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
    KU/NES POLLOI/
    SUNAGWGH\ PONHREUOME/NWN
    PERIE/SXON ME
    W)/RUCAN XEI=RA/S MOU
    KAI\ PO/DAS</>

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 85(86):13b-14</></>
    <gk>KAI\ E)RRU/SW
    TH\N YUXH/N MOU
    E)C A(/|DOU KATWTA/TOU
14  O( QEO/S, PARA/NOMOI
    E)PANE/STHSAN E)P' E)ME/
    KAI\ SUNAGWGH\ KRATAIW=N
    E)CH/THSAN TH\N YUXH/N MOU
    KAI\ OU) PROE/QENTO/ SE
    E)NW/PION AU)TW=N</> 

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 26(27):12</></> 
    <gk>MH\ PARADW=|S ME
    EI)S YUXA\S QLIBO/NTWN ME
    O(/TI E)PANE/STHSA/N MOI
    MA/RTURES A)/DIKOI ....</> 

_______________
*** Note that Bo uniquely adds
    at the end of Ps 37(38):21,
    "and they nailed my flesh." 

    {@@RAK note in text: 
    <gk>KAI\ KAWHLWSAN TH\N SARKA MOU</>  [Rahlfs].  } 

[[147]]

                         <text>TEXT V</>  

[[col.1]] 
<u-col>Barn\L/</>

<lt>auid ergo 
  dicit



circu-(m)-
  vene-r-(unt)
    me




conventus
  nequissi-
    moru-(m)












vellave-r-(unt)
  me
ta-(m)qua-(m)
  apes:





et
ITERU-(M)
  DIXIT

sup_(er)
  veste-(m)
    mea-(m)

sortes
  miserunt</> 

[[col.2]] 
<ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 6:6</></> 

<gk>TI OU)=N LE/GEI PA/LIN
O( PROFH/THS; 




{PERIE/SXE</>(<gk>N</>) <gk>ME</>  (SG)
{<gk>PERIE/SXON ME</> (H) 





<gk>SUNAGWGH\ PONHREUOME/NWN













E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
W(SEI\ ME/LISSAI @@KH|RI?ON






KAI\




E)PI\ TO\N I(MATISMO/N MOU
E)/BALON @@KLH=|RON</>

[[col.3]]
    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):13,17</></>
13  <gk>PERIEKU/KLWSA/N ME
    MO/SXOI POLLOI/
    TAU=ROI PI/ONES
    PERIE/SXON ME
    ....
17  O(/TI E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
    KU/NES POLLOI/
    SUNAGWGH\ PONHREUOME/NWN
    PERIE/SXON ME
    W)/RUCAN XEI=RA/S MOU
    KAI\ PO/DAS

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 117(118):10-12</></>

10  <gk>PA/NTA TA\ E)/QNH
    E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
    KAI\ TW+| O)NO/MATI KURI/OU
    H(MUNA/MHN AU)TOU/S
11  KUKLW/SANTES
    E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
    KAI\ TW=| O)NO/MATI ... 
12  E)KU/KLWSA/N ME
    W(SEI\ ME/LISSAI KHRI/ON
    KAI\ E)CEKAU/QHSAN
    W(SEI\ PU=R E)N A)KA/NQAIS
    KAI\ TW=| O)NO/MATI...</>

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):19</></> 

    <gk>DIEMERI/SANTO
    TA\ @@I(MA/TIA/ MOU E(AUTOI=S
    KAI\
    E)PI\ TO\N I(MATISMO/N MOU
    E)/BALON KLH=RON</>

[[148]]

     The third quotation in this group provides a transition
between the discussion of Jesus' submission and his subsequent
exaltation.  With the exception of the <gk>I)DOU\ TE/QEIKA</>
with which the citation begins, Barn 5:14 differs from extant LXX
MSS of Isa 50:6-7 only in lacking vv.6b-7a and in some minor
transpositions.  The variation of <gk>TEQEOLA</> for
(<gk>D</>)<gk>E/DWKA</> (so LXX MSS) frequently is attested in
other OT passages,\51/ and has considerable patristic support
here.\52/  Possibly it is under the influence of the
<gk>TEQEOLA</> that <gk>I)DOU/</> has been prefixed to the to
the quotation -- compare Isa 49:6 (Barn 14:8)\53/ and the similar
formula in Barn 13:7 (based on Gen 17:4 f).\54/ 

--- 

    \51/See LXX MSS on Isa 42:6, 49:6, 49:8, 50:6, Ezek 28:14,
20:24, etc. 

    \52/JM, Ap 38; Tert, AM III:5 (see also the allusion in
<ts>Carn Resurr</> 20 and in Iren, AH IV:33:12[=55:3]); Cyp,
(<ts-lt>Ad Rogatian</>) Ep VI:4; Lact, <ts>Div Inst</> IV:18; S-T
(p. 33); Ambr (<lt>apud</> Heer).  No LXX MS has any form of
<gk>TI/QHMI</> here. 

    \53/The similarity of such passages as Isa 42:6, 49:6 and 8,
51:4, and 55:4 has led to a great deal of textual confusion among
LXX MSS as well as in the patristic quotations.  See, for
example, Tert, AM III:20=AJ 12 (Isa 42:6b introduced by "<lt>ecce
dedi te...</>") and Ps-Greg 4 (Isa 49:8 introduced by
<gk>I)EREMIAS: I)DOU\ TE/QEIKA SE...). 

    \54/Hortatory interjections like <gk>I)DOU/</> and
<gk>OU)AI/</> occur freely throughout Barn's quoted material,
even where our LXX texts of the apparent sources do not have
them:  see Barn 6:8 (??), 6:14 (based on Ezek 11:19=36:26 ?),
15:4 (based on Ps 89(90):4?); 6:1 (based on Isa 50:8-9), 9:5 in L
(based on Jer 4:3f); compare 6:13 (OT <@@lang?>apocryphon</>). 

=== 

     It is strange that a Christian author using Isa 50:6-7 as a
"proof text" for Jesus' passion should fail to include [[149]]
the phrase, "and I turned not my face from the shame of
spitting."  Other early Christian authors do not follow Barn in
this,\55/ and it seems reasonable to infer (from silence,
admittedly) that Ps-Barn took his quotation from a source which
did not include these words.  In the light of Barn 7:8-9, it is
impossible to argue that the final editor of the Epistle was not
familiar with this element of the Synoptic tradition (see Matt
26:67=Mk 14:65).  Thus the Jewish origin of the tradition here
used by Barn again appears to be probable.\56/ 

--- 

    \55/See JM, Ap 38; Tert, AM III:5 (compare <ts>Carn Resur</>
20); Iren, AP 34 and 68; Cyp, <ts>Test</> II:13 and Ep VI:4;
Lact, <ts>Div Inst</> IV:18; Ps-Greg 6; S-T (p. 33); P-P 12
(p.70); T-A (p.72).  A possible exception is the allusion in
Iren, AH IV:33:12 [=55:3], where Jesus' passion briefly is
described by means of catch-phrases taken from the prophetic
"proof texts" -- this basic outline is expanded in AP, where the
"spitting" phrase is found. 

{@@RAK notes in margin: 
1.  Act Phil (1) 
2.  comp. 
    Act Phil (2)  } 

{@@RAK--  Please note that for <ts>Carn Resur</> you use two
spellings.  In footnote 52, you have "Resurr," and in footnote 55
you have "Resur."  es} 

    \56/There is, of course, the further possibility that Barn's
<em>source</> was Christian but did not know the Synoptic
tradition at this point.  The way in which Isa 50:6-7 is abridged
in Barn 5:14 seems to have come about by means of the phrase
<gk>TO\ PRO/SWPO/N MOU</>, which is common to Isa 50:6 and 50:7
("I turned not <em>my face</> ... <em>my face</> I set as a firm
rock"). 

