by Robert Alan Kraft

PhD Thesis (Harvard University) April 1961




PhD Thesis (Harvard University)

Robert Alan Kraft

April 1961

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Title page, i]]


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

Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 1961


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




Methodological Notes vii

Abbreviations of Modern Literature vii

Ancient Literature: Abbreviations and Editions ix

Biblical ix

Late Jewish and Rabbinic x

Early Christian and Patristic xii

Secular xvi

Miscellaneous Abbreviations and Notations xvii

Glossary of some Possibly Misleading Expressions viii


Chapter 1: The Enigmas of the Epistle 6

Authorship 9

Origin and Destination 12

Occasion 14

Date 15

Form--Content--Integrity 18

Evaluation 24

Chapter 2: The Text of Barnabas 25

Ancient Latin Translation 27

Mutilated Greek Family 29

Sinaiticus 31

Constantinopolitanus 31

Clement of Alexandria 32

General Results 38

Special Considerations 40

Chapter 3: The Explicit Quotations 43

Formulae Citandi 44

Relation to Septuagint 53

Relation to Masoretic Tradition 57

The Problem of Sources 66
[[iv]] Chapter 4: The Available Sources 70

Septuagint 71

Scriptural Commentary 73

Scripture Reworked 74

Anthologies--Testimonia 77

Synagogue Instruction 84

Christian Materials 87

Conclusions 89


Chapter 5: True Sacrifices and Fasting 95

The Materials in Barnabas 2-3 95

Clement of Alexandria's Parallels 102

Irenaeus' Parallels 106

Pseudo-Gregory's Parallels 108

Supplementary Evidence 109

Conclusions 110

Chapter 6: The Things Which Are Able to Save Us 118

The "Final Stumblingblock"        (4:3-5) 120

Reception of the Covenant        (4:7f-14:2f) 130

The Smitten Shepherd               (5:12-14) 139

The Smiting Stone                     (6:1-4) 149

The Good Land                        (6:8-19) 159

Atonement and Red Heifer        (7-8) 169

Chapter 7: Circumcised Ears and Hearts 179

Exhortations to "Hear"               (9:1-4a) 179

True Circumcision                     (9:4b-8) 185

Abraham's "Gnosis"                  (9:7-9) 194

"Gnosis" of Three Doctrines 197

------------> On Sexual Sins (10:6-8) 200

------------>Mosaic Food Laws (10:1,3-5,11) 209

------------>David's "Gnosis" (10:10) 217


Chapter 8: The Water and the Cross 221

The Water (11:1-7) 222

Water and Wood (11:6-11) 227

The Cross (12:1-7) 232

Whose Son is Jesus/Joshua (12:8-11) 242

[[v]] Chapter 9: The People of Inheritance 246

The Two People (13:1-6) 246

The Covenant with Abraham (13:7) 253

The Covenant: Given and Received (14) 255


Chapter 10: Keeping the Sabbath Holy 258

Hallowing the Sabbath (15:1-2,6-9) 259

The Sabbath Rest (15:3-5) 261


Chapter 11: The House of God (16) 267

Temple Quotations 269

Judaism and the Temple 271


Diversity and Unity in Barnabas 276

Christian Influence on Barn's Sources? 278

Barnabas and Judaism 281

Barnabas' Sources 283

Affinities of Barnabas' Tradition 285


Barnabas: Editions and General Treatments 293

Barnabas: Specific Aspects 296

General Literature 300


Jewish Scriptural Passages (LXX/OG) 311

Passages from Barn in Parts I and III 317

I. Jer 7:22 + Zach 7:10/8:17 (Barn 2:7-8) 98

II. Apocalypse of Adam? (Barn 2:10) 99

III. Isa 58:4b-10 (Barn 3:1-5) 100f

IV. Psalmic Composition (Barn 5:13) 146

V. Psalmic Composition (Barn 6:6) 147

VI. Isa 50:8-9 (Barn 6:1-2) 152

VII. Exhortations to "Hear" (Barn 9:1-4a) 180f

VIII. On Circumcision (Barn 9:4b-8) 188ff

IX. Jer 2:12-13 + Isa 16:1b-2 (Barn 11:2-3) (see also p. 62 on Jer 2:12) 223

X. Ps 109(110):1 and Isa 45:1 (Barn 12:10b-11) 244

XI. Gen 25:21-23 (Barn 13:4-6) 249f*

For Gen 2:2-3 (Barn 15:3-5), see p. 65  






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

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

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


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

Series, Encyclopedias, older Periodicals, etc.--



Late Jewish and Rabbinic

Early Christian

Secular Sources



[[xix (blank)]]



Despite the fact that the "Epistle of Barnabas" contains scores of explicit quotations (i.e. with formulae citandi; see below, ch.3) based on the Jewish scriptures and other related materials of unidentified origin, the precise relationship between these quotations and known sources (especially the LXX/OG) virtually has been ignored by the commentators.\1/ This is all the more striking since Barn is one of the oldest pieces of non-canonical Christian literature, and may well have been written (in part or in whole; see below ch. 1) before the close of the first century. It is probable, therefore, that a detailed investigation of Barn's citations will contribute not only to a better understanding of the Epistle itself, but also will shed light on the traditional backgrounds (favorite kinds of material used, relation to other ancient [[2]] quotations, etc.) of the early Christianity represented by the Epistle.\2/

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

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

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

\3/See above, p. viii.

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

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

\6/See above, p. ix.

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

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

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

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

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





Chapter 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Chapter 2


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Barn\Cl.A/

Against Barn\Cl.A/

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

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

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

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

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

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


Chapter 3


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\26/L lacks "propheta."

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

\28/L has "dicit ESAISAS."

\29/L has "dicit propheta."

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

\31/L lacks both formula and quotations.

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

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

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

\37/L lacks KU/RIOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\44/L lacks formula es}

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

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

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

\47/H lacks GE/.

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

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

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

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

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

\53/L lacks the formula.

\54/Se above n. 49.

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

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

\57/L lacks the formula.

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

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

\59/L lacks FHSI/N.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LXX-Ziegler Jer 2:12\90/ Barn 11:2\91/ MT Jer 2:12 E)CE/STH O( OU)RANO\S E)/KSTHQI OU)RANE/


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Chapter 4


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

\1/Swete, Intro, p. 412.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\19/Schulbetrieb, pp. 1-7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Christian [Jason] debates with a Jew [Papiscus] on the basis of Jewish scriptures and demonstrates that the prophecies concerning the messiah are applicable to Jesus, while the other participant in the debate argues in a manner which is neither base nor unfitting to the Jewish character. Into the same literary genre of "Dialogues," and at the same time employing testimonies to some extent, fall numerous writings with varying degrees of similarity. Some of the most important examples are Justin's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150), Evagrius' Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (c. 400), and the anonymous Dialogues of Timothy and Aquila (c. 400), [[84]] Athanasius and Zacchaeus (c. 400), and Papiscus and Philo (medieval).\31/ An interesting short catena of scriptural quotations couched in Dialogue form also is to be found in the Act Phil 77-79 (Philip vs. Aristarchus). ---

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

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

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

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

Synagogue Instruction. -- Many of the sources already discussed must have been related in some way to the Jewish synagogue (or even family instruction, see n. 27 above) at one time or another, although in most instances they have achieved independent literary status. There are, however, [[85]] additional types of material used by Christian authors around the beginning of the second century which also seem to derive from the synagogue (and/or Rabbinic schools) but which do not really fit into the above categories. One example of such material is the such discussed "Two Ways" tradition which is found in different forms in early Christian literature (Barn, Did, Hermas, etc.). The Jewish background of such instruction is clear, even though consensus is lacking as to whether a written Jewish "Two Ways" source can be found behind Christian usages (see the discussions listed above, p. 8 n. 2). Again, it is Qumran which has re-focused attention on the existence of strongly parallel "catechetical" formulations in the Judaism to which Christianity fell heir (see IQS cols. 3b-4). Most recently, K. Baltzer has attempted to identify a larger cultic vehicle for such material in the vestiges of a covenant renewal ceremony preserved by late Judaism and early Christianity (see above, p. 9 n. 4). Another important form of synagogue instruction is illustrated by the homiletic materials in Clement of Rome. It is highly probable that synagogue sermons lie behind Clement's exhortations against jealousy (ch. 4) on faithful service (chs. 9-12), on humility (chs. 17-18), etc. Probably Hebrews 11 (on faith) has a similar background, which is reflected in such Jewish sources as Sirach 44-50 (on the praise [[86]] of famous men) and in later Rabbinic homilies. Finally, a word should be said about the use of lectionary materials in the synagogue. Although the origins and details of lectionary practices in late Judaism are shrouded in obscurity, it seems clear that by the time of the Christian era, the synagogue was accustomed to reading selections from Torah ( sederim), Prophets ( haftarot), and possibly also from the Psalms (in addition to their hymnic use).\32/ In this way certain scriptural passages (and their themes) customarily would become linked together, and also would become associated with certain seasons of the liturgical year. Thus in the Fourth Gospel, for example, Jesus refers to the manna story at Passover time (John 6), and plays on the themes of "water and light" at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7-8), in accord [[87]] with the probable lections for those seasons in first century Palestinian Judaism. ---

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

     \1/Minor textual problems in the following excerpts have not been 
noted since they have little relevance to the present argument.  

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

[[{@@RAK notes on the facing page: 

1.  Hipp, <ts>AntiX</> II:
        @@PARW|XH?O/TA EI)PO/NTES 
(cf Hipp on <ts>Blessing of Jacob 10 [TU 38:1,23], cited in Windisch, p. 307) 

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

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

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

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

     \2/For example, the eschatological orientation and the
parenetic emphases which run throughout Barn.  See Muilenburg,
<tm>Literary Relations</>, pp. 70f, for stylistic affinities
between Barn 1-17 and 18-21. 

     \3/Muilenburg's argument is strained to the breaking point
on this matter:  he argues that (1) Barn "is constructed, in its
general outline, according to an intelligible and fairly logical
plan"  --  for example, it accords with the Rabbinic division of
haggada and halakah (pp. 50ff, 58f); and (2) "almost any part of
the Talmud illustrates the style and literary method of the
exegetical portion of the Epistle (chaps. 1-17)" (pp. 57f).  As
we have already noted, Muilenburg's conclusion is that Barn does
not use traditional materials of the type proposed by (for
example) Windisch (above, p. 22).  Now while it is true that Barn
has strong affinities with Rabbinical style, methods, and
purpose, it would be foolish to suggest that the Talmudic
literature (or even a small portion thereof) is the original work
of one author or even that it follows a definite plan in our
sense of that word.  Barn, as the Talmud, has all the earmarks of
being a deposit of traditions re-edited for particular purposes. 
The apparent unity which Muilenburg finds in the Epistle is
primarily the result of editorial processes, and tells us nothing
about the origin of the basic materials used by the author/editor
(see above, p. 23 n. 36). 


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

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

     \4/It is clear that Barn 2:4-3:6 must be treated as a unit,
but whether 2:1-3 originally formed an introduction only to this
unit or was part of the general introduction to Barn 2-16 is
difficult to determine.  Arguments for the former view include
(1) the parallelism with 4:1, which certainly introduces a new
section, and (2) Barn 1:8 is a natural conclusion for the
preceding material.  On the other hand, it is true that the theme
of avoiding the deceit fo the wicked one is not peculiar to Barn
2-3, but pervades most of the Epistle (see 4:1f, 9-
10, 13; 8:6; 15:5 18:2).

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


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

     \1/L has "volens nos similiter errantes"; perhaps
"volens" is a corruption of "nolens"?         

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

[[{@@RAK note on facing page:} 

On Christians and Fasting:  
S. Lowy, J. Jewish S. 9 (1958), esp p. 25 n. 59 
__________. J.J.S. 11 (1960), 1ff  -- retained because of
messianic overtones  --  the way of repentance, hasten Kingdom. 
Hermas, Sim 5.1 ff.  (ethical meaning)]]

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

[[@@RAK note on the facing page: 

S. Lowy argues long <lt>re</> Barn's attack here on Jewish
<em>FASTS</> (<lt>sic</>!) which had been adopted also into
X\ty/ (note Didache on fasting)  --  see also Tert, <lt>etc.</>
on X\n/ "<lt>stationes</>" (<hb>M`MDWT</>).  pp. 1-11 mainly. 
[Actually, Barn is concerned with <lt>cultus</>, and the use of
the "fast" passage in Isa 58 comes to hand <lt>via</> the
tradition rather than in response to a specific problem
encountered in Barn's X\n/ world, as is clear from the overall
context of Barn 2-3.] ]]

     \2/Where H has <gk>PROSH/LUTOI</>, S has <gk>E)PH/LUTOI</>
(which has approximately the same meaning) and L has
"<lt>proselytae</>."  Note that in JM, D 23:3 and 28:2,
<gk>PROSH/LUTOS</> is used to refer to Jews becoming Christians! 
[[@@RAK note:  Also, a Jew becoming Qumranite = "proselyte".  Cf
Rowley, "The Qumran Sect & Christian Origins," B J RylL 44
(1961), 137 n. 8 (on CDC 17:1ff; see @@1QS 2:19 ff).  6:13ff} 

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

     \3/In general outlines, Isa 1:11-13 is almost identical with LXX
witnesses while 58:4b-10a is close, but contains some obvious and
extensive corruptions (especially in Barn\S/, see TEXT III, pp. 100f). 
Barn\L/ includes Isa 1:14a at the end of the first quotation, and has
other differences from Barn\Gk/ throughout both passages.  

     \4/See TEXT I (p. 98).  The only important variants in
Barn\L/ are the inclusion of "<lt>dicens</>" (<gk>LE/GWN</>, LXX)
before <gk>E(/KASTOS</>, and "<lt>suum</>" (<gk>AU)TOU=</>, LXX)
after <gk>PLHSI/ON</>, and the absence of <gk>E)N TH=| KARDI/A|
AU)TOU=</>. Zach 7:10 is the only place in the LXX MSS used by
Hatch-Redpath where <hb>Hebrew text</> (usually=LXX
<gk>LOGI/ZESQE</> as in Zach 8:17) is rendered by
<gk>MNHSI?KAKEI/TW</> (only occurs in four other places in the
LXX, for four other Hebrew words).  There is some confusion of
<gk>A)DELFO/N</>/</>PLHSI/ON</> in LXX MSS of Zach 7:9f (and
elsewhere), and a few witnesses attest <gk>KATA\ TOU= PLHSI/ON</>
in 7:10.  The only evidence for <gk>E)N TH=| HATA\ TOU=
PLHAI/ON</> in 7:10.  The only evidence for <gk>E)N TH=| KARDI/A|
AU)TOU=</> in the Zach passages is in Iren's quotations of  both
7:10 and 8:17 (see below, n. 9). 

     \5/Henceforth this entire quotation conveniently will be
designated "Apcl Adam?"; See TEXT II (p. 99).  The relationship
of this quotation to extant "Adam literature" is discussed by
M.R. James, "Notes on Apocrypha," JTS 16 (1915), 409f, and
<tm>The Lost Apocrypha of the OT</> (1920), pp. 1f.  {@@RAK
note:  Prigent, pp 43f, doubts Barn\H/ is identification.  }  

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

     \6/Froidevaux, "Trois textes," pp. 417 ff, suggests that the
"Apcl Adam?" quotation in Iren is taken directly from Barn, as
are two other quotations (Barn 5:13 and 6:1f, see below pp. 143
ff, 152f).  Iren's <lt>formula citandi</> here is the vague
"<lt>alibit ait</>," which Froidevaux thinks usually refers to
one of the "presbyters."  Thus Barn is probably one of the
anonymous "presbyters" of Iren.  The evidence seems too meager to
support this conclusion. 


                         <text>TEXT I</>

Barn\Gk/ 2:8(=Barn\L/, approximately) LXX-Ziegler Jer 7:22-23
8   A)LL' H)\ TOU=TO
23  A)LL' H)\ TO\ R(H=MA TOU=TO
L adds "<lt>dicens</>"] LE/GWN: 


LXX-Zieg. Zach 7:9-10 = Zach  8:16-17







  {AU)TOU=</>  (S\*/H)
  {E(AUTOU=</> (S\c/)
  [L lacks "in his (own) heart":   



17  KAI\



L, "<lt>non habet</>"].

DIO/TI</> ...

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

H(SAI/AS:  MH\ E)GW\ ... QUSI/<v+>AN</></> (as Barn\Gk/ 2:7, except <gk>PROSENE/GKWIN</> in some MSS of Ps-Greg). 


{@@RAK on facing page: 
Hipp, <ts>Bl. Jacob</> 4. 

                         <text>TEXT II</> 

Barn\L/ 2:10
  Iren, AH IV:17:1-2
LXX-Rahlfs Ps 50(51):19
<lt>Nobis Eni(m) 1  <lt> quinquagesimo
sic dicit:    Psalmo de his ait:
sacrificiu(m) d(omi)no
Sacrificium Deo <gk>QUSI/A TW=: QEW=


  contribulatus SUNTETRIMME/NON,
  cor KARDI/AN
   contritum SUNTETRIMME/NHN
et humiliatu(m)
  et humiliatum
D(eu)s Dominus
non despicit:</>      non spernet ....  OU)K E)COUQE/NWSEI</>.

