The Apostolic Fathers

Volume 3 : BARNABAS AND THE DIDACHE

by Robert A. Kraft

Quick links:

Table of Contents
Aids to the Reader
Outline of Barnabas and the Didache
Introduction to Barnabas and the Didache
Introduction to Barnabas
Barnabas 1-17 Translated
Introduction to the Two Ways (Did 1-6, Barn 18-21)
The Two Ways Materials Translated
English translation of Didache 7-16

NOTE: This material derives from Volume 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, edited by Robert Grant (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965), copyright by Robert A. Kraft [reassigned from publisher 1991], edited for electronic use with the help of Jay C. Treat (1993) and Monica Park (2002), with subsequent updates by RAK [notes and commentary and lists still need to be added in some portions].

[vii]]

PREFACE

In October of 1962, as I was beginning my second year of teaching at the University of Manchester, England, a letter arrived from Professor R. M. Grant asking if I would be interested in preparing this volume. The subject matter gave no cause for hesitation -- for several years I had been engaged in research on the Epistle of Barnabas in connection with my Harvard Ph.D. dissertation (1961), and during the previous year at Manchester I had conducted a seminar on the Didache. What did concern me not a little, however, was the thought of attempting to perform this task adequately within the suggested limits of about 150 pages -- especially since my previous study had dealt with only one aspect of Barnabas and had run to twice that size!

Some of the anticipated difficulty has been alleviated by the fact that, through the kindness of the editor and publisher, this volume has been allowed to exceed the originally suggested length. The tactical problem of how to include what seemed to me to be of basic importance for understanding this literature, in a way that would be both readable and useful for further reference, however, could not be overcome simply by adding a few pages. To best utilize the space, therefore, I have attempted to eliminate repetitious explanatory prose by means of a rather elaborate (I hope not cryptic) system of crossreferencing. On some occasions I have also resorted to the often frustrating (for the reader) practice of simply listing, without comment, actual and possible (sometimes rather remote, I confess) parallel passages from other ancient literature. Ideally, the supposed parallels should be quoted and commented upon, but in view of the space limitations it seemed best to err on the side of quasi-completeness rather than to omit the material entirely. In this way it is hoped that the book will prove worthwhile to a variety of readers as an introduction to Barnabas and the Didache, and as a pointer [[viii]] to further avenues of investigation: not only to the relatively uninitiated layman and college student, but also to those more intimately involved in things pertaining to the history of religion. An attempt has been made to provide the necessary assistance to those who require it in the Aids to the Reader section.

My debt to other students of Christian Origins and related subjects is far greater than the bibliography and notes suggest, although I have tried to indicate the more important sources and reference works there. In a variety of ways, apart from published writings, numerous other people have influenced the materials contained herein, not the least of whom were my teachers and fellow students at Harvard. With reference to the actual work of preparing the material for the press, I have found the publisher's staff, and especially Mrs. Bernice C. Rich (Production Editor), to be most gracious and patient and helpful, despite the many tedious hours that they have had to spend over what must have been a rather difficult project. Finally, to Mrs. Max Rifin, who salvaged time from her duties as secretary to the Department of Religious Thought at the University of Pennsylvania to type the manuscript, and to Miss Antonia Tripolitis (University of Pennsylvania) and Dr. Hans Dieter Betz (School of Theology at Claremont), who proofread the material at various stages, my gratitude is due.

Robert A. Kraft
University of Pennsylvania
July 1965

[[ ix]]

CONTENTS

Preface vii

Introduction

General Orientation

@1. Barnabas and the Didache as "Evolved Literature" 1

@2. The Two Ways Tradition Common to Barnabas and the Didache 4

The Epistle of Barnabas

@3. Sources for the Text of Barnabas 17
@4. Barnabas as a "School" Product 19

@5. The Type of Christianity Represented in Barnabas 22

@6. Questions of Higher Criticism: Date, Authorship, Origin 39

The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles 57

@7. Various Forms of the Didache Tradition 57
@8. The Didache as a Community Tradition 59

@9. The Christianity Represented by the Didache 65

@10. Questions of Higher Criticism: Date, Authorship, Origin 72

Translation and Commentary

Indexes

I. Quotations and Scriptural Parallels in Barnabas 1.1<->17.2 179

II. Quotations and Scriptural Parallels in the Two Ways Material (Barnabas 18.1<->21.9; Didache 1.1<->6.2) 186

III. Quotations and Scriptural Parallels in Didache 6.3<->16.8 187

[[xiii]]

AIDS TO THE READER

General Abbreviations and Notations

In the attempt to include in this relatively slim volume as much relevant information as possible, it has seemed advisable to use a system of symbols, abbreviations, and notations which is, for the most part, self-explanatory. On some of the specific methods used in the translation and commentary, the "Remarks on Procedure" (see below) also should be consulted.

b.         preceding reference to  a  Rabbinic  text  indicates 
             Babylonian Talmud
frg.       fragment 
Gk.        Greek language 
mg.        written in the margin  
MS(S)      manuscript(s) 
par.       and parallel passage (or passages), particularly with
  (parr.)  reference to the Synoptic Gospels
Ps-        pseudo; the alleged, but not the probable, author  
Syr.       Syriac language  
var.       textual variant  
4          indicates chapter and section of the Introduction  
* (2.7*)   following a reference to Barnabas or the Didache, to 
             indicate that an explicit quotation is in view;  
* (S*)     following a manuscript symbol, to indicate the <i>orig-</i> 
             <i>inal</i> text of the manuscript in a passage which has 
             subsequently been altered  
/          links alternative ideas (either/or, king/ruler)
(?)        indicates that the claim is probable, but significant 
             doubt also exists 

Modern Literature: Selected Significant Works

Only a few of the most significant books, along with the most frequently mentioned periodicals, are listed here. For additional literature, the reader is referred to Volume I of this series and to the standard Patrologies of J. Quasten (3 vols., Westminster [Md.], 1950-1960) and B. Altaner (translated by H. Graef, [[xiv]] Freiburg, 1960). Normally, when one of the following works is mentioned in this volume, it will be by the name of the author alone.

AUDET, J.-P.        <t>La Didach<e`>: Instructions des ap<o^>tres.</t> <E'>tudes 
                           Bibliques. Paris, 1958. English language 
                           review in <t>JTS</t> 12 (1961), 329<->333.
BOUSSET, W.         <t>J<ue>disch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexan-
                           dria und Rom: literarische Untersuchungen  
                           zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandia, 
                           Justin und Irenaeus.</t> G<oe>ttingen, 1915. 
GOODSPEED, E. J.    "Appendix" to <t>The Apostolic Fathers.</t> New 
                           York, 1950.
GRANT, R. M.        <t>The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction.</t> New  
                           York, 1964.  
HEER, J. M.         <t>Die Versio latina des Barnabasbriefes und 
                           ihr Verh<ae>ltnis zur altlateinischen Bibel.</t> 
                           Freiburg, 1908.
<t>JBL</t>                 <t>Journal of Biblical Literature</t> (Philadelphia).  
<t>JTS</t>                 <t>Journal of Theological Studies</t> (Oxford).  
KNOPF, R.           <t>Die Lehre der zw<oe>lf Apostel</i> .... Lietzmann's
                           Handbuch zum NT</t>, Erg<ae>nzungs-band, 1.  
                           T<ue>bingen, 1920. 
KOESTER, H.         <t>Synoptische <Ue>berlieferung  bei  den  Apos- 
                           tolischen V<ae>tern.</t> TU 65. Berlin, 1957.
MUILENBURG, J.      <t>The  Literary Relations  of  the Epistle  of 
                           Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve  
                           Apostles.</t> Marburg, 1929. 
PRIGENT, P.         <t>Les testimonia dans le christianisme primitif: 
                           l'<E'>p<i^>tre de Barnab<e'> I-XVI et ses sources.</t> 
                           <E'>tudes Bibliques. Paris, 1961. English lan-
                           guage review in <t>JTS</t> 13 (1962), 401<->408.  
ROBINSON, J. A.     <t>Barnabas, Hermas, and the Didache.</t> Lon-
                           don, 1920. 
TU                  Texte und Untersuchungen  (series of texts
                           and studies). Leipzig and Berlin.
VOKES, F. E.        <t>The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, 
                           Heresy or Catholicism?</t> London, 1938. 
WINDISCH, H.        <t>Der Barnabasbrief. Lietzmann's Handbuch 
                           zum NT,</t> Erg<ae>nzungs-band, 3. T<ue>bingen, 
                           1920.
<t>ZNW</t>          <t>Zeitschrift f<ue>r die neutestamentliche Wis- 
                           senschaft</t> (Berlin). 

[[xv]]

Ancient Literature: Method of Citation, Translations

(1) For the convenience of the English reader, the chapter and verse divisions for biblical references are based on the Revised Standard Version, even where the sources refer to the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which sometimes employs a different chapter and verse division from that of the RSV and the Hebrew. Standard abbreviations for biblical books are used.

(2) Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphical, and Hellenistic Jewish literature. Translations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are available in the collection edited by R. H. Charles (2 vols., Oxford, 1913; reprinted 1963). As with biblical references, the Old Testament Apocrypha are cited according to the Revised Standard Version chapter and verse divisions. For Philo and Josephus, the most convenient recent translations are found in the Loeb Library editions (Cambridge, Mass.). The titles of Philo's works normally are abbreviated on the basis of the Latin titles listed in Loeb. Other abbreviations are as follows:

Ps-Aristeas   The Epistle of Aristeas to Philocrates  
2 Baruch      The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 
1 Enoch       The Ethiopic Book of Enoch  
2 Enoch       The Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch 
4 Ezra        The Latin Apocalypse of Ezra (= 2 Esdras in RSV)  
Macc.         The books called "Maccabees" (1, 2, 3, 4)  
Pss. Sol.     The Psalms of Solomon  
Orac. Sib.    The Sibylline Oracles 
Sirach        Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of 
               Sirach 
Testaments    The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (the Tes-
  (T. Dan)     tament of Dan, etc.) 
Wisd. Sol.    The Wisdom of Solomon 

(3) Qumran literature is cited by the usual English title in shortened form -- Manual (of Discipline), Hymns, etc. -- according to the column and line of the original text. Unfortunately, few English translations include the exact column and line notation. The most convenient translations probably are by T. H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (2nd ed., New York, 1964) and G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore, 1962).

(4) Rabbinic Jewish texts are cited from various sources, primary and secondary. For the Mishna, see H. Danby's translation (Oxford, 1933). The complete Babylonian (b.) Talmud is available in the Soncino translation (London, 1935-1952) edited [[xvi]] by I. Epstein. The tractate Pirke Abot (wisdom/sayings of the Fathers) is separately available in several editions.

(5) Early Christian and Patristic literature. For translations of the Apostolic Fathers, see the bibliography in Volume I of this series. Most of the other Christian writings are available in one of the following: The Apocryphal New Testament (Gospels, Acts, etc.), edited by M. R. James (Oxford, 1924; corrected and supplemented, 1953); The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, A. Menzies, and A. C. Coxe (10 vols., Buffalo, 1884-1886); A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace (28 vols., Buffalo, 1886-1900). The following abbreviations frequently occur:

ApCo             The Apostolic Constitutions (see @7.5).
Cl.A.            Clement of Alexandria (see @3.4). Because the  
                   older texts (including the translation noted 
                   above) use a different system of numbering 
                   passages from the best recent Greek editions,
                   references to Clement's writings will include
                   both sets of numbers; thus <t>Stromateis</t> (<t>Str.</t>) 
                   5.(10).63.1 indicates 5.10 in the older sys-
                   tem = 5.63.1 in the new. 
1 Clem.          The epistle to the Corinthians, traditionally
                   attributed to Clement of Rome. 
2 Clem.          The homily/sermon which tradition (wrongly)
                   attributed to Clement of Rome and which
                   circulated as a "second" epistle to the Corin-
                   thians.
Ps-Clem.         The so-called <t>Homilies</t> (<t>Hom.</t>) and <t>Recogni- 
                   tions</t> (<t>Rec.</t>) that tradition (wrongly) attrib-
                   uted to Clement of Rome. 
G. Hebrews       Gospel According to the Hebrews. 
G. Peter         Gospel of Peter. 
G. Thomas        The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, edited and trans-
                   lated by A. Guillaumont, <i>et al.</i> (New York, 
                   1959). 
Hermas           The Shepherd of Hermas. Although the latest
                   and best Greek edition has renumbered the
                   passages by discarding the older divisions of
                   Visions (Vis.), Mandates (Mand.), and Si-
                   militudes (Sim.), these divisions have been
                   retained below.
Eusebius, H.E.   The <t>Ecclesiastical History</t> of Eusebius.
[[xvii]]
Hippolytus,       The <t>Apostolic Traditions</t> of Hippolytus, which 
   <t>Ap.Trad.</t>  circulated in various textual forms and ver-
                    sions (see @2.5.2, @7.6). For translations, see 
                    G. Dix (London, 1937), and B. S. Easton 
                    (Cambridge, 1934).  The Ethiopic, Arabic, 
                    and Sahidic versions were translated by G.
                    Horner, <t>The Statutes of the Apostles...</t> 
                    (London, 1904) .  
Ign.              Ignatius of Antioch.  
Irenaeus          Both the <t>Adversus Haereses</t> (<t>Adv. haer.</t>) and 
                    the relatively recently recovered <t>Demonstra-
                    tion of the Apostolic Preaching</t> (<t>Ap. preach. </t>)
                    are cited. For a translation of the latter, see 
                    J. A. Robinson (London, 1920).  
Odes Sol.         For translations of the Odes of Solomon, see  
                    J. H. Bernard (London, 1912); J. R. Harris  
                    and A. Mingana (Manchester, 2d ed., 1916-
                    1920).

For the abbreviations employed in discussions of the text of Barnabas and Didache, see @2.5, @3, and @7.

Glossary

Semitic/Hellenistic Judaism refer primarily to the difference in language between ancient Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking (and -writing) Judaism, and Greek-speaking Judaism-whether in Palestine or elsewhere.

Midrashic/targumic/halakic/haggadic refer to various Jewish approaches to types of religious material and its interpretation. In general, midrashic exegesis involves a running commentary on a given text in which phrases of the text are quoted piece by piece throughout the commentary; targumic paraphrase is an interpretative reworkng of a passage (usually narrative) into a relatively new form, without recourse to actual quotation; halakic material deals with problems of (religious) law and legal interpretation; haggadic refers to that which is not halakic, such as historical narrative, future hopes, and so on.

Eschatological/apocalyptic both relate to what the particular author considers to be "the last times/events." Apocalyptic designates a way of looking at the final eschatological events in which concrete symbolism (warfare, signs in the heavens, plagues, etc.) is employed and which usually is said to have been revealed from above (by visions, angelic intermediaries, [[xviii]] trips to heaven, etc.). Eschatological is the more general term for things pertaining to the "last times" and the "other world."

Cultic/liturgical refer to conduct in worship. Cultic usually is applied to religious practices which give the appearance of concentrating on external ritual, such as circumcision, sacrifice, and so forth, carried out by a priesthood at a particular holy shrine. Liturgical also refers to religious practices, but to those which seem to involve a greater degree of personal participation (and mysticism?), such as public prayer, chanting, and so on.

Catechesis/parenesis/exhortation are all used in connection with religious instruction. Catechesis signifies the formal instruction of people (catechumens) in preparation for their becoming full members of the religious community; parenesis refers to formal instruction and exhortation (usually ethical) of those associated with the community (whether full members or not); exhortation is the most general term and can mean simply encouragement or strong (ethical) prompting.

Remarks on Procedure

The translation of Barnabas and the Didache is based on my own "eclectic" Greek text. The notes to the translation are intended to provide a sampling of the more interesting and/or significant problems relating to the text itself, and occasionally to comment on a translation problem. On a few occasions the information contained in the textual notes to Barnabas may vary from the standard critical Greek editions (Gebhardt-Harnack, Funk) with respect to manuscript H (@3.1; see, e.g., to Barn. 3.2*, 4*; 4.4\mg./). This is because Barnabas H has only recently become available in microfilm, which now makes it Possible to correct the small percentage of misreadings that found their way into critical texts of the Western world (although Bryennios tried to correct most of them in the modern Greek introduction to his 1883 edition of the Didache). For the most part, I have not listed variants which are peculiar to a single witness in opposition to the consensus of other witnesses (especially with such common variants as "us"/"you," "Lord"/"God," etc.) unless they are especially noteworthy. For information about the textual witnesses referred to in the notes, see @3 (Barnabas), @7 (Didache), and @2.5 (separate Two Ways source) .

2. Translation. In the translation I have attempted both to preserve the "flavor" of the text and to communicate its message [[xix]] without resorting to free paraphrase. That is, where the Greek text tends to be abrupt or flowery or argumentative, I have tried to retain that impression in the English; where the Greek preserves somewhat archaic (e.g., Septuagintal) idiom, I have not attempted to erase this impression completely (e.g., "behold," "blessed are ..." -- on the other hand, there is no reason for using the Old English pronouns "thee" or "thou" in such contexts, since Greek has no equivalent "double standard") . The main problems have arisen with respect to anthropologic idioms such as "to love more than my own soul," where idiomatic English would say "... more than myself"; or in similar references to people as "spirits" (see @5.2.20). I must confess that I have not been entirely consistent in such passages, depending on whether an appreciation of the passage and its "flavor" seemed to require an awareness of the (archaic) Semitic-Greek idiom or not. Nor, incidentally, have I considered it necessary at all costs to render the same Greek wording in the same way throughout. Understanding often can be enhanced by comparing alternate legitimate translations. Thus, for example, the "Introduction" may include brief passages which vary slightly from the "Translation," or a Two Ways passage in Barnabas may be exactly equivalent to the Didache (a fact indicated by the use of italics), but the translation may vary somewhat. Occasionally, for the sake of capturing the intention of the text, it has been necessary to supply words which are implied but not actually stated in the Greek. Usually these are included in parentheses.

3. Cross References, Quotations. Although there is a danger that the translation may look somewhat "cluttered," it seemed that the most economical way to relate "Introduction" to "Translation and Commentary" was to include cross references in brackets in the translation itself-for example, "-... spirit [@5.2.20]." The same procedure is used for noting closely related passages in the same document and in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, or for indicating the probable sources of quotations. This means that the "Commentary" can, in general, bypass matters that have already been discussed in the "Introduction," and concentrate on such things as the background of each particular passage and problems of detail. Because of the abundance of "quotations" introduced by formulas in Barnabas, it seemed advisable to use indentation rather than quotation marks to set them off from their surroundings. Similarly, "poetic" and related contexts (i.e., with balanced structure) have been reproduced in such a way as to call attention to the structure. [[xx]]

4. Verse Division. Although the normally accepted verse divisions are sometimes awkwardly placed (e.g., Barn. 4.6 and 9; 9.4), this seemed to be neither the time nor the place to set things right. Thus I have often introduced supplementary letters to distinguish between various thought-units of a verse (e.g. 4.1b; 5.2e, etc.), which also makes possible greater precision in commentary and cross reference.

[[1]]

I N T R O D U C T I O N

General Orientation

@1. Barnabas and the Didache as "Evolved Literature"

1. "Evolved Literature" and the Role of Author-Editor. Both the so-called Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching (in Greek, Didache) of the (Twelve) Apostles, are examples of what may be called "evolved literature," in contradistinction to writings which have a single author in the modern sense of the word.\1/ That is to say, both Barnabas and the Didache, as we now have them, show clear evidence of being products of a developing process. Some individual, it is true, has put them into the form(s) preserved for us. But that person is at best an "author-editor," who reproduces and reworks older materials. Thus we sometimes are able to uncover in such evolved literature various layers of composition (!!!see below, @2, @4, @8). The latest stage may provide some information about the final author-editor, that person's thought and situation, but equally important for a real appreciation of such literature are the vestiges which remain from earlier stages of its history.

-- -- -
\1/ Numerous ancient writings, and not only those in the Judeo-Christian tradition, can be included in this general category-- e.g., the Historical Books of the Old Testament, the Synoptic Gospels and Revelation in the New Testament, the Jewish Talmud and Midrashim, etc. The same principle is evident in our own times on an even more impersonal plane in various reference works dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks) which continually are being streamlined and re-edited.

=====

Usually no clear-cut method by which this final author-editor has selected the sources and compiled the treatise can be discovered. Sometimes older materials are simply juxtaposed with little or no attempt at harmonizing whatever minor disagreements may exist between them. In one way or another they are supposed to be relevant for his purpose -- he may have decided that they should be included, or the compiler's [[2]] background tradition may have decided it. Sometimes an older source consciously or unconsciously is turned to a new end; again, it is not always easy to determine at what stage of the evolution the reinterpretation was introduced. Finally, there are times when the evolved literature appears to embody further elaboration of the attitudes of its sources. In such cases the viewpoint of the final author-editor is seen to be closely related to, or derived from, that of certain of the traditional materials that are used.

Thus the end product of this process, or better, the stage which has been preserved for us to examine (for still further elaboration and editing often occurs, as is clear from the history of the Didache; see @7, @8.5), is as much the product of its sources as it is the work of any individual. It provides an avenue into a living, many-sided tradition -- it is a "school" or "community" product, if you wish. What the author-editor has received, he transmits. The transmitter may add certain of his own insights and emphases; he may apply the materials to new situations and embody them in new contexts; he may apply personal judgment as to what is or is not relevant. But the transmitter does not usually rise above the tradition to appear as a clearly defined personality who has produced a piece of original literature in accord with our usual ideas of authorship. The transmitter has not consistently digested the materials so that they become second nature; the transmitter has not integrated them by means of a perspective that may be considered characteristic of that person. Rather, the tradition speaks through the tradent. It is of prime importance. The transmitter is its vehicle, but the focus remains on the traditional material, not on the author-editor.

2. Barnabas and the Didache as Representatives of School and Community. Within this general category of "literature," however, various types are distinguishable. For example, the two writings with which we are concerned, Barnabas and the Didache, differ greatly between themselves as to the precise kind of evolved literature which they respectively represent. Barnabas, on the one hand, takes the form of an epistle. Thus it contains several personal touches mixed in [[3]] with its wealth of traditional instruction.\2/ The author-editor, Pseudo-Barnabas, is attempting to deal with what he considers to be a significant need within a community known to him. Thus the elements of personality, time, and space are relatively prominent in the framework into which Pseudo-Barnabas has chosen to incorporate his traditions (@4.3). The Didache, on the other hand, is in the form of a fairly impersonal community manual. We do not even catch a glimpse of the individual responsible for the publication of the manual. Its instructions are presented as timeless "apostolic" teachings to successive generations in the community. Even the eschatological section in chapter 16 shares this flavor of impersonal timelessness.