=== 

     <h1>The Smiting Stone</>.  --  Actually, the "persecution"
testimonies introduced into the argument at Barn 5:12-14 are
continued in 6:6-7 with another psalmic formulation\57/ and the
[[150]] quotation from Isa 3:9 f which is used to place the blame
for Jesus' suffering squarely on the shoulders of the Jews
(compare 5:2, <gk>PRO\S I)SRAH/L</>).\58/  Within this context,
Barn 6:1-4 appears to be a parenthetical explanation of the words
"I set my face as a firm rock."  Nevertheless, in relationship to
the whole of chs. 5-6 (why the Lord submitted), and especially to
6:8-19 (the new people led into their Canaan land by God's Son),
6:1-4 is more transitional than parenthetical.  It picks up the
<gk>PRO\S H(MA=S</> part of the theme introduced in 5:2, and
shows how the rejected Christ also will be highly exalted over
his persecutors (6:5 is an editorial comment which is lacking in
L): 

<qu>
  1  Thus, when he made the commandment, what\59/ does he say? 
       [strange form of Isa 50:8-9, see TEXT VI, p. 152] 
  2  And again the prophet says, 
     since he was placed as a strong stone for crushing, 
       [Isa 28:16a as in LXX]\60/ 
  3  Then what\59/ does he say? 
       [Isa 28:16b (so L) or a secondary formulation from it]\61/
[[151]]
     Is our hope, then, on a stone?  Certainly not.
     But (it is said) because the Lord placed his flesh
     in strength. 
     For he says:\62/ 
       [allusion back to Isa 50:7 ?  (see Barn 5:14)]
  4  And again the prophet says: 
       [Ps 117(118):22 exactly as LXX] 
     And again he says: 
       [Ps 117(118):24a as LXX with additions]\63/  </>

{@@RAK-- Please note that you have cited footnote 59 twice in the
above text.  es} 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

S. Lowy, p. 16 n 110  --  "The sarcastic remark:  'Is then out
hope on a stone?@@" (v.3) refers to the Jewish messianic hope in
which the building of the Temple (or the altar) occupied such a
great part.  Cf. XVI, 1."  }

{@@RAK--  Do you want a single quotation mark too?  es} 
--- 

    \57/Ps 21(22):17 (including a phrase which was used in a
different setting in Barn 5:13) + 117(118):12 + 21(22):19 (see
TEXT V, p. 147).  The first two elements of the conflation
probably came to be united in the present form through the phrase
which they have in common, <gk>E)KUKLW/SAN ME</>.  Ps 21:19 is
taken as a separate quotation by Barn\L/ (see above, p. 54 n.
72). 

    \58/See also on Barn 5:12, above p. 142.  The similar use of
Isa 3:10 in Wisd 2:12 will be discussed below, pp. 158f. 

    \59/H lacks <gk>TI/</> in both instances (vv. 1 and 3). 

    \60/On this quotation in early Christianity, see the present
writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text," pp. 344f. 

    \61/The textual problem here is, at present, impossible to
solve.  L has "<lt>et qui crediderit in illum non confundetur</>"
(so LXX, <gk>KAI\ O( PISTEU/WN E)P) AU)TW|= OU)</> (<gk>MH\</>)
<gk>KATAISXUNQH|=</>).  SH have <gk>KAI\ O( PISTEU/WN EI)S
AU)TO\N ZH/SETAI EI)S TO\N AI)W=NA</>, and G has <gk>KAI\ O(\S
E)LPI/SEI E)P) AU)TO\N ZH/SETAI EI)S TO\N AI)W=NA</>.  At first
glance, G would seem to be preferable as <lt>lectio
difficilior</>, but the fact that almost identical wording is
found in Barn 8:5b, 11:8-11, and 12:2-3 warns us to be cautious
here -- possibly some scribe has modified 6:3 to agree with these
other passages?  G's <gk>O(\S E)LPI/SEI</> is especially suspect
since one would expect that at least the opening words of 28:16b
(<gk>O( PISTEU/WN</>) would be used <em>if</> Barn 6:3 were
consciously patterned on the Isaiah passage.  The fact that
"hope" (<gk>E)LPI/S</>) occurs in the next sentence could lead to
the substitution of <gk>E)LPI/ZEIN</> for <gk>PISTEU/EIN</> in
the preceding citation, or could be used as evidence that
<gk>E)LPI/ZEIN</> is original.  Probably L's <ts>Vorlage</> had
<gk>PISTEU/EIN</> (despite the fact that <gk>E)LPI/ZEIN</>
elsewhere is translated by "<lt>credidere</>" as well as
"<lt>sperere</>" -- see 6:9, 8:5, 12:2, 16:8), else why should L
give the text of Isa 28:16b?  On <gk>ZH/SETAI EI)S TO\N
AI)W=NA</>, see Gen 3:22 and Sirach 37:26. 

    \62/L lacks both formula and quotation here. 

    \63/L lacks formula here and gives Ps 117:24a exactly as in
LXX (see above, p. 54 n. 72 and p. 58 n. 79).  The additional
material in Barn\Gk/ is discussed below, n. 66. 

=== 

     The testimonies in Barn 5:12-14 leave the modern reader
unprepared for 6:1, with its abrupt and enigmatic reference to
"the commandment" and the subsequent quotation which is filled
with judicial terminology.  The form of this quotation itself is
unusual.  It clearly is related to Isa 50:8-9, but does not exactly
reproduce any known LXX form of that passage.  In other
early fathers, Isa 50:8f almost never is quoted, with the exception
of two passages in Iren which nearly are exact parallels to Barn 6:1f
(see @@TEXT VI, p. 152).\64/ 

--- 

    \64/JM, Ap 38, quotes Isa 50:6-8a and ends where our text begins. 
Cl.A., <ts>Strom</> III:(12):86:3 gives a few words from Isa 50:9b and
reads <gk>BRW/SETAI</> where Barn and LXX have
<gk>KATAFA/GETAI</>.  {@@RAK addition:  Melito, Hom. on the
Passion 101 (Bonner, p 17:9f) has an allusion to Isa 50:8 (see @@Text VI,
p 152).  } 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "Text" or "TEXT?"  Please see the previous footnote and
the previous text paragraph.  es} 

=== 

[[152]]

                         <text>TEXT VI</> 

[[col. 1]] 

<ts><u-col>Barn\L/</></>
<lt>cu-(m) aute-(m)
  fecit D(E)I-
pr(a)eceptu-(m)
quit di-c-(it)
quis  :(est) qui
  contradi-c-(it)
resistat mihi
quis
  aequalis
    futurus  : (est)
      mihi
p_(ro)pinquet
  puero D(E)I-

v(a)e vob-(is)
quia
  vos om-(ne)s-
    veterescitis
ta-(m)qua-(m)
  vestim-(en)tu-(m)
et tinea
  devorabit vos:  </>




   <ts><u-col>LXX-Ziegler Isa 50:8-9</></> 

8  <gk>O(/TI E)GGI/ZEI O( DIKAIW/SAS ME: 

   TI/S O( KRINO/MENO/S MOI;
   A)NTISTH/TW MOI A(/MA:
   KAI\ TI/S
     O( KRINO/MENO/S MOI;
   E)GGISA/TW MOI. 

9  I)DOU\ KU/RIOS BOHQEI= MOI:
   TI/S KAKW/SEI ME;
   I)DOU\ PA/NTES U(MEI=S
   W(S I(MA/TION PALAIWQH/SESQE
   KAI\ W(S SH\S
   KATAFA/GETAI U(MA=S.</> 

{@@RAK note in text: 
Melito, <ts>Hom on the Passion 101 (@@Bonner-Testuz)
(post Resurrection poetic accusation of victorious Jesus
against his persecutors) 
<gk>TI/S O( KRINO/ME[NOS PRO\S]</> (<gk>E)</>)ME/;
A)NTISTH/TW MOI:</>.  } 

[[col. 2]] 

  <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 6:1-2</></>
1 <gk>O(/TE OU)=N E)POI/HSEN</>
  ( +<gk>TH\N</>, SH)  <gk>E)NTOLH/N</>
  ( +<gk>TI/</>, SG)  <gk>LE/GEI;

  TI/S O( KRINO/MENO/S MOI;
  A)NTISTH/TW MOI
  H)\ TI/S</>
    {<gk>O( DIKAIOU/MENO/S MOI</>(S)
    {<gk>O( DIKAIOU/MENOS</> (H)
    {<gk>O( DIKAZO/MENOS MOI</> (G)
  <gk>E)GGISA/TW</>
    ( @@+<gk>TW=|</>, SG) <gk>PAIDI\ KURI/OU