Barn\Gk/ 2:10
Cl. A, Paed 3:90:4
<gk>HIMI=N  OU)=N 
2  ...quemadmodum  <gk>TW=S OU)=N QU/SW 
OU(/TWS LE/GEI:**   alibi ait:
  TW=| KURI/W|; 
QUSI/A Sacrificium
  QEW=|  (S)
  KURI/W|  (H)
Deo  KURI/W|
SUNTETRIMME/NH   contribulatum




TW=| KURI/W|; 
O)SMH\ EU)WDI/AS odor suavitatis O)SMH/, FHSI/N, EU)WDI/AS
Deo TW=| QEW=|
TO\N PEPLAKO/TA AU)TH/N</> eum qui plasmavit.  </> TO\N PEPLAKO/TA AU)TH/N</>. 

Cl. A, Strom 2:79:1

<gk>...AU)/TH GA\R QUSI/A



Barn\Hmg/ adds here: 
<gk>YALM . N' 



                        <text>TEXT III</>   

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


Barn\L/ vars. Barn\Gk/ 3.1-5
LXX-Ziegler Isa 58.4-10

ut quit ... (same)
LE/GEI KU/RIOS  (lacking in all MSS)
ut ... (same)
vox v(est)ra
(+E)N, H) KRAUGH=| =Barn\H/
in clamore
  TH\N FWNH\N U(MW=N; (same)
(+E)GW\, S) E)CELECA/MHN =Barn\H/ (var = Barn\S/)
dicit dns
(+LE/GEI KU/RIOS, S) =Barn\H/ (var = Barn\S/)
  {<gk>OU)K</> (S) 
  {<gk>H(ME/RAN</> (H) 
TH\N YUXH\N AU)TOU= (same)
sine causa

neque si
 2 {OU)D' A)\N   (S)} 
    {OU)DE\ E)A\N (H)}




te circu(m)dederis
et cinere(m)

nec sic celebrabis mihi OU)D' OU(/TWS KALE/SETE 

ad nos aute(m) sic dic(it):
3  PRO\S H(MA=S</> (+<gk>DE\</>, S\c/H) <gk>LE/GEI: 

{   I)DOU\ AU(/TH</> 

{     (+<gk>H(</>, H) <gk>NHSTEI/A 

cum ieiunaveritis
{       H(\N E)GW\ E)CELECA/MHN 

{         LE/GEI KU/RIOS</> 


{       TH\N FUXH\N AU)TOU=</>,S) 

      (+<gk>A)LLA\</>,S)  <gk>LU/E

        {PA=N</>        (S)     }     
        {PA/NTA</>      (H)     }     

et omne(m) consignatione(m) iniqua(m)


    DIA/LUE STRAGGALIA\S   (-IAN, [H])  } 



      E)N A)FE/SI 


[[101]] <lt>frange esurienti</> 
et egenos 
si videris nudu(m)</> 


<lt>ET domesticos</> 
<lt>non despicies:</> 
      TO\N A)/RTON SOU 
       (Compare            ) 
         (Ezek 18:7b,16b   ) 
      <gk>GUMNO\N E)A\N I)/DH|S 
    A)STE/GOUS EI)/SAGE       }       **
      EI)S TO\N OI)=KO/N SOU  }       **
      OU)X U(PERO/YH| (-EI, H) <gk>AU)TO/N  ***
    OU)DE\ (OUD', H) A)PO\ TW=N OI)KEI/WN 

<lt>et vestim(en)ta 
cito oriunt(ur)
et pr(a)eibit</> 

    {@@RAK note in text: *{<gk>PRWIMON</> (H)  }
 4  <gk>TO/TE R(AGH/SETAI {PROIMON</> (S) 
      <gk>TO\ FW=S SOU 
    KAI\ TA\        {{@@RAK--  You crossed out this line of text.  es} 
             {<gk>I)A/MATA SOU</> (S\c*/H) 
             {<gk>TAXE/WS A)NATELEI= 
    KAI\</>  (+<gk>PRO-</>, S)<gk>POREU/SETAI 
        H( DIKAIOSU/NH</> (+<gk>SOU</>, H) 
    <gk>KAI\ H( DO/CA TOU= QEOU=
      PERISTELEI= DE</> 

<lt>tunc exclamas</> 


<lt>exaudiet te</> 

<lt>...ante</> (=<lt>a te</>?) 
<lt>... esurienti 
ex animo:</> 

5  (+<gk>KA</>, S)  <gk>TO/TE</>   {<gk>BOH/SEIS</>  (S)
                                    {<gk>BOH/SH|</>   (H) 
{@@RAK note in text:  corr S\*c/  } 

    <gk>KAI\ O( QEO\S 
      {E)PAKOU/SETAI/ SOU</>  (S) 
      {<gk>EI)SAKOU/SETAI/ SOU</>  (H) 
      I)DOU\ PA/REIMI 
    E)A\N A)FE/LH|S A)PO\ SOU= 
          KAI\ R(H=MA GOGGUSMOU= 
      TO\N A)/RTON SOU 
        E)K YUXH=S SOU 
      {<gk>E)LAIH/SEIS</>  (S) 
      {<gk>E)MPLH/SH|S</>  (H) 

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

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

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

     lacking (=Barn\H/_ 



     trsp to 1243 

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

    no equivalent 

    <gk>KAI\ A)PO\ T. OI)K.  </> 

***{<gk>OU)X U(PERO/YH|</> 

 8  same 


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

    =Barn\H/(see MS 239') 

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



    =Barn\H/(see Sah) 

[[102, continued]] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

{@@RAK--  You have written many notes in the next section.  Please review.  es} 

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

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

{@@RAK note in margin to 58.5 (now omitted): 
H lacks <gk>E)GW/</> (@@cf L)  } 

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

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

{@@RAK note in margin:  check CLA  -<gk>YEI</> ?  (=Barn\H/) 

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

{@@RAK--  I typed the two columns in the next section one after
the other.  You have many revisions and notes in the margin. 
When you crossed out text, I indicated this.  Please review this
section.  es} 

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

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

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

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

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

cf H  { 

    58:5--<gk>U(POST</>.  (=LXX)  }

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

{@@RAK note in margin: 

58:6  <gk>STRAGGALIAS</> (=LXX)  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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

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

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

    58:6--<gk>H( NHSTEI/A</> 

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

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

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

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

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

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

<ts><u-head>Isa 1:11-13</> 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     \7/<ts>Strom</> II:(18):79  -- <gk>QUSI/AI GA\R A)NO/MWN
AU)TW=|....</>  In a third possible allusion to the "Apcl Adam?"
reference (<ts>Strom</> IV:[5]:19:2), Cl.A speaks of the example
of Job, <gk>EU)LOGW?N TO\N PLA/SANTA</> (compare Zach 12:1).  


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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
On this passage, see A. Benoit cited in Prigent, p. 40 (n 2), and
Benoit, <fr>Saint @@Ire/ne/e: Introduction a\ l'e/tude de sa
The/ologie</> (1960), 97f.  B. argues that Iren's source follows
order of Pal. canon in arranging the quotes, <lt>etc</>.  Prigent
says no (pp. 40 ff).  } 

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

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

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

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

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

     \8/The earliest known passages in which Psalms are cited by
number are Acts 13:33 (Ps 2, or Ps 1 in some MSS) and JM, D 22:7
("David in the 49th Psalm"), 37:1 ("In the diapsolma of the 46th
Psalm"), etc. (see 37:2, 38:3, 73:1, 97:3).  From the 3rd c.
onward such passages multiply (Tert, Cyp, etc.). 

\9/Iren's quotations from Zach 7:10/8:17 have only one
agreement with Barn\Gk/ against all known LXX witnesses (=MT),
and that is the phrase <gk>E)N TH=| Kardi/A| AU)TOU=</>="<lt>in
corde suo</>" (in both places in Iren; see also Hi, <ts>Comm in
Zach</> 7:8f).  Iren has a composite quotation of Jer 7:3f +
{@@RAK addition: Zach 7:9-10} @@+ Zach 8:17 + Isa 1:17ff {@@RAK
addition:  @@than formula quote of Ps 33[34]:14f. } in AH IV:36:2
[=58:2], however, in which he gives the expected LXX phrase,
"<lt>in cordibus vestris</>." 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
Benoit makes @@much of this} 

{@@RAK--  I added a "+" for the previous paragraph.  es} 

    \10/It should be noted that Iren's material from Isa 58:6 begins
with the words "<lt>Hoc est ieiunium quod ego elegi</>" rather
than the Septuagintal "<lt>Non tale ieiunium elegi</>" (as in
Cyp, Hi; see Tert).  In this reading, Iren is close to Barn\Gk/
(see TEXT III) as against most LXX witnesses.  The
<gk>H(/N</>="<lt>quod</> in Barn, Cl.A, Iren, and Tht represent
the <hb>Hebrew text</> of IQIsa\a/ 58:6 as against MT. 
IQIsa\a/ also has the article with "fast" as in Barn\H/, Cl.A,
and Tht.  Notice also the external similarity (coincidental?)
between Iren's "... <lt>sed non in sacrificiis ned in
holocaustomatibus, nec in oblationes</>," and Barn 2:4a,
PROSFORW=N</>  .... 


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

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

    \11/Zagcagni's note here refers to the variant reading
<gk>KAI\ MET' O)LI/GA</> in a <lt>codex antiquor</>." 

    \12/This quotation is lacking in some witnesses. 

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

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

    \13/The Syriac (and Latin) Didasc VI:17 is the same as ApCo
VI:22 in this regard except that it lacks the allusion to Ps 50:19. 

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

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
Possibly the Quotes of Barn 2 once circulated in sep. from Isa 58?  (cf Ps-Greg, <lt>etc.</>.  es} 

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

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

    \14/See, for example, E.G. Hirsch, "Sacrifice," <te>Jewish
Encyc</> 10 (1905), 622 and 625; L. Ginzberg, <tm>Legends of the
Jews</> V (1925), 228 n. 11; G. F. Moore, <tm>Judaism in the
First Centuries of the Christian Era</> I (1927), 515f, and II
(1927), 14f.

    \15/See <ts>Megillah</> 31b, where Rabbi Ammi tells of the
Lord's answer to Abraham when the latter asked what Israel would
do about her sins when the Temple was gone:  "I have already
fixed for them the order of the sacrifices.  Whenever they will
read the section dealing with them, I will reckon it as if they
were bringing me an offering, and forgive all the iniquities"
(Epstein, p. 191). 

    \16/See <ts>Berakoth</> 17a:  "When R. Shesheth kept a fast,
on concluding his prayer he added the following; ...when the
Temple was standing, it a man sinned he used to bring a
sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was its fat and
blood, atonement was made for him therewith.  Now I have kept a
fast....  May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which
have been diminished as if I had offered them" (Epstein, p. 101). 

    \17/<ts>Sanhedrin</> 43b = <ts>Sotah</> 5b:  "R.Joshua b.Levi
said, When the Temple was in existence, if a man brought a burnt-
offering, he received the reward of a burnt offering, ... but he
who was humble in spirit, Scripture regarded him as though he had
brought all the offerings, for it said [Ps 50(51):19]" (Epstein
p. 283=p. 21).  Similarly, in D 117:2, JM refers to the view of
the Judaism represented by Trypho that God did not accept the
literal sacrifices of Jerusalem Israelites (by implication, prior
to the destruction of the Temple), but accepted the prayers of
the diaspora in the place of sacrifice.  Justin agrees that
"prayers and thanksgivings made by worthy men are the only
perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God." 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
minor diffs  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
cf. also Vict. Pet. <ts>Comm. on Rev</> VI:4 (to 6:9)  -- 
"<lt>munera nostra orationes sunt quas efficere defemus</>" (our
offerings are prayers which we ought to offer."  }

    \18/See <ts>Sukkah</> 49b:  "R.Eleazer stated, Greater is he who
performs charity than all the sacrifices, for it is said, 'to do
charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than
sacrifice' [Prov 21:3]" (Epstein, p. 233). 

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

{@@RAK note on the facing page: 
["all the bread on it was polluted + not pure" (1917\ed/)].  } 
{@@RAK-- Does this note correspond to the text you coded with
"[]"'s?  es} 

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
Daniel (LXX or <gk>Q</>) 3:38ff.  (based on Isa 1:11, Ps 50[51]:19)  } 

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

{@@RAK note in margin: 
trans.  } 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

{@@RAK Note in margin: 


Spec Leg 
Vitz @@Mas
@@L:57  } 

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

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

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


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

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


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

                      <ch>Chapter 6 

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

     \4/HL lack "them." 

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

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

{@@RAK notes in margin: 
so Lightfoot

so Kleist  } 

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

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

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

{@@RAK addition: 

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

{@@RAK note in margin:  Simeon} 


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


     It is the evidence from Hipp which turns this light
possibility into strong probability.  In addition to a commentary
on Daniel, Hipp composed a treatise <ts-lt>De Antichristo</>
(partly incorporated into "Ps-Hipp"'s <ts-lt>De Consumm Mundi</>)
in which he interprets in detail the beasts and horns portions of
Dan 7.\19/  The <lt>lemma</> of the latter passage (GCS I:2, pp.
15f) follows "Theodotion's" version of 7:2-14 (2-8 in Ps-Hipp;
GCS I:2, p. 294 but in the subsequent commentary the following
citation is found: 
        KAI\ TRI/A TW=N PRO\ AU)TOU= E)KRIZW/SEI:</>\20/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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


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

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

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

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


     Of great significance here is the use of <gk>PARAFUA/DION</>
which (to the present writer's knowledge) is found elsewhere only in
Barn 4:5 among ancient authors.\21/  Undoubtedly some relationship
exists between <gk>PARAFUA/DION</> and the Old Greek [[127]]
version of Dan 7:8 (<gk>KAI\ A)/LLO E(\N KE/RAS A)NEFU/H A)NA\
ME/SON AU)TW=N MIKRO/N...</>) and 8:9 (<gk>KAI\ E)C
In fact, Hipp also emphasizes the <gk>A)NAFU/EIN</> of Antichrist:\22/  

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[[col. 1]] 

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

{@@RAK Note:  our (H)  } 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



      But they completely\30/
      lost it in this manner,
      after Moses already
      received it

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

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

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

      <v+>And Moses understood</>

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Iren <ts>AH</> IV:15.1 

Tert <ts>AJ</> 3\b/ 

Lact <ts>D.I.</> IV:10 

Orig <ts>c.Cels</> II:74 

Didasc VI:16:6 

ApCo VI:20:@@4ff 

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

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

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On 'Moses understood' cp. also Acts 7:25 - [M.] <gk>E)NO/MIZEN

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

{@@RAK note in margin: 

[resembling]  } 

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


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

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


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


{@@RAK addition: 

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

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

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

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

{@@RAK Note in margin: 

[] are (?)  } 

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

{@@RAK note on facing page 

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

[[col. 1]] 

a gladio 





IN ME:</> 

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

[[col. 2]] 

<ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 5:13</></> 

<gk>LE/GEI GA\R 

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

(+<gk>KAI\</>, SH) 




  SUNAGWGAI\</>  (G) 

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

[[col.  3]] 

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

    <ts><u-col>Ps 118(119):120</></>
*** <gk>KAQH/LWSON

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):17</></>
    KAI\ PO/DAS</>

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 85(86):13b-14</></>
    <gk>KAI\ E)RRU/SW
    E)NW/PION AU)TW=N</> 

    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 26(27):12</></> 
    <gk>MH\ PARADW=|S ME
    MA/RTURES A)/DIKOI ....</> 

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

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


                         <text>TEXT V</>  


<lt>auid ergo 







<ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 6:6</></> 


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





    <ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 21(22):13,17</></>

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

10  <gk>PA/NTA TA\ E)/QNH
    KAI\ TW=| O)NO/MATI ... 
    KAI\ TW=| O)NO/MATI...</>

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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \62/L lacks both formula and quotation here. 

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


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


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

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



                         <text>TEXT VI</> 

[[col. 1]] 

<lt>cu-(m) aute-(m)
  fecit D(E)I-
quit di-c-(it)
quis  :(est) qui
resistat mihi
    futurus  : (est)
  puero D(E)I-

v(a)e vob-(is)
  vos om-(ne)s-
et tinea
  devorabit vos:  </>

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


   KAI\ TI/S

   KAI\ W(S SH\S

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

[[col. 2]] 

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

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

    U(M</>(<gk>E</>)<gk>I=S PA/NTES</>  (G trsp)
  W(S I(MA/TION             }           (G trsp
    <gk>PALAIWQH/SESQE</>   }           to 312)

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

            <lt>quisquis judicatur
            ex adverso adstet
            et quisquie


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

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


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

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


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



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

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


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

{@@RAK notes on facing page: 

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

{@@RAK note:  Jeremias, TWNT} 


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


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

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

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


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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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


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

    \72/<ts>Leg All</> I:21. 


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

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

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

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


    \73/See <ts>Repub</> II, p. 361E-362A, <gk>OU(/TW DE\

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

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

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

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


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

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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

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

{@@RAK note in margin of text: 


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

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

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

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

1.  You list footnote #87 twice. 
2.  I typed your correction and replaced "who enter" with "whom he leads." 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \86/L lacks; see above n. 80. 

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

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

    \89/S lacks <gk>NU=N</>. 

    \90/H lacks <gk>OU)</>. 

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

    \92/L lacks the whole of v. 19. 