-- -- -
\2/ Sometimes, however, even these apparently personal touches may simply be the reaction of accepted literary conventions; cf., e.g., Barn. 4.9a with Ign. Eph. 8.1; 18.1 (similar to the English idiom "I am your humble servant"); or Barn. 1.5; 17.1; 21.9 with Irenaeus, Ap. Preach. 1 (the emphasis on a "brief" communication of "necessary" things, as the writer "is able").

=====

As far as the respective contents of Barnabas and the Didache are concerned, another important difference is apparent. The Didache transmits community instructions for proper conduct and worship. It is in that sense a "community" product. Barnabas, however, is concerned with correct understanding of how to interpret the past (present and future), as well as how to live in the present. Thus Barnabas transmits instructions which, in origin, may more helpfully be called "school" interests (exegetical traditions, commentary, etc.) than "community" materials in a strict sense (liturgical conduct, church order, etc.). Nevertheless, in their different ways, both writings are interested in catechesis, in instruction, in exhortation, and thus find their use and preservation in the community. [[4]]

@2. The Two Ways Tradition Common to Barnabas and the Didache

1. Background of the Two Ways Approach. The most obvious piece of common ground between Barnabas and the Didache is the "Two Ways" tradition of ethical exhortation (Barn. 18-21; Did. 1.1-6.2). It has long been debated whether, for this material, (1) Barnabas has used the Didache, (2) the Didache used Barnabas, or (3) both independently used a common source.\3/ The present tendency, which is shared by this writer, is to prefer the last alternative (see @2.4) -- especially in the light of the Qumran Manual of Discipline 3.18 ff., which shows that a similar Two Ways device was also in vogue in a predominantly Semitic-speaking Jewish community in pre-Christian times.

-- -- -
\3/ The originality of the Didache has been defended by a minority of commentators, such as O. Bardenhewer, F. X. Funk, and R. D. Hitchcock-F. Brown. Those who have argued for Barnabean priority include F. C. Burkitt, R. H. Connolly, J. Muilenburg, and J. A. Robinson. Among advocates of a "common source" hypothesis are J.-P. Audet, J. M. Creed, E. J. Goodspeed, A. von Harnack (later view), K. Kohler, R. Knopf, B. H. Streeter and C. Taylor. For a recent treatment of the Two Ways material and the New Testament, see E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Para"nese im NT (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT 7, Tu"bingen, 1964); on related Hellenistic material see also H. D. Betz, Lucian von Samosota und das NT...(TU 76, Berlin, 1961), 205 n.2.

=====

But there is no reason to think that the form of the Two Ways tradition shared by Barnabas and the Didache had direct and immediate ties with Semitic Judaism. Rather, it seems to have flourished in the Greek schools of Hellenistic Judaism for decades, if not centuries, before early Christian writers came to adopt it. Its ultimate origins are obscure and its family tree in terms of Greek and Semitic (and even Egyptian) developments cannot be reconstructed with any assurance. In its Jewish form(s), probably Deuteronomy 30.15-19 and Psalm 1 played a central role along with passages such as Jeremiah 21.8; Proverbs 2.13; 4.18 f., and so [[5]] forth. In any event, the theme is ancient and is by no means exclusively Jewish or Judeo-Christian in popularity (see, e.g., the "Choice of Heracles" in Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.1.21 ff.). Thus it is impossible to say precisely how, when, or where the Two Ways theme took the form which became known to Barnabas and the Didache. The least that can be said is that it seems to have been a separate written tractate, in Greek, which came into early Christianity by way of Greek speaking Judaism and its practices (a "proselyte catechism"?).

2. Pervasiveness of the Two Ways in Barnabas. A close examination of Barnabas reveals that the influence of the Two Ways motif is not limited to chapters 18-20. This is one of the themes that pervades the entire epistle (@5.4-5), and it comes to expression most clearly in the references to the "way of righteousness" (1.4; 5.4; cf. 11.7+; 12.4+) or "of light" (18.1; 19.1, 12) in contrast to the "way of wickedness" (4.10; cf. 10.10+; 11.7+), "of darkness" (5.4; 18.1; cf. 20.1) and "of death" (19.2c; 20.1b) -- cf. also "the error" which now ensnares some men (2.9; 4.1; 12.10; 14.5; 16.1). But it can scarcely be explained simply as an original contribution of the final author-editor himself. This becomes clear from a closer examination of the characteristic emphases shared by Pseudo-Barnabas and his school tradition -- emphases which presuppose the Two Ways scheme, presented in an eschatological setting, for their very existence (see @5.1-5) -- as well as from the growing awareness of the antiquity of this approach (@2.1). To be more specific, the obviously traditional ethical interpretations offered in Barnabas 10 (cf. 19.2c, 6b), which in form resemble Didache 3.1-6, but which do not seem to have come from the common Two Ways source, help illustrate the degree to which Pseudo-Barnabas' school tradition was oriented toward such material. And when the author-editor abruptly appends the Two Ways material of chapters 18-20 to his treatise, he as much as says he is reproducing extant catechetical material -- "another gnosis and didache" (18.1; cf. the conclusion at 21.1, "as many [[6]] ordinances as have been written"). Far from being a creation of Pseudo-Barnabas, the Two Ways tradition which he transmits has played a formative role (along with "gnostic" exegesis [@5.1] and eschatology [@5.3]) in the particular type of Christianity to which he subscribes.

3. The Two Ways in the Didache. By way of contrast, the Two Ways theme in the Didache is almost exclusively limited to Didache 1.1-6.2. Its absence from Didache 6.3-15.4 is perhaps explicable in view of the subject matter (liturgical-cultic, ecclesiastical). It is possible that some connection once existed between the apocalyptic appendix to the Didache (ch. 16) and a Two Ways tradition presented in a vivid eschatological setting, as in Barnabas. But this is part of a larger problem that requires special treatment (see @2.7). For the present, it suffices to note that some material present in the Two Ways (Did. 4.2; Barn. 19.10b) is echoed both in Didache 16.2a and in Barnabas 4.10b, and probably in Hermas, Similitudes 9.26.3b--

Didache 4	Didache 16	Barnabas 4	Hermas
(see Barn. 19)	(cf. 14.1)
		Do not retire	[some believers
		to yourselves	criticized
		and live alone	for]
and daily	and	...but gather
	frequently be	together in	... not
	gathered	harmony	fellowshiping
seek out the	seeking the	seeking what	with the
faces of the	things necessary	is of common	servants of
saints	to your	benefit	God, but
that you	souls	[cf. 19.8a;	living alone
might find	[cf. Barn.	21.2b; Heb.	they destroy
rest in their	17.1 var.; Ign.	10.25].	their souls.
words.	Eph. 13.1;
	2 Clem. 17.3].

Furthermore, Didache 16.2b is almost verbally identical to Barnabas 4.9b-- [[7]]

Didache: For the whole time of your faith will not profit you unless in the last time you are perfect.

Barnabas 4.9b: For the whole time of our life and faith will profit us nothing unless now, in the lawless time and in the scandals to come...we resist.

-- and Barnabas 4.9b-14 clearly incorporates Two Ways imagery.

Whatever the solution to this complex situation, Didache 1-6 shows no real interest in eschatology. This is especially striking by comparison to Barnabas 18-20, which shares with the rest of the epistle an atmosphere charged with present eschatological drama (see @2.2; @5.3). Contrast, for example, Barnabas 18 with Didache 1.1, or Barnabas 19.10a with Didache 4.1a. In the Didache, eschatology either is subsumed under liturgy (8.2*; 9.4; 10.5-6) or forms an appendix (ch. 16) in which the reader is admonished to be ready when the last times finally do arrive, and is made aware of certain future preludes to the consummation. Barnabas and the Didache are in two different worlds at this point. Their common ground is almost entirely limited to the Two Ways ethic.

4. Source of the Two Ways Material in Barnabas and the Didache. Thus we are faced with the knotty problem of trying to suggest how this situation could have come about. The evidence is almost completely against the hypothesis that Barnabas took its Two Ways material from the Didache. By comparison with Barnabas 18-19, the first part of the Two Ways tradition in Didache 1-4 is both more systematically arranged and is significantly longer. There can be little doubt that Didache 1.3b-2.1 is a late, Christian addition to the basic tradition (see @8.2); similarly, Didache 3.1-6 contains a separate, carefully structured tradition of prohibitions (see also @8.4). Neither of these sections has left any clear imprint on Barnabas (the variant to Barn. 19.11a almost certainly is secondary). Furthermore, the [[8]] organization of such passages as Didache 1.2; 2.2-3 (cf. 5.1); 4.1-11, stands in marked contrast to the haphazard (at least by our standards) presentation of the same material in Barnabas. On the other hand, there is one relatively extensive passage in which Barnabas and the Didache follow exactly the same sequence and have almost exactly the same wording (Barn. 20.2 = Did. 5.2). It is not at all tempting to believe that Barnabas systematically eliminated these two blocks of Didache material (including those vices in Did. 5.1 which are also mentioned in Did. 3.1-6), and then scrambled the remaining items except for Didache 5.2.

In order to accept the hypothesis that the Didache took the Two Ways material from Barnabas, however, one must be willing to attribute the Didachist with the following editorial functions: He first purged the entire tradition of characteristically Barnabean emphases such as eschatology (@2.2-3), "darkness" (and "light"?) in ethical symbolism (Barn. 5.4; 10.10; 14.5 ff.; 18.1; 20.1, etc.), "gnosis" (@5.1-2), glory/glorification (Barn. 2.10*; 8.2; 11.9; 19.2 f., etc.), theology of the word (@5.8) -- as well as several seemingly "Jewish" ideas (e.g., Barn. 19.2a, 9b; 20.2d, 2h) and even one of the "ten commandments" (Barn. 19.4e -- but note the textual problems). He then reorganized and extensively expanded the first part of the material, while retaining the last part (Barn. 20) with very little alteration.

Surely the difficulty, if not impossibility, of either of these alternatives is reason enough to invoke the aid of a hypothetical common source. In short, both Barnabas 18-20 and Didache 1-5 provide strong indications that the Two Ways ethic which they share had already been through a significant amount of development in the respective background traditions from which these two documents come before it was finally incorporated into the present forms of Barnabas and the Didache. The basic "common source" probably was not directly used by either Pseudo-Barnabas or the Didachist (almost certainly not by the latter; see @2.5) -- it is "common" [[9]] to their traditions but seems to lie at some distance in the shadowy background.

5. The Separate Circulation of the Two Ways Material. In addition to the various direct witnesses to the present forms of Barnabas (@3) and the Didache (@7), early Christian literature attests the separate circulation of a form of the Two Ways ethic that is closely related to Didache 1.1-6.1 but without the material in 1.3b-2.1. Indeed, Goodspeed has argued that this separate Two Ways tradition actually represents the source common to Barnabas and the Didache. But to put the case in just that way is to oversimplify the relationship (see @8.5) . The differences between this independent Two Ways tract and the Didache are slight in comparison to its differences from Barnabas -- for example, it includes the twofold command of love (Did. 1.2; contrast Barn. 19.2) along with most of the Didache 3.1-6 "supplement," and it lacks most of Barnabas' eschatological preoccupation (although it is more "mythological" than the Didache at the outset, mentioning two "angels"). Thus it would seem to represent the immediate source upon which the final author-editor of the Didache drew for the Two Ways material. But as we have seen, Barnabas 18-20 must have been derived from an earlier form of this ever-growing tradition (lacking Did. 3.1-6, and less ordered), a form which already was united with eschatological emphases in the school tradition on which Pseudo-Barnabas depends. Thus of the three Christian forms of this Two Ways tradition, Barnabas 18-20 represents the most primitive offshoot from the ancient common stock, while the following witnesses attest a later stage which came to be incorporated directly into the Didache.

(1) Dctr = the Latin "Doctrina." It is known from two manuscripts, the oldest of which (ninth-tenth centuries) is incomplete and parallels only Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-6a, while the other (eleventh century) contains the complete Dctr -- paralleling (in general) Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-6.1. [[10]] The points of unique agreement between Dctr and Barnabas against the Didache are almost completely limited to the opening words of the Two Ways, where Dctr-Barn. use the imagery of light/darkness and refer to corresponding angelic powers. There are also some faint similarities between the closing words of Dctr and Barnabas 21 (cf. Barn. 4.9b = Did. 16.2b).

(2) CO = the "Apostolic Church Order" (or "Ordinances"), also known as the "Ecclesiastical Canons of the (Holy) Apostles" (see also @7.6). This form of the church manual tradition probably dates from the early fourth century and circulated widely in the East (Egypt-Syria). The shortest form is contained in four Greek manuscripts dating from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries, and has sometimes been called (among other titles) the "Judgments of Peter." It contains, roughly, the material of Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-4.13, with some adaptations and additions, and a few smatterings of peculiarly Barnabean wording (see @3.7). The general order follows the Didache, but the teaching is sectioned off and put into the mouths of various apostles -- for example, Peter gives Didache 2.2-7, Andrew gives 3.1-2, and so on. In one Greek manuscript from the twelfth century, as well as in the Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions, this reworked Two Ways tradition forms the first part of a much longer manual which continues with regulations governing church offices, and so forth (clearly related to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus; see @7.6). The textual problems between these various forms of the Apostolic Church Order are often very complex. Most witnesses also include brief verbal parallels to Didache 10.3b and 13.1/2 (?) in the expansion which follows the admonitions of Didache 4.2, but this material is not extensive enough to encourage the belief that our full Didache was used for the Two Ways of CO. Rather, CO seems to have added excerpts from at least Barnabas and possibly the Didache to the Dctr-like form of the Two Ways on which it is based. [[11]]

(3) Shenuti = the Arabic (but not Coptic) form of the Life of Shenuti, from the seventh century (?). This hagiogaphy opens with parallels to the Dctr-CO form of the Two Ways. Didache 1.3b-2.1 is not represented and the negative approach of 5.1-2 is severely abridged (cf. CO, where it is lacking). The personal catechetical approach is heightened through the frequent insertion of "my son," and there is a great deal of expansion and adaptation of the basic Two Ways material.

(4) Syntagma = the Syntagma Didascalias ("Summary of Doctrine") attributed (wrongly?) to Athanasius. The Syntagma dates from the fourth century, and contains some teachings which obviously depend on the Two Ways, but which constitute only a small portion of the rules for Christian (especially monastic) life enjoined therein. It is imposible to say with complete assurance that the Syntagma rests solely on the Dctr-CO form rather than on the larger Didache. A passage on giving may be related to Didache 1.4d-e, but is not necessarily so -- otherwise the Didache 1.3b-2.1 material is lacking. Similarly, the practices of fasting and giving reflected in Didache 8.1 and 13.3 are taught in the Syntagma, but this cannot be pressed as a proof of literary dependence.

(5) Fides = "The Faith and Teaching of those in Nicaea." This fourth-century Greek manual especially for clerics and monastics unites a form of Athanasius' "Confession of Faith" with a slightly variant form of the Syntagma. At one or two points, the Fides includes Two Ways phraseology not paralleled in the Syntagma, but usually the two documents present the same material in the same order and almost identical wording.

6. General Characteristics of the Two Ways Teaching. A closer examination of these materials permits some general observations about the common Two Ways source. If one is permitted to make a very subjective judgment on the basis of the relatively stable (but limited) context in Barnabas 20.2 = Didache 5.2, the order of items in the source would [[12]] seem to have been more "haphazard" than "systematic." This tends to support the suspicion that the Doctrina-Didache form of especially the Way of Life has been extensively reworked with respect to sequence. In terms of content, it is not clear whether, or to what extent, eschatology appeared in the source; what has remained as common to Barnabas and Doctrina-Didache is almost exclusively ethical -- duties toward God (Barn. 19.2a, d, f = Did. 1.2a; 4.12b, 13a), neighbor (Barn. 19.3d, 6a, 8a = Did. 2.6b, 2c; 4.8), children (Barn. 19.5c, d = Did. 2.2b; 4.9), rulers and slaves (Barn. 19.7b, c = Did. 4.11, 10); vice lists (Barn. 19.4a; 20.1= Did. 2.2f.; 5.1); etc. In style, there is a marked tendency to parallelistic couplets which are strongly reminiscent of Jewish Wisdom Literature, such as Proverbs and Sirach (cf. also Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) -- we find the linking of two ideas that are roughly synonymous (e.g., Barn. 19.2d-e, 5c = Did. 4.12a-b, 2.2b; cf. Did. 3.9a), or sometimes antithetical (e.g., Barn. 19.8a = Did. 4.8; cf. Barn. 19.3a, Did. 3.9b), or in which the second part builds on the first to supplement and strengthen the teaching (e.g., Barn. 19.7a, 8b = Did. 2.4; see also Did. 4.14). There are also straightforward prohibitions and positive admonitions, as well as occasional teachings with properly "theological" overtones (e.g., Barn. 19.6c, 7c-8a = Did. 3.9c; 4.8, 10; cf. Did. 4.1b). Finally, it should be noted that at several places Barnabas uses a stylistic device of grouping three items together (not always related in context) -- for example, l9.2a, 4a, 4d, 6b. The fact that the number three plays a special role in the Barnabean tradition (see @5.5.3), however, causes some hesitation in claiming this as a stylistic tendency of "original" Two Ways source.

7. Didache 16, the Eschatology of Barnabas, and the Two Ways. There remains the problem of how Didache 16 is related (a) to Barnabas, and (b) to the Two Ways. We have already noted that Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b use the same admonitions (@2.3). There are, in fact, several [[13]] other apparent parallels between Didache 16 and Barnabas (esp. 4.9h-14):

The admonition to watchfulness (Did. 16.1) is a frequent theme in Barnabas (see esp. 4.9b; @5.4);
Both documents refer to the Christian quest for salvation as "your/our life" (Did. 16.1a; Barn. 2.10b, 4.9b);
Both can describe salvation as "perfection" (Did. 16.2b; cf. @9.5; Barn. 6.19; cf. Barn. 4.11b; @5.4);
Both warn of lawlessness and error/deceit "in the last days" (Did. 16.3-4; Barn. 4.1, 3a; see @5.3);
Both recognize that some men, including the "sheep" (Did. 16.3; Barn. 16.5+), will fall away from salvation in the time of crisis (Did.   16.5; Barn. 4.3, 9b, 13-14);
At least Barnabas (7.9) and perhaps Didache (16.5b) picture the victorious Jesus as one who previously had been cursed;
Possibly the "sign spread out in heaven" (Did. 16.6) is related to the "type" of the cross described in Barnabas 12.2-4;
Both speak of the world/unbelievers "seeing" the Lord when he comes (Did. 16.8a; Barn. 7.9, cf. 5.10);
Finally, the role of the "world-deceiver" who "resembles a son of God" and who conquers earth with "signs and wonders" (Did. 16.4)   sharply contrasts with Barnabas' picture of Jesus, "God's Son" (see @5.7), who is rejected despite "signs and wonders" (Barn. 5.8f.;   see 4.14a); similarly, Christians should also act as "God's sons" (Barn. 4.9b), and should "endure" (Did. 16.5b) as Jesus "endured" (Barn. 5.1-12; 14.4).

It is obvious that some of these items reflect apocalyptic commonplaces current in early Christianity (see also Koester on Did. 16); nevertheless, this material is extensive enough to at least suggest the possibility that the undeniable relationship that exists between Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b may be only part of a larger problem concerning Didache 16 and Barnabas 4 in general. [[14]]

(1) One possibility to be tested, then, is that the whole of Didache 16 is somehow related to Barnabas. But in that event, it is unlikely that the Didache has directly used Barnabas,\4/ since that would necessitate a systematic reorganization and expansion of the "borrowed" material along more strictly apocalyptic lines (like Mark 13, etc.), plus the systematic elimination of many Barnabean peculiarities (the immediacy of the crisis, emphasis on judgment, etc.). Might Barnabas have used the Didache, then? Again, this is unlikely since numerous allusions in Didache 16 which would have been congenial to Barnabas are not, in fact, adopted -- for example, "world-deceiver" (16.4) or even "deceiver" (see @5.3), the "fiery trial" (16.5; cf. Barn. 15.5), or the coming of the Lord "on the clouds" (16.8, cf. Barn. 7.9; 15.5). And where minor parallels between Barnabas and the Didache do exist, they usually are more characteristic of the former, which indicates that Barnabas' tradition spoke in such a way, and thus that (mechanical) "borrowing" from the Didache is precluded. In short, if we begin with the possibility of a large-scale relationship, the best solution is to postulate a common apocalyptic source which roughly followed the Didache 16 pattern (call to vigilance, last days in the Lord, judgment). Pseudo-Barnabas knew such apocalyptic material -- and much more -- but has admittedly refrained from dealing with "things future" as such (17.2). But ps-Barnabas cannot hide the widespread influence that the apocalyptic has had on the tradition, and this background is especially obvious in chapter 4.

-- -- -
\4/ Despite B. C. Butler, JTS 11 (1960), 265-283.

=====

(2) An alternative approach would be to reject the suggested minor parallels between Didache 16 and Barnabas as superficial and coincidental, and to concentrate on the clear relationship between Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b (for the texts, see @2.3). From a close analysis of the wording, it is impossible to determine whether one has borrowed [[15]] from the other, or which form is more "original" -- for example, the general thought-world of Barnabas is reflected in such concepts as "faith" = "life" (i.e., the salvation quest; !!!see 2.2, 10b; @5.4), "lawless time" (15.5; 18.2), "scandals to come" (4.3a); but the Didache also elsewhere contains this idea of "faith" (10.2; 16.5) and of "perfection" (1.4b; 6.2; 10.5). Thus Barnabas might have originated the material and the Didache adapted it, or vice versa, or both adapted a common source. There is some additional evidence to support the last alternative. As we have noted (@2.3), Didache 16.2a = Barnabas 4.10b may be a variant form of Two Ways material known from Didache 4.2. This possibility is greatly stengthened by the Hermas parallel (@2.3), since Hermas also knew the Two Ways tradition (see to Did. 1.1). Furthermore, 1 Clement 34.7-35.6 preserves ideas similar to Didache 16.2 = Barnabas 4.10b, 9b in a Two Ways setting:

Therefore we should come together in harmony with one mind....Therefore let us strive to be found among the number of those who endure, that we may receive a share of the promised gifts. But how?...If we seek out the things which are pleasing...to him, if we bring to perfection the things necessary...and we follow in the Way of Truth...[a vice list follows].