2 OU)AI\ U(MI=N
  O(/TI
    U(M</>(<gk>E</>)<gk>I=S PA/NTES</>  (G trsp)
  W(S I(MA/TION             }           (G trsp
    <gk>PALAIWQH/SESQE</>   }           to 312)
  KAI\ SH\S
  KATAFA/GETAI U(MA=S.  </>

[[col. 3]] 
            <ts><u-col>Iren, AH IV:33:13[=55:4]</></> 
            <lt>et rursus in eo
              cum edicit</>: 

            <lt>quisquis judicatur
            ex adverso adstet
            et quisquie

              justificatur

            appropinquet
              puero Dei  *
            et  **
            vae vobis
            quoniam
              omnes
                veterascetis
            sicut vestimentum
            et tinea
            comedet vos
            et
          { humiliabitur  ***
          {   omnis caro</>
   see    { <lt>et exaltabitur</>
Isa 2:17  {   <lt>Dominus solus
          {     in altissimis.
            Significatur,  ****
            quoniam post passi</>-
            <lt>onem et assumtionem
            omnes qui contra eum
            fuerunt, sub pedibus
            eius subiciet Deus
            et ipse super omnes
            exaltabitur, et nemo
            erit qui justificetur
            aut comparetur ad eum.  </> 

            <ts><u-col>Iren, AP 88 vars.</></> 
       *    "the Lord's Son" 
      **    lacks connective "and" 
     ***    + "and abased" 
    ****    has at introduction
            to the quotation:
            "And that after his
            ascension he was to be
            exalted above all ..."
            etc. 

[[153]]

     Once again the question arises as to whether Iren might have
taken his quotation from Barn.\65/  Once again the context in
which Iren presents this peculiar form of Isa 50:8-9, as well as
the variation in the quoted matter, discourages such a
hypothesis.  A comparison of AH IV:33:13-14 with AP 65-100
clearly shows that they present the same basic description of
Jesus -- his humiliation, crucifixion, resurrection, and
exaltation.  The OT "proofs" for the <em>humiliation</> and
<em>passion</> of the Lord are only alluded to in AH, but are
quoted at great length in AP.  Each work, however, gives several
(often the same) quotations in support of Jesus' <em>death</>,
<em>resurrection</>, <em>ascension</>, <em>exaltation</>, and
<em>judgment</>.  The passage from Isa 50:8f, to which Isa 2:17
is added without a break in both AH and AP, is used as a
reference to the eschatological judgment by the Lord, when all
his enemies are subjected to him, and his exaltation is complete. 
In both Iren contexts, this is followed by a discussion of the
new people whom God's Son has redeemed and of the new covenant
which is written on their hearts.  It would seem that a common
tradition lies behind both Iren and Barn in which this quotation
was applied to the exaltation of the <gk>PAI=S KURI/OU</>. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
See also Melito, in a non-canonical speech of the risen Lord!  } 

--- 

    \65/See (again) Froidevaux, "<fr>Trois textes</>"; see also
the brief analysis in the present writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah
Text," p. 346. 

=== 

[[154]]

     If this is true, Barn 6:1-4 becomes more understandable.  It
is a continuation of the themes expressed in 5:5-7  --  he who
endured is really "Lord of the whole world," to him came the
commandment "Let us make man," he prepares for himself a new
people and finally he will judge.  Barn 6:8-19 is the final
elaboration of these themes in chs. 5-6, with the special
emphasis there placed on the idea of the new people.  That Ps-
Barn did not develop the argument of chs. 5-6 in a more
systematic manner is somewhat disconcerting, but is typical of
the way in which the Epistle often mechanically uses its ready-
made tradition materials.  In this section Ps-Barn has presented,
in a rather haphazard fashion, some of the items from his
testimony tradition which relate, on the one hand, to "Israel,"
and on the other, to "us" (5:2).  The Lord submitted in order to
bring their sins to full measure (5:11a {@@RAK addition:  cf
14:5}  ) and to prepare for himself the new people (5:7). 

     In 6:1-4, the once rejected Jesus is pictures in his exalted
role as eschatological judge by means of assorted OT imagery.  No
longer is anyone able to stand in judgment against him; those who
oppose him pass away, while those who believe in him live
forever.  He is the cast-off stone which now has received the
place of honor in Zion, the stone which is set up for the
eschatological crushing, "the great [[155]] and awesome day" of
the Lord.\66/  

--- 

    \66/Notice the use of LXX Ps 117:24 conflated with the words
<gk>H( MEGA/LH KAI\ QAUMASTH/</> in Barn\Gk/6:4b
(<gk>QAUMASTH/</> occurs in the preceding verse of the Psalm). 
The resemblance to LXX Joel 2:31/32 (=MT 3:4; see Acts 2:20) and
Mal 4:4/5 (=MT 3:23) is striking  --  <gk>PRI\N E)LQEI=N H(ME/RAN
KURI/OU TH\N MEGA/LHN KAI\ E)PIFANH=</>.  The Hebrew behind
<gk>E)PIFANH=</> in these passages is <hb>Hebrew text</> (from
<hb>Hebrew text</>), which elsewhere in the LXX is translated by
<gk>FOBERO/S</> or <gk>QAUMASTO/S</> (note especially Deut 10:17
and 28:58, II Esdras 11:5 [=Neh 1:5] and 19:32 [=9:32],and Dan
9:4, all of which describe God as "great and terrible" and loyal
to the covenant).  In fact, in D 49:2, JM alludes to Mal 4:4 (as
"Zachariah"!) and presupposes <gk>FOBERA/N</> (so also MS
86\mg/), not <gk>E)PIFANH=</>.  Thus Barn's <gk>QAUMASTH/</>
probably also is an ancient variant for
<gk>E)PIFANH=</>/<gk>FOBERA/N</> in such contexts (compare Rev
15:1,3).  Notice also Barn 6:2, <gk>W(S LI/QOS I)SXURO\S E)TE/QH
@@EI)S SUNTRIBH/N</>, and LXX Isa 13:6, <gk>E)GGU\S GA\R H(
H(ME/RA KURI/OU KAI\ SUNTRIBH\ PARA\ TOU= QEOU= H(/CEI</> (see
above, p. 59 n.81).  The fact that Barn's tradition views Christ
as the <gk>H(ME/RA MEGA/LH</> may explain why the words <gk>KAI\
H(ME/RAN MEGA/LHN</> are lacking from the quotation of Isa 1:13
in Barn\Gk/ 2:5 (see also 15:8)  --  a list of things which the
Lord <em>hates</>! 

{@@RAK notes on facing page: 

1.  <gk>EPIDANHS</> is consistent trans for <hb>Hebrew text</> in M. @@Prophs. 

<ts>Didache</> 141  quotes Mal 1:14b <gk>E)PIDALE/S</>
(<hb>Hebrew text</>) as <gk>QAUMASTO/N</>! 

<em>Note</> - <gk>EPIDANHN</>/(<gk>EPI</>) <gk>DOBERON</> variant
                                            occurs in Judg. 13:6 
<gk>QAMMASTOS</> for @@ni @@y <hb>hebrew text</>
                                                      Joel 2:11
       in Ex 15:11       Ps 64(65):5                  Mal  1:14
             34:10          67(18):35                      4:4 
        @@Dn 28:58  Dan <gk>Q</> 9:4               

2.  Hipp, <ts>Anti X</> 60, quotes Rev 12:1 in a form like 15:1
with <gk>ME/GA KAI( QAUMASTO/N</> phrase.  } 

=== 

     These titles of "stone" and "day" are well @@attested in other
early Christian writings, although they sometimes are applied
differently.  The "stone-testimonies" are especially interesting in
@@their later stages of Christian development where Christ is
said to be prefigured in historical events such as: 

{@@RAK-- 

1.  Does "attested" have a "to" with it? 
2.  Do you want "their" or "the?" 

es} 

  1.  Jacob's stone pillow at Bethel (Gen 28:11, 18,22)
  2.  The rock which Moses struck at Horeb (ex 17:6) 
  3.  Moses' stone seat in the battle with Amalek (Ex 17:12) 
  4.  The stones of the ancient Mosaic altar (Deut 27:8)
  5.  The <gk>MAXAI/RAS PETRI/NAS</> of Joshua's circumcision (Josh 5:2 f)
  6.  The stone witness at the covenant renewal (Josh 24:26 f) 
  7.  The stone on which the ark of the covenant sat (I Sam 6:14a) 
{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
was <em>placed</>.  } 
  8.  The stone which Samuel called Ebenezer (I Sam 7:12)
  9.  The stone by which David slew Goliath (I Sam 17:49)  
 