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

{@@RAK note in margin: 

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


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

{@@RAK addition:
add Barnard + Prigent 

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

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


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


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

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

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

1.  I capitalized the "n" in "Notice." 
2.  I think that the punctuation should be within the parenthesis. 

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

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



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


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

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

{@@RAK--  Do you want "became?"  es} 


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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

so Also Augustine.  Tract in Jn Ev 9:14 

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

1.  Please verify that "solves" is correct. 
2.  Please verify that "The context" is not the beginning of a new paragraph. 

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


     In this light, if is difficult to see why JM's account
[[174]] is supposed to show any dependence on Barn.  The only
clear verbal points of contact between them are the use of (1)
<gk>NHSTEI/A</> to describe  Atonement, (2)  <gk>TRA/GOI</>
instead of the <gk>XIMA/ROI</> which is in most LXX MSS, and (3)
that the goats should be <gk>O(MOI/OI</>.  As we have seen, the
word "fast" is commonly used" concerning the Day of Atonement. 
Similarly, <gk>TRA/GOS</> seems to have been used quite early in
Greek descriptions of Atonement ritual, and also is attested by
Philo, Cl. A, some LXX MSS, and possibly Aquila and Symm.\115/ 
Finally, the reference to the goats being similar certainly did
not originate with Barn, as the Talmud shows. 


   \115/Compare Heb 9:12f, 19; 10:4.  In Lev 16, LXX MSS gn ejsvz
b/2\ consistently have <gk>TRA/GOS</> where most MSS have
<gk>XI/MAROS</>, and M\mg/@@N bw hox @@qu sometimes agree (as do
Symm and possibly Aquila in one or two instances).  Philo supports
<gk>TRA/GOS</> in <ts>Leg Alleg</> II:52, <ts>Plant</> 61, and
<ts> Quis Rer Div Her Sit</> 179, but <gk>XI/MAROS</> in
<tm>Spec Leg</> I:188.  Similarly, JM, D 40:4f and 111:1, uses
<gk>@@TRA?GOS</> but in 46:2 (Trypho speaking), <gk>SI/MAROS</>. 
Cl.A never uses <gk>XI/MAROS</> and has but one reference to the
Atonement ritual, <ts>Strom</> VII:(6):33:4, which he sees as the
only place in the Torah where the <gk>TRA/GOS</> (a symbol 28:1)
is sacrificed.  Possibly such immoral connotations of
<gk>TRA/GOS</> at Alexandria led to its systematic replacement by
<gk>XI/MAROS</> in most LXX MSS of Lev 16?  Josephus refers to
<gk>DU/O E)PIFON</> being brought at Atonement (<ts>Antiq</>
III:240; see Cl.A on Isa 1:11, above p. 104!). 

{@@RAK--  Please note that you have circled the "N" in "M\mg/N"
and "qu."  es} 


     Tert has some other close affinities with Barn, such as the
references to the "scarlet" and the maligning of the scape-goat
(especially "spitting" and "pricking").  Nevertheless, the former 
detail is also Talmudic, and the Talmud implies that upon
occasion the scape-goat had received [[175]] physical abuse in
its trip to the wilderness.  Furthermore, Tert (alone among the
witnesses cited) seems to agree with the Talmud that the scape-
goat <lt>abiciebatur in perditionem</>" rather than simply let
loose into the wilderness. 

     Nor does the way in which JM and Tert apply the cultic
imagery to Christ suggest that they are dependent on Barn.  In D
40-42, JM first discusses the Passover typology, then the Day of
Atonement, the offering of fine flour (<gk>SEMI/DALIS</>),
circumcision on the 8th day, and finally the bells on the
priest's robe.  The context in Tert is somewhat closer to Barn
(the rejection and exaltation of Christ), but has no unusual
similarities.  In interpreting the typology of the Atonement
ritual, JM and Tert agree with Barn in seeing two aspect of
Christ's coming in the two similar goats -- this same Christ who
was accursed will be recognized by his adversaries at the last. 
Notice, however, that neither JM nor Tert interpret the scarlet
wool symbolism which is so central to Barn's argument (see 7:8b-
9,11).  Nor do they include the details concerning the "vinegar
and gall" by which Barn 7:2-5 begins the lesson. Notice also that
in Barn, the goat which is offered and later burned outside the
camp (according to Lev 16:27, see Heb 13:11f) plays no clear part
in the typology -- both the humiliation and the exaltation of
Christ are picture in the scape-goat.  JM identifies [[176]] the
scape-goat with the first advent, while by implication the goat
which remained for the people of Jerusalem to see depicts the
second advent. Tert clearly compares the scape-goat to Jesus'
passion and the goat which was eaten (? not according to Lev 16;
but see Barn 7:4\116/) to the spiritual food found in the church
(not the second advent as such). 


   \116/See also Mishnah <ts>Menahoth</> 11:7=99b on the priests
eating the "he-goat" on the Day of Atonement and the scornful
practices of the Babylonians (=Alexandrians, Gemara 100a) in this


     Finally, both JM and Tert include details which cannot have
come from Barn.  For example, JM speaks of the scape-goat as
<gk>A)POPOMPAI=OS</> (for "sending-away," so LXX), but Barn
emphasizes only that this goat is <gk>E)PIKATA/RATOS</>
("accursed").  As we have seen, Tert knows of the hurling of the
scape-goat to destruction, although Barn shows no awareness of
this practice.  It is difficult to see how there could be any
direct connection between these three uses of the Atonement
types.  More probably, they all reflect a common Christian
technique of using the two similar goats as evidence for the two
aspects of Jesus' advent, while each has filled out the picture
on the basis of current Jewish (and Christian) traditions.  Barn
7 may well rest on a source which contained such peculiar details
of the Atonement ritual (compare, for example, the strange rite
mentioned in Heb 9:19).  With such a dearth [[177] of ancient
materials by which to evaluate Barn 7, it would be folly to
assume that Ps-Barn had fabricated most of this description, or
even that he falsified it.  Probably his tradition gave him this
picture of the Atonement ritual, and he used the tradition in all
good faith.\117/ 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
cf  Dr 21:23 
    Gal  3:13  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

For strong support of this argument, see the conclusions of

G. Allon, "The Halakah in the Epistle of Barnabas," <tp>TARBIZ</>
11 (1939/40), 23-38  } 


   \117/On Barn 7:4, Bartlet (<tm>NT in Apostolic Fathers</>, p.
2) concludes that "the citation seems too definite ... to be
other than due to some written source, whether apocryphal or a
passage that has crept from the margin into the text of a
canonical book."  As we have seen, the problem is much larger
than a single quotation in Barn 7:4. 


     Although Barn 8 does not anchor its typology of the (Red)
Heifer ritual to formal quotations on which running commentary is
made, it closely resembles the midrash in ch. 7.  Once again we
find numerous details of the ritual which are foreign to the OT
account (Num 19:1-10).  Once again the scarlet wool is a central
element in the typology.\118/  In Barn 7, however, the emphasis
falls on the suffering and rejection of Jesus (and the
tribulation involved in entering his kingdom), while in ch. 8,
the redemptive aspects of Jesus' sacrifice are primary. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

cf Josephus, <ts>Ant.</> IV:4:(6)  -  scriptural details +/-  } 


   \118/Danie/lou, <tm>The/ologie</>, pp. 114f, suggests a
collection of OT "testimonies" concerning "scarlet" (see Gen
38:28, Josh 2:18, Cant 4:3, etc.) behind such emphases. 


     There can be little doubt that the materials of Barn 7 and 8
basically come from the same background of midrashic commentary
on Jewish ritual.  It is difficult to imagine <em>how</> [[178]]
or <em>why</> a Christian author would produce such
haggadic/halakic details from nowhere.  Thus, once again, the
close relationship between late Judaism (but here of a more
Rabbinic type, as compared to Alexandria ?) and the sources used
by Barn seems clear.  Unfortunately, early parallels to Barn 8
are almost entirely lacking,\119/ which discourages the
possibility of describing in greater detail the tradition from
which it drew. 

{@@RAK notes on the facing page: 

1.  8.5     <gk>E)PI\ CULOU</> -  (below 230 n 16) 
    Justin Dial 73 
    Tertullian Adv Jud 10-13 (A. Mc. 3.  ) 

2.  On 8:1b, 3\a/ - <gk>OI( R(ANTI/ CONTES PAI=DES</> cf Weiss (Unpublished?) 

    Yemenite Midrash (Midr. @@Ha Gadol) where similar detail occurs. 

    cp also the role of the <gk>TOI\S NEANI/SKOIS TW=N UI(W=N IH=L</> 
    in Ex 24:5ff (Covenant Ceremony), especially in
    the light of Hebs 9:19f!  } 


   \119/Philo, <ts>Spec Leg</> I:268f, briefly describes the Red
Heifer ritual and alludes to another writing in which he
allegorically explained its symbolism, but this treatise no
longer is extant.  Meth, <ts>De Cibis</> 11 and <lt>passim</>,
also uses Red Heifer typology, but not in the same way as Barn. 
On the elements of Gospel tradition used in Barn 7-8, see
Koester, <ts>Synopt. Ueberlief</>., pp. 127f, 149-56, 263. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Prigent, p. 111 n. 3 [Windisch] 

Jerome, <ts>In Ezek</> 43:19 ("Barnabas") 
Aug. <ts>Que in Hept</>@@, 4:33.  } 


                          <ch>Chapter 7 
                 CIRCUMCISED EARS AND HEART  </>

     In Barn 9-10 the themes of Jesus' humiliation and exaltation
are completely lacking. Instead, the discussion turns to the
problem of <em>how</> Moses' covenant is to be understood and
<em>what</> true obedience involves.  Within these broad limits
(editorially defined by the words of 9:1 and 10:12) are found
several different smaller units of material, each of which has
its own organizational principle and/or method.  We will deal
briefly with each of these subsections in order. 

     <h1>Exhortations to "Hear</>."  -- Barn 9:1-4a presents a
list of short quotations which contain the word <gk>A)KOU/EIN</>
or <gk>A)KOH=|</> (see TEXT VII, pp. 180f).\1/  LXX phraseology
pervades all of these citations, and some of them are verbally
identical with extant LXX MSS (Ps 17[18]:45=II Sam 22:45; Isa
33:13 [with <gk>A)KOH=|</> prefixed]; Isa 1:2a [plus an editorial
comment]; Isa 18:14 [with omission]). 


     \1/In Barn\Gk/, the last part of 9:1 does not contain the
Stichwort.  There are two possible explanations for this:  (1)
this is not a separate quotation introduced by <gk>KAI/</> but is
in composition with the preceding material from Isa 33:13 (the
fact that the parallelism of Isa 33:13 is destroyed in Barn
supports the view that Ps-Barn did not take this quotation from a
scroll of Isaiah); or (2)  Barn\L/ is original with its reading
"<@@fr>aures vestras</>" (<gk>TA\S A)KOA\S U(MW=N</>, or possibly
<gk>TA\S A)KOA\S TW=N KARDI/WN U(MW=N</>) where Barn\Gk/ has
<gk>TA\S KARDI/AS U(MW=N</> (under the influence of Jer 4:4 ?). 
Possibly both explanations are correct at the same time. 

{@@RAK addition:  Prigent, pp 50f, thinks it is a displacement
from the circumcision testimonia of 9:5, either <lt>via</> Barn's
source (accidental) or conscious to link the 2 sections.  Note
failure of <gk>PALIN LEGEI</> formula here <em>only</>.  } 



                       <u-text>TEXT VII</>


<lt>dicit aute-(m)
de auribus
quomodo cir-
AURES pra-(e)-
di-x-(it_ [_(er)
auditu auris
exaudivit me:

Et iteru-(m)

aui [que\*c/]
longe sunt
ET quae


di-c-(it) dn-s-

et iteru-(m)

Audi israhel
quia h(a)ec
dn-s- ds- tuus 

et iteru-(m)
sp-(iritu)s dn-i-
qui vult

in p_(er)-
  petuu-(m)  </>

[[col. 2]]
<u-col><ts>Barn\Gk/ 9:1-4a</></>

   (+<gk>KAI\</>, G)
   <gk>TH\N  {KARDI/AN</> (S\*c/HG) 
             {<gk>SARKA/N</> (S\*/) 
   <gk>LE/GEI</> (+<gk>O(</>, G) <gk>KU/RIOS
   E)N TW=| PROFH/TH=| 



   A)\ E)POI/HSA

         {PERITMHTAI</>  (S\*/)
         {<gk>PERITMHQHTAI</>  (S\c/) 
   KAI\  {<gk>PERITMHQHTE</>  (H) 
         {<gk>PERITMHQHSETAI</>  (G\v*o/) 
         {<gk>PERITMHQHSESQE</>  (G\rell/) 


     KU/RIOS O( QEO/S SOU</> 

   (+<gk>KAI\ PA/LIN TO\ PNEU=MA

   <gk>TI/S</> (+DE\</>, H) <gk>E)STIN

   EI)S  {TO\N AI)W=NA</> (SG)
         {<gk>TOU\S AI)W=NAS</> (H) 


(passages on this general theme
include Isa 6:9-10, Jer 5:21-
23, and Ezek 12:2) 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 17(18): 44b-45</></>

   <gk>LAO/S O(\N OU)K E)/GNWN
45 EI)S A)KOH\N W)TI/OU</>  (LXX-A in
   <gk>U(PH/KOUSE/N MOI     II Sam 22:45\b/
   <gk>UI(OI\ A)LLO/TRIOI   =Barn\Gk/ exactly)

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Isa 33:13</></>

   A(\ E)POI/HSA
   TH\N I)SXU/N MOU</> 

           (compare Deut 10:16
           and Jer 4:3-4 in
           TEXT VIII, below)

   (for "Hear Israel" see especially
    Deut 5:1, 6:4, 9:1, and 20:3)
   (for "thus says Lord God [of Israel]"
    see LXX <lt>passim</>, especially Jer)
   (for "says Lord your God" see Jer 2:17)

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Rahlf Ps 33(34):12-13</></>


   (on "live forever" see especially
    Gen 3:22, Ps 21:27, Wisd 5:15,
    and Sirach 37:26) 


<u-head>TEXT VII</>

  pueri mei: 

Et iteru-(m) 
Audi celu-(m)
et percipe
auribus terra
quia dh-s-
locutus est: 

Et iteru-(m)

verbu-(m) dn-i- 

populi huius:

Et iteru-(m): 




in heremo 

ergo cir-
ut audito

[[col. 2]] 

   <u-col><ts>Barn\Gk/9:1-4a</> (cont.)</> 

   <gk>A)KOH=|  {A)KOU/SATAI</>  (S\*/) 
                {<gk>A)KOUSA/TW</>  (S\c/HG) 

   <gk>TH=S FWNH=S 



   A)KOU/SATE           ---------|
     LO/GON KURI/OU              |
   A)/RXONTES                    |
     TOU= LAOU= TOU/TOU          |---|
                        ---------|   |
   KAI\ PA/LIN LE/GEI:</>            |-(trsp in H) 
   <gk>A)KOU/SATE TE/KNA</>      |
   (+<gk>TH=S</>, G ) <gk>FWNH=S</> (<gk>-NH\</>, S\*/) |
     {<gk>BOW=NTOS</> (SHG\rell/)|
     {<gk>BOW/SHS</> (G\b*c/)    |
   <gk>E)N TH=| E)RH/MW|</>      |

4  OU)KOU=N</> (+<gk>PERI-</>, SG ) <gk>E/TEMEN 
              {A)KOU/SWMEN</>  (S)   }
   <gk>I(/NA  {A)KOU/SANTES</> (HG)  }  <gk>LO/GON</>
   (+<gk>KAI\ MH\ MO/NON</>, S)
   <gk>PISTEU/SWMEN</> (+<gk>@@H(M</>(<gk>E</>)<gk>I=S</>, SH). 

   <u-col><ts>LXX Ziegler Isa 50:10</></>

   <gk>TI/S E)N U(MI=N
     TOU= PAIDO\S AU)TOU=</> ... 

   (compare also Ex 15:26, 23:22;
    Deut 28:1f)

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Isa 1:2a</></>

   <gk>A)/KOUE OU)RANE/
   O(/TI KU/RIOS E)LA/LHSEN</>... 

   (compare Deut 4:26, 31:26)
{@@RAK note:  Micah 1:2}

<u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Isa 28:14</> (see 1:10)</>

   <gk>DIA\ TOU=TO 
       A)N I)EROUSALHM</>

   (see Ps 33:12 [above], Sirach
    23:7, etc.)

   (compare Isa 32:9, Jer 7:23, 11:4) 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Isa 40:3a</></>

   E)N TH=| E)RH/MW|...</> 


     The basic theme for which these "proofs" are used a support
is that God desires to be heard/obeyed -- or, in the terms of the
rest of the chapter, that true circumcision has to do with the
heart and understanding, not the body.  Thus God calls for
obedience from "those who are far-off," and warns "Israel" that
"the one who wishes to live forever" must "diligently attend to
the voice <gk>TOU= PAIDO/S MOU</>." 

     A possible clue to the background of his collection of
testimonies is found in the words <gk>TAU=TA EI)S MARTU/RION</>
which follow the quotation from Isa 1:2a in Barn\Gk/ 9:3a (but
are lacking in L).  As we are well aware today, Isa 1:2 is one of
several OT passages which deal with the dispute between YHWH and
his people, and in which heaven and earth are called as
witnesses.\2/  There is good evidence that the world in which Ps-
Barn lived also was aware of the significance of this material,
and that <gk>TAU=TA EI)S MARTU/RION</> meant, for Ps-Barn or for
his tradition, that heaven and earth are here called to witness
against Israel. 