Not only does Barnabas 4.9b-14 also employ Two Ways imagery, but the idea of the "lawless time" is used in Barnabas' introduction to the Two Ways (18.2b). Didache 16 also may contain some faint echoes of such a setting -- does "life" = Way of Life in 16.1a?; note also the contrast between love and hate in 16.3, and especially the contrast between the "signs of the truth" (16.6) and "the one who leads the world into error" (16.4). There is a good possibility, then, that Didache 16.2b = Barnabas 4.9b derive from the original conclusion to the common Two Ways source (cf. the Dctr conclusion), and partly fill the gap left by the present divergent endings in Didache 6 and Barnabas 21.

(3) It would also be possible to solve the problem at hand [[16]] by synthesizing various aspects of the two preceding hypotheses: for example, at one time the common Two Ways source circulated in connection with an apocalyptic appendix similar to Didache 16;\5/ or, at one time the admonition of Didache 16.2b = Barnabas 4.9b formed part of the Two Ways conclusion, but it later came to be incorporated into an apocalyptic tradition which circulated separately and was used by the Didache and Barnabas.

-- -- -
\5/ Such a combining of ethical catechism with apocalyptic ideas can be illustrated from many Judeo-Christian sources-- see esp., the Testaments. Indeed, K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (1960), has argued that such a combination is expected in the kind of literature represented by the Didache (and Barnabas).

=====

Admittedly such hypotheses are extremely complicated and highly speculative. But the situation itself is so complex that any simpler "solution" (the Didache made direct use of Barnabas, or vice versa) actually creates more problems than it solves. Thus, until some fresh evidence is uncovered which can illuminate these matters, some sort of "common source" theory must be invoked with reference to Didache 16 = Barnabas 4, as well as for the Two Ways material shared by Didache 1-5 and Barnabas 18-20.

[[17]]

@3. Sources for the Text of Barnabas

There exist numerous Greek manuscripts containing the epistle in whole or in part. For text-critical purposes, however,they can be reduced to three important witnesses -- H, S, and G (see below). The frequent and often lengthy quotations in Clement of Alexandria (Cl.A.) constitute a (partial) fourth Greek witness, and the textual evidence provided by the ancient Latin version L, although oftendifficult to assess, cannot be ignored. There is some additional relevant material, as we shall see, but its contribution is negligible.

(1) H (Codex Hierosolymitanus) is the manuscript discovered by P. Bryennios in 1873. It dates from the year 1056 and is most famous for containing the Didache (see @7.1). Because it was discovered in Constantinople, some earlier editors refer to it as "C." In addition to Barnabas and the Didache, H includes Chrysostom's "Synopsis of the Old Testament," 1-2 Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius ("long" recension), and two shorter, hitherto unknown documents. Its text of Barnabas is most closely related to the first hand of S and to Cl.A.

(2) S designates the Codex Sinaiticus (often called "Aleph"), which C. Tischendorf discovered in 1859. This manuscript dates from the late fourth or early fifth century, and contains biblical books (OT-NT) plus Barnabas (right after Revelation) and the Shepherd of Hermas. The original text of S (S*) and its contemporary corrections (S\1/) are closely related to H. But several later corrections (seventh [[18]] century?) have also been made from a text which is very similar to family G. We will refer to these as S\2/. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish S\1/ from S\2/.

(3) G is a convenient designation for the family of nine Greek manuscripts in which Barnabas 5.7 ff. is welded on to Polycarp, Philippians 9.2 without any indication, thus forming a hybrid document which is half Polycarp, half Barnabas. The oldest of these manuscripts dates from the eleventh century, and they are all obviously derived from a common mutilated ancestor which is at least that old. That the type of text preserved in G is often even older may be seen by its frequent support from the corrections in S\2/. Sometimes G and L show a tendency to agree against H and S*.

(4) Cl.A. indicates Clement of Alexandria, who explicitly quotes the epistle seven times and uses similar materials without acknowledgment elsewhere (see @6.1, 7).

(5) L is the ancient Latin version which may have been made as early as the third (or late second?) century, but which is now preserved only in a single corrupt ninth-century manuscript in Leningrad (Codex Corbeiensis). The extant text of L contains only Barnabas 1-17, and that in a much shorter form than the Greek. It is not always clear whether the translator (plus later corruption in the Latin tradition) is responsible for abridging his Greek Vorlage, or whether he knew a shorter Greek form of Barnabas (which did not include the Two Ways!).\1/ The text presupposed byL sometimes supports G against H and S*.

(6) Syr signifies fragments of Barnabas 19.1 f., 8; 20.1 in Syriac translation published by A. Baumstark in Oriens Christianus 2 (1912), 235-240.

(7) CO indicates the allusions to Barnabas 1.1; 19.2a, 9b; and 21.2-4 (in some MSS), which are embedded in the predominantly Didache type Two Ways tradition in the Greek [[19]] Apostolic Church Orders and its Sahidic-Arabic-Ethiopic versions (@2.5.2).

(8) The Two Ways tradition itself, in its various forms (@2.5; @7) is also important for determining the text of Barnabas 18-20.

@4. Barnabas as a "School" Product

1. Explicit Quotations (see the Indexes). Even the most cursory encounter with Barnabas 1-17 should make one thing clear: Pseudo-Barnabas repeatedly claims to be quoting from older materials, almost all of which may be traced directly or indirectly back to Jewish religious literature. There are nearly one hundred formulas of quotation, most of which are general and vague ("scripture says," "it is written," "the prophet says," "the Lord/God says/said," "it/he says"), but some of which refer to the supposed book or human speaker or author by name (Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Enoch). Rarely, an attempt is made to identify a citation with even more precision, as 10.2 ("in Deuteronomy"-but where?), 15.1 ("in the ten words" or "Decalogue"-but see the passage!), 15.3 ("at the beginning of creation" -- Gen. 2.2).

Approximately one fourth of Barnabas' explicit quotations derive (directly or indirectly) from the Septuagint of Isaiah. Phrases and verses from the Psalms are also frequent and usually betray some relation to known Septuagint text forms. Pentateuchal material is often cited, but seldom shows widespread verbal agreement with extant texts. Septuagint Proverbs is used once (5.4a), and Jeremiah provides a few passages (in basically LXX garb). Reminiscences of Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jewish apocalyptic literature (Enoch [see 4.3], 4 Ezra [see 12.1], 2 Baruch [see 11.9f.]) also lie behind a few citations, and at one place -- and only one (4.14) -- a phrase which we now find in our canonical Matthew is formally quoted ("as it is written"). Otherwise [[20]] there is no clear evidence that Pseudo-Barnabas knew any part of our present New Testament in written form.\2/ Nor is there any clear allusion to the Old Testament "historical" books outside of the Pentateuch.

2. Blocks of Traditional Material. But it is not simply a matter of introducing individual proof-texts that we encounter in the epistle. Time and again two or more quotations (sometimes with related commentary -- e.g., 2.4-3.6; 11.6-11; chs. 15-16) are found to be linked by means of common words or ideas which recur in each quotation (e.g., 4.4-5; 6.3-4; 9.1-3; 11.2-5; 12.10-11; 14.7-9), and the awkwardness with which these smaller units sometimes are incorporated into the present form of the epistle points to the wholesale use by Pseudo-Barnabas of available blocks of tradition. The variety of these traditional materials\3/ -- halakic (chs. 7-8) and haggadic (e.g., 4.7 f.; 14.2 f.; 12.2-7) midrash, Hellenistic-Jewish propaganda (e.g., 2.4-3.6; ch. 10), moralized Greek natural history (10.6-8), various "prooftext" excerpts and blocks (e.g., 9.1-3), typology/allegory traditions (e.g., 6.8-19; 11 .6-11; chs. 12-13) , apocalyptic sources (e.g., 4.3-5; 5.12[?]; 6.13 f.; 11.9 f.[?]; 12.1, 9; 15.4; 16.3, 5-6), and so forth -- and the ways in which these sources are arranged in the epistle (often mechanically by topics, or sometimes simply juxtaposed) strongly suggest that the final author-editor has worked from a "school" background which is closely related to Hellenistic Judaism.

3. "Pseudo-Barnabas" as a Teacher. In fact, the claims of Pseudo-Barnabas point in the same direction. Although he does not wish to address his readers in the formal capacity of "Teacher" (1.8; 4.6b, 9a), he is acting as a transmitter of what he has received (1.5; see 4.9a; 21.9) and he expects them to receive his teachings (9.9; 17.1 f.; 18.1; 21.2, 7). Although he is capable of teaching them more difficult matters [[21]] (17.2), he has attempted to write briefly and simply (1.5; 4.9; 6.5) about the "things which are able to save us" (4.1; see 17.1 var.). Apparently he is motivated not only by his personal relationship with the recipients (1.3-8; 4.6; 6.5) but by the hope that he may claim them as his students when the day of judgment comes (see 1.5; 21.7 ff.; cf. 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 2.16; 2 Clem. 19.1). They are his "sons and daughters" (1.1; cf. 19.5d), his "children" of love and joy and peace (7.1; 9.7; 15.4; 21.9; cf. 9.3c), and his "brethren" (2.10; 3.6; 4.14; 5.5; 6.10; 6.15), whom he loves more than his own self (1.4; 4.6; see 6.5; 19.5b). He hopes that they too will become "good lawgivers" and "faithful advisers" (21.4), meditating on his teachings, which are the Lord's teachings (21.7 f.; see 1.4).

4. "Pseudo-Barnabas" as an Author-Editor. The final product of this well-intentioned but hasty reiteration of school traditions has often provoked adverse comment from modern commentators. But Pseudo-Barnabas' lack of care and/or talent in organizing and editing his materials proves a boon to us in that many of the "seams" between these tradition blocks remain obvious and thus permit us partially to reconstruct the background from which at least one early Christian teacher operated. The main seam is, of course, between chapters 17 and 18. In fact, it has sometimes been suggested that the epistle once circulated in a short form (chs. 1-17, as in L -- see @3.5), which later was expanded (by the same author-editor?) to include the Two Ways material. In any event, Barnabas 2-16 itself often reads like a crude attempt at writing an erudite research paper (but without footnotes). The author-editor shows a wide range of acquaintance with diverse methods and materials which he considers worth-while. But it is a superficial acquaintance. He has not always made the school materials his own. Thus his work often lacks real coherence and suffers from the overzealous attempt to apply to his own purposes various sources and arguments which sometimes originally served other ends. He is not a brilliant "Teacher" by any standards; but [[22]] he draws upon what must have been a respectable educational heritage (see @6.7-11). His aim is not to present a well-ordered flow of argument, but to emphasize, by means of repetition and juxtaposition, the things that are important for salvation, for that is his theme (see @5.4).

@5. The Type of Christianity Represented in Barnabas

Despite the fact that Barnabas incorporates various tradition blocks, and that Pseudo-Barnabas often fails to impose any systematic organization on his adopted school materials, there are certain basic themes that run throughout the epistle and which, when isolated and closely examined, can provide a fairly clear portrait of the thought world from which it came. We should not expect Barnabas to present an entirely consistent theology. For the most part, Pseudo-Barnabas does not seem to be interested in speculative "theology" -- he is more concerned with practical matters, with exhortation and parenesis, with correctly understanding the Lord's commandments and living thereby. But behind his catechesis a rather sophisticated thought structure is assumed -- mainly derived by Pseudo-Barnabas from his school tradition, to be sure -- which revolves around a special understanding of God's action in human history, and a vivid consciousness of living in the last times. It is impossible to appreciate the epistle without having these themes of "gnosis" and eschatology clearly in view.

1. Exegetical and Ethical Gnosis. The express purpose of the epistle (or at least of chs. 1-17) is to pass along to the readers some of the special insights which the author has himself received -- insights that will supplement their already present faith (1.5), and will assist them in their quest for ultimate salvation (@5.4). This special insight is called "gnosis" (among other things, see below), and is a gift which God bestows on (all of ?) his children, enabling them to interpret the course of the history of salvation -- past, present, and future (1.7; 5.3). Although Pseudo-Barnabas concentrates [[23]] on providing insight into what has happened (especially the history of Israel and the work of Jesus; @5.6-7), he claims also to be able to interpret present and future events (17.2), and he sometimes does so (e.g. 4.3-5; 15.3-7). Not every man has this gnosis, but only those whose "ears and hearts" have been circumcised (9.1; 10.12), that is, those who have (obediently) "heard" the Lord's voice (8.7-9.4). Thus gnosis and action are closely connected -- he who "hears" the Lord's voice understands what is being commanded, and he who rightly understands is better able to obey the Lord's commands. The cultic, literalistic Jews did not "hear" (8.7), thus they could not understand (10.12a; see @5.6). Nevertheless, certain individuals in Jewish history were blessed with gnosis -- Abraham (9.7 f.), Jacob (13.5), Moses (10.1-11; 4.8 = 14.3, etc.), David (10.10; 12.10), the "prophets" (1.7; 2.4; 5.6, etc.). It is because Pseudo-Barnabas has witnessed for himself that his readers have already received from the Lord a generous "implantation of the pneumatic gift" (1.2f.; see 9.9) that he feels justified in helping to bring their gnosis to perfection (1.5; cf. 13.7b).

There is nothing strange or illegitimate about referring to this attitude as "gnostic." In fact, Pseudo-Barnabas probably would not have hesitated to use the word of himself, just as his admirer, Clement of Alexandria, later does (@6.1, 7). It is true that this is not the "Gnosticism" which developed among certain second-century groups and which came to be condemned by the developing "orthodox" church for its differentiation between the hidden God of Jesus and the inferior creator God of the Jews, its obsession for cosmological-theological speculation (often at the expense of ethical-social responsibility), and so forth.\4/ Nevertheless, the importance of gnosis for Barnabas and its tradition must not be minimized. As the appended list of terminology which deals [[24]] directly or indirectly with this matter of special insight in Barnabas shows, it is basic to the world of thought with which we are concerned (see @6.7). But gnosis for Barnabas is not an end in itself. The term is used technically to refer to two closely related ideas: "exegetical gnosis," which enables the recipient better to understand salvation-history (see 6.9; 9.8; 13.7), and "ethical gnosis," which is the correct understanding of the Lord's requirements for conduct (see 18.1; 19.1; 21.5). Sometimes these two aspects of gnosis become so intertwined as to be indistinguishable (see 1.5; 5.4; 10.10 [2.3 ?]). The main thrust of the epistle remains parenetic (moral exhortation and instruction) even where its approach is most gnostic. This also is a characteristic of Barnabas' tradition, as we shall see (@6.7-11).

2. Gnostic-Parenetic Terminology. The main terms in Barnabas relating to special (exegetical) insight into God's actions and requirements are:

(1) aisthanesthai: to "perceive/understand" the real meaning of a text-2.9; 6.18; 11.8; 13.3.

(2) akouein (ako): to "hear" ("hearing") or "hearken," in the sense (a) of paying close attention to what is spoken/ revealed and thus understanding (obeying) it -- 7.3; 8.7; 9.1-3* (10.12); 13.2 (cf. 12.8); or (b) of receiving the "word" (@5.8) of salvation -- 9.4a; 11.11b (cf. 19.4).

(3) blepein: to "perceive" with gnostic insight -- 10.11e; 13.6 (cf. 1.7; 3.6a; 4.14; 9.7).

(4) gignskein: to "have (special) knowledge" (gnsis) -- 7.1; 12.3; 14.7; 16.2c (see also 9.1*; 11.4*; 19.11; 20.2).

(5) gnrizein: to "make known" the meaning of events in salvation-history -- 1.7 = 5.3.

(6) gnosis: "knowledge" of what God requires from man (18.1; 19.1; 21.5), or of what is meant by a text/act in salvation-history (6.9[?]; 9.8; 13.7[?]), or something of each (1.5; 2.3; 5.4; 10.10).

(7) (hupo-/epi-) deiknunai: to "exemplify," "provide example of," "point out" to the diligent listener/observer something [[25]] that otherwise might be obscure -- 1.8; 5.6 f.; 5.9; 6.13; 7.5; 12.6; 13.3.

(8) dloun: to "make clear" -- 9.8; 17.1.

(9) drea: the "gift" of pneumatic-gnostic insight -- 1.2; 9.9.

(10) eidenai (ide) : to "see-/know" gnostically (cf. 9.9!), especially the meaning of "types" (@5.2.24) -- 6.14; 7.10; 8.1; 12.10 f.; 13.5* (?); 15.7 f.; also to "inquire" by gnostic means -- 13.1; 14.1 (var.); (see ztein, @5.2.13).

(11) epistm: "knowledge" -- associated with sophia, sunesis, and gnsis in 2.3; 21.5 (see also the verb in 4.11*; 6.10b*).

(12) heuriskein: to "discover" by gnostic perception -- 9.5; 16.7.

(13) ztein: to "seek after" information through gnostic exegesis -- 2.9; 11.1; 14.1 (var.); 16.6 (see eidenai, @5.2.10); also used of the ethical quest (@5.4).

(14) legein: to "say," in the sense of to really mean -- 10.11; 11.8, 11; 15.5, etc.

(15) manthanein: to "learn," used primarily (cf. also 9.9; 21.1a) as an exhortation to pay attention to the gnostic exegesis -- 5.5; 6.9; 9.7 f.; 14.4; 16.2; 16.7 f.

(16) (ana)marukasthai: to "ruminate" or "chew" on the Lord's word and thus discover its real meaning -- 10.11c (cf. Irenaeus, cited in Eusebius, H.E. 5.20.7).

(17) meletan: to "meditate," "concentrate," "study" -- 10.11c; 21.7 (see 4.11; 11.5*; 19.10).

(18) noein (nous) : to "understand" ("understanding") -- 4.14; 6.10*; 7.1; 8.2; 10.12; 17.2.

(19) parabole^: a "parable," which requires gnostic understanding to serve its real purpose -- 6.10*; 17.2 (cf. tupos, @5.2.24).

(20) pneuma: "spirit," often used in the sense of man's God-related component, his gnosis-receiving faculty, thus the phrase "in the spirit" to indicate gnostic comprehension -- 9.7; 10.2 = 10.9; 13.5b (cf. 14.2*; 19.2b); or his salvation-related faculty -- 11.11a. The physical body is a "vehicle of [[26]] the spirit" (7.3c; 11.9b[?]; cf. 21.8), and the recipients of Barnabas are referred to as highly favored (by God) "spirits" (1.2, 5; cf. 21.9). Similarly, they are exhorted to "be pneumatics" -- 4.11 (cf. 16.10). God has provided them with this "pneumatic gift" (1.2), which probably means he has especially prepared their spirits for gnostic insight (cf. 6.14; 19.7c), or has even given them a special measure of spirit (see 1.3). Otherwise "the Lord's Spirit" refers to the divine agent for providing prophetic gnosis -- 6.14(?); (9.2 var.); 12.2; 14.2* (?); 14.9*; cf. 19.7c (?); see @5.10.

(21) prosechein: to "pay attention" to what is taught -- 7.4, 6, 7, 9; 15.4; also used in an ethical sense, to "walk circumspectly" -- 2.1; 4.6b, 9b. Both senses may be present in 4.14; 16.8.

(22) sophizein (sophia): to "make wise" ("wisdom") -- 5.3 (cf. 9.4, in a bad sense); 2.3= 21.5; 6.10; 16.9.

(23) sunienai (sunesis): to "understand" ("understanding"), roughly synonymous with noein (see 10.12) -- 2.3 = 21.5; 4.6a; 4.8= 14.3; 10.1b(?); 10.12; 12.10 (see 4.11*). For the negative use (the opposite of gnsis), see 2.9; 5.3.

(24) tupos: a "type" is a person, situation, or event in salvation-history which carries symbolic meaning that can be gnostically discovered -- 7.3, 7, 10, 11; 8.1; 12.2, 5, 6, 10; 13.5 (cf. parabol, @5.2.19).

(25) phaneroun (phaneros/-oteron): to "make clear" to the perceptive listener -- 2.4; 7.3, 7; 12.8, 10(?); 13.4; 16.5. Also, to "make clear before" something happens (to "predict," prophaneroun) -- 3.6; 6.7; 7.1; 11.1. The same verb is used of Jesus' being "made manifest" -- 5.6, 9; 6.7, 9, 14; 12. 10(?); 14.5(?); 15.9.

(26) charis: "grace," in the special sense of gnostic insight -- 1.2; 5.6; 9.8(?).\5/

Conspicuous for their absence from this list are the terms allegoria ("allegory"), musterion ("mystery"), sumbolon [[27]] ("symbol"), and their cognates.\6/ Nevertheless the evidence is more than adequate to show how completely the thought of Barnabas is ruled by this "gnostic" approach, which claims to understand salvation-history (@5.6) in the way it was pneumatically-gnostically intended to be understood (cf. 10. 12a) -- and to live in accord with this gnosis, which is a gift from God but which to some extent can also be taught.

3. Eschatological Atmosphere. The other pervasive underlying theme which cannot be ignored, if Barnabas is to be understood, is the epistle's eschatology. The entire atmosphere in which Pseudo-Barnabas (and many of his traditions) exists is charged with a view of "the last times" which borders on the apocalyptic and which makes the task of parenesis all the more important and urgent. These are "the last days," the climax of evils which will usher in the "age to come" (2.1; 4.1, 3, 9; 16.5 f.). The Christian must walk in this present wicked world, but he must walk carefully (see @5.2.21) and perform his righteous tasks with deliberate haste (19.1b; 21.7b; cf. 1.5; 4.9a) as he continually looks forward to the imminent holy age (8.6; 10.11d; 21.1, 3). The Lord is about to judge (4.12; 5.7; 7.2; 15.5; cf. 10.5; 12.9*) and the Christian must be prepared for this "day of recompense" (11.8; 19.10 f.; 20.2c; 21.6; see @5.4, 7). Two alternative courses of action are now open, righteousness and lawlessness (see @2.2). "Each man will receive payment in accord with his deeds -- if he was good, his righteousness precedes him; if he was wicked, the reward of wickedness goes before him" (4.12).