At the same time, prophetic passages like Dan 2:34,45 (the
[[156]] eschatological stone cut out without hands), Isa 8:14
(the stone of stumbling), Isa 28:16 (Zion's cornerstone), Ps
117:22 (rejected stone now exalted), and Zach 3:9 (the stone with
seven eyes) were used in the discussion.\67/  

--- 

    \67/Most of these "proofs" may be found in Cyp, <ts>Test</>
II:16f.  A few of them use <gk>PE/TRA</> not <gk>LI/QOS</> (for
example, Ex 17:6 [for which see Meth, <ts-lt>Serm Sim et Anna</>
8; JM, D 114:4] and Josh 5:2f -- compare Isa 50:7), as in I Cor
10:4 (the "rock-well" which followed Israel in the wilderness). 
For secondary discussions, see Harris, <ts>Testimonies</> I, pp.
18f, 26f, and II, pp. 60f; Hommes, <ts>Testimoniaboek</>, pp. 87-
91; Stather Hunt, <ts>Sources</>, pp. 126-29; etc. 

{@@RAK note:  Jeremias, TWNT} 

=== 

     Relatively speaking, Barn 6:2b-4a is a very modest
(primitive?) form of the "stone" tradition.  Not many years
later, JM often assumes the identification of Messiah=stone,
without really proving it at great length.\68/  Indeed, Tert does
the same thing.\69/  May be assume that "stone" already had
strong Messianic connections in pre-Christian Jewish study, and
thus provided a ready weapon for the Christian polemic?  Note
that at the end of the first century, Josephus coyly declines to
explain to his Roman readers the meaning [[157]] of Daniel's
"stone cut out without hands"!\70/ 


--- 

    \68/In fact, he claims to have proved it by many scripture
passages  --  see D 34:2, 86:3, 114:2, 126:1 (compare 100:4). 
The only texts cited or alluded to as "proof" in extant MSS of
the Dialogue, however, are Dan 2:34, 45 (D 76:1, 114:4; compare
70:1), Josh 5:2 (D 113:6, 114:4; actually the flint knives=Jesus'
words), and possibly Ex 17:6 (see D 114:4 and compare @@86:1) and
Ps 117:22 or Isa 28:16 ("cornerstone" is used as title for Christ
in D 114:4 and 126:1). 

    \69/AJ 9:22, "<lt>petra enim Christus multis modis et figuris
praedicatus est</>" (after mention of Joshua's flint knives). 

    \70/<ts.Antiq</>X:(10:4):207.  Ginzberg, <te>Legends</> VI,
p. 415 n. 80, cites Rabbinic sources in which Daniel's stone
refers to Messiah (see also A.L. Williams, <tm>Justin Martyr: 
The Dialogue with Trypho</> [1930], p. 159 n. 2).  In <ts>NumR</>
13:14 (to 7:13; Soncino trans, pp. 527f), Dan 7:14 (Son of Man) +
2:35 (stone becomes mountain) are interpreted as a reference to
the King Messiah.  At Qumran, the "precious cornerstone" of Isa
28:16 is the righteous community (IQS 8:7 {@@RAK addition: IQH
@@6:2b, @@7:8b.}; compare I Pet 2:5ff and the Rabbinic references
cited by Ginzberg, <te>Legends</> VI, p. 475 n. 159).  Elsewhere
in Rabbinic sources, the Patriarchs (especially Abraham; compare
Isa 51:1f, Ps-Philo 23:4) are likened to rocks (see <ts>exr</>
15:7 [on 12:2], p. 168), and the stone on which Jacob slept is
pictured as the center of the earth (in the middle of the Holy of
Holies) on which the Tetragrammaton or Messiah's name is written
(see Ginzberg, <te>Legends</> I, p. 352; V, pp.14ff n.39; V,
p.292 nn.141-42). 

=== 

     The title "day" also is taken for granted as a synonym for
Christ among Christian authors of the second and third centuries. 
JM notes in passing that "he also is called <gk>SOFI/A</> and
<gk>H(ME/RA</> and <gk>A)NATOLH/</> and <gk>MA/XAIRA</> and
<gk>LI/QOS</> and <gk>R(A/BDOS</> and <gk>I)AKW/B</> and
<gk>I)SRAH/L</> in one way or another in the words of the
prophets" (D 108:4).  In his <ts>Ecl Proph</>, Cl. A says "the
Lord is <gk>R(H=MA</> [in Ps 18:3], and he also is called
<gk>H(ME/RA</> in many places" (53:1).  Elsewhere, Cl. A
discusses Gen 2:4 ("in the day in which God made ...") and Ps
117:24 as OT passages in which the title is applied.\71/  There
can be little doubt that Cl. A has adopted this interpretation of
Gen 2:4 from [[158]] the Alexandrian Jewish school tradition
represented by Philo, for Philo sees the <gk>LO/GOS</> pictured
as <gk>BI/BLOS</> and <gk>H(ME/RA</> in this passage.\72/  Even
here, Judaism had established a precedent on which Christianity
could build. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Rordorf, Sunday (1968), 290 n 5
also Cl.A Strom IV.22.141.4 
Hipp.  Bened. Mo [??...]] s  (P.O. 17.171) 
Eus, c. @Marc I.2.13.23  (GCS IV.12)  } 

--- 

    \71/<ts>Strom</> VI:(16):145:4-6.  See also Cyp, <ts>Dom
Or</> 35 and <ts>Test</> II:16 where Christ, the <gk>LO/GOS</>,
is equated with the "day" of Ps 117:24.  In the <ts-lt>Evangelium
Veritatis</>, fol. 16v (p. 32b), Christ is called the "perfect
Day."  On these and other relevant patristic passages, see
Danie/lou, <tm>The/ologie</>, pp. 221-26. 

    \72/<ts>Leg All</> I:21. 

=== 

     The situation is similar with regard to the title "the
righteous one," which is applied by implication to Christ in Barn
6:7 (Isa 3:10).  Hegesippus (<lt>apud</> Eus, HE II:13:15) refers
Isa 3:10 to the death of James "the Just," and Cl. A
(<ts>Strom</> V:(14):108:2-3 thinks that Plato borrowed from the
Isaiah passage in describing the afflicted righteous man.\73/  In
general, however, early Christian authors emphasize that Christ
is depicted as <gk>O( DI/KAIOS</> of Isa 3:10.\74/  The Isaiah
passage also had a great deal of secondary influence on Christian
literature <lt>via</> the form in which it is used in Wisd 2:12. 
Hipp (AJ 9), Cyp (<ts>Test</> II:14), Lact (<ts>Div Inst</>
IV:16, and S-T (p. 36), quote Wisdom (rather than Isaiah) in
speaking of Christ, the righteous one (compare Barn\L/ 67:7!). 
The very fact that the pre-Christian, hellenistic Jewish [[159]]
author\75/ of Wisd 2:12-20 could unite such concepts as <gk>O(
DI/KAIOS</> who calls himself <gk>PAI=DA KURI/OU</> and who may
also be considered as <gk>UI(O\S QEOU=</>, is in itself striking
for our thesis.  Whether or not any Messianic overtones are
intended in this passage,\76/ the "Christian" flavor which is
there present cannot be ignored in a discussion of early
Christian sources and their background.  In the use of language,
there is not too great a distance between this kind of
hellenistic Judaism and the "anti-Judaism" attributed to later
Christian sources. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
see also 4 Q p Ps 37 -- 

to verses 32-33  @@--  "The wicked watches for the righteous and
seeks to slay him ..." 

This concerns the wicked Priest <lt>vs</> Teacher of R.  } 

--- 

    \73/See <ts>Repub</> II, p. 361E-362A, <gk>OU(/TW DE\
DIAKEI/MENOS O( DI/KAIOS MASTIGWQH/SETAI</> ... (<lt>apud</>
Cl.A). 