     \2/The "RIV (<hb>Hebrew text</>) <@@gm>gattung</>," or
"covenant lawsuit," which includes such passages as Deut 32:1ff,
Ps 49(50):4, Isa 1:2ff, Jer 2:4-13, Mic 6:1-8.  For a recent
summary article on this form, see Huffmon, "Covenant Lawsuit,"
pp. 285-95 (see above, p. 63). 


     For example, in the <ts>Biblical Antiquities</> of Ps-Philo
(from the end of the first century?) the following words are
found on the lips of Moses, as he prepared for his death: 


  I know that you will arise and forsake the words that
  were ordained to you by me, and God will be wroth with 
  you and forsake you ... but not unto the end, for he will
  remember the covenant which he made with your fathers ....
  Howbeit, this day I call heaven and earth to witness 
  against you, for the heaven shall hear this and the
  earth shall take it in with her ears, that God has 
  revealed the end of the world that he might covenant
  with you.  (19:2,4)\3/  </>

Again, at the renewal of the covenant under Joshua, during the
rehearsal of the mighty acts of YHWH (in the first person): 

  I have brought you into this land ... and I have fulfilled 
  the covenant which I spoke to your fathers.  (23:11) ... 
  Behold, now the Lord has testified to you this day: 
  I have called heaven and earth to witness to you that if 
  you will continue to serve the Lord you shall be to him
  a peculiar people, but if not .... (24:1) </> 
Finally, when David and Jonathan part before David's exile: 
  [David:] Come and let us make a covenant before we part
  from one another.  (62:3) ...
  [Jonathan:]  Let the heaven be witness and let the earth 
  be witness of those things which we have spoken together ...,
  Let us remember ... the covenant which is made between us. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

<ts>4 Ezra 1-2</>.
1.6    <lt>Obliti enim mei ...  14  vos autem mei obliti estis ...
  25.  Quoniam me dereliquistis et @@ego vos derelinquam ...
  27.  Non quasi me @@dereliquistes, sed vos ipsos ...
1.37   Testor populi venientis gratiam ...
2.5    Ego autem te, pater, testem invoco super matrem filiorum ...
 .14   Testare caelum et terram. 
       Contrivi enim malum 
       et creavi bonum
       quia vivo ego, dicit Dn-i- 
 .36   Ego testor palam salvatorem meum  </> 


     \3/M.R. James' trans of Ps-Philo is followed here.  See also
II Baruch 19:1f (compare 84:2), where the Lord reminds Baruch
about Moses' task and the peoples' subsequent failure: 
"Wherefore at that time he appointed for them a covenant and
said, Behold I have placed before you life and death.  And He
called heaven and earth to witness against them, for he knew that
his time was short but that heaven and earth endure forever."  On
Moses' appeal to heaven and earth, see Deut 4:26, 30:19, 31:28,


     Thus {@@RAK addition:  at least some @@representatives}
Judaism remained conscious of the role of the witnesses in the
ratification the covenants.  That Christianity preserved the
fruits of this consciousness in her commentary tradition is
obvious from Tht, who places some of the [[184]] foremost
examples of the "lawsuit" side-by-side in his commentaries on Jer
2:12 and Isa 1:2 and in his <ts>Qu in Deut</> 32.  Throughout
these passages occur the words <gk>EI)S MARTURI/AN</> to explain
the role of heaven and earth (compare LXX Deut 31:19 and 26, Josh

{@@RAK note in margin:  <ts>Qu Deut</>  }

{@@RAK note on facing page: 


Philo Qu Ex 2.16 juxtaposes ideas of hearing God's prophet-angel
voice based on Ex 23.22f.  <gk>@@AKOH| AKOUSHTE</> ... Any
possible relevance?  } 

     Perhaps the testimonies used in Barn 9:1-4a were adapted
from a hellenistic Jewish community in which they had been used
to remind the true Israelite of his covenant obligations.  If we
restore Ps 17:44b to the beginning of the collection,\4/ the
following addressees of God's word are uncovered in the
successive citations: 
  1.  A people who did not know him
  2.  Those who are far-off
  3.  Israel and the man who desires eternal life\5/ 
      (heaven and earth as witnesses to covenant of life)
  4.  Rulers of this people
  5.  Children 
This development from the general to the particular hardly seems
to be coincidental.  Behind Barn 9:1-4a lies a (catechetical?)
tradition in which the quotations already were so arranged. 
There is no way of determining whether the arrangement had been
made by Christianity or Judaism, but the likelihood is that such
material would have been available to early Christianity from the
synagogue and its [[185]] tradition (in fact, it would be
surprising if Jewish scholars had not already collected such
hortatory materials). 


     \4/Other early Christian quotations of Ps 17:45 invariably
include also v. 44b:  so JM, D 28:5; Tert, AJ 3; Cl.A,
<ts>Paed</> I:(9): 80:2 and <ts>Ecl Proph</> 43:1f; Cyp,
<ts>Test</> I:21; Origen, <ts>CCels</> II:78a; ApCo V:(3):16:10;
<ts>TractOrig</> VI (p. 70). 

{@@RAK--  Do you have a note in the margin to add underlining?  es} 

     \5/Two separate quotations in GL (see TEXT VII, p. 180). 


     <h1>The True Circumcision</>.  --  Barn 9:4b-8 builds from
the words of 9:1b and 4a, "circumcise your ears," and discusses
the problem of fleshly circumcision (see TEXT VIII, pp. 188 ff). 
The textual corruption in the MSS of Barn here is extensive, but
most of the argument is clear: 
  4  But indeed, the circumcision on which they trusted is 
     abolished,\6/ for he did not say that circumcision should 
     be of the body.  But they transgressed because a wicked 
     angel enlightened them.\7/ 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
{@@RAK--  Please note that you have an arrow drawn in the margin
for part of the next section.  es} 

  5  And he says to them: 
       Thus says the Lord your God --
     here I find a commandment\8/ -- 
     Woe to those who sow among thorns!\9/ 
       Be circumcised to your Lord --
     that is, hear your Lord --
     And circumcise the wickedness from your hearts.\10/ 
     And again: 
       Behold, says the Lord, all the nations/gentiles 
       are uncircumcised in foreskin, but this people
       is uncircumcised in heart.  
  6  But you will say: 
       And surely the people has been circumcised for a seal.  
     But so is every Syrian and Arab and all the priests of
     the idols.  Then they also are from @@the covenant! 
     But even the Egyptians are in circumcision!\11/ 

{@@RAK-- Please note "the" is circled.  es} 

{@@RAK note in margin:  their} 

  7  Learn, then, children of love, concerning all things
     richly -- because Abraham, when he first gave circumcision
     while looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, circumcised,
     having received teachings of the three letters. 
     [Abraham's circumcision provides a transition to the
     proofs of "circumcised understanding," the "three 
     doctrines" of Christian "gnosis"]  </> 

{@@RAK notes on facing page: 

1.  <em>Note also</>  1QS @@V:5f: 
"Let every one circumcise in the community
the foreskin of his [evil] inclination 
and his hard neck 
to lay a foundation of truth for Israel ..."  (F.F.B. p 58) 
                                              <ts>Bib Ex Q</> 

2.  Lohsc 5.5 
<hb>Hebrew text</> 

3.  1 Q p. Hab 11:13          <hb>Hebrew text</> 
For he circumcised not the foreskin of his heart ... 

4.  <ts>@@Db 10:16</> 
<hb>Hebrew text</>  } 

{@@RAK notes on paper inserted in text: 

1.  Butler, B.C. 
"The Literary Relations of Didache, Ch XVI," 
JTS 11 (1960), 265-83 
esp pp 269-75  --  Did uses Barn! 
(cf 269 n 1 <em>re</> lack of X\n/ themes in
Barn's 2 ways/). 
[on outstretched hands  --  pp 278 {@@f?}] 

2.  cf Creed, JM 
JTS 39 (1938), 379. 

3.  Good Article to Answer.  } 


     \6/L lacks the preceding words. 

     \7/According to S\*/, "was slaughtering them."  L has "was teaching." 

     \8/L, "new commandment." 

     \9/We have followed L here for several reasons:  (1)  it is
more likely that the passage would be harmonized to LXX Jer 4:3f,
which was extremely popular in early Christianity, than that the
LXX form of Jer 4:3 would be changed to <gk>OU)AI/ OI(
PREI/RONTES</>, which has no obvious OT or early Christian
parallel; (2)  in quotations, when L differs from Barn\Gk/ the
former usually is shorter and nearer to LXX; (3)  elsewhere, L
shows a decided tendency not to include small details which add
to the parenetic flavor of Barn\Gk/  --  <gk>A)DELFOI/</> has a
hortatory equivalent in L only in 2:10 and 3:6 (6:16 is a
citation), and not in 4:14, 5:5, 6:10, or 6:15; <gk>TE/KNA</> has
no equivalent in 9:3b and loses its parenetic emphasis in 9:7,
although it is preserved in 7:1 and 15:4 (13:5 is a citation);
<gk>I)DOU/</> is absent from L in 3:3, 6:8, 14:8, and 16:3;
remember also that L does not contain the "two ways" section  -- 
thus it is not likely that L would change "do not ..." to "Woe to
those who..." (compare <gk>OU)AI/</> in 4:11, 6:2; see also JM, D
114:5 on Jer 2:13 [below, p. 223]). 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

{<gk>OU MH 
{OUAI</>  } 

    \10/Again, we follow the <lt>lectio difficilior</> of L for
much the same reasons as given in n. 9.  "<lt>Hoc est</>" may be
equivalent of <gk>RI/ LE/GEI</> (so Barn 10:11) or to <gk>TOU=TO
LE/GEI</> (Barn 11:11).  "<lt>audite dominum vestrum</>" probably
represents <gk>A)KOU/SATE TO\N KU/RION U(MW=N</> and could easily
have dropped out of an early Greek MS by haplography. 
"<lt>Nequitia</>" almost always translates <gk>PONHRI/A</> in
Iren, Vulg; see Barn 4:12, 10:4 (7:11 ?).  Support for reading
this context is found in (1)  Isa 1:16 (<gk>A)FE/LETE TA\S
PONHRI/AS A)PO\ TW=N FUXW=N U(MW=N</>) which is cited in Iren, AH
IV:17:1 [=29:2] and 36:2 [=58:2] as "<lt>auferte nequitias a
cordibus vestris</>" (although IV:41:3 [=68:1] has the expected
"<lt>ab animabus/animis</>"); (2)  Symm to Jer 4:4 reads
(<lt>apud</> Hi) "<lt>purificamini domino et auferte malitias
cordium vestrorum</>' which is found in certain Greek codices
(3,144, etc. <lt>apud</> Schoeps, <ts>Theologuie</>, p. 139; but
PONHRI/AS TW=N KARDIW=N U(MW=N</> (compare Ezek 43:9, 44:7; the
confusion of <gk>PORNEI/A</>/<gk>PONHRI/A</> is frequent in Greek
texts); (4)  JM, D 41:4 refers to the true circumcision <gk>H(\N
resurrection; (5)  Eccles 11:10 also presents a partial parallel

{@@RAK notes in margin: 
1.  <gk>@@TH=S KARDIAS</> 
2.  and (Ziegler > @@only Hi)  } 

    \11/This verse is very difficult to translate, and the
textual situation is little better than in the preceding context
(note L's version of v. 6).  Since the argument here rests on a
<lt>reductio ad absurdum</> we have not used rhetorical questions
in the translation, although they are possible ("then are they
also from the covenant?"  see Lake's trans).  It is interesting
that Ps-Barn here does nothing with the phrase <gk>EI)S
SFRAGI=DA</> (LXX Gen 17:11, <gk>E)N SHMEI/F</>, and JM, D 16:2
<gk>EI)S SHMEI=ON</>), which later is emphasized in the Christian
polemic <em>against</> fleshly and <em>for</> spiritual
circumcision (baptism; see, for example, TractOrig 4 [pp. 34-
42]).  Instead, the hypothetical opponent to Ps-Barn's position
raises this point!  Notice that JM (D 16:2, 92:2f) and Tert (AJ
3:4) represent an alternative position among Christians that
circumcision was given so that Jews could be identified and kept
out of Jerusalem in the last days. 


     The comparison of this "circumcision" section of Barn with
similar material in other early Christian writings is
interesting.  Barn does not present arguments which later became
stock-in-trade, such as the list of OT figures who pleased God
without circumcision -- Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedek,
Lot, Abraham\12/ -- or the "second circumcision" with flint-
knives under Joshua.\13/  Instead of arguing against circumcision
as such, Ps-Barn is much more interested in arguing that he who
has right understanding has the true circumcision. 


    \12/See, for example, JM, D 19:3-4; Iren, AH IV:16:2 (27:2);
Tert, AJ 2:11-3:1; Cyp, <ts>Test</> I:8; Eus, <ts>Dem</> 12f. 
Max Taur, AJ 741f, adds @@Enosh to the list.  {@@RAK addition: 
Zens of Verona <ts>Tract<@@/> I:13:3 (PL II, 347A).  } 

    \13/See above, pp. 155f; JM, D 113-14; Cyp, <ts>Text</> I:8;
Lact, <ts>Div Inst</> IV:17:10; etc. 


     The quotations from Jer 4:3f, Deut 10:16, and (to a lesser
degree) Jer 9:25f, are not infrequent in early Christian
literature.  All three are found together in Ps-Greg 11,
[[191]] and JM uses them all but not in the same passage.\14/  of the
three, Jer 4:3f is most popular.\15/  That pre-Christian Judaism
did not hesitate to handle such texts is attested by Philo: 

<qu>  I will begin with that which is an object of ridicule among
  many people ..., the circumcision of the genital organs, 
  [which] is very zealously observed by many other nations 
  and particularly by the Egyptians .... \16/ 
  [The men of old gave four reasons for circumcision: 
  1.  It prevents inflammation of the prepuce; 
  2.  It promotes bodily cleanliness;] 
  3.  The likeness of the circumcised member to the heart; ... 
      for the earliest men held that the unseen and superior 
      elements to which the concepts of the mind owe their 
      existence should have assimilated to it the visible  
      and apparent, the natural parent of the things 
      perceived by sense;  
 [4.  It increases fertility.] 
  These are the explanations handed down to use from the
  old-time studies of divinely gifted men who made deep research 
  into the writings of Moses.\17/  To these I would add that I 
  consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things most
  necessary to our well-being:  one is the excision of pleasures 
  which bewitch the mind ..., the other is that a man should 
  know himself and banish from the soul the grevious malady  
  of conceit .... The evil belief, therefore, needs to be [[192]]
  excised from the mind with any others that are not loyal 
  to God.  </> 
       (<ts>Spec Leg</> I (<gk>PERI\ PERITOMH=S</>]: 1-11, adapted from Loeb)

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

on Jer 9:25, Prigent @@lists (p. 57) also 
Jerome in Jer 9 
Epiph Pan 30:33 
Aphr, Hom 11} 


    \14/Deut 10:16 is in D 16:1 (compare D 53:2, 137:1): Jer 4:3f
and 9:25f are together in D 28:2f.  See also Ap 53:10f, with its
citation similar to Jer 9:26 but attributed to Isaiah!  {@@RAK
addition:  Aph., Dem XI, cites @@Db 10:16 and Jer 9:24f in conn.
w/ circumcision.  } 

    \15/Tert quotes it in connection with Deut 10:16 in AM V;4:10
and 13:7, as does TractOrig 4 (p. 39; in reverse order).  It also
is cited in ApCo VI:14:5=Didasc VI:12:2; Lact, <ts>Div Inst</>
IV:17:8 (as "Isaiah"); Cyp, <ts>Test</> I:8; S-T II:3 (p. 23);

    \16/Compare this whole section with <ts>Qu Gen</> III:47-48
(on Gen 17:10-12), and note Philo's observation there that "not
only the Jews, but also the Egyptians, Arabs, and Ethiopians, and
nearly all those who inhabit the southern regions near the torrid
zone are circumcised." 

    \17/So also <ts>Qu Gen</> III:48, "Now these are widely known
facts concerning the problems we are inquiring into." 