The roots of this moral struggle and of this contrast of the "ages" in the Barnabas tradition lie in its gripping mythological presentation of the spirit world.\7/ The Christian's adversary is Satan (18.1), the "Black One" (4.10a; 20.1), the [[28]] "Wicked One" (2.10b; 21.3), the "Lawless One" (15.5 var.), the "Wicked Archon (Ruler)" (4.13), who is in control of this "present lawless time" (2.1; 4.1; 18.2). He is able to "shove us away from the kingdom" (4.13) and "hurl us from our life" (2.10b) if he can ensnare us in "the error of the present time" (4.1; 5.4). The "angels of Satan" control the "way of darkness" (18.1), and it was partly because of deceitful "enlightenment" by a wicked angel that Israel failed to find her potential place in salvation-history (9.4b; see @5.6). But if (with the help of the "angels of God" [18.1]) Christians can endure to the end, in righteousness, salvation will be the reward. "He who does these things will be glorified in the kingdom of God; he who chooses those things will perish with his works" (21.1; see @5.4).

Apparently, at least for the traditional material used in chapters 7-8, the present time of struggle is thought of as the "kingdom" of Jesus in which there are "evil and foul days" (8.6) characterized by Jesus' own suffering (8.5) and continued in the subsequent suffering of those who desire to appropriate the kingdom (= the church? [7.11]) for themselves. But "at the end of days" Jesus will be victorious over the forces of evil (12.9*) and will "come to his inheritance" (4.3b; cf. 12.10 f.). Pseudo-Barnabas does not elaborate in what sense Jesus has already, in his death and resurrection, defeated the adversary (see 10.5; 14.5), although he is definite that salvation is impossible apart from those events (@5.7). In any case, the final victory, accompanied by judgment and re-creation of the universe, is yet future and ushers in the true "sabbath rest" for the Creator and his righteous people (15.5-7). This "sabbath rest" is also pictured as the "beginning of another world" -- of an "eighth day" (i.e., a new first day [15.8]). It is not clear whether Pseudo-Barnabas intends to refer to this final state of the righteous as the "kingdom of God" (21.1; cf. 4.13), in contrast to a temporary "kingdom" of Jesus which gains the victory (cf. above and 1 Cor. 15.25-28), but such an interpretation is at least possible. Nor is it entirely clear whether Pseudo-Barnabas expects [[29]] a literal "millennium" of rest after the final victory and before the "eighth day"-15.5 ff. is ambiguous, if not confused, on the relationship between the "true sabbath" and the "eighth day."\8/ In any event, it is clear that the entire epistle-including the Two Ways section (@2.2-3)-is eschatologically oriented. It would be quite misleading to see its "eschatology" only in such concrete apocalyptic imagery as the political situation in the last days (4.3-5), the triumphal return of the Lord (4.3; 15.5), the resurrection and judgment (5.7; 11.8[?]; 15.5; 2I.1c, etc.), the "sabbath rest" and the "new world" (15.5, 8). Just as the Barnabas tradition lives in a "gnostic" thought-world, it breathes an eschatological atmosphere. These factors give the epistle its life.

4. The Quest for Salvation. For Pseudo-Barnabas, the motivation for writing and the goal of this gnosis in an eschatological setting is ultimate salvation, for which he (1.3) and they strive (21.9). There is no idea here of the Christian already having attained (4.13) -- he is not "declared righteous" once and for all through faith, but rather, he must carry out a sustained quest for salvation during these evil times (2.1; 4.1; 21.6, 8). Nor can salvation be gained by escaping from the wicked world into a solitary, individual existence; it must be sought in social situations and through the community which is God's true Temple (4.10f.; 19.10 [contrast Did. 4.2!]; 21.2). Righteousness depends on correctly understanding and consistently obeying God's righteous ordinances: "agonize to keep his commandments" in order to be able to rejoice at the judgment (4.11 f.), "never relax" (4.13), "flee vanity" (4.10) and press on to attain salvation (see 17.1 var.; 21.9). "For the whole time of our life and faith will be of no value to us unless we resist now, in the lawless time" (4.9b; see Did. 16.2). Salvation results from victory over the present wicked world (@5.3), and is [[30]] the ultimate (eschatological) attainment of perfect righteousness (4.10; 6.18 f.; 15.6f.) -- the Christian's reward for works of righteousness (4.12; 5.4; 19.1, 10; 21.1; cf. 1.6). It is something for which the Christian hopes (1.3; see 12.3), something he desires (16.10). For the most part, salvation has to do with future deliverance (8.6; 21.9, etc.), although there may also be some present implications by way of anticipation (5.10; 12.7*; 19.10; cf. 10.5?). The danger of failure is ever present (2.10b; 3.6; 4.1-2, 6b, 13 f.; 5.4, etc.).

5. The Terminology of the Salvation Quest. Certain key phrases and words are emphasized in Barnabas in connection with salvation and bear out the above analysis. For example:

(1) "Hope" is often used in preference to "faith." The Christian is "to hope" in God/Jesus/him/the name/the cross (19.7c; 6.9; 11.11; 8.5; 12.2; 16.8; 11.8), which apparently means the same as "to believe" in God/him (16.7; see 6.3*). These two ideas are frequently juxtaposed in the epistle (1.6; 4.8; 6.3; 11.8; 12.7*)\9/ -- in fact, L often renders the Greek "to hope" by credere, "to believe."

(2) "Righteousness" and its cognates ("to be made righteous," the "righteous" person or action) have an overwhelmingly ethical/moral flavor in such connections as "Way of Righteousness" (1.4; 5.4; see @2.2), "works done in righteousness" (1.6b), "reward of righteousness" (20.2 = Did. 5.2), the "basis and result of judgment" (? 1.6a; cf. 19.11; 20.2). Even a potentially ambiguous reference such as 3.4* must be interpreted ethically in the light of 4.12. It would be interesting to know in greater detail what Pseudo-Barnabas understood by Gen. 15.6 (cited in 13.7*) -- Abraham's belief was a righteous act? Both times when Pseudo-Barnabas employs the verb in connection with salvation, it has future reference -- not that "we have alieady been made righteous" [[31]] (4.10), but we will be "then" (15.7, cf. 6.18b f.). Nevertheless, the adjective can be applied to men now, both in a favorable way (10.11; 19.6; see 6.7*; 11.7*), and echoing the less than favorable Synoptic use (self-righteous? 5.9). The overtones remain ethical in these passages. But the member of this family of words which bears the heaviest technical use in Barnabas is dikaimata -- the "righteous ordinances" of the Lord. In its first occurrence (1.2), the term is quite ambiguous-it could refer to God's "saving acts" toward the recipients (see 4.11; 16.9; 21.5), or perhaps to the "rules of action" which he has given them. Some later passages clearly require the ethical (as opposed to cultic) meaning of "rules," by which the believer fulfills God's righteous demands (10. 2*, 11; 21.1). Observance of these rules is the basis for salvation in these perilous times (2.1), and a man must diligently seek out the real meaning of the righteous ordinances by means of God-given gnosis (10.2; 21.5; see @5.1-2), discover the wisdom displayed therein (16.9), and pattern his conduct thereon (21.1).

(3) Closely related to the dikaimata are the dogmata -- "dogmas," "doctrines," or "dictates." Whenever this word appears in Barnabas, it is associated with the number "three": the positive Christian characteristics of hope-righteousness-love (1.6); the gnostic meaning of Abraham's 318 servants (9.7) ; the gnostically understood ethical-social prohibitions revealed to Moses and David (10.1, 9-10). In this last context, they are explicitly identified with the dikaimata (10.2*).

(4) Another related idea is conveyed by entol, "commandment." Again, it is in 10.2 that this term is brought into closest contact with dikaimata and dogmata. Just as Moses understood the real meaning of his legislation (10.11), we also, who have true gnosis, can speak forth God's true "commandments" (10.12) which we ourselves strive to keep (4.11; cf. 2.1), not forsaking (19.2 = Did. 4.13) but fulfilling them (21.8). God dwells in us through both "the commands of the teaching (didach)" and "the wisdom of the ordinances [[32]] (dikaimata)" (16.9). Elsewhere, entol also is used of particular precepts (6.1[?]; 7.3; 9.5; 10.11b).

(5) "Love of neighbor" seems to be a formal obligation in Pseudo-Barnabas' mind. Not only is it one among other admonitions in the Two Ways (19.5b = Did. 2.7b) -- note that it is not actually placed at the head of the list in Barnabas (19.2) as it was in the Didache tradition (Did. 1.2) -- but it seems to spur the author-editor's efforts in behalf of his readers (1.4; 4.6; cf. 4.9; 6.5). Love should also characterize the reciprocal relationship between God and man (1.1; 4.1; 6.10*; 19.2) as well as attitudes within the community (1.4b; 1.6; 9.7; 19.9; 21.9). Love and joy sometimes are linked directly (1.6; cf. 4.11) or indirectly (cf. 7.1 with 9.7 = 21.9); similarly love and faith (1.4; 11.8) or love and peace (21.9).

(6) Finally, there is a sense in which the quest for salvation can be described by the typically Jewish phrase "fear of the Lord." The best illustration is 4.11, where concentration on the fear of God (cf. 11.5*) is closely associated with exhortations to be pneumatic (see @5.2.20), and to keep his commandments (cf. 10.11).\10/ The Two Ways clearly uses the phrase ethically (19.5 = Did. 4.9; 20.1d, 2e), and ethical overtones may not be absent from other occurrences of "fear" in Barnabas (1.7b; 2.2; 10.10c; 11.11; 19.7), although it could not be said that the connection is obvious.

In short, salvation in Barnabas is primarily a future reward which will be granted to the person who meets the divine requirements of righteousness at the coming judgment. As we shall see, the quest for salvation is made possible by the work of Jesus (@5.7), but the subsequent responsibility of the believer lies in well-disciplined ethical-moral (not cultic-ritualistic) conduct during these crucial eschatological times. It is here that the overriding parenetic tone of Barnabas finds its explanation. [[33]]

6. Salvation-History. To understand more precisely the role of Jesus in this quest for salvation, and the relationship between the believer and his Lord, we must turn to the interpretation of God's redemptive acts toward men ("salvation-history," as we shall call it) which is held by Pseudo-Barnabas and his gnostic tradition. The events of the past -- that is, of Jewish religious history -- hold the key to what is happening and what will happen (see 1.7; 5.3; 17.1-2). The very language employed throughout Barnabas to describe the Christian hope is directly and thoroughly rooted in the language of God's dealings with Israel. Thus Christians are the new (or younger) people (3.6; 5.7; 7.5; 13.1-6), the true heirs of the promise (5.7; 6.17; 15.7; 16.9) and of the covenant (4.6-8 = 14.1-5; 6.19; 13.1-6), God's sons (4.9) and holy people (14.6); the Christian community is God's new creation (6.11-14; 16.8) which inherits the good land (6.8-18) and is God's dwelling place-his pneumatic Temple (4.11; 6.15; 16.10). Similarly, Jesus is the Isaac offering (7.3), the Atonement goat(s) (7.4-10; cf. 5.2*; 6.1*; 9.2*, "suffering Servant"), the red heifer (8.2), the new Moses (?14.4-5), and the victorious Joshua who leads the people into the land (6.9, 16b) after conquering the adversary, Amalek (12.8-10a). The cross was revealed beforehand in the household of Abraham (9.8), in Moses' prayer stance (12.2-4) and Moses' bronze serpent image (12.5-7), in the wood of the red heifer ritual (8.5), in the apocalyptic sign of the tree (12.1*), and so on (see 11.6 ff.).

The history of Israel is the reverse of what God has now done through Jesus: God tried to give the covenant to the "older/former people" but they proved themselves to be unworthy by various sins and errors, especially their failure to understand correctly (i.e., gnostically -- see @5.1-2) what God intended (2.9; 9.4f.; 10.1-12; 12.10; 16.1 f.). Thus they never really received the covenant (4.7 f. = 14.1 ff.), but it was reserved for the "new people." They are "men in whom sins are complete" (8.1 f., cf. 5.11; 12.2a, 5b; 14.5a), forsaken by God (4.14) because they have forsaken him [[34]] (11.2*; cf. 8.7). The history of the "new people" is just the opposite -- although formerly full of sins (5.9; 11.11; 14.5; 16.7), they are now "a people of inheritance" (6.19; 13.1-6; 14.4) who receive the covenant through Jesus (14.4-5). Thus Christians operate under the "new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2.6 -- an interpolated context?), which is in fact the true law, and is "new" only by way of contrast to the incorrect, literal (cultic) interpretation of Mosaic law which prevailed in Israel (3.6 "their law") through the work of a "wicked angel" (9.4b; cf. 10.9). This true law does not impose itself as a yoke which necessitates mechanical obedience (2.6), but is a matter of correct (gnostic, pneumatic; @5.1-2) understanding -- understanding which Moses himself exhibited when he received God's covenant of righteous ordinances (10.1-2, 9; cf. 4.7 f. = 14.2 f.), and which also was granted David (10.10; cf. 12.10). Whereas God never really found a dwelling place in his old creation Israel -- they put their hope on a building, not in him (16.1 f.) -- the newly created people are becoming his habitation through Jesus' indwelling the believer and the community (6.14-16; 16.7-10). Israel rejected God, the foundation of life which could provide "baptism which conveys forgiveness of sins" and built their own cistern which leads to death (11.1-2); but Christians wash away their sins and filth in the water which leads to eternal life (11.11a). Israel jumped to the conclusion that the covenant God had given Moses (but which they lost before Moses could give it to them [4.7]) was irrevocably theirs -- that it was a sure thing, forever valid (4.6b). But Pseudo-Barnabas warns his readers that Israel was rejected despite all God did for her, and that Christians must never adopt this attitude that salvation is assured without question (4.14; see @5.4).

7. Jesus: His Role in Salvation and Titles. The decisive fact which has made it possible for the once-sinful people to become God's new people is the appearance of Jesus "in flesh" (5.6, 10, 11; 6.7, 9, 14; see 12.10) to suffer "for us" (5.1-5; 7.2[9]; 14.4) and provide forgiveness "for our sins" [[35]] (5.1 f.; 7.3). So also his apostles were sent out with the message of "forgiveness of sins" (8.3), by which the heart is purified from its corruption (5.1; 8.1-3; 11.11; cf. 14.5) and the recipient becomes a new creature (6.11; 16.8) in whom Jesus actually dwells (6.14-16; 16.9 f.). Strangely enough, Barnabas nowhere suggests that subjective "repentance" is a prerequisite for such forgiveness. The word "repentance" occurs only in 16.9 (and 5.9 var. -- a scribal addition?), where it seems to be a gift bestowed on the believer (at baptism?) when he turns to the Lord.

Pseudo-Barnabas shows little interest in or awareness of Jesus' earthly life. The birth and baptism receive no mention, although there is a general reference to Jesus' ministry (5.8; cf. 4.14), to his choice of apostles (5.9), and to the drink offered him on the cross (7.3). Most important, however, is the fact that he "endured suffering in the flesh" at the hands of men, to bring forgiveness (5.1), to destroy death and exhibit the resurrection (5.5; see 15.9, where Easter Day and the ascension are noted), to fulfill the promise to the fathers and prepare the new people (5.7; 14.1b, 6), and to bring to a grand total the sins of those who oppose God's agents (5.11;14.5a).

Jesus is no ordinary man or prophet. He is "Son of God" and "Lord" who had been active in creation (5.5, 10; 6.12) and will ultimately judge (5.7; 7.2, 9; 12.9*; 15.5; cf. 4.12; 21.3) -- yet he suffered in the flesh "for us" (5.1-2, 9-11; 7.2[9]; 14.4). He was "prepared" with this end in view, to appear and liberate enslaved sinners, and to establish God's covenant with them (14.5b). Because Jesus is the "beloved heir" (4.3; 14.5), the Christians in whom he dwells are the "true heirs" of the promise (@5.6). Indeed, there is a sense in which Jesus not only receives and inherits the covenant, but he is the covenant in us, established by a word (see 14.4b-7; @5.8). Just as Jesus participated in the old creation (5.5* =6.12*; 5.10), he is active as creator now (6.11 ff.) and will ultimately "make all things new" (15.5, 7 f.; see 6.13). [[36]]

The most frequent designation for Jesus is "Lord," especially in the material that emphasizes his suffering (chs. 5-8; see also 1.1; 2.6; 14.4, etc.), although the same title also is freely used for God (see @5.9) -- a fact which makes precise interpretation difficult in many passages (e.g., 8.7; 16.8; 19.9b, etc.). As we shall see (@5.9), Jesus' functions often seem to overlap with those of God. Among other titles for Jesus, "Beloved One" is the most notable (3.6; 4.3, 8).\11/ "Christ" occurs as a name (with Jesus) in the Greek textual tradition only at 2.6, where it might well be secondary, although L includes it also at 1.1 (so also CO) and 17.2 -- the salutation and conclusion! In 12.10-11* the Greek Christos clearly carries its original force of "Messiah." The contrast drawn in 12.10 between "man's son" and "Son of God" is not necessarily a conscious reflection of the (Synoptic Gospels') title "Son of man," although such a possibility cannot be excluded entirely. Notice that in the same context, "Son of David" is rejected as an appropriate title! "Servant" is applied to Jesus only in quotations (6.1*; 9.2*; cf. 5.2*), and quotations also supply such titles as "Stone/Rock" (6.2 f.*), "Day" (? 6.4*), and "Righteous One" (6.7*). The shorthand title "the Name" (see @9.8) is employed only in 16.8b; other references to "the Name" are more clearly defined: "of the Lord" (1.1; 16.6* , 7, 8* ; 19.5), and, by implication, "of Jesus" (= Joshua, 12.8f.).

8. The Function of the "Word." Although Jesus is never called Logos, or "Word," as such, the epistle exhibits a fairly developed "theology of the Word." It is by his word (logos) that the Lord (Jesus?) established the covenant with (or in) "us" (14.5). It is through the word (logos) that "we" have been made alive (6.17), and that others will obtain the hope (11.8 [rhema, not logos], 19.10c [logos; cf. Did. 4.2]). The Christian is to honor those who spoke the word to him (19.9 = Did. 4.1), to observe the words he has heard (19.4d = [[37]] Did. 3.8), and to avoid speaking God's word in unworthy situations (19.4b). The indwelling Lord speaks out through us with words (rhemata) which astound the listener (16.10; cf. 6.14 f.; 10.11c). Although the seeds of this approach are already present in the Two Ways tradition, Barnabas places greater emphasis on the role of the "word" in salvation.\12/

9. God: Creator and Sovereign. The eternality (18.2) and universal sovereignty of God (16.2*; 21.5) are not compromised in Barnabas, despite the warning that Satan has "authority" during the present eschatological crisis (@5.3). God is the creator of universe and man (2.10*; 5.5=6.12 [in connection with the Son]; 15.3; 16.1; 19.2a [cf. Did. 1.2]; 20.2h-i [= Did. 5.2h-i]), and he both rules the course of history-past (e.g., 12.5), present (e.g., 19.6c), and future (e.g., 4.3; 15.4)-and is the true Lord of all men, without prejudice (19.7c; 20.2h). The title of "Lord" is widely applied to God (as also to Jesus, @5.7), especially in scriptural quotations (e.g., chs. 2-3). He is also called the "Father" (2.9; 12.8; 14.6), "Master" (1.7; 4.3), and the "Patient One" (3.6). He has sent his Son Jesus for man's salvation (see 14.7 f.; @5.7), and both "Lord Jesus" and "Lord God" seem to be involved in such functions as creating (5.5=6.12; 15.8; 16.8, etc.), revealing gnosis of salvation-history (see 1.7; 5.3; 6.10; 12.8; 17.1; 5.6 seems to indicate Jesus; Spirit is also active here -- see @5.2.20), dwelling in the Christian (see 6.14b [Jesus]; 16.8 [God]), judging (see 4.12; 7.2, etc.), reigning (4.13; 8.5 [Jesus]; 11.5*, etc.)-in fact, almost the same formula is used of each in 5.5 (Jesus) and 21.5 (God), "Lord over the whole world." Probably neither Pseudo-Barnabas nor his tradition saw any need to exercise much care in such matters. Pragmatically speaking at least, Jesus' acts were God's acts, [[38]] and a general use of the title "Lord" included both figures in the picture.

10. "Spirit" and "spirit." One expects, at this point, a summary of the role of the "Holy Spirit" in Barnabas. Almost everything that can be said has been said in another connection (@5.2.20). Nowhere in Barnabas is there an unambiguous reference to the "Spirit" as a separate entity/ person/hypostasis of the Godhead. The best possibilities seem to be 6.14 (an ambiguous parenthetical comment concerning the Lord's foreknowledge), 9.2 var. (where the text is corrupt and the "spirit" reference probably is a gloss), 12.2 (the "spirit" prompts Moses), 14.9* (citing Isa. 61.1, the prophetic spirit), and 19.7 = Did. 4.10 (a translation/interpretation problem, see @9.10). All but the last instance are clearly connected with revelation/prophecy, which (as we have seen) characterizes the general use of the concept in Barnabas.

11. The Community: Its Organization, Practices, and Background. Finally, what clues can we gather from Barnabas concerning the background, practices, and beliefs of the recipients? Clearly they are a community (or group of communities), a fellowship of believers -- and are exhorted to remain so and not to slip into individualism (4.10; 6.16; 16.8; 19.10 [= Did. 4.2]; 21.2, 4). If the Two Ways tradition is characteristic of this community -- and this cannot be taken for granted -- their social concern approached the communal life of Acts 2-5, at least in terms of sharing possessions (19.8 f. [= Did. 4.8, 5]; cf. 21.2b). It is doubtful that much weight should be placed on the allusion to slaves and masters (19.7), etc. There is nothing in the epistle that enables us to determine how the community was organized, or how its worship was conducted. Apart from the references to the ministry of the "teachers" (see @4.3, @9.3 -- "prophetic" figures? [cf. 16.9]), there are only vague allusions to "those in authority" (or perhaps, "those economically prosperous"? [21.2]) and to those "who proclaim the Lord's word" (19.9b [= Did. 4.1]; cf. 10.11c; 16.10). Sunday seems to have been [[39]] observed (weekly?) as a "day of rejoicing" in commemora tion of Jesus' resurrection, apparently to the exclusion of the traditional Jewish Sabbath-rest (15.8 f.). Of the "sacraments," only baptism is mentioned. It is the occasion for remission of sins (@5.7) and entrance into new life ( 11.1, 11; cf. 6.11; 16.8). Apparently immersion was practiced (11.11), but no other details are given. With respect to ethnic background, both Pseudo-Barnabas and his recipients seem to be non-Jewish. The contrast between "us" and "them" (Israel, the [cultic] Jews) is repeatedly drawn (see esp. 3.6; 4.6-8; 5.2-8, 12; 6.7; 8.1-3; 9.4f.), and the community is expressly identified with uncircumcised Gentiles (13.7; 14.5-8; cf. 3.6; 16.7-9). Nowhere does the author-editor at tempt to distinguish himself from them in this respect (see e.g., 16.7), but he writes as one of them (1.8; 4.6).