{@@RAK addition:  Possibly Cl.A is quoting from Aristobulus here
--  see Hommes, Testimoniaboek.  } 

    \74/JM, D17 and 133-37; Tert, AM III:22; T-A (P. 71); P-P (P.
69).  For an extensive discussion of the use of <gk>DI/KAIOS</>
through NT times, see G. Schrenk in Kittel's <tm-gm>Theologisches
Woerterbuch zum NT</> II (1935), 184-93 (trans by J.@@R. Coates
in Bible Key Words, G. Quell and G. Schrenk, <tm>Righteousness</>
[1951], pp. 13-25).  {@@RAK addition:  See also Melito, <ts>Hom
on the Passion</> 73 (= Barn on Isa 3:10). 

    \75/We cannot enter into problems of the higher criticism of
Wisdom.  According to R. H. Pfeiffer, <tm>History of NT Times
with an Introduction to the Apocrypha</> (1949), Wisdom cannot
possibly "be regarded as a Christian book ....  It is even highly
improbable that ... some verses are Christian interpolations"
(pp. 326f);  "In general modern criticism has [concluded that]
... the author was an Alexandrian Jew with a philosophical
education,... and lived in the period between 145 and 50 B.C."
(p. 327). 

    \76/See B.M. Metzger, <tm>An Introduction to the Apocrypha</>
(1957), p. 76:  "Whether the author here has in mind some
contemporary Jewish martyrdom known to him, or whether he drew
upon the stories in the Books of Maccabees for a generalized
description of suffering for the Jewish faith, cannot be
determined." 

=== 

     <h1>The Good Land</>.  -- Barn 6:8-19 clearly forms a unit
within chs 5-6.  It is the explication of the theme found in 5:7
-- the Lord @@submitted "in order to keep the promise to the
fathers" and to "prepare for himself a new people."  The entire
passage reads as follows: 

{@@RAK--Please note that a line is drawn under "submitted."  es
{@@RAK note in margin of text: 
        cf - <em>will judge</>.  }  

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

A. Jaubert  <tm-fr>Orige\ns:  Home/li/es sur Josue/</> 
Sources Chre/tiennes 71 (1960) 

pp 19-30        "<fr>Prolongements chre/tien's de the\mes juifs</>"
                the eschat. land, celestial land 
      30ff.     "<fr>@@Perceptions spe/cifiquement chre/tiennes</>" 
                x = land; body, milk + honey, grapes 
                Joshua 
      84f.  --  Comments on Barn 6:8-19  } 

[[160]]
   8  The other prophet, Moses, says to them:\77/  
        Behold, thus says the Lord God;
        Enter into the good land which the Lord promised 
        to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,\78/ and inherit it,
        A land flowing milk and honey. 
   9  And what does <gk>H( GNW=SOS</> say?  Learn! 
        Hope, it says, on the Jesus/Joshua who is about
        to appear to you in the flesh, 
        For man is suffering land (<gk>GH= PA/SXOUSA</>), 
        For from the fact of the land came the 
        formation (<gk>H( PLA/SIS</>) of Adam.\79/ 
  10  What, therefore, does he say?  
        Into the good land, land flowing milk and honey. 
      Blessed be our God, brethren,\80/ who places in us 
      wisdom and insight (<gk>NOU=N</> into his secrets.  
      For the prophet says:  
        A parable of the Lord, who will perceive (<gk>NOH/SEI</>) 
        except he who is wise and well-instructed\81/
        and loves his Lord?  
  11  Since, therefore, he renewed us by the forgiveness 
      of sins, he made us another sort (<gk>A)/LLON TU/PON</>),
      like a child, to have a soul as though he
      re-created us.\82/ 
[[161]]
  12  For the scripture speaks concerning us,
      when he says to the Son: 
        Let us make, according to our image and likeness,
        the man.  And @@he shall rule the beasts of the land,
        and the birds of the heaven, and the fish of the sea.  
      And the Lord said, when he saw our excellent figure: 
        Increase and multiply and fill the land. 
      These things to the Son.\83/ 

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 

they}  

{@@RAK-- Please note that you circled "he."  es} 

  13  Again I will demonstrate to you\84/ how he speaks to use: 
        A second creation (<gk>PLA/SIN</> he made in the @@last-
        times (<gk>@@E)P' E)SXA/TWN</>).  
      And the Lord says: 
        Behold, I make the last (<gk>TA\ E)/SXATA</> as the first. 
      For this reason, therefore, the prophet proclaimed:  
        Enter into a land flowing milk and honey 
        and subdue it. 

{@@RAK-- I kept "last-times" as a hyphenated word.  es} 

  14  See, then, we have been re-created, as he says again 
        in another prophet:  
        Behold, says the Lord, I will extract from them -- 
      that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord
      foresaw -- 
        the stone hearts,
        and I will insert flesh (hearts);\85/
      Because he was about to be manifested in the flesh 
      and to dwell in us.  
  15  For, my brethren,\86/ the inhabiting of our heart is 
      a holy temple to the Lord. 
  16  For again the Lord says: 
        And by what means shall I appear to the Lord my God, 
        and I will be glorified? 
      He says: 
        I will praise you in the assembly\87/ of my brethren,  {@@.?}    
        And I will extol you in the midst of the assembly\87/
        of saints. 
      Accordingly, we are those @@whom he leads into the good Land! 

{@@RAK--
1.  You list footnote #87 twice. 
2.  I typed your correction and replaced "who enter" with "whom he leads." 
es} 

  17  What, then, is the milk and honey? 
      Because the child is nourished first with honey, 
      then with milk.  
[[162]]
      Thus also we, who are nourished with the faith of the
      promise and with the word, shall live and subdue the 
      land.  
  18  And we have said above,
        and let them increase and multiply and rule the
        fish.\88/  
      Then who is now\89/ able to rule beasts or fish or foul
      of the heaven? 
      For we ought to perceive that 'to rule' involves (<gk>E)STI/N</>)
      authority, so that whoever is in command should dominate.  
  19  If, then, this does not\90/ happen now, he has told us 
      when\91/ it is to happen-- when we also become perfected 
      ourselves, as heirs of the Lord's covenant.\92/  

--- 

    \77/So H.  S Cl.A has "What does the other prophet say?"; GL
have "And Moses, moreover, says to them."  L also lacks the first
word of the quotation, "Behold."  Only the most significant
variants in Barn 6:8-19 will be noted below. 

    \78/On the variations here in Barn\Cl.A/ and S\c/, see above,
p. 35 and p. 38 n. 14. 

    \79/In this verse, L lacks "to you" and "suffering," and
translates <gk>A)PO\ PROSW/PON GH=S</> idiomatically as "<lt>ex
terra</>." 

    \80/Characteristically, L lacks the hortatory emphasis of
Barn\Gk/'s words like <gk>A)DELFOI/</> and <gk>TE/KNA</>; see p.
185 n. 9 and Barn 6:15 below. 
 
    \81/L lacks <gk>E)PISTH/MWN</> here, but has
"<lt>cognovit</>" in the next verse where Barn\Gk/ has
<gk>A)NAKAINI/SAS</> (@@S\*/, <gk>E)KAI/NISEN</>). 

    \82/Or, "like a child's soul, as though...."  HG have the
singular, <gk>W(S PAIDI/OS</>, but SL have <gk>W(S PAIDI/WN</> -- 
L's reading, "...<lt>tamquam pueros habere ut spiritu figuraret
nos</>," is rather strange, when compared with the Greek. 

    \83/So SG.  HL lack this editorial comment, perhaps
correctly.  Actually the words "increase..." etc., are plural
impv. and must be taken as <gk>PRO\S H(MA=S</>. 

    \84/Barn\Gk/ has <gk>SOI</> (singular!); L has
"<lt>vobis</>." 

    \85/L lacks the whole of V.14 to this point. 

    \86/L lacks; see above n. 80. 

    \87/<gk>E)KKLHSI/A</> both times. 

    \88/L lacks v. 18 to this point; G lacks "and multiply"; H
reads "beasts" for "fish." 

    \89/S lacks <gk>NU=N</>. 

    \90/H lacks <gk>OU)</>. 

    \91/H has <gk>TO/TE</> for <gk>PO/TE</>. 

    \92/L lacks the whole of v. 19. 