                       <u-text>TEXT VIII</> 

[[col. 1]] 


[<@@lt>+auriu</>, cor.
  in mg by mod-
  ern hand] 
<lt>aute-(m) dixit
non corporis
sed preteri-
erunt quia
angelus nequa-(m)
docebat illos: 

Dicit aute-(m)
  ad illos:

Haec di-c-(it) dn-s-

  Ds- vester: 

hic invenio
  NOVA(M) legem

in @@spinas 

cn-o- v-(est_r-o- 

DN-M- V-(EST)R-(U)M- 

de p_(rae)cordiis
  v-(est)r-is:  </> 

[[col. 2]] 
   <u-col><ts>Barn\Gk/ 9:4b-8, 10:12</></>

4b {<gk>A)LLA\ KAI\ H(</>  (SH)                   } 
   {<gk>H(</> (/<gk>EI)</>, vo) <gk>GA\R</>  (G)  }  <gk>PERITOMH\</>

                              {<gk>PEPOI/QASIN</>  (SG) 
   <gk>E)F' H?=</>(<gk>S</>)  {<gk>E)PEPEI/QEISAN</>  (H) 
     OU) SARKO\S GEN</>(<gk>N</>)HQH=NAI. 
     {<gk>E)SO/FIZEN</> (S\c/HG)  }
     {<gk>E)/SFACEN</>  (S\*/)    }  <gk>AU)TOU/S</> 
5  <gk>LE/GEI</> (+<gk>DE\</>, H) <gk>PRO\S AU)TOU/S: 

                      {<gk>U(MW=N</> (SG) 
     <gk>O( QEO\S</>  {<gk>H(MW=N</>  (H) 

   <gk>@@W(=DE EU(RI/SKW E)NTOLH/N 

   <gk>MH\</>  {<gk>SPEI/RETAI</>  (S) 
               {<gk>SPEI/RHTE</>  (HG) 

     {<gk>E)P' A)KA/NQAIS</> (SH) 
     {<gk>E)PI\ A)KA/NQAS</> (G\vfop/) 
     {<gk>E)P</><gk>I\</>) <gk>A)KA/NQAN</>  (G\bcn/) 


             {<gk>KURI/W|</> (HG)  } 
   <gk>TW=|  {<gk>QEW=|</>  (S)    }  <gk>U(MW=N</> 

   <gk>KAI\ TI/ LE/GEI</>; 

   (+<gk>KAI\</>, @@G\p/)  {<gk>PERI/TMHTAI</>  (S) 
                           {<gk>PERITMH/QHTE</> (HG) 
     {<gk>TH\N SKLHROKARDI/AN</> (SH) 
     {<gk>TO\ SKLHRO\N TH=S KARDI/AS</> (G) 

     <gk>OU)</>  (+<gk>MH\</>, G) 
       <gk>SKLHRUNEI=TE</> (+<gk>E)/TI</>, H) 

[[col. 3]] 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Jer 4:3-4</></>




     E)P' @@A)KA/NQAIS 


     TW=| QEW=| U(MW=N 

       TH=S KARDI/AS U(MW=N 
   A)/NDRES IOUDA...</> 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-A Deut 10:16</></>




   OU) SKLHRUNEI=TE E)/TI.  </> 

<u-head>TEXT VIII (cont.)</> 

[[col. 1]] 

<lt>DI-C-(IT) AUTE-(M) 

ecce dicit dn-s-: 

omnes nationes 
sine circu-(m)-
hic aute-(m) 
  populus sine 
  cordis est: 

    sed ETIA-(M)
CU-(M) circu-(m)-
cisus est populus
in signo sed et
IUDEUS et arabs
et om-(ne)s-
et aegyptii
ergo et @@h_ii 
de @@testam-(en)to
  sunt QUOS
quia abraha-(m)
primus circu-(m)-
cisi_o_ne_(m) d_edit
in sp(irit)u- q(uo)d-
in ih-m- [=Iesum]</> 

   <u-col><ts>Barn\Gk/ 9:4b-8, 10:12</></>

5b {(+ <gk>I)DOU\</>, S\*/) <gk>LA/BE PA/LIN</> (SH) 
   {(+ <gk>KAI\</>, bcnf) <gk>PA/LIN</> (G) 


   <gk>PA/NTA TA\ E)/QNH</> 
     (+ <gk>A)PERI/TMHTA</>, HG) 
       {<gk>A)KROBUSTI/AN</>  (S) 
       {<gk>A)KROBUSTI/A|</>  (H) 
       {<gk>A)KRO/BUSTA</>    (G) 
   <gk>O( DE\ LAO\S @@OU(=TOS 
       {<gk>KARDI/AS</>  (S) 
       {<gk>KARDI/A|</> (HG) 

6  <gk>A)LL' E)REI=S: 
   (+<gk>A)LLA\</>, SG) <gk>KAI\
       KAI\ PA/NTES OI( @@I(EREI=S 
         TW=N EI)DW/LWN. 
     E)K TH=|S DIAQH/KHS</> (/<gk>TW=N</>, -<gk>WN</>, G) <gk>AU)TW=N EI)SI/N: 
                                {<gk>E)MPERI/TOMOI</> (H) }  <gk>EI)SI/N</> 

7  <gk>MA/QETE OU)=N TE/KNA</> (+ <gk>A)GA/PHS</>, SH) 
     <gk>PERI\ PA/NTWN</> (+<gk>PLOUSI/WS</>, HG)
   <gk>OI/TI A)BRAA\M</> (+<gk>O(</>, G) <gk>PRW=TOS PERITOMH\N DOU\S 
     E)N PNEU/MATI</> (+<gk>PLOUSI/WS</>, S) <gk>PROBLE/YAS 
                         {<gk>I)HSOU=N</> (SHG\rell/)  } 
       <gk>EI)S TO\N</>  {<gk>UI(O\N</> (G\bcfp/)      }  <gk>PERIE/TEMEN</> 
         <gk>LABW\N TRIW=N</> (=<gk>G{@@superscript line} -</>,
         S) <gk>GRAMMA/TWN DO/GMATA</> 

[[col. 3]] 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-Ziegler Jer 9:25-26</></>

     E)N TH=| E)RH/MW|


       KARDI/AS AU)TW=N 

<u-head>TEXT VIII (cont.)


de domo sua



sed unde
illis haec
Nos aute-(m)
mandata loquimur
si-c-(ut) voluit dn-s-: 

[[col. 2]] 

   <u-col><ts>Barn\Gk/ 9:4b-8, 10:12</></>

8  <gk>LE/GEI GA\R: 


   (+<gk>E)K TOU=
     OI)/KOU AU)TOU=</>, SG) 

   {<gk>DEKAOKTW\</> (SH)
   {<gk>DE/KA KAI\ O(KTW\</> (G)

                           {<gk>AU)TW=|</> (SH)      }
   TI/S OU)=N H( DOQEI=SA  {<gk>TOU/TW|</> (G\bcnp)  }  <gk>GNW=SIS</>; ... 
                           {<gk>TOU=TO</>  (G\@@vo/) } 


      H(MEI=S DE\</> (/<gk>OU)=N</>, G) <gk>DIKAI/WS
        NOH/SANTES TA\S E)NTOLA/S</> (+<gk>DIKAI/WS</>, S)
          <gk>LALOU=MEN W(S H)QE/LHSEN</> (+<gk>O(</>, SH) <gk>KU/RIOS. 
        KAI\ TA\S KARDI/AS 
          I(/NA SUNIW=MEN TAU=TA.</> 

[[col 3]] 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-A Gen 17:23-27</></>

   <gk>KAI\ E)/LABEN A)BRAA\M 
     A)NDRW=N TW=N E)N TW=|
       OI)/KW| A)BRAA/M

24 A)BRAA\M DE\...
       SA/RKA TH=S A)KRO-
         BUSTI/AS AU)TOU=
25 I)SMAH\L DE\...
     KAI\ I)SMAH\L
       O( @@UI(O\S AU)TOU=
       A)/NDRES TOU=
         OI)/KOU AU)TOU=
       E)C A)LLOGENW=N 

   <u-col><ts>LXX-A Gen 14:14</></>

     DE/KA KAI\ O)KTW/...</> 

[[192, continued]] 
<qu>  Pitiable and miserable are all those ... who have never 
  tasted the cup of noble living when they might revel in the
  delights of righteousness and holiness.  But they are 
  uncircumcised in heart, says the Law [Lev 26:41], and through
  their hardness of temper disobedient to the rein, plunging 
  in unruly fashion and fighting against the yoke.  
  These he admonishes with the words: 
    Circumcise the hardness of your hears [Deut 10:16] 
  that is, make speed to prune away from the ruling mind the 
  superfluous overgrowths sown and raised by the immoderate
  appetites of the passions an planted by folly, the evil 
  husbandman of the soul.  
    And let not your neck be hard, he says,
  that is, let not your mind be unbending and exceedingly
  unruly .... </>
          (<ts>Spec Leg</> I [De Sacr.]:304-306, adapted from Loeb)

<qu>    There shall be circumcised every male of you, and you
    shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin</> 
          [Gen 17:10f].  

{@@RAK--  I indented the source as you indicated.  es} 

<qu>  I see two circumcisions, one of the male, and the other of 
  the flesh; that of the flesh is by way of the genitals,
  while that of the male, it seems to me, is by way of the 
  reason.  For that which is, one might say, naturally male
  in us is the mind (<gk>NOU=S</>), whose superfluous growths it is 
  necessary to cut off and throw away in order that it may 
  become pure and naked of every evil and passion, and be a
  priest of God.  Now this is what he indicated by the second
  circumcision, stating (in) the Law that
    You shall circumcise the hardness of heart 
  which means your hard and rebellious and refractory thoughts,
  and by cutting off and removing arrogance, you shall make
  the sovereign part free and unbound.</> 
                                     (<ts>Qu Gen</> III:46, Loeb)

<qu>  They [the ancients] say that the circumcision of the skin
  is a symbol, as if (to show that) it is proper to cut off 
  superfluous and excessive desires by exercising continence 
  of endurance of the Law (<gk>E)GKRA/TEIAN U(POMONH=S TOU=
                                     (<ts>Qu Gen</> III:48, Loeb)

<qu>  For the mind which is not circumcised and purified and 
  sanctified of the body and the passions which come through 
  the body, will be destroyed [or, "corrupted"] and cannot 
  be saved.</>                               @@(<ts>Qu Gen</> III:52, Loeb)

{@@RAK-- Do you want the source to be typed on a separate line
from the text?  es} 


     Notice that, in much of what is said, Philo claims to be
repeating age-old ideas.  Judaism, and especially hellenistic
Judaism, had grappled with the problem of circumcision for a long
time before Christianity came onto the scene.  In fact, Philo
elsewhere finds that he must defend his own allegorical
interpretations against more radical Jews who took the logic of
Philo's tradition to its extreme and denied the necessity of
<em>physical</> circumcision: 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

cf @@Rabb. parallels cited in conn. w/ G. Thom 53 
by J.B. Bauer, <ts>Bib 2</>. 6 (1962), 284f.  } 

<qu>  For there are some who, regarding the literal laws (<gk>TOU\S
  R(HTOU\S NO/MOUS</>) as symbols of matters belonging to the
  intellect, are overpunctilious about the latter, while
  treating the former with easy-going neglect ....  It is
  true that to be circumcised signifies the excision of
  pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the
  impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it
  was capable of begetting by its own power; but let us not
  on this account repeal the law laid down for 
  @@circumcising .... Therefore, exactly as we have to take thought
  for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we
  must pay heed to the letter of the laws</>. 
                       (<ts>Migr Abr</> 89, 92f, adapted from Loeb) 

     Notice also that the specific context of these latter
discussions (<ts>Qu Gen</>, <ts>Migr Abr</>) is God's covenant
with Abraham in Gen 12, and the general context of them all is
the meaning of the ritual law.  The same setting is presupposed
by Barn 9-10; not a vigorous attack on the rite of circumcision,
but a vigorous presentation of the real meaning of circumcision. 
The point at which Barn 9-10 becomes particularly Christian is
the gematria about the 318 servants of Abraham, which Ps-Barn
considers as his unique contribution (see 9:9).  Otherwise, the
material used in these chapters [[194]] could just as easily come
from Philo's Alexandrian (?) extremists.\18/ 


    \18/Possibly it was from Jews of these convictions that
Strabo obtained his unusual view of the development of Jewish
religion referred to below pp. 219f; see R.M. Grant, <tm>The
Letter and the Spirit</> (1957), pp. 37f (and p. 20, where
Posidonius also is brought into the picture).  On other of
Philo's opponents, see M.J. Shroyer, "Alexandrian Jewish
Literalists," JBL 55 (1936), pp. 261-84. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

<@@em>Nock</>  } 


     <h1>Abraham's Gnosis</>.  --  Despite this implication by
Ps-Barn that he is responsible for (and proud of) the "gnosis"
that Abraham's 318 servants signify the cross (<gk>@@T</>=300)
and <gk>I)HSOU=S</> (<gk>@@IH</>=18), such an interpretation is
not without precedent.\19/  For example, both Talmud and Midrash
note that same Rabbis took the number 318 to signify Abraham's
servant Eliezar, "for this is the numerical value of his
name."\20/  There also is a close connection between the Hebrew
<hb>Hebrew letter</> (vocally equivalent to the Greek <gk>@@T</>)
and and the cross-mark (probably equivalent in form to the Greek
<gk>@@X</>) in Judaism,\21/ although it is true that [[195]]
<hb>Hebrew letter</> numerically signifies 400, not 300.  Even
more significant, however, is the fact that even the (pagan)
hellenistic world identified the letter <@@gk>T</> with

{@@RAK-- I labelled the letters in the previous paragraph as greek text.  es} 


    \19/On some technical aspects of this passage, see above, pp.
60f.  The OT materials behind the gematria are found in TEXT VIII
(above, pp. 188ff). 

{@@RAK note in margin:  [p. 190]  } 

    \20/<hb>Hebrew text</> (200+7+70+10+30+1).  So tractate
<ts>Nedarim</> 32a Gemara, and <ts>GenR</> 43:2 (Soncino p. 353)
and 44:9 (p. 366f).  Unfortunately, Philo's comments on Gen 14:14
are not preserved in extant MSS of <ts>Qu Gen</>, but his
fondness for numerology is everywhere apparent in his writings
(see, for example, <ts>Qu Gen</> III:49, 56, 59, 61); in
<ts>Abr</> 232, Philo refers to Abraham dividing his servants

    \21/See W. Michaelis, "Zeichen, Siegel, Kreuz," ThZ 12
(1956), pp. 505-25; relevant passages include Gen 4:14f, Ezek
9:4-6, Job 31:35f, Ps of Sol 15:6-9, and CDC 9:10-12[?].  Note
Tert, AM III:22:5f, where Ezekiel's "<@@tr-

    \22/So Lucian of Samosata (2nd c.), <ts>Judicium Vocalium</>
12, where the <gk>TAU=</> is said to be imitated by tyrants who
impale men, and thus <gk>STAURO/S</> "was constructed by this
(form of @@<gk>T</>) and is so named by men."  For Christian witnesses
to this identification, see Windisch, p. 356, and add TractOrig
14 (p. 153). 

{@@RAK-- Please verify that T is the greek letter "tau."  es} 


     Among Christian writers, Cl.A repeats the gematria without
attributing it to Barn and with the lengthy addition of
numerological principles similar to those found also in Philo: 

  <qu>For when (Abraham) heard that Lot had been taken prisoner, 
  and when he numbered his own servants as 318 (TIH'),
  he went up and subdued a great number of adversaries. 
  Thus they say that it is a type of the Lord's sign 
  (<gk>KURIAKOU= SHMEI/OU</>)\23/ in accordance with the form (<gk>SXH=MA</>)
  of the element (<gk>STOIXEI=ON</>) 300, while the iota and the 
  eta signify the savior's name, which means that the
  servants of Abraham had salvation since they fled to 
  the sign and to the Name and became lords of those who 
  were captured and of the many unbelieving nations which
  followed them.\24/</> 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Also at end of "Muratorian Fragment" (cf @@Preuschen, @@Analecta, 135ff)
(from Ambrose, <tm>Comm in Gen</> 14:14).  } 


    \23/See also <ts>Quis Dives Salv</> 8:2  --  the law could
not save, so Jesus came <gk>A)PO LENESEWS ME/XRI TOU= SHMEIOU</>
(=from <hb>Hebrew letter</> to <hb>Hebrew letter</> ?). 

    \24/<ts>Strom</> VI:(11):84:2f.  The subsequent discussion
there includes the ideas that 300=3 times 100, 10=the perfect
number, 8 is the first cube and is equal in dimensions, etc. 


     It is found again in Ps-Cyp, <ts>De Pascha Comp</> 10
(compare 18,20,22), appended to a discussion of the fact that
Abraham was 100 years old at the birth of Isaac (see Gen 17), who
typified Christ by carrying the wood (Gen 22):  [[196]]

  <qu>And indeed, Abraham, who was called a prophet by the Lord
  God, since plainly he had knowledge of Christ's sacrament
  by a son being born to him in his 100th year  --  who after the
  third day emptied death ... and vanquished our emnity  --  he
  numbered all his house-slaves, and on account of the birth
  when 100 years old ("<lt>centenariam nativitatem"</>) he tripled 
  C and made the sign <@@gk?>T</>, to which he also added XVIII, i.e. {@@,?}
  <@@gk?>IH'</> in the name Jesus, and defeated the adversaries and  
  freed Lot the son of his brother from captivity.  </>

     Notice that in both accounts the gematria is given in its
proper setting, the battle with the kings in Gen 14, in contrast
to Barn 7:7-9.  Possibly the "unique" contribution of Ps-Barn was
combining this "gnostic" interpretation of Abraham's enlistment
of 318 <gk>TOU\S I)DI/OUS OI)KOGENEI=S AU)TOU=</> (Gen 14:14)
with the notice that Abraham circumcised <gk>PA/NTAS TOU\S
OI)KOGENEI=S AU)TOU=</> after the promise of Isaac's birth (Gen
17:23ff).\25/  For hellenistic Judaism the allegorical meaning of
318 easily could have revolved around the victory which
Jesus/Joshua (IH')\26/ was to bring in possessing the [[197]]
promised land, and the "mark" (T=<hb>Hebrew letter</>, see above,
n. 21) of the true Israelite whom God selects for the
eschatological (or ethical) battle (see below, pp. 233 ff, on the
battle with "Amalek").  Again, no proof for this can be offered,
but it is difficult to criticize Windisch's conclusion that
"<gm>man had den Eindruck, also handle es sich hier wirklich um
einen eigenen Fund des Vf.s</>, also <gm>um eine eigene Zugabe zu
einem uebernommenen Stoff</>" (p. 357). 