@6. Questions of Higher Criticism: Date, Authorship, Origin

It is customary for commentaries to deal with such matters as date, author, destination, place of origin, and so forth, somewhere near the outset of the introductory remarks. Once the general category of "evolved literature" (@1) is taken seriously, however, these (frequently enigmatic) problems are seen to be of less than primary importance. In fact, for writings such as Barnabas and the Didache, such questions can receive adequate treatment only after problems of sources and approach have been examined. The complex background of evolved literature requires that at least three kinds of higher critical examination be made: (1) to determine the background of each of the various tradition blocks employed in the writing-to some extent, the commentary attempts to deal with this problem; (2) to examine any intermediate stages of compilation between the various individual blocks and the present form -- see @4.4; cf. @8; and (3) to ask the more usual questions of authorship, date, and so on, about the "final" form of the writing which has been preserved for us. In the limited space available here, we cannot [[40]] hope to pursue each line of approach with the necessary detail. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to summarize the direction(s) in which the present research points.

1. Undisputed Early Use in the East. Although it has sometimes been argued that earlier writers used Barnabas (esp. Justin, Irenaeus; see @6.8, 10), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 190) is the first indisputable witness to the existence of the epistle. Not only does Clement claim to quote from Bar nabas on eight different occasions in his Stromateis ("Miscellanies"),\13/ but he identifies the author as the "apostle" Barnabas (see Acts 14.4, 14), "one of the seventy [see Luke 10.1 ff.] and a co-worker with Paul" (see Acts 11.25-15.39; 1 Cor. 9.6; Gal. 2.1; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 1.9, etc.). According to Eusebius (ca. 325) , Clement's (now lost) Hypotyposeis ("Outlines") included commentary on "Jude and the other general epistles, and Barnabas and the Apocalypse attributed to Peter" (H.E. 6.14.1). Origen, who re-established the Alexandrian "catechetical school" after Clement fled from Egypt (see also @6.7), calls Barnabas "a general epistle" and cites Barnabas 5.9 (Contra Celsus 1.63) as well as commenting on the "Hebrew names" in the epistle. Eusebius, who also represents the Alexandrian school tradition, classifies the epistle both among the "disputed writings" (H.E. 6.13.6-6.14.1) and among the "illegitimate" (3.25.4; see @10.2) in his discussions of religiously authoritative literature (NT "canon"). Indeed, in the mid-fourth century, Serapion of Thmuis (in the Nile Delta) also cites Barnabas (5.5 or 6.12) as by the "apostle," and apparently considers the epistle to be in some sense authoritative.\14/ Barnabas' near-canonical [[41]] status in early Eastern Christianity also finds support in Codex Sinaiticus (@3.2).

2. Evidence from the West and in Lists of Books. Among Western Christian fathers, the epistle has left almost no impact. Jerome (ca. 400) knew it as the work of the "apostle" and classified it among New Testament apocrypha (Vir. Illust. 6). He also commented on the symbolism of various "Hebrew names" in Barnabas, following Origen's treatment (@6.1). Once he expressly refers to Barnabas 8.2 (In Ezek. 43.19), and elsewhere he attributes a saying about the hypersinfulness of the apostles (Barn. 5.9; see also Origen!) to "Ignatius" (Adv. Pelagius 3.2). But at best, Jerome is an Eastern-oriented Westerner. The only other clear evidence that Barnabas was known in the early Latin-speaking church comes from the Latin version (@3.5), which might have existed as early as the third century (from North Africa?). Although Tertullian (ca. 200, North Africa) and his admirer Novatian (ca. 250, Rome) believed that the "apostle" Barnabas had written an epistle dealing with things Jewish, they identified Hebrews, not Barnabas (if they even knew the latter) with that supposed author. Possibly the "Epistle of Barnabas" mentioned in the Latin stichometric canonical list of Codex Claromontanus (sixth century) actually refers to Hebrews (but see C. F. Andry, JBL 70 [1951], 233 ff.; and @10.2). Two Greek lists also mention the "Epistle of Barnabas" -- the "List of Sixty Books" (ca. 600) places it among the "apocrypha," and the "Stichometry of Nicephorus" (ca. 820) among the "disputed books"-and almost certainly have our Barnabas in view (see also @10.2). Finally, the Armenian chronicler Mkhitar (thirteenth century) lists Barnabas as a "disputed" general epistle.

3. Summary of the Traditional View. In summary, then, the dominant (i.e., Eastern) traditional view of Barnabas is that (1) it is a "general epistle" (Origen, Mkhitar; cf. Clem- ent, Eusebius) rather than a letter addressed to a particular community (cf. @4.3; @5.11), (2) written by the (Hellen- [[42]] istic) Jewish Levite of Cyprus (see Acts 4.36) who had re- ceived his commission from Jesus himself as one of the "seventy" (Clement) and had subsequently ministered as a companion of Paul -- the "apostle" Barnabas (Clement, Euse- bius, Jerome, Serapion, MSS of family G, cf. Origen). The date implied by this view would necessarily be in the middle or late first century. None of the known traditions provide information as to place of origin or general sphere of circu- lation of this "general epistle." Acts 15.39 leaves Barnabas in Cyprus, his alleged homeland, while 1 Cor. 9.6 implies that he reached Corinth. Eusebius and Jerome are silent about his subsequent ministry, although a later tradition associates his name with the beginnings of Christianity at Milan. Alter- natively, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies pictures Barnabas as the founder of Alexandrian Christianity (! compare @6.7, 12).

4. Date: The Epistle's Evidence and Its Interpretation. For the past three centuries critical scholarship has struggled to evaluate the traditional view and to suggest new solutions where they seemed to be necessary. The epistle itself proved to be of little assistance here. About the only precise piece; of evidence it contains that is directly relevant for this discussion is found in 16.3-5, which presupposes that "the city and the Temple" have been destroyed "because of their making war," and that the Temple site was still in ruins. Thus our form of Barnabas 1-17 seems to have been published after the Jewish revolt in 66-70, when the Temple fell, and before Hadrian's workmen erected a Roman Temple to Zeus-Jupiter on the same site around the year 135.

Attempts to pinpoint the date of writing with more precision on the basis of 16.4, which anticipates the rebuilding of the "Temple" in some sense, are beset with difficulties:

(1) the text of 16.4 is in some doubt, although probably it refers only to the efforts of "the servants of the enemies," and not to Jewish participation (so MS S) in the project;

(2) although it is doubtful, it is not impossible that 16.4 is [[43]] speaking of the spiritual Temple built in Gentile hearts (16.6-10) rather than the physical building;

(3) but even if it is taken to refer to an expected rebuilding of a physical temple at Jerusalem, it is not clear whether this is viewed as a Jewish or a Roman temple. In either case, our knowledge of the rumors, threats, and promises which may have circulated between the years 70-135 is insufficient to inspire confident speculation, although if a Roman temple is meant, the latter part of that period becomes more probable.\15/

Finally, the mention of kings and kingdoms in Barnabas 4.4-5 has sometimes been scoured for indications of date. This is a futile quest, however, for several reasons: (1) the "evidence" is contained in stock apocalyptic phraseology which was applied over and over again at various periods of history from the time of "Daniel" onward-usually "history" was made to fit the symbolism, and not vice versa; (2) even if it were possible to identify some clear historical situation behind the symbolism, that would not necessarily be the situation of the final form of Barnabas, but only of the apoca- lyptic source quoted; (3) the lack of editorial comment in 4.4-5 and the vague exhortation at the end of the section (4.6a) inspire little confidence that Pseudo-Barnabas had in mind any precise historical identifications for this material.

Indeed, even if an exact date for the writing of the final form of Barnabas could be established, we would still be faced with the equally, if not more, important task of determining the age of the material used by the final author-editor. Some of these certainly antedate the year 70, and are in some sense "timeless" traditions of Hellenistic Judaism (e.g., the food law allegories of ch. 10, the Two Ways). It is with such materials that much of the importance of the epistle for our understanding of early Christianity and its late-Jewish heritage rests. [[44]]

5. Authorship: The Traditional View and Its Critics. On the problem of authorship, the epistle is as good as silent. Apart from the title and subscription in the various manuscripts, no name is mentioned. As we have seen, the author was probably an itinerant "Teacher" (@4.3; cf. @9.3) who was trained in a school tradition closely related to Hellenistic Judaism (@4.1-2), and who wished to instruct his recipients in how to live during these perilous last times (@5.3-4). He is especially concerned that his readers correctly understand God's historical dealings with man lest they be tempted to lapse into cultic Judaism (?) or become overconfident in their Christianity (@5.4, 6, 11). Despite this Jewish atmosphere, however, there is reason to believe that both the author and the recipients were ethnically non-Jewish (@5.11). But not all commentators subscribe to this interpretation; Pseudo-Barnabas has even been pictured as a converted Rabbi.\16/

One view that is almost universally shared by recent scholarship is that the "apostle" Barnabas did not write the epistle. Although some of the reasons advanced have been less than "scientific" (e.g., Barn. 10 is "unworthy of an apostle"!), it can scarcely be denied that the cumulative evidence does not favor the traditional attribution -- the post-70 date and the possibly non-Jewish authorship are probably the strongest single obstacles. But it should also be emphasized that the "apostle" Barnabas is an almost unknown figure to us, and that even what little information is contained in Acts is not entirely above suspicion. There is no legitimate way to exclude the possibility that an early missionary-apostle named Barnabas who once traveled with Paul is responsible for transmitting some, or even much, of the material now contained in the epistle, perhaps by way of a sort of "Barnabean school," which preserved and promulgated his teachings [[45]] (and from which Hebrews also came?; see @6.2, 12). But this can neither be "proved" nor "disproved" with the available evidence, and it best accords with both the situation and the modern critical temperament to refer to the author-editor as Pseudo-Barnabas.

6. The Problem of Background and Origin. There remains one large and important problem area for which the tradi- tional view has not formulated a clear answer. In what part of the early Christian world was this Barnabean approach to Christianity popular? Where was Pseudo-Barnabas trained in his ethical-eschatological-gnostic approach? Where did this community (or these communities, if it was sent as a general letter) exist which believed in such a way? And furthermore, whence did the various traditions which are now united in Barnabas originate?

It is impossible to deal adequately with such interrelated questions in the brief scope of this introduction. A complete investigation would require detailed comparison, both positive and negative, between the epistle and nearly every piece of literature preserved from the Judeo-Christian world of the first three centuries or so. But at least a survey of the material is in order, and since our basic question is one of location, a geographical approach seems to be the most satisfactory.

7. Alexandrian Affinities. The most obvious starting point for this investigation is the Near Eastern world in general and Alexandria in particular. It is in the Alexandrian school tradition that we first hear of the epistle, and it is with Clem- ent of Alexandria that Barnabas reached its highest known plateau of popularity and influence (@6.1). There is a real sense in which Clement is still the best commentary on Bar- nabas. Not only does he quote from the epistle, but he breathes the same atmosphere of gnosis\17/ (@5.1-2), ethical [[46]] parenesis in the quest for salvation (@5.4-5), Hellenistic Jewish interests and methods (@4.1-2), and so forth. Some- times he presents material which is quite similar to Barnabas but for which he does not seem to be entirely dependent on the epistle (see Barn. 2.4-3.6; 6.10b, ch. 10, etc.). Some- times he expands on the Barnabas material in such a way as to suggest that he knows a living school tradition of which Barnabas represents an earlier stage (esp. ch. 10). In short, although it would not be amiss to call Clement a student of Barnabas, it might be even more to the point to describe them as earlier and later products of the same Christian en- vironment/school. That is to say, even if Clement had never read the epistle, he probably would have thought in the same ethical-gnostic-Jewish categories. This was his training, as it was Pseudo-Barnabas'. The main point of difference between them (apart from Clement's obviously superior literary tal- ents and philosophical orientation) seems to be in the area of eschatology (@5.3), which is present in Clement but is not nearly so vivid and so vital as in Barnabas.

So far so good. But whence did Clement derive this approach to Christianity? And where did he come across the epistle? It is doubtful that he was a native of Alexandria (although one tradition claims this), and his early life, by his own confession, brought him into contact with both the western (Southern Italy, Greece) and the eastern (Syria, Palestine) Hellenistic world in search of the best available teachers of his day. He claims to have studied under teachers from Ionia, Egypt, Palestine (a Hebrew!), and East Syria (Str. 1.1.11). It is not clear when Clement finally settled in Alexandria, but he found there his favorite -- and last -- teacher, Pantaenus, a former Stoic philosopher (of Sicilian origin?) who came to Alexandria after a period of "missionary work" in the East ("India"!) and became leader of the catechetical school during the last two decades of the second century. Clement taught in the school and ultimately succeeded Pantaenus as its head. Soon after the turn of the third century [[47]] (ca. {italics?} 203), he found it expedient to leave Egypt because of Roman persecution, and spent the final decade or so of his life in Cappadocia and Antioch.\18/

The following considerations suggest that, wherever Clem- ent first came across Barnabas, he was not responsible for introducing the "Barnabean approach" to the catechetical school at Alexandria: (1) Clement considered Pantaenus to be the greatest of his several teachers, and he came into contact with him in Alexandria -- thus it is extremely unlikely that Clement's mature thought disagreed seriously with Pan- taenus; (2) Clement succeeded Pantaenus as head of this school, which had existed from early times (if we can believe Eusebius) -- thus his mature ideas probably accorded not only with those of Pantaenus, but with the traditional approach of the Alexandrian Christianity represented by the school; (3) finally, the youthful Origen, a native Egyptian (from Alexandria?) who stepped into the gap created by Clement's voluntary exile and whose earliest contacts with the Alexan- drian school (through his father?) must have taken place when both Pantaenus and Clement were active, continued to employ the general approach to Christianity which domi- nates Barnabas-Clement. This tends to confirm the impres- sion that the common denominator here is the "ancient tra- dition" of the Alexandrian catechetical school, not any pe- culiar importation of ideas by individual teachers such as Clement or even Pantaenus.

Unfortunately, there is no undisputed literary evidence from this Christian catechetical school prior to Clement. Nevertheless, the thread of "sacred studies" at Alexandria does become visible at a much earlier date and in a Jewish setting in the figures of Philo (ca. A.D. 30) and his Alexandrian predecessors such as Aristobulus (ca. 150 B.C.) and [[48]] Pseudo-Aristeas (second century B.C.?). Not only do Clement and Origen know of these authors, but the Christian school shares the approach of the Hellenistic Jewish school on such matters as the emphasis on special understanding, ethical instruction, and "allegorical" exegesis. It is mainly on the matter of eschatology that Philo and the Christian Alexandrians part company. Whether the lack of eschatological interest is an idiosyncrasy of Philo, or was also shared by the tradition in which he stands, is difficult to determine because of the scarcity of sources. Despite this difference, it seems probable that there was some sort of rough continuity between the Alexandrian Jewish school of sacred studies represented by Philo, and the Alexandrian Christian catechetical school of Pantaenus-Clement-Origen.

How does Barnabas relate to this situation? The epistle is best known at Alexandria and its approach can be called Alexandrian in such matters as exegetical gnosis and ethical parenesis. Eschatology, however, plays a much larger role, relatively speaking, in Barnabas than among the Alexandri- ans (Jewish or Christian). Furthermore, the absence of a personalized "Logos" theology in Barnabas (cf. @5.8), and indeed, Pseudo-Barnabas' lack of philosophical orientation, would be strange if Barnabas represents a continuing Alex- andrian school tradition such as has been outlined above. In terms of specific traditions, Barnabas has its closest affini- ties with the Alexandrians in chapters 2-3, 9-10, and 12-13; possibly also 6.8-19; 11.8-11; 16.6-10, and the Two Ways (see @10.7) could be considered Alexandrian, but this is less clear (cf. @6.9).

8. Palestinian Affinities. As we move farther to the East in search of parallels, there is also reason to suggest Palestinian and Syrian affinities for some of the epistle's material. The recent discoveries at Qumran, for example, reveal a type of Semitic-speaking Judaism which existed in the first century of our era and which shares with Barnabas a vital concern for attaining "knowledge" of the past, present, and [[49]] future by means of enlightened study of "scripture."\19/ Furthermore, eschatology is of great interest at Qumran (including apocalyptic imagery), and a Two Ways approach similar to Barnabas 18 is attested.\20/ Finally, both the Qumranites and Barnabas' tradition show a wide acquaintance with other revered Jewish writings alongside the Old Testament. Judaism in general, and Semitic Judaism in particular, emphasized a strongly ethical approach such as we find in Barnabas (cf. Tobit, Sirach, the Rabbis, etc.), while Barnabas' apocalyptic materials resemble the late-Jewish apocalyptic traditions which seem to have been nourished in Semitic-speaking Judaism, although they soon blossomed out into the world at large (see esp. the Daniel, Enoch, and Ezra cycles). Indeed, the combination of ethical parenesis in an apocalyptic setting can also be amply illustrated in this literature (see esp. the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Enoch). In another direction, the halakic material used in Barnabas 7-8, and the Moses haggada in 12.1-7 are closely paralleled in extant Rabbinic literature.

Thus far, the more or less "Palestinian" parallels mentioned derive from a Semitic-speaking Judaism (although many of the ethical and apocalyptic writings were quickly translated into Greek, where their evolution continued). But there is no reason to think that Pseudo-Barnabas knew a Semitic language, or that any of his immediate sources were not in Greek. Thus it is important to uncover whatever scant information has been preserved from Hellenistic Palestinian thought. Probably Paul would have included himself in this category (see Gal. 1.14; Phil. 3.5f.; cf. Acts 22.3), and indeed, [[50]] he shares with Barnabas ideas such as a special "gnosis" for believers whose hearts are "circumcised" (Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 8.1 ff.; 14.6; 2 Cor. 11.6, etc. cf. Luke 11.52), and an eschatology in which Satan's present power is acknowledged (2 Cor. 2.11; cf. Eph. 2.2 f.), although Christians are already participating in the "new creation" (2 Cor. 5.17) as "temples" of God (1 Cor. 3.16; 6.19). "Stephen's Speech" in Acts 7 also resembles Barnabas in its picture of Moses on Sinai, Jewish rebelliousness, and the significance of the Temple, although one cannot be sure that the "Speech" actually represents the views of a Palestinian Hellenistic Jewish Christian.\21/ Finally, in the second century the figure of Justin emerges from a non-Jewish, Palestinian background. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what role (if any) his homeland played in the development of his Christian thought. After his conversion to Christianity, Justin traveled as an itinerant "philosopher"-teacher. He was especially active in the area of Ephesus, and ultimately founded a school in Rome where he met his death as a martyr (ca. 165). His affinities with Barnabas include not only the use of similar traditional materials\22/ (see esp. ch. 7; 11.2 f.; ch. 12), but a gnostic approach to exegesis like that of the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., Dial. 99.3, 112.3), a breadth of available sources, and similar ethical emphases.

The differences between Barnabas and these various types of "Palestinian"(?) thought should not be neglected. Qumranic eschatological exegesis is much more concrete (or "historicized") than what we find in Barnabas, and sometimes seems to be carried out for its own sake (contrast @5.3-4). Nor is Qumran anticultic to the same extent (or for the same reasons) as Barnabas. The Rabbis tend to suppress apocalyptic ideas to concentrate on law, which deviates sharply from Barnabas' approach. Pauline concepts of how salvation is [[51]] obtained (cf. @5.4, 7), why Moses' legislation was given (2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3; cf. @5.6), and so forth, also are foreign to Barnabas. "Stephen's Speech" can refer without comment to Abraham's -- "covenant of circumcision" (Acts 7.8; contrast Barn. 9.6 ff.), and Justin's Christianity is far more "developed" (including a personalized "Logos" theology as at Alexandria, @6.7) than that of Barnabas. Nevertheless, especially the ethical-apocalyptic emphases of Barnabas and the specific traditions behind Barnabas 7-8 and 12.1-7 could be said to have a somewhat "Palestinian" flavor about them.

9. Syrian Affinities. Apart from the Hellenistic city of An- tioch, there are few sources that can confidently be cited as Products of Syrian Christianity before the end of the second century. (Tatian, who studied under Justin at Rome, is only a partial exception.) If we can accept the proposed East Syrian origin of the Odes of Solomon (probably from the second century; an Alexandrian origin also has been sug- gested), however, it will provide an excellent point of com- parison with Barnabas. The rather "mystical" approach of the Odes is especially close to Barnabas 6.8-19, 11.8-11, and 16.6-10, while 5.6-7 also is paralleled in Ode 31.10 f., and such Christological titles as "Beloved One," "Rock," and "Righteous One" occur (cf. @5.7). Furthermore, there is evi- dence of Two Ways imagery in the Odes (see the commen- tary on Barn. 18.1). On the negative side, there is little in the Odes to resemble Barnabas' use of quotations and Old Testament sources, anticultic polemic, eschatological-apoca- lyptic atmosphere, and highly developed ethical emphases.

With respect to early Antiochene Christianity, Barnabas shares with Ignatius (ca. 110) a general ethical-eschatological orientation as well as some specific concepts like God indwelling believers as temples (Ign. Eph. 15.3; but see also Paul), but differs widely on the use of quoted materials interpreted gnostically and on specifics like the widespread "Son of David" Christology in Ignatius (contrast Barn. 12.10f.). Further "Syrian" parallels of interest could be discussed if the suggestions that such documents as Matthew, [[52]] the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, Didache, and so forth, may represent Syria were more firmly established. Also relevant would be a comparison between the ideas of Barnabas and the Syrian Actg of Thomas (third century?), with its poetic-mystical approach (like the Odes of Solomon).