=== 

     As is usual in Barn, the argument is difficult to follow and
has called forth some detailed investigations in recent
years.\93/  Its main themes are:  (1)  contrast between "good
land" and "land suffering," (2)  contrast between the original
creation and the "second creation," and (3)  the comparison of
"promise," "inheriting," and "ruling."  The eschatological
picture of God's new creation is built from imagery connected
[[163]] with creation (Gen 1:26,28) and the promised land.  It
presupposes such @@subtilties of meaning as "man"/"Adam" (and
possibly also "Adam"/"land" [Adama]), and the ambiguity of the
name <gk>I)HSOU=S</> (Jesus/Joshua).\94/ 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
om} 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "subtilties" or "subtleties?"  I think
"subtleties is correct.  es}   

--- 

    \93/See N.A. Dahl, "<fr>La terre ou coulent le lait et le
miel selon Barnabe</> 6.8-19," in <tm-fr>Aux Sources de la
Tradition Chretienne</> (Goguel Festschrift, 1950), pp. 62-70;
and Schille, "Tauflehre," pp. 48-51.  Both of these authors
suggest that the original setting of the passage was baptismal
instruction.  See also the classic article by H. Usener,
"<@@gm>Milch und Honig</>," <tm-gm>Rhein. Mus.</> (1902), pp.
177ff (also in this <te-gm>Kleine Schriften</> IV [1913], pp.
398-417, and briefly summarized in <ts>Pauly-Wiss</>.  XV [1932],
col. 1578). 

{@@RAK addition:
add Barnard + Prigent 

add Jaubert [Origin's Hom. on Josh], 31ff, 84ff.  } 

    \94/See also "temple"/"assembly" (church?);
"beasts"/"birds"/"fish" as ethical types (see Barn 10, below);
and on <gk>E)COUSI/A</> as the present possession of "the Black-
One" (6:18, compare 2:1, 4:1, etc.  --  note also Rev 13:1-8). 

=== 

     Despite the fact that at least 7, and possibly 13,
quotations occur in Barn 6:8-19@@,\95/ only the material from Gen
1:26-28 can be classified as a clear verbal parallel to one
particular OT passage.\96/  The initial reference to the "good
land" (6:8) is a synthesis of Pentateuchal phrases but is not
strictly identical with any single [[164]] context;\97/ its
immediate origin probably is a targumic source such as we found
behind Barn 4:7f=14:2f (compare Cl.A, <ts>Paed</> I:(6):34:3). 
Similarly, Barn 6:14 resembles Ezek 11:19=36:26, although no
exact verbal identities exist between the passages;\98/ possibly
Ps-Barn here uses an apocalyptic reworking of the Ezekiel
passage. Barn 6:16 uses psalmic material (compare 5:13,@@6:6)
derived Ps 41(42):3 (see @@vv.@@6,12), Isa 49:5, Ps 34(35):18,
21(22):12, 107(108):4=56(57):10.\99/ 

--- 

    \95/Problems of counting them include (1) repetition of the
"good land" theme with formulae in vv. 8, 10a, 13b, and the
repetition of v. 12 in 18a; (2) are two separate quotations
intended in v. 12 ("and the Lord said" may be part of the
citation rather than a separate formula) and v. 16 (<gk>LE/GEI</>
may be secondary or parenthetic)? and (3) is v. 13a ("second
creation") meant to be a quotation? 

    \96/Actually, even this material in Barn 6:12 (see also 6:18)
has some interesting differences from extant LXX MSS, both in the
words used (<gk>H(MW=N</> for <gk>H(METE/RAN, TO\N A)/NQRWPON</>
for <gk>A)/NQRWPON</> [but not in Barn 5:5]) and in their
arrangement (<gk>QHRI/WN ... PETEINW=N ... I)XQU/WN</>, etc). 
Nor does Barn 6:12 give a continuous text of Gen 1:26-28  --  no
material from 1:27 is included and a phrase from 1:28 (<gk>KAI\
KATAKURIEU/SATE AU)TH=S</>) has been included at the end of Barn
6:13 (where the parallel in 6:8 has <gk>KAI\ KATAKLHRONOMH/SATE
AU)TH/N</>).  On the history of interpretation of Gen 1:26, see
J. Jervell, <tm-lt>Imago Dei</> (1960) and R. McL. Wilson, "The
early History of the Exegesis of Gen 1:26," <tp>Studia
Patristica</> I (TU 63, 1957), 420-37. 

    \97/The emphasis in Barn partly revolves around the adjective
<gk>TH\N A)GAQH/N</> which is most frequent in connection with
<gk>TH\N GH=N</> in Deuteronomy (see especially 6:18 and 31:20f). 
The naming of the individual patriarchs in connection with the
land is found in Gen 50:24, Ex 33:1-3, Num 32:11, and Deut 1:8,
but none of these passages describe the land as "good," and only
Ex 33:3 refers to the "milk and honey."  "Inheriting" the land is
mentioned, in a similar setting, in many passages (see especially
Lev 20:24, Num 13:31, Deut 1:8 and <lt>passim</>, Josh 23:5, Ezek
47:14).  Numerous passages (Pentateuchal and otherwise) speak of
the "land flowing milk and honey."  The phrase, "which the Lord
promised," is characteristic of Deut (see 6:18, 8:18, 9:5, etc.). 
The words <gk>I)DOU\ TA/DE LE/GEI KU/RIOS O( QEO\S,
EI)SE/LQATE</> are never used in this context in the OT. 
(@@Notice the parallel in Barn 9:5, where a similar introduction
is taken to signify an <gk>E)NTOLH/N</>  --  is this a clue to
Barn 6:1?)@@. 

{@@RAK--
1.  I capitalized the "n" in "Notice." 
2.  I think that the punctuation should be within the parenthesis. 
es} 

    \98/The words <gk>I)DOU\ LE/GEI KU/RIOS E)CELW= TOU/TWN</>
are not even remotely paralleled in LXX (<lt>apud</> Hatch-
Redpath).  Barn's <gk> TA\S LIQI/NAS KARDI/AS ... SARKI/NAS</>
corresponds to Ezek's <gk>TH\N KARDI/AN TH\N LIQI/NHN ...
KARDI/AN SARKI/NHN</> (elsewhere in the prophets,
<gk>SARKI/NOS</>, is not found, and <gk>LIQI/NOS</> occurs only
in Ezek 40:42).  The <gk>E)MBALW=</> of Barn\SH/ (G has
<gk>BALW=</>) is a legitimate variant for LXX (so Ezek) in such
passages as Isa 51:23 (compare 37:7, 29; Deut 11:18), but may
well be a reflection of Isa 28:16 as cited in Barn 6:2b. 

    \99/Compare Cl.R 26:2.  The precise relevance of these
psalmic quotations in the argument of Barn 6:8-19 is somewhat
obscure.  Apparently they depict <gk>I)HSOU=S</> in the spiritual
temple (hearts of the brethren/saints) praising and receiving
glory from the Father.  The <gk>E)KKLHSI/A</> in which the
brethren/saints find themselves is, therefore, in some sense
equivalent to <gk>TH\N GH=N TH\N A)GAQH/N</>.  Thus
<gk>I)HSOU=S</> <em>is</> the fleshly heart of those who enter
the eschatological promised land  --  in this sense the new
creation is in his image and likeness.  Compare the argument in
Heb 2:10-17. 

=== 

[[165]]

     Other explicit quotations in this section have little or no
relation to the Greek OT as we know it.  Barn 6:9 has a strange
quotation from <gk>H( GNW=SIS</> (a source?) which seems to unite
a "second Adam" with a "Jesus/Joshua" Christology.  The one who
leads into the promised land (heavenly man?) comes in the flesh
and suffers, just as the first Adam was earthly and was caught in
the grip of suffering.\100/  It is through this sort of
identification of the Savior\101/ with sinful man that the new
creation was made possible (6:11). 

--- 

   \100/Philo (see also later Gnostic thought) emphasizes the
contrast between the creation of "earthly man" (Gen 2:7, made
from the dust of the earth) and "heavenly man" (Gen 1:26, made in
God's image); see <ts>Qu Ex</> II:46 (to 24:16).  In <ts>Leg
Alleg</> III:251ff, the earthly man is pictured as experiencing
an extremely painful (<gk>O)DUNHRO/S</>) existence until he
returns to dust (see Gen 3:18f).  Note also <ts>Leg Alleg</>
II:41, where Philo's Adam (in a discussion about sense
perception) calls Eve "flesh of my flesh and <gk>PA/QOS E)K TW=N
E)MW=N PAQW=N</>." 