    \25/Actually, the gematria on Abraham fits better with the
material of Barn 10, examples of the "three doctrines" of
circumcised "<@@lt>gnosis</>' (see 10:1, 9, 10; 9:7b), than with
the general discussion of true circumcision in 9:4b-7a.  As it
now stands in the Epistle, it forms a transitional section in
which the two ideas are joined.  See TEXT VIII, pp. 188ff. 

    \26/It usually is assumed that the abbreviation of the name
<gk>I)HSOU=S</> is a Christian innovation; in fact, it is
primarily on this basis that Chester Beatty Papyrus 963 (Num-
Deut), which is among the earliest known examples of this
abbreviation in literature, is considered to be Christian in
origin (plus the fact that 963 is in codex form; but see above,
p. 78 n. 21).  On the other hand, IH is not an "abbreviation"
(like IHC, IC, etc.) but a "suspension," and as such it
represents a method which was common in inscriptions; see
A.H.R.E. Paap, <tm>Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First
Five Centuries AD</> (1959), pp. 107f (and see L. Traube's
classical work on the same subject).  In Paap's listing of the
evidence, IH occurs at a relatively early date (P. Egerton 2; 2nd
c.) and tends to disappear as the true abbreviation becomes more
common; see his nos. 6, 21, 22, 26, 51, 70(?), 93, 138, and p.
107 n. 9, for MSS with <@@gk>IH</>. 


     <h1>The Gnosis of Three Doctrines</>.  --  The proofs that
one has received the true circumcision lie in his understanding
of the covenant and its <gk>TRI/A DO/GMATA</>.  This
<gk>GNW=SIS</> was given to Abraham <gk>E)N PNEU/MATI</> (9:7f)
when he had received the promise; Moses received it <gk>E)N TH=|
SUNE/SEI</> (10:1) and spoke about it <gk>E?N PNEU/MATI</>
(10:2,9) when he gave the food-laws; even David received the same
<gk>GNW=SIN</> (10:10) when he penned the first Psalm.  With
reference to Abraham, Ps-Barn's interpretation definitely is
Christianized in its specific application to Jesus and the cross. 
Barn 10, however, is strictly parenetic, and is derived directly
from the hellenistic Jewish @@school-tradition.  Here is one of
he clearest proofs of the close [[198]] relation between Barn and
the traditions of a highly sophisticated late Judaism. 

{@@RAK-- I kept "school-tradition" as a hyphenated word.  es} 

     It is impossible to read Barn 10 carefully without becoming
aware of its composite nature.  The main theme is Moses'
<gk>TRI/A DO/GMATA</> (10:1,9), but actually <em>six</> food
prohibitions are interpreted in 10:3-8.  In 10:2, a quotation
from "@@deuteronomy" (with no clear parallel anywhere in out LXX
MSS) is introduced to prove that God's real covenant did not rest
in the prohibition of certain foods (<gk>TO\ MH\ TRW/GEIN</>),
but rather in performing just actions (<gk>TA\ DIKAIW/MATA/
MOU</>).  In 10:11, the positive aspects of Mosaic food laws are
interpreted, while 10:10 presents a running midrash on @@Ps 1:1
(LXX) in connection with the <em>first</> set of Mosaic
prohibitions (10:1, 3-5). 

{@@RAK--  Please note that you have many notes on the facing
page.  They are labelled 10:1 and 10:3-8.  You have a second set
of notes labelled 10:1 and 10:3-5.  es} 

1.  I typed "Ps1:1" as "Ps 1:1." 
2.  Do you want "Deuteronomy" or "deuteronomy?"  es} 

     The presence of two separately formulated traditions
concerning the "three doctrines" in 10:1,3-8 also is confirmed by
a stylistic comparison of the material.  Notice that each of the
three prohibitions in 10:1,3-5 (pig, birds, fish), and the
respective interpretations, are structured according to the
following verbal framework: 
  <gk>OU) FA/GH|...
  OU) MH/, FHSI/N, KOLLH/QHSH|</> (or, <gk>@@O(MOIWQH/SH|</>)
  W(S KAI\ ... A)LLA/...</>\27/ 

By way of contrast, the three prohibitions in the second
tradition (10:6-8) have the following common structure: 

  <gk>A)LLA\ KAI\ ... OU) FA/GH|\28/ 
  PRO\S TI/; ... O(/TI ...\30/ 


    \27/A few variations within this framework must be mentioned: 
(1)  the first prohibition is found in the general introduction
of 10:1 (<gk>OU) FA/GESQE XOI=RON</>) and is not repeated by
means of <gk>OU) FA/GH</> in 10:3 (notice also the change from
plural to singular between vv.1 and 3-5); (2)  the <gk>OU)/TE
FA/GH</> introducing 10:4 in SHG (Cl.A, <gk>OU) FA/GH</>) is
equivalent to the <gk>KAI\ OU) FA/GH</> in 10:5; (3)  in 10:3,
only G has <gk>OU) MH/</> (SH have <gk>OU)</>), and all MSS trsp
the next two words; (4)  in 10:3, <gk>O(/TAN DE/</> replaces
<gk>A)LLA/</>, and G lacks <gk>W(S</>; (5)  in 10:4, G lacks
<gk>A)LLA/</>.  Notice also that 10:4 and 5 also have the words
<gk>TAU=TA MO/NA</> in common.  For the variants of Barn\Cl.A/
10:4, see above, p. 35. 

    \28/10:7 has <gk>OU)DE/</> for <gk>KAI\ OU)</> while 10:8
(strangely) has <gk>E)/MISEN</> (but note that the entire verse
is filled with peculiarities of this kind). 

    \29/10:8 has ... <gk>GENHQH=S TOIOU=TOS OI(/OUS</> (G,

    \30/10:6 places <gk>PRO\S TI/</> earlier in the verse, while
10:8 lacks this element as well as the <gk>O(/TI</>.  Notice also
that <gk>E)NIAUTO/N</> is common to 10:6 and 7, while <gk>TO\
ZW=ON TOU=TO</> occurs in 10:7 and 8. 


     The respective contents of the two traditions also betray
the fact that each is a separate unit in itself.  Tradition no. 1
at least has some sort of schematic (but seldom verbal)
relationship to the Pentateuchal prohibitions found in Lev
11=Deut 14 -- eating of the swine is forbidden (Lev 11:7=Deut
14:8),\31/ after which fish without fins or scales are [[200]]
prohibited (Lev 11:10=Deut 14:10),\32/ and finally the unclean
birds are discussed at length (Lev 11:13-19=Deut 14:11-17).\33/ 
The order of treatment differs slightly in Barn, but the basic
<em>categories</> of foods are paralleled. 


    \31/LXX has <gk>U(=N</> (or similarly), but Barn speaks of
the <gk>SOI=RON</>.  In the Pentateuch, swine are but one type of
unclean beast (<gk>KTH=NOS</>). 

    \32/The Pentateuch does not mention specific names of unclean
fish, and none of the names in Barn 10:5 are found in the LXX
(<lt>apud</> Hatch-Redpath). 

    \33/Both LXX and Barn 10:1 and 4 mention <gk>A)ETO/N</>,
<gk>KO/RAKA</> (see Lev, var. in Deut), and <gk>I)KTI=NA</>
(10:4), but Barn's <gk>O)CU/PETERON</> is not in the long LXX
Pentateuchal lists (or anywhere else in the LXX). 


     In tradition no. 2, however, all three animals mentioned are
land animals.  The <gk>DASU/PODE</>/<gk>LAGWO/S</>\34/ is listed
in that category in Lev 11:5=Deut 14:7, and the <gk>GALH=</> is
found among "creeping things" in Lev 11:29, but the
<gk>U(/AINAN</> is foreign to the LXX MSS used by Hatch-Redpath. 
In fact, as we shall see, the background of this second tradition
primarily is Greek zoological speculation rather than Mosaic law. 


    \34/Barn uses both words (see below) but LXX MSS are almost
unanimous in favoring the former (in Lev 11:5, MS g adds the word
<gk>LAGWO/N</>  --  in Deut 14:7, Aquila also has it).  Pfeiffer,
<tm>Intro</>, p. 105 n. 22, thinks that this somewhat unusual LXX
choice of wording came about "out of respect for the founder of
the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, Ptolemy I Lagos."  Notice that
<ts>LevR</> 13:5 (p. 173) identifies the hare with Greece because
Lagos was the mother of Ptolemy. 


     <h1>The Three Doctrines on Sexual Sins</>.  --  That
tradition no. 1 is part of the original nucleus of Barn 10 is
seen from the fact that it is presupposed by the interpretation
of Ps 1:1 [[201]] in Barn 10:10 and that the positive food
regulations explained in 10:11 are from the same Pentateuchal
contexts.  Let us first investigate, therefore, the tradition in
10:6-8 (no. 2) which interrupts the continuity of the chapter and
its argument. 

  6  But also eat not the @@rough-footed one ( <gk>DASU/PODA</>). 
{@@RAK note:  hairy} 
       Do not, he says, be one who seduces children,\35/ 
       nor be like such ones,
     Because the hare ( <gk>LAGWO/S</>) yearly increases unduly 
     the voiding of excrement ( <gk>PLEONEKTEI= TH\N A)FO/DEUSIN</>),
     for as many years as it lives, it has that many holes.\36/ 
  7  But neither eat the hyena.  
       Do not, he says, be an adulteror or corruptor,
       not be like such ones.  
     Because this animal yearly changes its nature 
     and at one time is male but at another is female. 
  8  But also he hated the weasel with good reason ( <gk>KALW=S</>). 
       Do not, he says, become such a one
       whom we hear doing lawlessness by the mouth through 
       uncleanness (<gk>OI(/OUS ... POIOU=NTAS</>, masculine),
       neither associate in unclean actions with women 
       who do lawlessness with the mouth ( <gk>TAI=S ... POIOU/SAIS</>,
     For this animal conceives by the mouth. 

{@@RAK-- What spellings do you want "adulteror" or "adulterer?"
and "corruptor" or "corrupter?"  es} 


    \35/<gk>PAIDOFQO/ROS</> = "<lt>corruptor puerorum</>"; this
probably refers to sodomy (with young boys), although the
parallel to the multiplication of "holes" by the hare is somewhat
obscure.  Possibly the reference is to abortion (see Klauser's ed
of Barn, p. 51, and below, p. 205). 

    \36/<gk>TRU/GAS</> = "<lt>foramine</>"; this could mean
"dens" (holes in a neutral sense) or "bodily openings" (for
excrement, procreation, or giving birth).  See below, pp. 204f. 

    \37/For this clause, S has slight variation and H has simply
<gk>AU)TOI=S</>.  L lacks the sentence which follows. 


     This version of the "three doctrines" concerning sexual sins
is not repeated as a unit in extant writings of antiquity,
[[202]] but the traditional background of each of its parts is
clear.  In the 1st c. B.C., Varro discusses the prolific hare
("<@@lt>lepus</>" as in Barn\L/), which simultaneously carries
different sets of young in different stages of development in its
womb,\38/ and thus can conceive when it already is pregnant.  He
then quotes Archelaus to the effect that

  <lt><qu>annorum quot sit qui velit scire
  inspicere oportere foramina naturae
  quod sine dubio alius alio habet plura</></>.\39/ 

Pliny (the elder, died A.D. 79) confirms Archelaus as the source
for the idea that "as many openings as there are in the body for
excreting, that is how many years old the hare is -- a varying
number certainly is found!  Pliny adds that the same source
speaks of the hare as @@hermaphroditic,\40/ and goes on to say
that the only other animal which is capable of "superfetation"
(multiple pregnancy in different stages of development; so also
<ts>Nat Hist</> X:179) is the "<@@lang?>dasypodem</>."  Pliny
contains one more pertinent detail about the hare, and that is
that its home has many exits (<lt>"specus qui sunt [[203]]
multifores"</>; see also Varro, <ts>Rerum Rusticarum</>
III:12:6).  Pollux (2nd c. (A.D.) and Aelian (died c. 230 A.D.)
also repeat the stories about superfetation and yearly
multiplication of holes.\41/ 

{@@RAK-- I typed "hermamphroditic" as "hermaphroditic."  es} 


    \38/So Arist, <ts>Hist Anim</> VI:33 and <ts>Gen Anim</>
IV:5, on the <gk>DASU/PODES</>.  This material from Varro is
found in his <ts>Rerum Rusticarum</> III:12:4 (bound with Cato in

{@@RAK note in margin: 

Aristotle  } 

    \39/"One who wishes to know how old they are should examine
the natural openings, for undoubtedly one has more than another"
(Loeb trans). 

    \40/Pliny, <ts>Nat Hist</> VIII:218, "<lt>idem utramque vim
singulis inesse ac sine mare aeque gignere</>."  The discussion
of hares from which the following material comes includes
paragraphs 217-220 of the same work. 

    \41/Pollux, <ts>Onomasticon</> V:(12):73f  --  <gk>O(/SWN O)
E)GXWROU/NTWN U(PO\ TH\N OU)RA\N O)PA/S</> (in a discussion of
various kinds of <gk>LAGW=N</>); Aelian, <ts>Nat Anim</> II:12 -- 
U(POFAINWN</> (on the <gk>LAGWO/S</> or <gk>LAGW/S</>). 


     These ideas from secular natural history were used as moral
examples in the (Jewish and) Christian tradition.  The Testament
of <ts>Asher</> 2:8ff condemns men who are "half-clean" (they
observe the ritual laws but also commit adultery and fornication)
like the <gk>DASU/PODES</> which ruminate but do not have the
divided-hoof, and thus are ruled by the evil inclination.  Cl.A
interprets Moses' prohibition against eating the <gk>LAGW/S</>
which multiplies its excrement and holes ad fecundity (with more
than one opening in the womb!), as intended to avert the "love of
boys" and sexual dissipation.\42/  Nov comments extensively on
the Jewish food laws and thinks that the prohibition of eating
the hare ("<lt>lepus</>") rebukes men who are deformed into
women.\43/  The Ps-Eustathian [[204]] <ts>Comm in Hexameron</>
speaks about the creation of the animals and notes the sexual
intemperance of the <gk>LAGWO/S</>.\44/ 


    \42/<ts>Paed</> II:(10):83:4ff and 83:1ff.  The relationship
to Barn is difficult to determine in these passages (the
<gk>U(/AINAN</> also is mentioned in 83f), since the wording
often is very similar but the interpretation goes beyond what is
found in Barn.  Certainly Cl.A knew Barn, but he knew a much more
extensive tradition also. 

    \43/<ts>Cib Jud</> 3 (sometimes attributed to Tert or Cyp)  -
-  "<lt>accusat deformatos in feminam viros</>." 

    \44/PG 18, col. 744.  The context does not directly concern
the Mosaic food laws. 


     It is interesting that in the Ps-Clem <ts>Recog</> VIII:25,
the hare ("<lt>lepus</>") and some other animals condemned by
Barn are used as examples of providence and teleology (noting
that they are @@heramphroditic, etc.), with no censure at all. 
Similarly, the various strata of Physiologus 25 attest the use of
<gk>DASU/PODA</>=<gk>LAGWO/S</> as a positive moral lesson; the
hare is a good runner, and when he hastens to the inaccessible
heights (or rocks) to escape the hunter (or @@dogs=devil), he is
safe, but when he scurries to the lower places (
<gk>BA/QOUS</>=sins and deceits), he is captured.\45/ 

{@@RAK-- Should "dogs=devil" be "dogs=devils?" es} 


    \45/See F. Sbordone's ed (1936), pp. 252f, 294. 


{@@RAK--  Please note that for the next paragraph I typed in your
revisions.  Any additional text that you wrote in, I labelled as
your notes.  es} 

     When we have surveyed the hare tradition in its various
aspects and developments, the question arises as to how Barn 10:6
fits into the picture.  {@@RAK note:  this complex situation} 
Exactly what relationship does Barn's interpretation suggest
between the picture of the hare and proper morality?  Is the hare
condemned for (1)  filling its den with filth each year, and thus
having to make new holes, or (2)  having more than one opening to
the womb, which allows excessive copulation,\46/ or (3)  being
[[205]] @@hermamphroditic, or (4)  adding a new anal opening each

{@@RAK--  Please note that I typed "hermamphroditic" as


    \46/So the trans of Barn 10:6 in <ts>Ante-Nicene Christian
Library</> I (ed by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, 1867)  --  the
hare multiplies "places of conception."  Note Cl.A, <ts>Paed</>
II:(10):88:1  --  the hare "copulates every hour" and
"impregnates each month." 

{@@RAK note in margin next to previous 3 lines: 

straight from Aristotle trad. in <ts>Gen An</> 4.5  } 


     The last alternative seems best attested in the natural
philosophers, but the second and third carry better the sexual
connotations demanded by Barn 10:6-8 and the later Christian
analogies.  The lesson could be "Don't engage in sodomy," like
the hare which has more than its due of sexual excitement, but
the reference to the multiplication of holes does not fit the
analogy without a good deal of straining.  Possibly the lesson is
"Don't procure abortions, " but this is not how Barn\L/
("<lt>corruptor puerorum</>") or Cl.A (<gk>PAIDERASTI/AS</>)
interpreted it.  In any case, Ps-Barn invented neither the
description of the hare nor its specific moral application to
sexual sins. 