10. Affinities with Asia Minor. The source situation with respect to Asia Minor is much better, with the "Johannine school" flourishing there at the end of the first century, and with Irenaeus recalling the words of his Asian teachers at the end of the second. In his two preserved writings, Against Heresies and the Exhibition (or Demonstration) of the Apos tolic Preaching, Irenaeus shows numerous points of agree- ment with Barnabas, although he writes in a situation far different from the epistle. With reference to specific tradi- tional materials embedded in Barnabas, Irenaeus is especially close to 2.4-3.6; 5.6 f., 13; 10.10f. (?); 13.2; 14.5; 15.3-5, 8; and 18.1-2 (cf. also 1.5; 17.1). From a more theological viewpoint, there are definite similarities on such ideas as "recapitulation" (Barn. 5.11 uses this word) and its relation to salvation-history (@5.6); the relationship between "spirit," man, and revelation (@5.2.20); and millennial eschatology. It is no wonder that some commentators feel that Irenaeus may have read Barnabas (or heard Pseudo-Barnabas).\23/ But equally possible is the suggestion that Barnabas reflects an earlier stage of the Christian approach which flowered in Irenaeus (via Asia Minor). It is unfortunate that only a few scraps of writing are preserved from the earlier Asian "El- ders" such as Papias (ca. 130) and Polycarp (ca. 70-156). In his millennarian approach, Papias probably would have agreed to some extent with Barnabas 15.3-8. Similarly, gen- eral passages such as chapters 2 and 7 of Polycarp's preserved epistle(s) to the Philippians encourage the belief that he may have had an outlook similar to that of Barnabas. But this is mainly an argument from silence. Similarities between [[53]] Barnabas and the Johannine literature are less striking, and need not be discussed here.

11. Affinities with the West (Rome, North Africa). Fi- nally, there are certain affinities between Barnabas and the West (Rome, North Africa) that should be mentioned. Noth- ing certain is known about the background of Clement of Rome (ca. 95), but the epistle which circulates under his name is like Barnabas in its frequent use of the Old Testa- ment and related material (e.g., cf. Barn. 4.7 f.), which helps to give 1 Clement a definite Hellenistic Jewish cast, its refer- ences to special "gnosis" (1.2b; 36.2; 40.1; 41.4; 48.5; 59.2), and its ethical emphasis (including Two Ways ideas; see @2.7) with the promise of eschatological reward (e.g., chs. 33 ff.). A similar emphasis on conduct and promised reward permeates the (Roman) Shepherd of Hermas (early second century, including a Two Ways background) -- and if the homily known as 2 Clement can be considered Roman (but Corinth and Alexandria also are claimed), the same might be said of it (note also the use of quotations and symbolic exegesis in 2 Clement; contrast Hermas). Perhaps this is the place to mention that especially in its apocalyptic materials (and gnostic exegesis), Barnabas shows some relationship to Hippolytus "of Rome" (ca. 225) -- but it is almost certain that Hippolytus was trained in the East (Alexandria?), and thus he can scarcely be used as evidence for native (?) Roman ideas. Barnabas' attitude to Jewish law also could be com- pared to that of the Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy (Rome?, late second century).

Of North African authors, only Tertullian (ca. 220) is directly relevant for this survey, although Cyprian's collection of Testimonies (ca. 250) sometimes resembles Barnabas in its use of proof-texts. In general, Tertullian's rigorous ethical approach can be compared with Barnabas; more specifically, Tertullian uses "scapegoat" and "cross" symbolism similar to Barnabas 7 and 12, and expects a millennium (see Barn. 15.3 ff.). Otherwise the epistle has little in common with the Carthage lawyer who also had spent some time in Rome. [[54]]

12. Summary and Suggestions Concerning Origin. Obviously this evidence does not justify dogmatic statements about the origin and background of the epistle. A large part of the problem is the fact that almost from the very begin ning, Christian preachers and teachers crisscrossed the Mediterranean world in their travels. And already in the second century it apparently was not uncommon for young Christian students to search out famous teachers throughout the world. Thus Tatian the Syrian studied under Justin! (from Palestine) in Rome, and Clement "of Alexandria" can tell of studying under a Syrian teacher in Greece. Undoubtedly this kind of mobility has contributed greatly to the "school" back ground of Pseudo-Barnabas, whether we picture various teachers coming to a fixed location where he encountered their teachings, or Pseudo-Barnabas himself seeking out various teachers (or something of each).

The most satisfactory explanation for the gnostic and parenetic focus of Barnabas' approach (@5.1-2, 4-5) would appear to involve Alexandrian influence. Similarly, it is tempting to link the anticultic thrust of Barnabas with the like-minded Judaism known to Philo (Migr. Abr. 89-93; see the commentary on Barn. 9-10; 15-16), apparently in the Alexandrian area. But it should be emphasized that this is partly because most of our knowledge about Hellenistic Jewish thought comes from Alexandria, and thus we can construct general theories about that city (as in @6.7); partly also, perhaps, because Alexandria exerted such a wide influence on the general intellectual climate of the Mediterranean world (including Rome). If we must look outside of Alexandria to explain certain other features such as the apocalyptic-eschatological atmosphere, and it is not at all certain that we must, Palestine and Asia Minor seem to be the leading contenders. There are also some other writings which might shed helpful light on this problem if we only knew their background: for example, the New Testament "Epistle" called "to the Hebrews" (from Alexandria? Rome?) uses Old Testament texts similarly and deals, on a more "philosophical" [[55]] level, with the problems of Jewish history and cult. Even more striking are the similarities between Barnabas and the brief document preserved in 4 Ezra 1-2, which emphasizes Israel's rejection of God's covenant commandments, God's rejection of cultic law, the call of a new people to observe God's statutes, the imminence of the eschatological consummation which will bring "rest" to the righteous, and so forth. But what is the background of 4 Ezra 1-2? And what is its relationship to early Christian thought? Nor have we paid sufficient attention to the types of heterodox thought which were developing in the second century and which might possibly cast additional light on the epistle (e.g., G. Truth, G. Thomas, G. Philip -- all recently discovered at Nag Hammadi).

Since the above evidence does not suggest a simple solution to the problem of Pseudo-Barnabas' background, the following hypothesis is offered by way of conclusion. Barnabas is the work of a Christian teacher whose thought, in general, is oriented toward Alexandria, and whose area of ministry is in northeast Egypt. He was not trained in the "classical" Philonic tradition, however, but in a related "school" which had both profited from that approach (or vice versa) and which was steeped in apocalyptic eschatology -- a school which had access to a large stock of "ancient" Jewish sources alongside of the Old Testament. Perhaps it was a Christianized offspring of a Qumranlike Judaism in Greek dress -- Philo attests the existence of certain Hellenistic Jews living near Alexandria (and elsewhere -- also in Asia Minor?) who had several such "Qumranic" traits (the "Therapeutae" of De Vita Contemplativa), and the Qumran caves themselves have produced a few scraps of Greek literature, which suggests the existence of Greek-speaking sister communities. Barnabas' relationship to Asia Minor may then be explained by positing a widespread influence of such a school, or by suggesting that Pseudo-Barnabas had also studied (directly or indirectly) under an Asian teacher. Whatever the worth of this hypothesis, there does not appear [[56]] to be any simple solution to the problem of how, where, and when so many different materials came to be combined in such a peculiar way in the epistle. The western Mediterranean world does not particularly fit the situation, but we have much to learn about the development of eastern Christianity at this early period.

[[57]]

THE DIDACHE OR TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES

[[for pp.57-77, see the separate internet file]]

[[78]]

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

OUTLINE OF BARNABAS AND THE DIDACHE

Barnabas 1.1-17.2

The Two Ways (Barn. 18.1-21.9; Did. 1.1-6.2)

The Didache 6.3-16.8

BARNABAS 1.1-17.2

Introduction (1.1-2.3)

Salutation (1.1)

Greetings, sons and daughters [@4.3], in the Name of the Lord\a/ who loved us, in peace. [[81]]

\a/So HS; but CO and L agree in reading "of (our) Lord Jesus Christ"; see @5.7.

Commendation (1.2-3)

2. Seeing that God's righteous acts [@5.5.2] toward you are so extraordinary and abundant, my joy over your favored and illustrious spirits [@5.2.20] is unbounded -- you have received such grace [@5.2.26], such an implantation of the pneumatic gift! [@5.2.20, 9.] 3. Wherefore I, who also hope to be saved [@5.4], inwardly rejoice all the more because I can actually see that the spirit [@5.2.20] which is on you has been poured out in your midst from the abundance of the fountain\b/ of the Lord [see 11.2*]. My eagerly anticipated visit to you has so wonderfully exceeded all expectations concerning you!

\b/So HL (pege); but S has "love" (agape).

Purpose and themes (1.4-8)

4. Therefore, I am convinced of this -- indeed, I am all the more conscious of it because I know that he who spoke\c/ many things in your midst was my traveling companion in the Way of Righteousness [@2.2], the Lord;\c/ and for this reason I myself am constrained at all times to love you more than my own soul [@5.5.5] -- [[82]] for great faith and love dwell in you, with hope [@5.5.1] of obtaining the life he gives! 5. Therefore, since it has occurred to me that if I am diligent in imparting to you a measure of what I have received [@4.3] it will be to my credit for having ministered to such spirits [@5.2.20], I have hastened to send you this brief communication [@1.2, n.2] so that along with your faith [@5.5.1] you might also have perfect gnosis [@5.1-2].

\c/So H; but S (cf. L) reads "when I spoke . . . my traveling companion . . . was the Lord."

6. There are, then, three basic doctrines [@5.5.3] of the Lord of life:\d/ Hope, the beginning and end of our faith [@5.5.1]; and Righteousness [@5.5.2], the beginning and end of judgment [@5.3-4]; (and) Love, a witness of the joy and gladness\e/ [@5.5.5] of works done in righteousness [@5.4].

\d/So H (L); but S reads ". . . Lord: Life, Faith, Hope -- our beginning and end." As is common, L is a great deal shorter here and mentions only "hope." L could be rendered ". . . Lord: Hope of Life . . ." (cf. 1.4b, which literally reads "hope of his life"), and so might H if it were not for the punctuation marks and marginal comment in that manuscript.

\e/So H; but S has "Love which is joyfulness and a witness of the gladness . . . ."

7. For the Master [@5.9] has made known [@5.2.5] to us through the prophets what already has come to pass and what is now occurring, and he has given us a foretaste of what is about to happen [@5.1-2]. Thus as we observe each of these things being worked out as he said, we ought all the more abundantly [[83]] and enthusiastically draw near in fear of him\f/ [@5.5.6]. 8. And now, not as a Teacher [@4.3] but as one from your very midst, I will point out [@5.2.7] a few things [@1.2, n.2] which will enable you to rejoice in the present circumstances [@5.3].

\f/So HS; but L has "to his altar," posibly because the verb "to draw near" can also mean "to bring an offering" (cf. 2.9).

Transition to the first main section (2.1-3)

I. WHAT THE LORD REQUIRES (2.4-3.6)

4. For he made it clear to us through all the prophets [@5.2.25; see 1.7; 5.3] that he needs neither sacrifices nor whole burnt offerings nor offerings in general -- as he says in one place:

6. Therefore he set these things aside [9.4b; 16.2], so that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ [@5.7], which is not tied to a yoke of necessity [cf. Acts 15.10], might have its own offering which is not man-made [see 16.7b].

7. And again he says to them:

10a. To us, then, he speaks thus:\g/

\g/H \mg./ notes here "PS. 50 [LXX] and in the Apocalypse of Adam." On the "Adam" reference, see M. R. James, JTS 16 (1915), 409f.

3 Therefore he speaks again concerning these things to them:

\h/So S; but H (=Cl.A.) lacks "says the Lord" and reads "a day for a man to humiliate his soul" (see LXX).L has "... says the Lord, that someone should humiliate his soul without cause."

\i/So H; but S (=Cl.A.) and LXX have "spread under you," while L has both readings (perhaps correctly?): "put on sackcloh and strew ashes beneath you."

3. But to us he says:

\j/S adds, probably under the influence of 3.1b, "not a man humiliating his soul but ...."

\k/So HS; but L (see Cl.A.) follows the usual LXX text more closely: "... and lead the homeless poor into your home. If you see somone naked, clothe him, and do not despise those of your household." Possibly an earlier form of Barnabas did not include the final words ("nor ... household"), which interrupt the stylistic balance of the passage and may have been supplied later from the better-known LXX text.

\l/So HS\1(?)/; but L presupposes the similar Greek word "garments" (cf. Cl.A.), which is a widely attested varriant reading in LXX witnesses to Isa. 58.8 (see also, and correct, JBL 79 [1960], 342). S\*/ is of no help here because of a scribal error.

\m/So S; but H and LXX have "satisfy (with food)." L lacks the entire clause.

[[88]]

II. READINESS IN THE SHADOW OF CRISIS (4.1-14)

Transition to the new section (4.1-2)

4 We must, then, carefully investigate the present situation [cf. 17.2] and seek out the things which are able to save us [@5.4; cf.2.1].

2. Let us give no leisure to our own soul so that it has opportunity to associate with the wicked and sinful -- lest we become like them! [Cf. 10.3-8.]

The imminent eschatological crisis (4.3-6a) [@5.3]

3. The great final scandal is at hand, concerning which it has been written -- as Enoch\n/ says. 3b. For the Master [@5.9] cut short the times and the days [see 15.5] for this reason, that his Beloved [[89]] One might hasten and come into his inheritance [@5.7]. 4. And the prophet speaks thus:\o/

5. Similarly, Daniel says concerning the same one:

6. Therefore you ought to understand! [@5.2.23; cf. Mark 13.14.]

\n/So HS; but L has "Daniel" (see 4.5, @4.1-2), perhaps thinking of Dan. 3.13; 9.26 f.; 11.31; 12.11 (see Mark 13.14 and par.). The words "as Enoch/Daniel says" may be an early scribal gloss (Windisch, ad loc.).

\o/H\mg./ comments "Apocrypha of Daniel and Esdras" -- see @4.1-2.

\p/So SL; but H has "kings" as in most Greek MSS of Dan. 7.24 (see 2.44) -- the same problem exists in Hippolytus, Antichrist 27.

\q/So L; but HS have "kings" -- note the similar problem in 4 Ezra 12.23 (cf. Dan 7.17).

\r/So HL (see Dan. 7.3; Rev. 13.1; 4 Ezra 11.1); but S has "earth" (Dan. 7.17, 23).

Danger of misplaced security in the covenant (4.6b-8)

6b. Furthermore, I also urge you [21.2, 4, 8] as one of your own, and especially as one who loves you all more than I love my own self [@4.3, @5.5.5], walk circumspectly\s/ [@5.2.21] and do not be like certain people [4.2], compounding your sins [[90]] by claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours.\t/ 6c. But they lost it completely in the following manner, after Moses already had received it -- 7. for the scripture says:

But when they turned to idols, they lost it. 8. For the Lord speaks thus:

And Moses understood [@5.2.23], and he hurled the two tablets from his hands. 8b. And the covenant (of the tablets) was smashed to bits so that the covenant of Jesus, the Beloved One [@5.7], might be sealed in our heart, in hope of his faith [@5.5.1].

\s/So HL; but S adds "now" (see 4.9b).

\t/This important text is badly corrupt. The above translation follows H, with minor adjustments based on S. L is quite different: "do not be like those who heap up your sins and say that their covenant is also ours. But it is ours." L seems to miss the point of the argument, that Christians should beware of the attitude of false security which developed in Judaism and led to the heaping up of sins (@5:6).

Parenthetical personal note (4.9a) [@4.3]

Warnings against overconfidence (4.9b-14) [@2.7]

9b. Wherefore let us walk circumspectly [@5.2.21] in these last days [@5.3]. For the entire period of our life and faith\u/ will be wasted unless now, in the lawless time and in the impending scandals, we resist as befits God's sons [@2.3]. 10. Therefore,\v/ lest the Black One [@5.3] make deceitful entrance [2.10b], let us flee from all that is irrelevant, let us hate completely [4.1b] the works of the wicked way [@2.2]. 10b. Do not live monastic lives by retiring to yourselves as though you have already attained the righteous state, but by assembling together, seek out together what is to your mutual advantage [@2.3]. 11. For the scripture says:

11b. Let us be pneumatics [@5.2.20]; let us be a perfect Temple to God [@5.6]. To the best of our ability let us meditate [@5.2.17] on the fear of God [@5.5.6] and strive to keep his commandments [@5.5.4], so that we might rejoice in his ordinances [@5.5.2, 5]. 12. The Lord will judge the world impartially. Each man will receive payment in accord with his deeds -- if he was good, his righteousness precedes him; if he was wicked, the reward of wickedness goes before him! [@5.3-4, 7.] 13. Thus on no account should we slumber in our sins [4.2; cf. 4.6b] by relaxing as "those who have been called" -- and the wicked Archon [@5.3] will take advantage of his power over us [2.1] and push us away from the kingdom of the Lord [2.10b]. 14. And finally, my brethren [@4.3], understand this [@5.2.18]: When you notice what great signs and wonders were performed in Israel [5.8] and still they have been abandoned [@5.6], let us take heed [@5.2.21] lest we be found to be, as it is written, "many called but few chosen" [see Matt. 22.14].

\u/So L; but H has only "our life" and S, "your faith" (=Did. 16.2b).

\v/So H; but S lacks "therefore," which could change the whole construction. L lacks the whole clause. Thus many editions put the verse division before the words "let us flee ...."

III. WHY THE LORD ENDURED SUFFERING (5.1-8.7)

The Lord endured fleshly suffering to purify us (5.1-2) [@5.7]

5 For it was for this reason that the Lord submitted to deliver his flesh to destruction, that by the forgiveness of sins we might be purified [8.1] -- that is, by the sprinkling (for purification) of his [[93]] blood.\w/ 2. For it is written concerning him -- partly with reference to Israel [6.7b] and partly to us [@5.11] -- and it says thus:

\w/So HL (see 1 Pet. 1.2); but S has "by his blood which is sprinkled" (see Heb. 12.24).

Parenthetical admonition to exercise gnosis (5.3-4) [@5.1-2]

3. We ought, therefore, to give heartfelt thanks to the Lord because he has both given us gnosis [@5.2.6] of the things which have come to pass, and has given us wisdom [@5.2.22] in the present events -- nor are we without understanding [@5.2.23] concerning what is about to happen [1.7; 17.1 f.]. 4. But the scripture says:

The Lord endured to fulfill the promise(s) (5.5-7) [@5.7]

5. And furthermore, my brethren [@4.3], consider this: if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls -- he who is Lord of the [[94]] whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world [@5.7, 9; see 6.12]:

\x/The MSS of family G begin here (@3.3).

The Lord endured in flesh so that sinners could see him (5.8-10) [@5.7]

8. Furthermore, although he was teaching Israel and doing such great wonders and signs [4.14], the result was not that they loved him dearly for his preaching!\y/ 9. But when he chose his [[95]] own apostles who were destined to preach his gospel [8.3] -- men who were sinful beyond measure so that he might prove [@5.2.7] that he came not to call righteous but sinners\z/ [Mark 2.17b parr.] -- it was then that he revealed himself [@5.2.25] as God's Son [12.10]. 10. For if he had not come in flesh, how could men be saved by looking at him?\a/ They cannot even gaze directly into the rays of the sun, even though it is a work of his hands and is destined to cease existing! [15.5.]

\y/So H, cf. L: "they neither believed nor loved him"; but the negative idea is lacking in S ("he preached and they dearly loved him") and in G ("he preached and he dearly loved him [Israel]").

\x/So HSL; but G adds "to repentance" (Luke 5.32).

The Lord endured to complete the number of Israel's sins (5.11-14) [@5.6-7]

\a/Or perhaps, "how could men survive when they looked at him?"

\b/So, for the most part, HS* (but it is not entirely clear where the quotation begins). L finds two quotations here: "And Isaiah [!] says, 'by the afflicting of his body we are all healed' [Isa 53.5b]. And another prophet: 'I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the fold will be dispersed.'" G mostly agrees with HS* at the start of 5.12b, but agrees with L on the form of the shepherd quotation (see Matt 26.31; Mark 14.27). S\2mg./ expands the S* quotation to read: ". . . then the sheep of the fold will be scattered and lost." The verb "be lost" also could be rendered "perish" (see 5.4b; 11.7*).

\c/So HSL (see 6.6); but G has the plural "synagogues," perhaps because the verb is plural.

\d/So SGL; but H reads "has encompassed me," probably under the influence of LXX (see Barn 6.6).

Vindication of the Lord who endured (6.1-4)

6 When, therefore, he made the commandment, what does he say?

2b. And again, since he was established as a mighty Stone which crushes, the prophet says of him:

3. Then what does he say?

3b. Is our hope, then, on a stone? Not in the least! But he speaks in such a way since the Lord has established his flesh in strength. 3c. For he says:

4. And again the prophet says:

4b. And again he says:

\e/G has "whoever hopes on," while HSL have "whoever believes in" (Isa 28.16b; see @5.5.1).

Summary statement about the Lord's suffering (6.5-7) [@5.7]

5. I write to you more clearly so that you might understand [@5.2.22]. I am a slave devoted to your love [4.9a; @4.3; @5.5.5].

6. What, then, does the prophet say again?

7. Thus, since he was about to be manifested [@5.2.25] in flesh and to suffer [12.2a], his passion was revealed beforehand [@5.2.25]. 7b. For the prophet says concerning Israel [5.2]:

The good land of the new creation (6.8-19) [@5.6]

10. What, then, does he say? "Into the good land -- a land flowing milk and honey" [6.8].

\f/So S Cl.A. (H lacks the interrogarive "what ...?"); but GL have "and Moses also says to them."

10b. Blessed be our Lord, brethren [@4.3], who has placed in us wisdom [@5.2.22] and understanding [@5.2.18] of his secrets. For the prophet says:

\g/The Greek is ambiguous and could be punctuated "the prophet speaks a parable of the Lord: 'Who can ...'" (see L). Cl.A., however, and probably H, understood it as above.

11. Since, then, he renovated us by the forgiveness of sins [@5.7], he made us to be another sort (of creation), as though [[100]] we had a child's soul [cf. 3.6] -- he fashioned us again [cf. 6.9b], as it were. 12. For the scripture is speaking about us when he says to the Son [5.5]:

These things (he said) to the Son.\h/

\h/This (awkward) comment is lacking in HL, but present in SG (cf. 5.5); L also lacks the parallel phrase in 6.12a. Possibly this is a gloss (cf. 9.3a, "these are for a witness" which L also lacks).

13. Again, I will show you [@5.2.7] how he says to us that he made a second fashioning in the last times. 13b. And the Lord says:

13c. It is for this reason, therefore, that the prophet proclaimed: "Enter into the land flowing milk and honey, and exercise lordship over it" [see 6.8]. 14. See [@5.2.10], then, we have been fashioned anew! 14b. As he says again in another prophet:

that is, from those on whom he foresaw the Lord's spirit\i/ --

14c. Because he was about to be manifested [@5.2.25] in flesh [5.1] and to dwell in us. 15. For, my brethren [@4.3], our heart being thus inhabited constitutes a holy Temple to the Lord! [16.6-10.] 16. for the Lord says again:

16b. He says:

16c. Therefore we are those whom he conducts into the good land! [@5.6.]