   \101/On <gk>I)HSOU=S</> (Joshua)="savior" in hellenistic
Judaism, see Philo, <ts>Mut Nom</> 121f (Hoshea means individual
salvation ["he is saved"], but Moses changes the name to Joshua,
which signifies corporate salvation ["safety of the Lord"]); and
Sirach 46:1 ("according to his name he @@bacame great <gk>E)PI\
SWTHRI/A| E)KLEKTW=N</>"). 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "became?"  es} 

=== 

     The last part of this quotation is strongly reminiscent of
Gnostic Adam speculation\102/ and also of more "orthodox" [[166]
treatments of the name Adam.  For example, the tractate (Ps-Cyp)
<ts>De Montibus Sina et Sion</> 4 finds in the letters of
<gk>ADAM</> the four corners of the earth (<gk>A)NATOLH/, DU/SIS,
A)/RKTOS, MESHMBRI/A</>) while the numerical value of <gk>A (1)
<gk>D</> (4) <gk> A</> (1) <gk>M</> (40) is 46.  <lt>"Hic numerus
XLVI passionem carnis Adae designat, quam carnem in se figuralem
Christus portavit, et eam in ligno suspendit."  "Hebraicum Adam
in latino interpretet 'terra caro facta'."</>  The wide
distribution of this kind of speculation is attested by a "Greek
alchemical text which may date from the end of the third century
or the beginning of the fourth," attributed to @@Zosimos and
interpreting the letters of the name ADAM as representing "the
four cardinal points and the four elements."\103/  In a somewhat
different vein, Tert equates <lt>"terra"</> (in Ps 95(96):1) with
<lt>"caro sanctorum"</> and later identifies the <lt>"terram
sanctam"</> with <lt>"carnem domini.</>"\104/  By way of
contrast, Cl. A (commenting on Job 42:6 and Jer 22:29) says that
"he who is <gk>E)N A)GNOI/A|</> is prone to err, and is
<gk>GH=</> and ashes," but the man <gk>E)N GHW=SEI</> is [[167]]
<gk>PNEUMATIKO/S</> and <gk>E)KLEKTO/S.</>\105/  Although none of
these passages correspond exactly to Barn 6:9b, they suffice to
show how widespread were similar kinds of thought in the
mentality which Barn seems to represent. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

so Also Augustine.  Tract in Jn Ev 9:14 

see H. Vogels, "<gm>Die @@Tempelreinigring und Golgotha (Joh 2, 19-22)" 
@@13.2.  6 (1962), 102-7. 

on <gk>ADAM </> = 4 directions, see Sib Or III:24 
                                    2 Enoch 30:13.  --  cf
Note in Charles.  } 

--- 

   \102/See K. Rudolph, "<gm>Ein Gruntyp gnostisher Urmensch-
Adam-Spekulation," ZRelGg 9 (1957), 1-20; see especially pp. 17ff
on the relationship of pre-Christian Judaism to such ideas. 

   \103/J. Doresse, <tm>The Secret Books of the Egyptian
Gnostics</> (1960), pp. 99-101 (see especially n. 84); see also
pp. 33ff on Adam=Eden, the good earth.  Origen, <ts>Comm in
John</> X:20 (to 2:20) refers to Heracleon's speculations about
the number 46 and adds a few suggestions of his own, but ADAM
does not enter into the discussion. 

   \104/<ts>Resur Carn</> 26:4-11.  In 26:3 he also speaks of the
earth suffering ("<lt>terra patietur</>") joy or sorrow in
connection with human emotions (this is how he explains the
cursing of he earth). 

   \105/<ts>Strom</> IV:(26):168 (compare V:14); see also Philo's
interpretations in N. 100 above. 

=== 

     In 6:10b, Ps-Barn characteristically introduces a
parenthetical, hortatory quotation into the argument (see also
5:4, compare 4:11).  It is difficult to determine whether
<gk>PARABOLH\N KURI/OU</> is part of the formula or begins the
quotation; in <ts>Strom</> VI:(8):65:2, Cl. A seems to choose the
latter alternative when he adds the entire quotation to the
opening words of Job 11:2 ("he who says many things is also
answered, but a parable of the Lord, who ...").  It is possible
that Cl. A knew of another source of these words besides Barn,
although he elsewhere quotes Barn 6:8-10 in entirety.\106/ 

--- 

   \106/See below, p. 169.  The passage from Cl.A cited above is
strange in that a section of Cl.R is quoted earlier under the
name "Barnabas" (64:3), while the quotation paralleled in Barn
6:11 is directly followed (without a break) by material from Cl.R
@@43:5f and is acknowledged as such.  The nearest OT parallel to
the Barn citation is Prov 1:6. 

===

     Barn 6:13 contains one or two quotations concerning the new
creation in the last times.  As often has been noted, the Latin
(=Syriac here) Didasc VI:18:15 provides a fuller parallel to one
of these: 

[[168]]
  <u-col><lt>Nam id dictum est:          <u-col>Barn 6:13</> 
    Ecce facio prima sicut novissima     <gk>I)D?OU\ POIW=</>
    Et novissima sicut prima.</>         TA\ W)/SXATA W(S TA\ PRW=TA 

@@The context of this quotation in Didasc is much closer to Barn
15:3-8 than to 6:13, and there is little reason to suggest that
the author of Didasc took the passage from the Epistle as we know
it.  Numerous other possible parallels in OT and Christian
literature have been suggested, but none convincingly @@solves
the problem of whence Barn and Didasc ultimately derived their
particular form of the quotation.\107/  Again, it is clearly from
apocalyptic literature of some sort, and corresponds to the
<gk>A)/LLOU KO/SMOU A)RXH/N</> of the parallel eschatological
passage in Barn 15. 

{@@RAK-- 
1.  Please verify that "solves" is correct. 
2.  Please verify that "The context" is not the beginning of a new paragraph. 
es} 
--- 

   \107/See Windisch, <lt>@@loc cit</>, and Bartlet, <tm>NT in
Apostolic Fathers</>, pp. 12,@@16, for some of the suggestions. 
Koester, <ts>Synopt. Ueberlief</>., p. 127, discusses and rejects
the possibility that this may be a <@@lt>logion</> of Jesus.  The
nearest parallels seem to be Rev 21:5 and Hipp, <ts>Comm in
Dan</> 4:37. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  <lt>ad loc.</>  } 

=== 

     In summary, the unit of material in Barn 6:8-19 is more
clearly related to 6:1-4\108/ than to 6:6-7, but also fits into
the general thrust of Barn 5-6.  In addition, it has definite
affinities with ch. 15 (see also 11:8-11 [below, pp. 229 ff] and
16:7-10).  The way in which Cl. A cites Barn 6:8-10 in
<ts>Strom</> V:(10):63:1-6 is interesting and perhaps
significant: 

  But also Barnabas ...
    More clearly, he says, I write you,
[[169]]
    so that you might understand (<gk>SUNIH=TE</>, Barn 6:51).   
  Then below, even more clearly having provided a trace
  <gk>GNWSTIKH=S PARADO/SEWS</>, he says:  
    [Barn 6:8-10], --
  inasmuch as it is (the privilege) of few to approach 
  these things (<gk>E)PEI\ O)LI/GWN E)STI\ TAU=TA XWRH=SAI</>). 

Did Cl. A know of an actual "gnostic tradition" which Barn had
used here?  This certainly is not impossible; we have already
glimpsed a few of the ways in which similar material was used in
late Judaism and early Christianity.  It is difficult to believe
that Ps-Barn is the originator of such exegesis.  Rather, Barn
6:8-19 is probably but a small sampling of a large body of
traditional material concerning the new creation (Adam imagery)
and the eschatological rest (Jesus/Joshua imagery),\109/ while
related material often appears elsewhere in the Epistle. 

--- 

   \108/Notice how the themes of I Pet 2:1-10 parallel Barn 6:1-
4, 8-19; rebirth, nourishment, Christ as stone, etc. 