     The lesson from the hyena in Barn 10:7 fits into exactly the
same pattern.  Aristotle denies the truth of the common story
that the hyena has two privy parts, a male and female, by which
it copulates and is impregnated each year.\47/  Diodorus Siculus
(1st c. B.C.) and Pliny also repeat and refute the story, while
Ovid (died c.18 A.D.), Artemidor [[206]] (late 2nd c. A.D.),
Aelian, and other secular sources repeat the tale without
questioning its accuracy.\48/  Even Rabbinical sources may
reflect a similar idea about the <hb>Hebrew text</> (striped-
hyena) which changes into different forms each 7 years.\49/ 


    \47/<ts>Gen Anim</> III:6  --  <gk>FASI\ GA\R TH\N ME\N
According to <ts>Hist Anim</> VI:32, this myth arose because the
male and female hyena appear to be so similar, and the female is
so difficult to capture. 

    \48/Diodorus Siculus, <ts>Lib Hist</> XXXII:12:2 (with the
words <gk>PAR) E)NIAUTO\N A)LLH/LAS</>); Pliny, <ts>Nat Hist</>
VIII:44:105  --  Pliny adds other tales about the hyena (it
imitates human speech to catch dogs, digs up graves, changes
color of eyes, hypnotizes dogs, vomits, etc.); Ovid,
<ts>Metamorph</> XV:408ff; Artemidor, <ts>Oneirocrit</> II:12;
Aelian, <ts>Nat Anim</> I:25 (see also VI:15 and VII:22 on its
other unusual actions).  For other references, see the
commentaries on Barn 10:7. 

    \49/<ts>Baba Kamma</> 16a.  The text is difficult to
interpret and may even refer to the male hyena turning into a
female, then to a bat, etc. 

{@@RAK note in margin next to previous 3 lines: 

see also Y. Shabb 81:3 f.p.2  } 


     In Christian literature, Ps-Eustathius tells and denies the
legend in connection with creation, while the Ps-Clem
<ts>Recog</> use it as another example of teleology.\50/ 
Similarly Tert, <ts>Pallio</> 3:2b, uses this (without censure)
as an example of the way in which animals also are subject to the
law of change.  Physiologus 24 has almost a verbatim parallel to
the description of the hyena in Barn 10:7, without any specific
ethical application.\51/  Meth, <ts>Symp</> V:(6):125, repeats
[[207]] only the prohibition against eating hyena as a general
example of avoiding obstacles to the good life.  Even Cl.A does
not elaborate the ethical implications of the hermamphroditic
hyena; he notes the food law which forbids eating it, and says
that this refers to adultery, but is much more interested in
saying that the legend about the hyena actually is false -- it
cannot really change its <em>nature</> (<ts>Paed</> II:(10):83:4-


    \50/See the references given above, p. 204. 

    \51/See Sbordone, pp. 1xx and 85; F. J. Carmody on the
<tm>Physiologus Latinus</> (1939), sec. 18.  Some of the MSS
variations contain the ethical application.  Windisch, p. 358,
thinks there must be a literary relationship between Physiologus
and Barn here, but he does not define this relationship more


     Notice that Physiologus, Meth, and Cl.A imply or state that
Moses prohibited the eating of the hyena, although present texts
of the LXX do not make this explicit.  The implication in Jer
12:9 (quoted in the context by Cl.A and Physiologus) that the
Lord dislikes the hyena's den may have something to do with its
inclusion among forbidden foods (see also Sirach 13:18). 
Whatever the origin, the hyena tradition found its way into the
ethical instruction of Barn's tradition as an example to be

     Finally, the weasel is used as a negative illustration in
Barn 10:8.  In the natural histories, many creatures were
believed to conceive through the ears or mouth, including the
raven, ibis, shark, dog-fish, lizard, etc.  Aristotle says that
Anaxagoras and others claimed <gk>TI/KTEIN KATA\ TO\ STO/MA TH\N
GALH=N</>, but this conclusion was based on insufficient
observation; nevertheless, it is true that the weasel often
[[208]] carries its tiny offspring <gk>TW=| STO/MATI</>.\52/  In
<tm>Metamorph</> IV:322f, Ovid refers to an unnamed animal which
"<lt>ore parit</>" because it has spoken deceitfully.  According
to Plutarch (early 2nd c.), <ts>Isis and Osiris</> 74:381,
genesis of the word."\53/ 


    \52/<ts>Gen Anim</> III:5-6.  Aristotle also speaks there
about the erroneous idea that the raven (see Ps-Clem <ts>Recog</>
VIII:25) and ibis copulate by mouth.  Pliny, <ts>Nat Hist</>
X:65:187, refers to the idea (rejected by Aristotle) that the
lizard ("<lt>lacerta</>") "<lt>ore parere</>."  Aelian, <ts>Nat
Anim</>, refers to the shark (<gk>GALE/OS</>, II:55) and the dog-
fish (<gk>GALEOU=</>, IX:65) giving birth through the mouth. 

    \53/See also Antonius Liberalis (late 2nd c.?),
<ts>Metamorph</> 29 (<lt>apud</> Windisch, p. 361), the weasel
"is impregnated through the ears and bears, carrying its young by
the neck"; and Timotheum 39 (<lt>apud</> Sbordone's ed of
Physiologus, p. 78), "the weasel gives birth through the ear, but
some say through the mouth."  For other secular parallels, see
the commentaries to Barn 10:8. 


     Hellenistic Judaism knew and applied this legend at an early
date, as the Epistle of Ps-Aristeas 165f attests: 

  <qu>The weasel is peculiar .... They conceive through the ears 
  and give birth <gk>TW=| STO/MATI</>, and on this account the similar 
  characteristic of men is unclean [i.e.{@@,?} in being informers
  and giving hearsay evidence].</> 

     In Christian writings, the general tradition is attested by
Ps-Clem <ts>Recog</> VIII:25 ("generates through the ear,"
another proof of providence), Meth, <ts>Symp</> V:(6):125 (eating
weasel is prohibited by food laws), and Nov, <ts>Cib Jud</> 2
("who would want the body of a weasel for food?").  Physiologus
21 (Carmody 26) gives the lesson in detail how the weasel is
[[209]] forbidden as food because it receives the male sperm in
its mouth and gives birth by the ears, just as there are some who
eat the spiritual bread in the church, but they loses the word
when they go outside.  It is interesting that Cl.A does not refer
to <gk>GALH=</> except with reference to (pagan) Egyptian

     In Barn 10:8, the application of the weasel's bad example is
not (as in Ps-Aristeas and Physiologus, compare Ovid) simply that
one should mind his tongue.  Just as in the case of the hare and
hyena, here Barn speaks primarily of sexual deviation -- of
"<lt>fellatores</>" and "<lt>fellatrices</>" who induce sexual
excitement with their mouths.\54/  In doing this, Barn's
tradition once again has synthesized material from the secular
study of natural history (already known to hellenistic Judaism)
with Jewish food law (Lev 11:29 on <gk>GALH=</>) according to the
pattern already followed in Barn 10:3-5 and its tradition, to
which we now turn. 


    \54/Compare Arnobius, <ts>Adv Gent</> 2:42 (in a list of evil
actions), "<lt>et ad oris aere conparatae constuprationem</>." 


     <h1>The Three Doctrines of Moses</>.  --  Food law tradition
no. 1, as found in Barn 10:1 and 3-5, reads as follows: 

  1  Indeed, because Moses said
       You shall not eat pig
       nor eagle nor hawk nor crow 
       nor any fish which does not have scales in itself,
     he received in his understanding three doctrines .... 
  3  Thus to this end he said 'the pig': 
       Do not associate, he says, with such men
       who are like pigs.  
     That is, when they have more than they need, they forget
     the Lord; but when they lack something, they are well 
     acquainted with the Lord. 
     As also the pig does not know the master (<gk>KU/RION</>) when
     it is feeding, but when it is hungry it creates a din 
     (<gk>KRAUGA/ZEI</>) and after it received (food) it is quiet 
  4    'Neither shall you eat the eagle nor the hawk 
       nor the kite nor the crow.' 
       Do not, he says, associate with nor be like such men
       who do not know enough to procure their own food
       through labor and sweat.  
     But they plunder other peoples' food in their lawlessness 
     and they keep sharp watch while walking around in 
     apparent innocence, and they look around for whatever 
     they might snatch away through their plunder. 
     As also these birds alone do no procure their own food
     but while sitting idle they seek how they might devour  
     the flesh of others, and they are pestilent in their
  5    'And you shall not eat,' he says, 
       'the <gk>SMU/RAINAN</> nor the polypus nor the cuttle-fish.' 
       Do not, he says, become like such men, by associating 
       with them, who ultimately are impious, and already
       have been judged (to be) in death.  
     As also these little fish, who alone are accursed,
     loll in the depth without swimming around as the rest do, 
     but they live in the mud beneath the depth.</> 

{@@RAK-- Please verify that verse 2 is not included and that the
numbering is correct.  es} 

     As we have noted above (p. 199), the treatment of three
classes of unclean foods (land, air, water) agrees with the
Pentateuch, although the specific wording of the prohibitions and
the names of individual creatures varies greatly from extant LXX
MSS.  It would not be true to imply, however, that the secular
natural philosophers provide no parallels to this material,
although what they say is less striking than what has been noted
in connection with Barn 10:6-8. 

     For example, Horappollo's <ts>Hieroglyphica</> 2:37 (c. 5th
c.) [[211]] refers to the custom of calling a destructive man a
<gk>XOI=RON</>, "because that is the pig's nature."\55/  Again,
Aelian, <ts>Nat Anim</>, refers to the habits of several of the
creatures listed in Barn 10:3-5: the <gk>KO/RAC</> (crow or
raven) is reputed to be a very thirsty bird which begs food and
attacks animals and is eaten by its own young when it gets old
(I:47, II:48ff, III:43); the <gk>A)ETO/S</> (eagle) is a
<gk>ZW=|ON PLEONEKTIKO/N</> which has keen sight and gains its
food through plunder and eats bodies, including hares (IX:2,10;
see also I:42 [on the keen sight of the <gk>E)CUWPE/STATOS</>]
II:26); mention also is made of a poisonous fish which lives
<gk>E)N BUQW=|</> (VIII:7). 


    \55/Quoted in Windisch, p. 359.  See also Plutarch,
<ts>Theseus</> 9, on the <gk>SU=S</> (boar or pig) or Crommyon
which is called <gk>FAIA/</> because of its fierce nature. 


     Much more significant, however, are the parallels to Barn
10:3-5 found in the hellenistic Judaism represented by the
Epistle of Ps-Aristeas and Philo.  Notice Eliezar's explanation
of how Moses taught righteousness and piety by the different food
laws:  "The winged-creatures which he forbad (to eat and even to
touch) you will find to be fierce and @@carniverous and
oppressing the others by their power and taking the food."  Thus
people who keep the law must not tyrranize or oppress (Ps-
Aristeas, 145-49).  Similarly, Philo <ts>Spec Leg</> IV:100-104,
says that Moses forbade eating land or water or air creatures
which are especially tasty in order to [[212]] check the human
tendency to gluttony and luxury (see also 118); in fact, "of land
creatures the breed of pigs (<gk>SUW=N</>) is most nasty, and of
sea creatures those without scales," but Moses prohibited eating
them as well as forbidding as food certain @@carnivorous
creatures (especially birds, see 116).  Elsewhere, Philo compares
the worthless Sophists who indulge their passions to the unclean
pig (<gk>SU=N</>) which lives an ugly life in thick mud
(<ts>Agric</> 143ff). 

{@@RAK-- I changed "carniverous" to "carnivorous."  es} 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Slav. Josephus to <em>War II</> (168):9:1 add:  Philip dreams of
an eagle plucking out P's eyes: 

"the dream you have seen:  the eagle is your veniality, for that
bird is violent and rapacious.  And this sin will take away your
eyes, which are your dominion + your wife" [the interp. put in
mouth of Jn. B. !].  } 

     Christian authors adopted such interpretations of the food
laws early and often.  For instance, in discussing God's creation
on the 5th day, Theophilus of Antioch uses @@carniverous sea
monsters, beasts, and birds as examples of unrighteous men who
are <gk>A(/RPAGES KAI\ FONEI=S KAI\ A)/QEOI</> (II:16-17).  Tert,
AM II:20, equates heretics with the unclean cuttle-fish
("<lt>sepiae</>") which eject black ink when in trouble and thus
extinguish the light.  Lact, <ts>Div Inst</> IV:18-21, interprets
the prohibition of eating pig's meat ("<lt>carnis suillae</>") to
mean that man should abstain from sins and impure acts, and not
act like the pig which never looks to the sky/heaven but spends
its life on its belly.\56/  The Dialogue of S-T (pp. 50f) [[213]]
also uses pigs ("<lt>porcina</>") and unclean fish as negative
moral examples. 

{@@RAK--Do you want "carniverous" or "carnivorous?"  es} 


    \56/Ps-Chr, <ts>Opus Imperf in Matt:  Hom 18</> (on Matt 7:6)
(PG 56:728) repeats this detail about pigs "<lt>numquam in caelum
aspicere</>" and continues with the Barn-like words "<lt>nec
quaerere dominum suum nisi cum esurierit</>."  Thus the pigs
equal heretics, who know enough to call the Lord on occasion, or
carnal Christians, who are given to unclean sensuality. 


     It is in Cl.A that we come closest to the actual words used
in Barn; in fact, parts of Barn 10 are quoted expressly in
<ts>Strom</> V:(8)51f and II:(15):67.  Even in this quoted
material, however, Cl.A attests the fact that the tradition from
which he draws is not simply a static reproduction of the
material found in Barn.  The parallels are as follows: 
     <u-head><ts>Strom V:51-51</></> 
  2  Thus Moses counsels concerning these common foods: 
       [prohibition of <em>big</> and <em>birds</> as in Barn 10:1]\57/
  3  For indeed the pig reveals pleasure-mad and unclean 
     desire, and gluttony for foods and sexual pleasures,
     and intemperance in wallowing, always scraping on 
     material (<gk>U(LIKH/N</>) and lying in mire, becoming fat 
     for slaughter and destruction.  
  4  But in contrast he allows to eat the split-hoofed and 
     cud-chewing (animal), revealing, says Barnabas, 
       [Barn 10:11b, from <gk>KOLLA=SQAI</> to <gk>E)KDE/XETAI</>]
  6  Then there follows: 
       [Barn 10:11b-12, continuing where he left off]  
  1  Indeed, when he says: 
       [Barn 10:4 to <gk>A)NOMI/A|</> (<gk>BI/OUSIN</>), see above, p.35] 
  2  For the eagle reveals plundering
     and the hawk, injustice,
     and the crow, greediness.  </>

     <u-head><ts>Strom II:67-68</></> (see below on Ps 1:1 in Barn 10:10,
  1  But also David, and before David, Moses,
     manifested through these (words) the "gnosis" of the
     three doctrines: 
       [Barn 10:10a, on <gk>A)SEBOI/</>=<gk>I)XQUE/S</>] 
     For those which do not have scales, of which Moses
     forbade to be touched, dwell beneath the sea. 
  2    [Barn 10:10c, on <gk>A(MARTWLOI/</>=<gk>XOI=ROS</>] 
     For when it hungers, it creates a din (<gk>KRAUGA/ZEI</>)
     but when it is filled, it does not know the master
  3  [Barn 10:10b, on <gk>LOIMOI/</>=<gk>PTHNA/</>] 
     But Moses counseled: 
       [Barn 10:1c, the "quoted" material] 
     These things (are according to) Barnabas. 
  4  But I have also heard from a wise man the following: 
       the counsel of impious speaks of the gentiles,
     and the way of sinners is the Jewish opinion, 
     and the seat of the pestilent designates the heresies.  
  1  Still another said, with more precision: 
       [counsel-followers of wicked thoughts, apostates] 
       [way=Jews or Gentiles walking in the "wide and broad
       [seat=theaters and courts, wicked authorities] ...
  3  But in another way the lawgiver seems to teach
     abstinence from sins of three kinds: 
       in word, by he speechless fish ...
       and in deed, by he plunderous and @@carnivorous birds, 
       <and in thought by the pig, for the>\58/ pig takes
       pleasure in mire and dung, and neither is it fitting
       for conscience so to wallow.  [quoted further, below, 
       p. 228]  </> 

{@@RAK-- I changed "carniverous" to "carnivorous."  es} 


    \57/Strangely, Cl.A makes no mention of the fish in this
context!  Thus he does not retain here the "<em>three</>
doctrines" theme (but compare the next context quoted from Cl.A,
and below, p. 229 n. 11). 

    \58/There seems to be a lacuna in the text here, but the
sense is clear from the context. 