\i/Or, "from those whom the Lord's spirit foresaw" (see @5.10). L lacks 6.14a-b.

\j/Or, "congregation," "church."

17. What, then, is the "milk and honey"? Because the infant is [[101]] initiated into life first by honey, then by milk. 17b. Thus also, in a similar way, when we have been initiated into life by faith [@5.5.1] in the promise [6.8, 14.1b] and by the word [@5.8], we will live exercising lordship over the land. 18. But as it was already said above [see 6.12] : "And they shall increase, and multiply, and rule over the fish...." 18b. Who, then, is presently able to rule over beasts or fish or birds of heaven? [Cf. 10.3-5, 10.] For we ought to understand [@5.2.1] that "to rule" implies that one is in control [see 2.1], so that he who gives the orders exercises dominion. 19. If, then, this is not the present situation, he has told us when it will be -- when we ourselves have been perfected as heirs of the Lord's covenant [14.5].

Transition back to the main theme of suffering (7.1-2)

7 Understand [@5.2.18], therefore, children of joy,\k/ that the good Lord revealed everything to us beforehand [@5.2.25] so that we might know [@5.2.4] whom we ought to praise continually with thanksgiving. [[102]]

\k/So HSG; but L has "of love" (see 9.7; 21.9; @ 4.3; @5.5.5).

2. If, then, the Son of God, who is Lord and is about to judge the living and dead, suffered so that his being afflicted [5.2, 12b] might bring us life [12.5], let us believe that it was not possible for the Son of God to suffer except on our behalf [@5.7; cf. 5.5].

Lessons from the Atonement ritual: the Fast and the scapegoat (7.3-11) [@5.6]

3. But he also drank vinegar and gall [see Ps. 69.21] when he was crucified. 3b. Hear [@5.2.2] how the priests of the Temple made even this clear [@5.2.25], when the commandment was written:

3c. The Lord gave such a commandment since he was destined to offer the vessel of the spirit [@5.2.20] as a sacrifice for our sins, so that the "type" [@5.2.24] which is based on Isaac's having been offered up on the altar [Gen. 22.9] also might be fulfilled. 4. What, then, does he say in the prophet?

pay attention [@5.2.21] more diligently --

5. For what reason?

This is to demonstrate [@5.2.7] that he must suffer at their hands\l/ [5.11 ff.; 12.5].

\l/So HL (S adds "many things" -- see 7.11; Mark 8.31, etc.); but G has "for them" (i.e., the "new people"?).

6. Pay attention [@5.2.21] to what he commanded:

7. But what do they do with the other?

7b. Pay attention [@5.2.21] to how the type [@5.2.24] of Jesus is made clear! [@5.2.25.]

8b. And when this has been done, the one who bears the goat brings (it) into the desert\m/ and takes the wool and places it upon a bush which is called <g>rach<e^></>,\n/ the buds of which we are [[104]] accustomed to eat when we find them in the countryside. Thus of the <g>rach<e^></> alone are the fruits sweet.

\m/The text is difficult, but apparently pictures the goat being carried (?) into the wilderness at the head of a procession (see Lev. 16:21).

\n/Apparently a thorny bush (7:11) like the blackberry. The witnesses vary somewhat as to its exact name.

9. What, then, does it mean -- pay attention [@5.2.21] -- that the one is placed on the altar [7.6] and the other is accursed [7.7a], and that the accursed one is crowned? [7.8a.] 9b. Because they will see him then, on that day, wearing the scarlet robe around his flesh [5.1], and they will say:

10. Now how is this like that situation? For this reason the goats were alike and handsome [7.6], equal, so that when they see it coming then [7.8b, 9b], they will be amazed at the similarity of the goat. 10b. Therefore notice here the type [@5.2.10, 24] of Jesus who was destined to suffer.

11. And what does it mean that they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? [7.8b.] It is a type [@5.2.24] of Jesus placed in the church, so that whoever desires to snatch away the scarlet wool must suffer many things because the thornbush is treacherous, and he must obtain it through affliction [@5.4]. [[105]]

Lessons from the red heifer ritual (8.1-7) [see Num. 19.1-10]

8 And what do you suppose is the type [@5.2.24] involved here, in that he commanded to Israel that those men in whom sins are complete [@5.6] should offer a heifer; and when they had slaughtered it, to burn it; and then the children should take the ashes and put them into a container; and the scarlet wool should be wrapped around a piece of wood -- again, note the type [@5.2.10, 24] of the cross [see 12.1-7], and the scarlet wool [7.8-11] and the hyssop; and thus the children sprinkle the people individually in order to purify them from sins? [5.1.] 2. Understand [@5.2.18] how it is told to you in such simplicity: the calf is Jesus; the sinful men who offer it are those who offered him to be slaughtered [5.2]. Then men (appear) no longer, (it is) no longer (concerned with) the "glory" of sinners! [Cf. 5.11.] 3. Those who sprinkle are children [cf. 6.11], they are those who preach to us forgiveness of sins and purification of the heart,\o/ to whom he entrusted the authority to proclaim the gospel [5.9]. 3b. There are twelve (of the latter), for a witness to the tribes, since there are twelve tribes of Israel. 4. But why are there (only) three children who sprinkle? This is for a witness to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they are great before God.

\o/So GS\2 mg./ L; but HS\*/ lack "of the heart" [cf. 5.1].

5. And the fact that the wool is on the wood [8.1] signifies that the kingdom of Jesus [7.11b] is on the wood, and that those who hope on him will live forever [6.3a]. 6. But why are the wool and the hyssop together? Because in his kingdom there shall be wicked and vile days, in which we shall be saved [@5.4]. For the one whose flesh is distressed is cured by means of the hyssop's vileness!

7. Wherefore, the things which have come to pass [1.7] are clear to us, but hidden to them, because they did not hearken [@5.2.2] to the Lord's voice [@5.6, 11]. [[106]]

IV. CONCERNING CIRCUMCISED UNDERSTANDING (9.1-10.12)

Exhortations to "hear" (9.1-4a) [@5.2.2]

3d. Therefore he circumcised our ears, so that when we hear [@5.2.2] the word [@5.8], we might believe [@5.5.1].

\p/So L (cf. 9.4a; 10.12); but HSG lack "the ears of" (see 9.1c).

\q/So HSG (cf. 9.1a); but L has, perhaps correctly (see 9.4a), "your ears."

\r/So HS; but GL add another, somewhat unique, formula -- "and again, the Lord's spirit [@5.10] prophesies" (cf. 12.2; see 11.5).

False and true circumcision (9.4b-5)

4a. But he also set aside [2.6; 16.2] the circumcision on which they relied. 4b. For he said that circumcision was not a matter of the flesh, but they became transgressors [5.11] because a wicked angel [18.1] "enlightened" them [@5.2.22]. 5. And he says to them:

here I find [@5.2.12] a commandment [@5.5.4] --

5b. And what is he saying?

5c. And again he says:\u/

\s/So L; but HSG read "Do not sow" (=Jer. 4.3b LXX).

\t/The Greek witnesses here give a quotation from Deut. 10.16 -- "circumcise the hardness of your heart and do not stiffen your neck." L, however, differs both in the introductory formula and in what follows: "That is, hear your Lord and circumcise the wickedness from your heart." The last idea is echoed in several early fathers and fits the context admirably (see also Isa. 1.16; Symmachus [?] to Jer. 4.4). Possibly the entire L text should be adopted here.

\u/ So L; but HS have the unparalleled formula "take it again," while G has simply "(and) again."

The meaning of Abraham's circumcision (9.6-9)

6. But you will say: And yet the people received circumcision as a special sign [Gen. 17.11]. But every Syrian and Arab, and all the priests of the idols also (are circumcised). Are they also, then, from their covenant? But even the Egyptians are in circumcision! [See Jer. 9.25 f.]

7. Learn [@5.2.15], then, abundantly concerning everything, children of love [7.1; 21.9]; for when Abraham first gave circumcision, he circumcised while looking forward in the spirit [@5.2.20] to Jesus, and he received the teachings [@5.5.3] of the three letters. 8. For it says:

8b. What, then, is the gnosis [@5.2.6] which was given him? (See 19.1c.) Learn! [9.7.] For a distinction is made in that the 18 comes first, then it says 300. Now the (number) 18 (is represented by two letters), J = 10 and E = 8 -- thus you have "JE," (the abbreviation for) "JEsus."\v/ " And because the cross, represented by the letter T (= 300), was destined to convey special significance [@5.2.26], it also says 300. He makes clear [@5.2.8], then, that JEsus is symbolized by the two letters (JE = 18), while in the one letter (T = 300) is symbolized the cross.

\v/Because of the repeated numbers (symbolized by letters in Greek) and abbreviations, there is a great deal of confusion among the witnesses to 9.8b -- especially L, which had to attempt a translation of this cryptic section. Thus the above translation sometimes takes minor liberties with the text for the sake of the English reader (e.g., the Greek IH [= 18] is transliterated to JE).

9. He who placed the implanted gift of his teaching\w/ in us knows! [@5.2.9-10.] No one has learned [@5.2.15] From me a more trustworthy lesson! But I know that you are worthy [cf. 14.1b,4a].

\w/So GL; but HS have "of his covenant," perhaps corrently (see 14.5).

The intention of Mosaic food restrictions (10.1-2)

The three doctrines of Moses (10.3-5) [tradition 1, see 10.1]

3. For this reason, then, he mentions the "pig": Do not associate, he is saying, with such men -- men who are like pigs. That is, men who forget their Lord when they are well off, but when they are in need, they acknowledge the Lord; 3b. just as when the pig is feeding it ignores its keeper, but when it is hungry it makes a din, and after it partakes it is quiet again [10.10c].

4. "Neither eat the eagle nor the hawk nor the kite nor the crow." Do not, he is saying, associate with nor be like such men -- men who do not know how to procure their own food by honest labor and sweat, but in their lawlessness they plunder the possessions of others, and they keep sharp watch as they walk around in apparent innocence, and spy out whom they might despoil by plundering; 4b. just as those birds are unique in not procuring their own food, but as they perch idly by, they seek how they might devour the flesh of others-pestilent creatures in their wickedness! [10.10d.] [[111]]

5. "And do not eat," he says, "sea eel nor octopus nor cuttlefish." Do not, he is saying, be like\x/ such men -- men who are completely impious and have already been condemned to death [see 11.7*]; 5b. just as those fish are uniquely cursed and loiter in the depths, not swimming about as do the rest but inhabiting the murky region beneath the deep water [10.10b].

\x/So HS; but GL add "by associating with" (see 10.3a, 4a).

The three doctrines on sexual sins (10.6-8) [tradition 2]

6. But neither shall you eat the hairy-footed animal [Lev. 11.5; Deut. 14.7]. Why not? Do not be, he is saying, one who corrupts children, nor be like such people; 6b. because the hare increases unduly its discharge each year, and thus has as many holes as it is years old.\y/ [[112]]

\y/Although no serious textual problem exists here,
neither the wording of this passage nor the point of the analogy is clear. The main problems are: (1) a "corrupter of
children/boys" (see 19:4a; cf. 10:7a) usually means a sodomist or homosexual of some sort (so Cl. A. takes this passage), but might also mean an abortionist here; (2) the yearly increase in bodily emission probably refers to excrement, although seminal ejaculations and even birth of young are not impossible; (3) the number of "holes" could refer to anal or womb openings, or even to dens (or passages to the main den). See the commentary.

7. But neither shall you eat the hyena [cf. Jer. 12.9 LXX/OG]. Do not, he is saying, be an adulterer nor a corrupter,\z/ nor be like such people. 7b. Why? Because this animal changes its nature each year, and at one time it is male while at another it is female.

\z/Probably this means "homosexual" (cf. 10:6a; 19:4a).

8. But also he hated the weasel [see Lev. 11.29], fittingly. Do not, he is saying, be such a person. We hear of such men, who perform a lawless deed uncleanly with the mouth. Neither associate with those unclean women who perform the lawless deed with the mouth.\a/ 8b. For this animal conceives through its mouth.

\a/Although the text is in poor condition here, the meaning is fairly clear. H lacks reference to the female offenders, and L has "do not be ... such a one who hears iniquity and speaks uncleanness ..." (!). SG read approximately as above.

Summary and support from David (10.9-10d)

9. Concerning foods, then, when Moses received the three doctrines [10.1] he spoke out thus, in the spirit [10.2b]. But because of fleshly desires they accepted his words as though they concerned actual food [10.2b; cf. 9.4b]. [[113]]

10. And David also received gnosis [@5.2.6] of the same three doctrines [10.1] -- and he says [Ps. 1.1]:

just as the fish which grope in darkness in the depths [10.5b] --

just as those who appear to fear the Lord sin like the pig [10.3] --

just like the birds perched for plundering [10.4b].

Moses' positive food laws, conclusion (10.10e-12)

10e. Now receive complete (understanding) concerning food.\b/ 11. Moses says again:

11b. What is he saying (about the latter)? That (the animal) which receives fodder knows who feeds it, and while it relies on him, it seems content [cf. 10.3, 10c]. He spoke fittingly in view [@5.2.3] of the commandment. 11c. What, then is he saying? Associate with those who fear the Lord [@5.5.6], with those who meditate [@5.2.17] in their heart on the subtleties of the matter, [[114]] with those who proclaim the Lord's righteous ordinances [@5.5.2] and keep them, with those who realize that study is a joyful occupation, and who "ruminate" [@5.2.16] on the Lord's word [@5.8]. 11d. And what does the "split-hooved" mean? That the righteous man both walks in this world and anticipates the holy aeon [@5.3].

\b/So HSL (see 10.9); but G has "concerning gnosis" (cf.
1.5; 13.7). It is also possible (perhaps even preferable, since
Pseudo-Barnabas tends to comment after quotations) to read this as a conclusion to 10.10 -- "Now your understanding is complete . . ." (so GL, which begin 10.11 with "But"), or to punctuate and render it "You are having it fully!" 11. And concerning food, Moses . . ." (see HS).

11e. See [@5.2.3] how appropriately Moses legislated! 12. But how could they perceive or understand [@5.2.18, 23] these things? [See 9.4b.] But since we rightly understand [@5.2.18] the commandments [@5.5.4], we are speaking as the Lord desired. 12b. This is why he circumcised our ears and hearts [9.1, 4a], so that we might understand [@5.2.23] these things.

V. BAPTISM AND THE CROSS FORESHADOWED (11.1-12.11)

Transition to the new section (11.1a)

Concerning the water (11.1b-5)

\c/ So H (see G, "living fount"); but L has "fount of the water of life," while S has "fount of life." LXX MSS show similar variety.

\d/S HS; but G(L) reads "broken cisterns" (=LXX), and L continues as in LXX, "which cannot hold water."

\e/So HS (i.e., as young birds learning to fly?); but G has "when their nest is stolen."

\f/So HSL; but G strangely reads, "Then what does he say in the Son" (cf.) var. to 9.2), apparently taking the following words to refer directly to baptism--"his water is sure/faithful." This has led some editors to begin verse 5 with this clause.

Concerning water and wood together (11.6-11)

6. And again he says in another prophet:

8. Perceive [@5.2.1] how he referred to the water and the cross
together.

8b. For this is what he is saying: "Blessed" [Ps. 1.1] are those who, having placed their hope in the cross [12.3], descend into the water. 8c. For the reward, he says, comes "at the proper time" [[117]] [11.6] -- then, he says, I will repay. 8d. But as for the present, what does he say? "The leaves will not wither" [11.6]. He is saying this, that every word [@5.8] which flows forth from you -- through your mouth [see 16.9] -- in faith and love [@5.5.1, 5], will be a means of conversion and hope\g/ to many [@5.5.1].

\g/So HSG; but L has "of hope and resurrection," which in some ways fits the context better (see @5.3).

9. And again, another prophet says:

he is saying this, he glorifies\h/ the vessel of his spirit [@5.2.20]. 10. Then what does he say?

11. He is saying this, that we go down into the water full of sins and vileness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having in the spirit [@5.2.20] fear [@5.5.6] and hope in Jesus [@5.5.1]. 11b. "And whoever eats from these will live forever" [11.10]. He is saying this: Whoever, he says, hears [@5.2.2] these things which are spoken [see @5.8] and believes [@5.5.1] will live forever [cf. 6.3a]. [[118]]

\h/So HS* (see Cl.A.); but GS\2(?)/ have "he will glorify," apparently with reference to Jesus' resurrection.

Concerning the cross (12.1-7)

12 Similarly, he explains again concerning the cross in another prophet who says:

1b. Again, you have (information) concerning the cross and the one who was destined to be crucified [cf. 12.2a, 7d].

\i/Or possibly, " ... pass? The Lord says, When ..." (see L).

2. And again he says in the (book of) Moses, when Israel was under attack from foreigners -- and so that he might remind those who were being attacked that they had been given over to death because of their sins [see 12.5b] -- the spirit [@5.10] says to Moses, in his heart, that he should make a type [@5.2.24] of the cross and of him who was destined to suffer [6.7; 12.1b]. 2b. If they do not, he is saying, place their hope on him [@5.5.1], they will be under attack forever. 2c. Thus Moses piled one shield upon another in the midst of the battle, and as he stood elevated above them all he stretched out his hands. And as long as he did so, Israel again prevailed; but whenever he let (his hands) drop, they were again being killed [Exod. 17.8-15]. 3. Why? So that they might know [@5.2.4] that they could not be saved unless they hope on him [12.2b, 7b; @5.5.1]. [[119]]

4. And again, in another prophet he says:

5. Again, Moses makes a type [@5.2.24] of Jesus -- (signifying) that it was necessary for him to suffer [5.13a; 7.5] and that he whom they supposed had perished [see 7.9b] would bestow life [7.2; 12.7b] -- in the standard\j/ (set up) when Israel was smitten (by a plague). 5b. For the Lord made every serpent to bite them, and they were dying, so that he might demonstrate to them that it was because of their transgression -- since transgression took root in Eve because of the serpent [Gen. 3.1 ff.] -- that they will be given over to mortal affliction [12.2a].

\j/Literally "by a sign," but the Greek allows the meaning "standard" and this is the word used in LXX Num. 21.8 f., apparently in that sense. It could also mean "by a miracle."

6. Furthermore, it is this same Moses who commanded,

he it is who makes (such an image) in order to provide a type of Jesus [@5.2.7, 24].

6b. Moses, then, makes a bronze serpent and sets it up in a prominent place and calls the people together by means of a [[120]] proclamation. 7. Therefore, when they came together they begged Moses to offer a prayer on their behalf, that they might be healed. 7b. But Moses said to them:

7c. And they did so [Num. 21.6-9].

7d. Again, you have also in these things the glory of Jesus [cf. 12.1b] -- for all things take place in him and for his sake\k/ [cf. Rom. 11.36].

\k/This entire benediction is lacking here in L, but occurs (with slight variation) in the conclusion to L at 17.2.

Whose Son is "Jesus"? (12.8-11) [@5.6-7]

8. Again, what does Moses say to "Jesus" son of Naue, when he had given this name to him [Num. 13.8, 16] who was a prophet [Sirach 46.1; cf. Deut. 18.15] so that all the people might hearken [[121]] [@5.2.2] to him alone? 8b. For the Father [@5.9] is making all things clear [@5.2.25] concerning his Son "Jesus." 9. Thus Moses says to "Jesus" son of Naue, to whom he had given this name when he sent him to spy out the land:

10. Again, notice [@5.2.10] "Jesus" -- not the son of a man\m/ but the Son of God, and manifested in flesh by a type [@5.2.25, 24].

\l/So L; but HSG lack "Jesus."

\m/So HSG; but L has "son of Naue," which is contextually and historically correct, but misses the (possible) theological play on the title "Son of man."

10b. Since, then, they were going to say that Messiah is David's Son, David himself -- fearing and perceiving [@5.2.23] the error of the sinners [8.1] -- prophesies:

11. And again, Isaiah says as follows:

11b. Notice [@5.2.10] how David says he is "Lord," and does not say "Son."\o/

\n/So GS\2/L; but HS* lack "Messiah" and read "my Lord," in agreement with the previous quotation. "Lord" (kyriw) here is a widely attested Greek corruption of "Cyrus" (kyrw).

\o/So HS* (see L); but GS\2/ have "and Son of God"!

VI. THE COVENANT AND ITS RECIPIENTS (13.1-14.9)

Transition to the new section (13.1)

The "Two People" (13.2-14.1a) [@5.6]

2. Therefore, hear [@5.2.2] what the scripture says concerning "the people":

3. You ought to perceive [@5.2.1] who Isaac (represents) and who Rebecca, and with reference to whom he had pointed out [@5.2.7] that "this people" is "greater" than "that."

\p/So SG; but H reads "and she did not conceive" (despite Gen. 25.21b). L lacks these words.

4. And in another prophecy Jacob says it even more clearly [@5.2.25] to his son Joseph, when he says:

5. And he brought Ephraim and Manasse near, intending that Manasse\q/ should receive the blessing since he was older -- thus Joseph brought (the latter) to his father Jacob's right hand [Gen. 48.13]. 5b. But Jacob saw, in the spirit, a type [@5.2.20, 24] of "the people" which was to come afterward. 5c. And what does it say?

And thus (Ephraim) received the blessing [Gen. 48.18-20]. 6. Take note [@5.2.3] on which of them he placed (his right hand) -- this "people" is to be first, and heir of the covenant! [13.1.]

\q/Strangely, throughout this context S depicts Ephraim as the older, Mansse as the younger!

7. Was, then, this situation also in view in the case of Abraham?\r/ We are receiving the perfection of our gnosis! [1.5; @5.1-2.] 7b. What, then, does he say to Abraham when for his belief alone he was established in righteousness? [see Gen. 15.6.]

14 Indeed, it was!\r/ [[125]]

\r/The construction here is difficult. In view of the close parallelism between 14.1b and 13.1, and the tendency of Pseudo-Barnabas to comment at the close of a section, we have taken the affirmative particle in 14.1a (which is lacking in HL) as the conclusion to 13.7, and thus have begun the paragraph with a question. It could also be rendered "If, then, ("the people") also was mentioned in the case of Abraham, we have received...."

The Covenant given and received (14.1b-9) [@5.6]

1b. But let us see [@5.2.10, 13] if he has given the covenant which he promised the fathers [5.7] he would give to "the people." 1c. He has given it, but they were not worthy to receive it because of their sins [14.5]. 2. For the prophet says:

4. Moses, then, received (it), but they did not prove worthy.

\s/The italics indicate Greek wording identical to 4.7-8.