   \109/Compare Tert, AM III:16:3f=AJ 9:21f (see also below on
Barn 12):  "<lt>Cum successor Moysi destinaretur Auses filius
Nave, transfertur certe de pristino nomine et incipit vocari
Jesus .... Hanc prius dicimus figuram futuri fuisse, nam quia
Jesus Christus secundum populum (quod sumus not nati in saeculi
desertis) introducturus erant in terram promissionis, melle et
lacte manantem (id est, in vitae aeternae possessionem, quia
nihil dulcius), idque non per Moysen ... sed per Jesum ...
provenire habebat ....</>" 

=== 

     <h1>Atonement and Red-Heifer Typology</>.  --  In chs. 7-8,
Ps-Barn describes two portions of Jewish cultic ritual and shows
how they typify the Lord's passion and exaltation.  In both the
kind of material used and the intensity with which midrashic
exegesis is used, these chapters are quite different from most of
the remainder of the Epistle (with the possible [[170]] exception
of ch. 10).\110/  The problems of source and meaning raised by
Barn 7-8 are a lengthy study in themselves (see Windisch)  -- 
there is not a single explicit quotation in these chapters which
can be identified with confidence as to its precise origin, and
many of the ritual details are unattested in other descriptions
of the same Jewish observances.\111/ 

--- 

   \110/Note that JM, D 40-42, seems to have a similar sort of
digression. 

   \111/For a defense of Barn 7-8 (and the Apostolic authorship
of the Epistle), see J.C. Marshall, "Was Barnabas Ignorant of
Jewish Ritual?"  Exp 4 (1882), 63-77. 

=== 

     The most noteworthy parallels to any part of Barn 7-8 which
have been preserved for us in early Christian authors are the
interpretations of the Atonement ritual in JM, D 40, and in Tert,
AM III:7:7=AJ 14:9.  The passages compare as follows: 
 
{@@RAK note on facing page: 

<gk>NHSTEIA</> (=  <hb>Hebrew text</>  in sing. = tech term for Atonement Day 

so Lowy, JJS 11 (1960), 2 n. 11; JJS 9 (1958), 19 n. 1.  } 

   <u-col>                  <u-col>             <u-col>
   <ts>Barn 7:4, 6-10</>    <ts>JM, D 40:4</>   <ts>Tert, Am III:7:7</>

 4 What then does he say                        For if I also make
   in the prophet?                              an interpretation 
     And let them eat from                      of the two goats
     the goat which is                          which they used to
     offered in the fast                        offer in the fast,
     for all their sins ....                    will not they also
     And let all the priests                    depict both orders
     alone eat the entrails                     of the same Christ? 
     unwashed with vinegar.  
   ....

 6 Pay attention to what    And indeed, the     Indeed, (they were) 
   he commanded:            the goats which     suitable and also 
     Take and offer up      are commanded to    similar because of
     two fine and similar   be similar in the   the same appearance 
     goats, and let the     fast, of which      of the Lord, for he 
     priest take one as a   the one is for      had not come in
     holocaust for sins.    sending away,       another form [so that
 
[[171]]
 7 But what shall they do   but the other       he would be recognized
   with the other?          for an offering,    by his persecutors]. 
     The other, he says,    are announcements 
     is accursed.           of the two parousias
   Pay attention how the    of the Messiah: 
   type of Jesus 
   is manifested.           of the first, 
 8   And you all shall      in which            But the one of them,
     spit and prick (goad)  like one sent away, bound with scarlet, 
     and bind the scarlet   the elders and      slandered and spit
     wool around its head,  priests of your     upon and torn and 
     and thus let it be     people              pricked by the people, 
     cast into the          paid him no heed    thrown down to
     wilderness.            but they lay        destruction outside the city, 
   And when it shall        their hands on him
   be done thus ....        and killed him;     signified with
 9 What, then, is this?                         evident tokens
   Pay attention!                               the Lord's passion. 
     The one on the altar, 
     the other accursed;                        Indeed, the other,
     and the accursed                           offered for faults
     is crowned.                                and given to the
   For they shall see him   and of his second   priests of the temple
   on that day with the     parousia, because   as food,
   scarlet down to his      in the very place 
   feet around his flesh,   of Jerusalem        signified proofs of 
   and they will say:       you will recognize  the second
     Is not this he whom    him who was         representation, [for now the 
     we once crucified      dishonored by you ....   church feasts on
     after rejecting and                        salvation, while
     piercing and spitting?                     others fast from it].  
     Truly this was the one                
     who then said 
     he was God's Son. 
10 For how is he similar to that one?  
   For this reason are the goats 
   similar, fine, equal, so that
   when they then see him coming, they will be 
   astounded at the similarity of the goat ....
  
     It often has been suggested that both JM and Tert have here
taken their material from Barn.\112/  In the few places where the
Atonement  ritual is discussed in the OT (especially [[172]] Lev
16:3-37 and 23:26-32; see also 25:9, Ex 30:10, Num 29:7-11), it
is not explicitly called a "fast" (it is a solemn feast day in
which "you afflict your souls"), nor are the two goats described
or compared in any way.  The ritual connected with the goats is
that one is slaughtered "for the Lord" as a sin offering and
later is burned outside the camp, while the other is "for sending
away ["Azazel"] into the wilderness" by the hand of one man. 
Additional details are given about a bullock which the priest
offers as a sin-offering for himself, and the actions of the
priest in sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the altar,
etc., but there is no hint of the situation described by Ps-Barn. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On <gk>NHSTEIA</> ( = <hb>Hebrew text</>) in sing. as tech. term
for Day of Atonement, 

cf Lowy, JJS 11 (1960), 2 n.11 
         JJS  9 (1958), 19 n.1} 

--- 

   \112/So Windisch, p. 344f, <lt>et al</>. 

=== 

     The Talmudic picture (tractate <ts>Yomna</>, especially chs.
6-7) is somewhat more enlightening: 

  <qu>The two he-goats of the Day of Atonement are required to
  be alike in appearance, in size, in value, to have been
  bought at the same time.  But even if they are not alike
  [bought at the same time, etc.] they are valid (Mishnah
  6:1=62a, Epstein p. 290).</> 
 
After the lots have been drawn to determine which goat was for
the sacrifice and which to be sent away,\113/ the priest "bound a
thread of crimson wool on the head of the he-goat which was to be
sent away" (Mishnah 4:2=41b, p. 196).  It is noted that at one
time the "Babylonians ... would pull [the] [[173]] hair" of the
scape-goat (Mishnah 6:4=66a, p. 309), but some Rabbis said that
"these were not Babylonians but Alexandrians" (66b, p. 312). 
When the person (usually a priest) appointed to dispatch the
scape-goat had arrived at the mountain peak called
<transliterated hebrew>Z.ok.</>,

  <qu>he divided the thread of crimson wool, and tied one half
  to the rock, the other half between its horns, and
  pushed it from behind.  And it went rolling down and before
  it had reached half its way down hill it was dashed to
  pieces (Mishnah 6:6=66b-67a, pp. @@312f).</> 

The scarlet thread was to turn white as a sign of divine
forgiveness (see Is 1:18; Mishnah 6:8=68b, p. 321).  The
prohibition from eating on the Day of Atonement also is found in
<ts>Yoma</> 8 (Mishnah 8:1=73b, p. 353). 

--- 

   \113/On the scape-goat, Azazel, see K. Kohler and I. Husik,
"Azazel," <te>Jewish Encyc</> II (1902), pp. 365-67. 

=== 

     Philo and Josephus also refer to Atonement as a "fast"\114/
but add little to the Biblical and Talmudic picture.  Neither of
them support the Talmudic description of the scape-goat having
scarlet wool on its head or being thrown off a steep cliff --
they imply that the goat was allowed to go free (see references
cited in n. 114). 

--- 

   \114/Josephus, <ts>Antiq</> III:(10:3):240, speaks of the
people <gk>DIANHSTEU/ONTES</> until evening.  Philo, <ts>Spec
Leg</> I:186ff, refers to <gk>H( NHSTEI/A</> which is observed by
pious and impious alike for purposes of purification; in
<ts>Plant</> 61, he also describes Atonement as <gk>H(ME/RA H(
LEGOME/NH TOU= I(LASMOU=</> (see also <ts-lt>Quis Rer Div Her
Sit</> 179).  Note also Ps-Philo 13:6b, "In the beginning of the
year ... you shall fast to me for your