4b. And how did we receive it? Learn! [@5.2.15.] Moses received it in the capacity of servant [see Exod. 14.31; Heb. 3.5]; [[126]] but the Lord himself gave it to us, to a "people" of inheritance, by submitting for us [5.1]. 5. And he was made manifest [@5.2.25] so that they might fill up the measure of their sins [5.11], and we might receive it through Jesus, who inherits the Lord's covenant\t/ -- 5b. he was prepared for this reason, that by appearing himself and liberating from darkness our hearts which had already been paid over to death and given over to the lawlessness of error [16.7b], he might establish a covenant in us by a word [@5.8]. 6. For it is written how the Father [@5.9] commanded him to prepare a holy people for himself [5.7] when he had liberated us from the darkness. 7. Therefore the prophet says:

7b. Know\u/ [@5.2.4], then, whence we were liberated! 8. Again the prophet says:\t/

9. Again the prophet says:

\t/G places 14.8 after 14.5a, while HS\2/L have it at 14.8 and S* includes it after 14.9.

\u/So GL (cf. 16.2c); but HS read "we know."

\v/So G; but S has "to announce (news) to the poor" (see LXX) and L has "to announce (news) to men." H lacks several words here.

VII. CONCERNING THE SABBATH (15.1-9)

15 And furthermore, concerning the sabbath. It is written in the "Ten Words" by which (the Lord) spoke to Moses face to face [see Exod. 33.11; Deut. 5.4; 34.10] on Mount Sinai:

2. And elsewhere he says:

3. He mentions "the sabbath" at the beginning of creation:

4. Pay attention [@5.2.21], children [@4.3], to what he says: "He finished in six days." He is saying this, that in six thousand years the Lord will finish everything. For with him the "day" signifies a thousand years.\w/ 4b. And he bears me witness (on this point) saying:

4c. Therefore, children, "in six days" -- in six thousand years -- "everything" will be "finished."

\w/S\2 mg./ uniquely adds: "For David bears me witness, saying that ..." and cites Ps. 90.4 verbatim as in LXX.

\x/So HS; but G(L) has "today will be a day as a thousand years."

5. "And he rested on the seventh day" [15.3b]. He is saying this: When his Son [@5.7] comes he will put an end to the time of the Lawless One,\y/ and judge the impious [cf. 10.5; 11.7], and change the sun [5.10] and moon and stars [@5.3] -- then he will truly rest "on the seventh day." [[129]]

\y/Or, "of lawlessness" (see 4.1b, 9b; 5.3). This is the reading of L; but G has "cut short his time" (see 4.3b), and HS have "bring time to an end."

6. Furthermore he says: "Keep it holy with clean hands and a clean heart" [15.1b]. 6b. If, then, anyone at present is able, by being clean in heart,\z/ to keep holy the day which God hallowed, we have been deceived in everything! [Cf. 9.4b; 16.1.] 7. But if he keeps it holy\a/ at that time by truly resting [15.5b], when we ourselves are able (to do so) since we have been made righteous [cf. 4.10] and have received the promise [6.19] -- when lawlessness is no more and all things have been made new by the Lord [6.13; 15.5] -- at that time we will be able to keep it holy, when we ourselves first have been made holy!

\z/So HS*; but GS\2/L have "except he (who) is clean in heart," suggesting that it is possible even "now" truly to keep the sabbath holy, or perhaps making an exception in the case of Jesus?

\a/The text is hopelessly corrupt here. H has "But if we will keep it holy . . ."; S* probably read "But if not, we will keep it holy . . ."; S\2(?)/ possibly understood it as "See [@5.2.10], therefore, we . . ."; G has "But if not, he keeps it holy . . ."; and L has "Seeing, therefore, that he kept it holy . . . ." If "he" is accepted (as above), it could refer to the "anyone" of 15.6b, but more probably refers to the Lord -- because he will rest then, we will also.

8. Further, he says to them [see 2.5b]:

8b. See [@5.2.10] how he is saying that it is not your present sabbaths that are acceptable to me, but that (sabbath) which I have made, in which, when I have rested everything, I will make [[130]] the beginning of an eighth day -- that is, the beginning of another world [see 6.13; 16.6c]. 9. Wherefore also we observe the eighth day [@5.11] as a time of rejoicing, for on it Jesus both arose from the dead and, when he had appeared [see @5.2.25], ascended into the heavens.

VIII. CONCERNING THE TEMPLE (16.1-10)

The old, physical Temple (16.1-5)

16 And finally, concerning the Temple. I will show you how those wretched men, when they went astray [@5.6], placed their hope [@5.5.1] on the building and not on their God who created them [@5.9] -- as though\b/ God has a house! 2. For, roughly speaking, they consecrated him by means of the Temple, as the pagans do! 2b. But how does the Lord speak when he sets it aside? [2.6; 9.4b.] Learn! [@5.2.15.]

2c. You knew\c/ that their hope [16.1] was vain!

\b/Or perhaps, "(and) that God has a house" (see 16.6-10); G has "But that . . . ." Less likely, but not imposible, would be "as if it were God's house" or "as long as God's house stood."

\c/So HS; but G(L) has "Know" (see @5.2.4; 14.7b).

 

3. Furthermore, he says again:

4. It is happening.\d/ For because of their fighting it was torn down
by the enemies. And now the very\e/ servants of the enemies will
themselves rebuild it.

\d/So G (L prefixes "and"); but HS lack this affirmation.

\e/So HGL; but S has "they and the servants" (see @6.4).

5. Again, it was made clear [@5.2.25] that the city and the Temple and the people of Israel were destined to be abandoned. 5b. For the scripture says [cf. 5.12b]:

5c. And it happened just as the Lord announced!

The new, spiritual Temple (16.6-10) [@5.6]

6. But let us inquire [@5.2.13] whether there is a Temple of God? There is, where he himself says he makes and prepares (it)! 6b. For it is written: [[132]]

7. Thus I find [@5.2.12] that there is a Temple.

7b. How, then, will it "be built in the Lord's Name"? Learn! [@5.2.15.] Before we believed [@5.5.1] in God the dwelling place of our heart was corrupt and infirm -- truly a Temple built by human hands [see 2.6, Acts 7.48]. For it was full of idolatry, and was a house of demons, through doing whatever things were contrary to God. 8. But "it will be built in the Lord's Name" -- pay attention\f/ -- so that the Temple of the Lord may be "built gloriously." 8b. How? Learn! [@5.2.15.] When we receive the forgiveness of sins and place our hope [@5.5.1] on the Name,\g/ we become new, created again from the beginning [@5.6]. Wherefore God truly dwells in our "dwelling place" -- in us [6.15]. 9. In what way? The word [@5.8] of his faith, the invitation of his promise, the wisdom [@5.2.22] of his righteous ordinances [@5.5.2], the commandments [@5.5.4] of his teaching [18.1a]; himself prophesying in us, himself dwelling in us -- by opening for us the door of [[133]] the Temple, which is the mouth, and giving us repentance, he leads those who had been in bondage to death [14.5] into the incorruptible Temple. 10. For he who longs to be saved [@5.4] looks not to the (external) man, but to him who dwells in him and speaks in him, and he is amazed at the fact that he never either had heard him speak such words [@5.8] from his mouth nor had himself ever desired to hear (them)! 10b. This is a pneumatic [@5.2.20] Temple built for the Lord!

\f/So, possibly, G Cl.A. (L) -- or perhaps, "... Name. Pay attention, in order that ...." HS require the latter construction and include a conjunctive particle: "But pay attention," or perhaps (ethically), "But walk circumspectly" (see @5.2.21).

\g/So HS* Cl.A. (G part); but S\2/L (G part) add "of the Lord" (see @5.7).

CONCLUSION (17.1-2)

17 To the best of my ability, and in simplicity, (I have tried) to make (these things) clear [@5.2.8] to you -- I hope that I have not neglected anything (vital).\h/ 2. For if I keep writing to you concerning things present or\i/ to come [1.5; 5.3], you would never comprehend [@5.2.18] because they are contained in parables [@5.2.19]. 2b. So much, on the one hand, for these matters.\j/

\h/So HS*L (literally "my soul hopes ..."); but a longer form of this material is contained in GS\2/: "My (mind, and, S\2/) soul hopes, in accord with my desire, that I have not neglected anything of the (present, G [transposed from 17.2a]) things which are necessary to you for salvation" (cf. 1 Clem. 45.1; Did. 16.2a; Heb. 6.9).

\i/So HSL; but G lacks "present or" (see note h above).

\j/L concludes at this point (lacking the Two Ways): "Again you have (understanding) concerning the majesty of Christ [! @5.7], how all things take place in him and through him [12.7b] -- to whom be honor, power, glory, now and forever. HERE ENDS THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS."

THE TWO WAYS (Barn 18.1-21.9; Did 1.1-6.2)

THE DIDACHE 6.3-16.8

[[179]]

INDEXES

I. QUOTATIONS AND SCRIPTURAL PARALLELS in Barnabas 1.1-17.2 [cf. @4.l]

1. Relatively verbatim quotations of (Greek) Scripture

     <i>Passage          Barnabas       Introductory Formula</i> 
Gen.  1.26a              5.5         ... he who is Lord of the  
                                     whole world, to whom God 
                                     said at the foundation of the  
                                     world
       1.26              6.12a       For the scripture is speaking
                                     about us, when he says to
                                     the Son
       1.28              6.12b       ...the Lord said 
       1.28              6.18a       But as it was already said 
                                     above
       2.2<->3             15.3        He mentions "the sabbath"
                                     at the beginning of creation 
       25.23             13.2        Hear what the scripture says 
                                     ... and the Lord said to her 
                                     [Rebecca]
Deut.  10.16             9.5b (Gk)   And what is he saying? 
  Ps.   1.1             10.10        And David also ... says  
        1.3<->6           11.6<->7       And again he says in another 
                                     prophet
       18.44a            9.1a        The Lord says in the 
                                     prophet
       22.22             6.16b       He says
       42.2b (?)         6.16a       For the Lord says again
       51.17             2.10 (L)    For to us he speaks thus (for
                                     Gk, see below, unidentified  
                                     Hymnic materials)
[[180]]
     <i>Passage          Barnabas       Introductory Formula</i> 
       90.4             15.4b (S\2mg/) For David bears me witness,
                                     saying that  
      110.1             12.10b       David himself ... prophesies 
      118.22             6.4a        And again the prophet says 
      118.24a            6.4b        And again he says  
 Prov.  1.17             5.4         But the scripture says 
 Isa.   1.2a             9.3a        And again he says<-->
        1.10
          (see 28.14)  
        1.11<->13(14)      2.5         For he made it clear to us 
                                     through all the prophets ... 
                                     as he says in one place  
        1.13            15.8a        Further, he says to them 
        3.9b-10a         6.7b        For the prophet says con-
                                     cerning Israel 
        5.21             4.11        For the scripture says 
       16.1b-2           11.3        (follows Jer. 2.12<->13 in com-
                                     posite quote)  
       28.14             9.3b        And again he says  
          (or 1.10) 
       28.16a            6.2b        And  again... the  prophet 
                                     says of him  
       33.13             9.1c        And again he  says (com-
                                     posite quote followed by ?;  
                                     cf. Deut. 10.16; Jer. 4.4) 
       33.16<->18          11.5        (follows Isa. 45.2<->3a in com-
                                     posite quote)
       40.3(?)           9.3c        And again he says  
       40.12            16.2b        But how does the Lord speak  
                                     ...? (composite quote fol-
                                     lowed by Isa. 66.1)  
       42.6<->7           14.7a        Therefore the prophet says 
       45.1             12.11        And again, Isaiah says as fol-
                                     lows 
       45.2<->3a          11.4         And again the prophet says 
                                     (composite quote followed  
                                     by Isa. 33.16<->18)  
[[181]]
     <i>Passage          Barnabas       Introductory Formula</i> 
       49.6<->7           14.8         Again the prophet says 
       50.6a,7b          5.14        And again he says  
       50.7b (?)         6.3c (Gk)   For he says  
       50.8b-9 (?)      6.1<->2a      ... what does he say?
       53.5,7b           5.2         For it is written concerning 
                                     him-partly with reference  
                                     to Israel and partly to us<-->
                                     and it says thus 
       53.5b             5.12a (L)   And Isaiah says  
       58.4b-5           3.1<->2       Therefore he speaks again  
                                     ...to them 
       58.6<->10a          3.3<->5       But to us he says  
       61.1<->2           14.9         Again the prophet says 
       65.2             12.4         And again, in another  
                                     prophet he says  
       66.1             16.2b        (follows Isa. 40.12 in com-
                                     posite quote)  
Jer.    2.12<->13        11.2         For the prophet says (com-
                                     posite quote followed by Isa.  
                                     16.1b-2) 
        4.34             9.5         And he says to them  
        7.22<->23          2.7<->8       And again he says to them  
                                     (composite quote followed  
                                     by Zech. 7.9 f./8.16 f.) 
        9.26 (?)         9.5c        And again he says  
Zech.   7.9<->10                       (follows Jer. 7.22 f. in com-
        8.16<->17 *(?)    *2.18        posite quote)  
{a bracket is drawn connecting line 5587 and 5588 in the written
text.  Next to the bracket is a "(?)" and in the next column is   
"2.8."  This material appears to be written in the middle of
lines 5587 and 5588.  I have input on line 5588.} 
       13.7 (?)          5.12b       For God says that the afflict-
                                     ing of his flesh came from 
                                     them (cf. Lat: And another 
                                     prophet [after citation of Isa.  
                                     53.5b; see above]) 
Matt.  22.14 (?)         4.14b       (see below, unidentified 
                                     Apocalyptic materials) 

[[182]]

2. Quotations not clearly traceable to any known text-forms of Jewish Scripture [cf. @4.2]

(1) Apocalyptic materials (see commentary for scriptural parallels)

<i>Passage          Barnabas       Introductory Formula</i> 
                         4.4         And the prophet speaks thus  
                         4.5         Similarly, Daniel says con-
                                     cerning the same one 
                         4.14b       ... as it is written (see Matt.
                                     22.14) 
                         5.12b       (see above to Zech. 13.7)  
                         6.9         And what does "gnosis" say?  
                         6.13b       And the Lord says  
                         6.14b       As he says again in another
                                     prophet  
                        11.9a, 10    And again, another prophet 
                                     says ... Then what does he 
                                     say? 
                        12.1a        Similarly...in another 
                                     prophet who says 
                        12.9         Thus Moses says to Jesus 
                                     son of Naue  
                        15.4b        He bears me witness, saying  
                        16.3         Furthermore, he says again 
                        16.5b        For the scripture says 
                        16.6c        For it is written

(2) Hymnic materials

                         2.10a       To us, then, he speaks thus  
                         5.13b       For one who prophesies con-
                                     cerning him says 
                         6.6         What, then, does the prophet 
                                     say again? 

(3) Legal/Cultic (halakic) materials

                         7.3b        Hear how the priests of the
                                     Temple made even this clear  
                                     when the commandment was 
                         7.4         What, then, does he say in 
                                     the prophet? 
                         7.6         Pay attention to what he 
                                     commanded  
                         7.7a        ... he says ...
                         7.8a        Pay attention to how the         
                                     type of Jesus is made clear
                        10.1         Now when Moses said  
                        10.2a        Further, he says to them in
                                     Deuteronomy  
                        10.11a       Moses says again 
                        12.6a        It is this same Moses who
                                     commanded
                        15.1         It is written in the "Ten
                                     Words" (or, "Decalogue") 
                                     by which (the Lord) spoke
                                     to Moses face to face on 
                                     Mount Sinai
                        15.2         And elsewhere he says

(4) Narrative (haggadic) materials

                         4.7         For the scripture says 
                         4.8         For the Lord speaks thus 
                         6.8         What does the other prophet, 
                                     Moses, say to them?
                         6.10a       What, then, does he say
                         6.13c       ... the prophet proclaimed 
                         9.8a        For it says
                        12.7b        But Moses said to them 
                        13.2         Hear what the scripture says 
                        13.4<->5       And in another prophecy, 
                                     Jacob says it even more
                                     clearly ... when he says 
                        13.7         What, then, does he say to 
                                     Abraham ... ?
                        14.2         For the prophet says 
                        14.3(?)      And the Lord said to Moses 
[[184]]

(5) Miscellaneous unidentified materials 
     <i>Passage          Barnabas       Introductory Formula</i> 
                         6.3a        Then what does he say? 
                         6.10c       For the prophet says 
                         9.1c        And again he says
                         9.2         And again he says

(6) Words attributed to Jesus or his opponents

                         7.5         (no formula; Jesus speaking) 
                         7.9b        and they will say
                         7.11b       ...he says...

3. Strong allusions to scriptural incidents and/or phraseology (it is not always clear whence Barnabas derived such materials)

  Gen.  3.1<->6, 13            12.5b  
       14.14                  9.8a
       15.6                  13.7b  
       17.4<->5                13.7b  
       17.11                  9.6 
       17.23                  9.8a  
       22.9                   7.3c
       25.21<->22              13.2 
       48.9<->20               13.4<->5 
 Exod. 17.8<->15               12.2              [with formula] 
       17.14                 12.9 
       20.8                  15.1 
       31.16                 15.2 
       33.1,3 (etc.)          6.8 (etc.)  
  Lev. 11.3                  10.11a 
       11.5                  10.6a  
       11.7<->15               10.1,3<->5 
       11.29                 10.8a  
       16.1<->28               7.4<->11 
       23.29                 7.3b 
       26.1                 12.6a 
  Num. 13.8, 16             12.8a 
       19.1<->10               8.1<->6  
       21.6<->9               12.5,6b-7 [[185]]
 Deut.  4.10<->14             10.2  
        5.12                15.1  
        9.9<->18 parr.         4.7<->8; 14.2<->3
       14.6                 10.11a  
       14.7                 10.6a 
       14.8<->14              10.1,3<->5  
       27.15                12.6a 
   Ps. 22.16b                5.13b;6.6
       22.18b                6.6
       22.20a                5.13b
       24.4                 15.1  
       34.12a                9.2
       51.17                 2.10 
       69.21                 7.3a 
       90.4                 15.4b 
      118.12a                6.6
      119.120a               5.13b
  Isa. 28.16b                6.3a 
       49.17                16.3  
       50.10a                9.2
       56.1<->8               15.2  
  Jer.  4.4                  9.1c 
        9.25<->26              9.6
       12.9 (LXX)           10.7a 
       17.22<->27             15.1<->2  
 Ezek. 11.19                 6.14b
       36.26                 6.14b
       47.1<->12              11.9a, 10 
  Dan.  2.34 f.,44 f.        6.2b 
        7.7<->24               4.4<->5
        9.24<->25             16.6b 
"Enoch"  (?)                 4.3a 
  Matt. 26.31 (par.)          5.12b  [[186]]
  Mark   2.17b parr.          5.9b 
         3.14 parr.           8.3b 
        12.35 ff. parr.     12.10<->11 
        13.20 par.           4.3b 
        15.36 parr.          7.3,5  
        15.39 parr.          7.9b 
  John  19.29                7.3,5  
  Acts   7.48<->50             16.1<->2,7 
        14.22                 7.11b 
  Rom.   4.11                13.7b  
1 Cor.   3.16                 6.15; 16.7<->10 
2 Cor.   5.10                 4.12  
         6.16                 6.15; 16.7<->10 
  Eph.   2.2                  2.1 
         2.21<->22              6.15; 16.7<->10 
         5.16                 2.1 
  Heb.  10.25                 4.10b 
1 Pet.   1.2                  5.1 

II. QUOTATIONS AND SCRIPTURAL PARALLELS in the Two Ways Material (Barnabas 18.1-21.9; Didache 1.1-6.2)

1. Explicit quotation

(unknown source;    Did. 1.6  But it has also been said concerning 
cf. Sir. 12.1<->7)             this matter 

2.  Strong verbal parallels

(only a selection of the most obvious parallels is provided here; 
see the commentary for numerous others) 
Exod. 20.7            Barn. 19.4e 
      20.13<->15       Barn. 19.4a = Did. 2.2a 
      20.16                         Did. 2.3b 
      20.17           Barn. 19.6a = Did. 2.2c 
[[187]]
     <i>Passage          Barnabas     Didache</i>  
 Lev. 19.18b          Barn. 19.5b   Did. 1.2b 
Deut.  6.5            Barn. 19.2a = Did. 1.2a 
  Ps. 37.11a                        Did. 3.7  
 Sir.  4.5a                         Did. 4.8a 
       4.31           Barn. 19.9a = Did. 4.5  
Matt.  5.5                          Did. 3.7  
       5.25<->26 par.                 Did. 1.5c 
       5.38<->48                      Did. 1.3b-5a  
       7.12 par.                    Did. 1.2c 
 Mark 12.30<->31 parr.                Did. 1.2a-b 
 Luke  6.27<->35                      Did. 1.3b-5a  
 John  6.45a          Barn. 21.6a 
 Eph.  6.5            Barn. 19.7b = Did. 4.11 
 Phi.  4.5b           Barn. 21.3b 
 Heb. 13.7            Barn. 19.9b = Did. 4.1a 
1 Pet. 2.11b                        Did. 1.4a 

III. QUOTATIONS AND SCRIPTURAL PARALLELS IN DIDACHE 6.3-16.8

1. Explicit quotations

     <i>Passage          Didache        Introductory Formula</i> 
   Zech. 14.5b           16.7        As it was said 
    Mal.  1.11, 14b      14.3        For this is what the Lord was
                                     referring to 
   Matt.  6.9<->13          8.2        Pray as the Lord commanded 
                                     in his gospel, thus
          7.6             9.5b       For the Lord also has spoken 
                                     concerning this

2. Strong verbal parallels (for other parallels, see the commentary)

     <i>Passage          Didache</i> 
   Matt.  5.23<->24        14.2 
          6.5             8.2 
         10.10b          13.1<->2 
         16.27           16.8 
         24.10<->12        16.3<->4 
         24.30<->31        16.6, 8  
         28.19            7.1, 3
    Mark  3.28<->29 parr.  11.7 
         13.13 par.      16.5b
         13.19 par.      16.4 
         13.22 par.      16.4 
         13.26 parr.     16.8 
         13.35 parr.     16.1 
    Luke 12.35           16.1 
1 Thess.  4.16           16.6 
  1 Tim.  3.2<->13         15.1 
    Tit.  1.5<->9          15.1 

[end]