     Compare also the passage in <ts>Paed</> III:(11):75-76, in
which Cl.A discusses the relation of food laws to the Christian
life (without mention of Barn) in a similar manner: 

  3  The all-wise paedagogue through Moses forbade the 
     elder people [Israel] to partake of pigs, signifying  
     that it is not necessary for those who call upon God
     to be mixed up with unclean men who revel, in the manner
     of swine, in bodily pleasures and filthy foods and
     @@licencious itchings, scratching against enjoyment (and) 
     malicious pleasure. 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "licencious" or "licentious?"  es} 

  4  But he says to eat neither kite nor swift-flying
     breast-eater nor eagle, saying, you shall not come
     near those who provide for life by plundering,
     and he allegorizes the others similarly.  
  1  With whom, then is it more fitting (to associate)?  
     With the righteous.  
     Again he says allegorically,
       every split-hoofed and cud-chewing (creature) is clean, 
     because the split-hoof signifies stability in 
     righteousness, (and) ruminating is the suitable food of 
     righteousness, the word [which enters externally through teaching
     and is recalled internally by thought] .... 
  2  And the righteous-one ruminates the spiritual food
     when he has the word in (his) mouth,
     and righteousness similarly splits the hoof, both 
     sanctifying the present time and escorting into the
     age to come.  [compare Barn 10:11b, below p. 217]
  3  Thus the paedagogue leads us neither to the spectacles
     nor unreasonably to the races and the theater, a seat 
     of pestilent-ones .... </>

     These passages show that the connections between the
negative and positive aspects of Moses' food laws and the opening
words of Ps 1 frequently were made in the Alexandrian school
tradition represented by Cl.A.  In <ts>Strom</> VIII:(18):109f,
Cl.A elaborates even another interpretation of the food law
symbolism:  the church is like animals which both have split-hoof
(=have access by faith to both Father and Son) and chew the cud
(=study of God's logia night and day, see Ps 1:2!); the Jews
ruminate (=have the logia) but do not have the split-hoof (=lack
the twofold support through faith in Father <em>and Son</>); the
heretics have split-hoof (=acknowledge Father and Son) but do not
ruminate (=inadequate understanding of the logia as well as
inadequate ethics); those who neither split the hoof nor chew the
cud are entirely unclean.  Essentially the same explanation is
found in Iren, AH V:8: 3[=8:2] and Nov, <ts>Cib Jud</> 3, who
identify the last category with gentiles.  [[216]] 

     Both Ps-Aristeas and Philo also show that Judaism already
had applied symbolical interpretation to the positive aspects of
the food laws (compare Testament of <ts>Asher</> 2:8ff cited
above, p. 203).  For the former the split-hoof indicates @@(1) 
distinguishing each act with a view to righteousness and (2) 
separation of Jews from gentile immorality (especially sexual;
see 150-52), while memory of God's @@wonderous acts is indicated
by ruminating (153-61).  Philo also gives a detailed analysis in
which the split-hoof indicates discrimination of virtue from
vice, while cud-chewing stands for meditation on and digestion of
the divine teachings (<ts>Spec Leg</> IV:107ff); or the split-
hoof means distinguishing what is beneficial from what is
injurious, while rumination is retentive memory used to guide the
life of virtue (<ts>Agric</> 132f, 142).  According to Philo's
@@latter interpretation, certain immoral Philosophers and
artisans divide the hoof, but do not ruminate (135-45).\59/ 

1.  I typed items (1) and (2) as part of the text.  Please
indicate if you want them typed on separate lines. 
2.  Do you want "wonderous" or "wondrous?" 
3.  Do you want "latter" or "later?"  es} 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

W.L. Knox, <tm>Some Hellenistic Elements</> (@@1944), 6: 

Discussing Jesus' words on what comes out of man as defiling, not
what goes in -- 

"PLATO says the exact opposite:  the mouth is designed for the
entrance of @@what is necessary, but for the exit of what is best
[@@Timaius 75e], a passage which PHILO interprets [De Mund. Op.
119] of the entrance of the perishable food of the perishable
body, but the exit of words, the immortal laws of the immortal
soul.  PHILO is not here referring to the Jewish food-taboos, but
it was a commonplace that the food-laws of Moses were intended to
inculcate moral precepts [Aristeas 143ff.  The Pythagoreans
treated their master's taboos in the same way:  @@Diog. @@Laert.
8:34; Plut. De Lib. Educ. (2) 17.12d].  I suspect that
hellenistic Jews quoted PLATO against Jesus."  }


    \59/Surviving Rabbinical sources handle the food laws quite
differently, as <ts>LevR</> 13:5 (pp. 173-76) shows.  The only
animals discussed in detail are the camel, rock-badger, hare, and
swine.  Each of these symbolizes one of the world empires, just
as Daniel likened the empires to beasts of various sorts.  The
camel=Babylon, rock-badger=Media (it is part clean and part
unclean just as righteous Darius and unrighteous Haman came from
Media, etc.), hare=Greece (because of Ptolemy's mother, Lagos),
and swine=Edom (or Rome, which is half clean, i.e. hypocritical
in its tribunals where it "commits violence and robbery").  In
the context of these nations, ruminating has various meanings
such as (1)  extolling God, (2)  elevating the stranger, (3) 
having another nation after it  --  in each case the emphasis is
that Edom (Rome) did not ruminate.  There is no exposition on the
unclean fish or birds in <ts>LevR</> or <ts>DeutR</>.  For a
general survey of the topic, see S. Stein, "The Dietary Laws in
Rabbinic and Patristic Literature," <tp>Studia Patristica</> II
(TU 64, 1957), 141-54. 


     In Barn 10:11 we find the Jewish tradition as it was taken
over at an early stage of the Christian apologetic, before it
received the particularly doctrinal development attested in Cl.A,
Iren, etc.  Notice the way in which ethical, "gnostic," and
eschatological emphases have come into focus: 

  Again Moses says: 
     You shall eat every hoof-splitting and cud-chewing
     (animal) .... 
  What, then, does he say? 
     You shall associate with those who fear the Lord, 
     with those who study\60/ what they received by
     @@distinguishing the matter (<gk>R(H=MA</>) in their heart,
     with those who speak the Lord's <gk>DIKAIW/MATA</> and keep them,\61/ 
     with those who know that study is a work of cheerfulness
     and who ruminate on the Lord's word.  
  But what is splitting the hoof?  
     Because the righteous-one walks in this world 
     and receives (<gk>E)KDE/XETAI</>) the holy aeon.  [see Cl.A, 
     above p. 215]  </>

{@@RAK note in margin: 
2 Clem 12:1} 


    \60/<gk>META\ TW=N MELETW/NTWN</>.  Quite possibly Barn's
tradition connected Ps 1:2, "in his law <gk>MELETH/SEI</> day and
night" with the positive aspects of Moses' food laws (see also
Cl.A and Iren) just as Barn 10:10 (see below) interprets Ps 1:1
in terms of the food prohibitions. 

    \61/Note this link with Barn 10:2, which refers to the
covenant of <gk>DIKAIW/MATA</>, not food prohibitions. 


     <h1>David's Gnosis of the Three Doctrines</>.  --  Barn's
midrash on Ps 1:1, which is repeated and expanded in Cl.A (above,
p. 213) fits into the same early stage of Christian
interpretation:  [[218]]

  David also received "gnosis" of the same three doctrines,
  and he says: 
     Blesses is the man who has not proceeded in the 
     counsel of impious -- 
  As also the fish proceed in darkness into the depths -- 
     Not has stood in the way of sinners --
  As those who, while appearing to feat the Lord, sin
  like the pig --
     Nor has sat in the seat of the pestilent -- 
  As the winged-creatures sitting for plundering.\62/</>  


    \62/Barn 10:10; in reading "...not...nor...nor..." we have
followed Barn\L/ and Barn\Cl.A/ (<gk>OU/K..., OU)DE\...,
OU)DE/</>:  see above, p. 35), which surely preserve the form of
Ps 1:1 used in Ps-Barn's catechetical tradition.  Possibly this
is also a true Greek OT variant, although no support is listed in
the critical apparatuses of Ps 1:1 (all MSS read <gk>OU)K...,
KAI\...OU)K..., KAI\... OU)K</>). 


     We have already noticed that Cl.A knew at least two other
interpretations of Ps 1:1.  Iren also contains a midrash on the
Psalm which in some ways resembles the non-Barnabean traditions
in Cl.A.\63/  When we compare the symbolism of these various
expositions, keeping in mind the fact that Barn's interpretation
presupposes what has been said at greater length in 10:3-5,\64/
the folliwing schema emerges:  [[219]]
<u-col>       <u-col>             <u-col>        <u-col>     <u-col>
<ts>Ps 1:1</> <ts>Barn=Cl.1</>/1\ <ts>Cl.A</>/3\ <ts>Iren</> <ts>Cl.A/2\</>
counsel of    =fish in dark       =apostate/     =not true   =gentiles 
  impious     (already judged)      wicked         God 
way of        =two-faced          =fallen        =know but   =Jewish 
  sinners         like pigs         from law       don't do
seat of       =plunderers         =evil court/   =heretics'  =heretics 
  pestilent       like birds        theater\65/    teaching

Notice the two directions in which the interpretation moved --
ethical and doctrinal.  Barn represents the former and stands
close to the hellenistic Jewish interpretations of the food laws. 
Cl.A/2\ shows how the doctrinal symbolism became stylized in
Christianity as a logical application of the "gnostic"-ethical
approach as applied to particular groups of people.\66/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

cp. <ts>Eth Didasc</>  12 (2:61) 

{@@RAK--  Please note you wrote"13 (2:62)." I can't tell if it is
crossed out.  es} 

worshippers of idols 
@@cong. of Jews} 


    \63/AP 2:  counsel of impious=those who do not worship the
God who truly exists, way of sinners=those who have a knowledge
of God but do not keep his commandments, seat of
pestilent=heretics who corrupt themselves and others through
their perverse teachings.  Cyp, <ts>Cath Eccl Un</> 10, also
equates the seat of pestilence and plagues with the heretics. 

    \64/Note that the link between the negative food laws and Ps
1:1 also is reflected by the use of the words <gk>LOIMA/</> and
<gk>A)SEBEI=S</> in interpreting the birds and fish in Barn 10:4-
5.  For a general survey of the interpretation of Ps 1, see R.
Loewe, "The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic
Exegesis of the Bible," <tp>Studia Patristica</> I (TU 63, 1957),

    \65/"seat of the pestilent/scornful" also is referred to
theatrical performances in Rabbinical sources (see <ts>Abodah
Zarah</> 18b [pp. 94ff], M. Smith, <tm>Tannaitic Parallels to the
Gospels</> [1951], pp. 2f) and in Tert, <ts>Spect</> 3. 

    \66/Elsewhere, Ps 1:1 also is applied to the Jews who
crucified Jesus (=counsel of impious; Lact, <ts>Div Inst</>
IV:16) and to Joseph of Arimathea (=man who did not consent;
Tert, AM IV:42b). 


     We should not close this section on the food laws without
mentioning supplementary evidence that certain groups in
hellenistic late Judaism had tried to exonerate Moses from he
accusation that he had instituted unreasonable food prohibitions. 
The secular geographer, Strabo (died c. 21 A.D.), tells his
readers that the Egyptian priest named Moses, who led the Jews to
Jerusalem (!), had legislated wisely.  His immediate successors
also followed the path of righteousness and piety instituted by
Moses.  Finally, however, [[220]] superstitious priests were
appointed who introduced into the Jewish religion (1) abstinence
from foods (which the Jews still obey), (2) circumcision, (3)
castration, and the like.\67/  Strabo's source for such
information must have been a type of Judaism which was not
sympathetic to much of the ritual law.  We cannot help but be
reminded here of Philo's radically liberal opponents mentioned in
<ts>Migr Abr</> 89-93 (see above, p. 193), who neglected the
external observance of sabbath or feasts or circumcision or the
Temple ritual because they interpreted these things symbolically. 
In short, it would be wrong to suppose that Barn's apparent
antagonism to a literal interpretation of Moses' food laws
necessarily originated from Christian antagonism to Jewish Torah. 
Once again, the tradition represented in Barn seems to stand
somewhere in the transition from a non-cultic late Judaism
towards an anti-Jewish early Christianity. 


    \67/<tm>Geography</> XVI:35-37 (Loeb, Vol. 7, pp. 281ff). 

{@@RAK addition:  Below, p. 290  } 


                          <ch>Chapter 8 
                    THE WATER AND THE CROSS</> 
     The last half of Barn 1-16 clearly divides itself into four
topical units: 
  11:1-- <gk>ZHTH/SWMEN DE\ DI)</> ... (on the water and cross)
  13:1-- <gk>I)/DWMEN DE\ DI)</> ... (on the two people) 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
14:1 <gk>ALL IDWMEN @@EI)</> (SH) <gk>... EI DEDWMEN ZHTWMEN</>} 

  15:1-- <gk>E)/TI OU)=N KAI\ PERI\ TOU= SABBA/TOU</> ...

{@@RAK note: 
/om <gk>OU)=N</> GL}

  16:1-- <gk>E)/TI DE\ KAI\ PERI\ TOU= NAOU=</> ...

{@@RAK note: 
/om <gk>DE\</> GL}

{@@RAK note in margin: 
@@16:6 <gk>@@ZHTHSARMEN</>  {<gk>DE</>  SH 
                            {<gk>OUN</> GL 
                             <gk>EI ESTIN</>  } 

Within the first of these units (chs. 11-12), the topical
arrangement  of the material is followed strictly except at the
end (12:8-11), where the discussion of Mosaic types of the cross
acts as a springboard to a further comparison between Joshua and

  11:1  But let us inquire if it was a matter of concern 
        to the Lord to make manifest beforehand concerning 
        the water and concerning the cross.  
        <gk>PERI\ ME\N TOU= U(/DATOS</> ... 
          [Jer 2:12-13 + Isa 16:1-2] ... 
          [Isa 45:2-3, 33:16ff.] ... 
          [Ps 1:3-6] 
    :8  Perceive how he designated the water and the cross 
          [midrash on phrases of Ps 1] 
          ["land of Jacob" quotation]
          ["river and trees" quotation; see Ezek 47:1-12?] 
  12:1  <gk>O(MOI/WS PA/LIN PERI\ TOU= STAUROU=</> ... 
          ["falling and rising tree" quotation; see IV Ezra
            4:33, 5:5] 
          [Moses' outstretched hands; see Ex 17:8ff] 
          [Isa 65:2] 
          [Moses' brazen serpent, etc.; see Num 21:6ff]
    :8  What again says Moses to Jesus the son of Naue,
        when he gave him, since he [Jesus] is a prophet, that
        name -- so that all the people might hear only him?  
          [apocalpytic quotation like Ex 17:14]
          [Ps 109(110):1]
          [Isa 45:1]  </>

     <h1>Concerning the Water</>.  --  As scriptural proof that
Israel "never will receive the baptism which carries forgiveness
of sins but will build for themselves" (11:1), Barn 11:2-3 brings
a composite quotation from Jer 2:12f and Isa 16:1f (see TEXT IX,
p. 223 and above, pp. 62f).  There they are accused of rejecting
the Lord, the living spring, and constructing their own "pit of
death"\1/ -- a waterless "desert rock" around which they flutter
aimlessly as birds learning to fly.  Basically the same composite
quotation also is used by JM, D 114:5, but with several textual
differences which prove beyond doubt that JM is not citing Barn. 
The unique reference to <em>Sinai</> as "my holy mountain" in
Barn's form of Isa 16:1 seems to attest the traditional Jewish
origin of at least part of this material, which may have come
from a commentary on Jer 2-3.\2/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 
<ts><u-head>BO/QRON QANA/TOU</></>: 

cf Ps-Hipp <ts>De Consumm Mundi</> 26 

in characteristics of Anti-X 


     \1/In addition to the textual problems listed above, pp.
62f, other significant (tendentious?) variations from LXX MSS in
Barn's form of Jer 2:12f are:  (1)  <gk>O( LAO\S OU(=TOS</> (with
Cl.A, Chr, Aug, Ps-Aug, Ps-Vig [<lt>apud</> Ziegler]) where all
LXX MSS have <gk>O( LAO/S MOU</>, and (2)  Barn\SH/ have
<gk>BO/QRON QANA/TOU</> where all LXX MSS and Barn\GL/ have
<gk>LA/KKOUS SUNTETRIMME/NOUS</>{@@.?}  Notice also L's longer
form of the quotation and the confusion in Barn and LXX over the
reading <gk>PHGH\N U(/DATOS ZW=SAN</>. 

     \2/Where Barn has "my holy mount Sinai," the LXX and MT
refer to <em>, and do not call it "holy."  See this writer's
"Barnabas' Isaiah Text," pp. 346-48, for a more detailed
discussion of this composite quotation and its relationship to
the source problem.  See also Hatch, <tm>Essays</>, pp. 208f; O.
Michel, <gm-tm>Paulus und seine Bibel</> (1929), pp. 37-39;
<lt>et al</>. 


                         <text>TEXT IX</> 

[[col. 1]] 
<lt>Dicit ergo 
  p_(ro)pheta SIC 
horruit celu-(m) 
et in hoc 
quia duo 
fe-c-(it) populus hic
me derelinquerunt
  fontem aq(uae)
et foderunt sibi 
qui non possunt
  aqua-(m) portare: 
{@@RAK--  Please note that I used a ":" to indicate a dot in the
middle of a line.  es} 

Numquid petre 
est mons 
s-(an)c-(tu)s- meus
eritis enim

[[col. 2]] 

   <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 11:2-3</></>

2  <gk>LE/GEI GA\R</> (/<gk>OU)=N</>, G) 
     <gk>O( PROFH/THS: 
   KAI\ E)PI\ TOU/TW|</> 
     (+<gk.PLE</>(<gk>I=</>)<gk>ON</>, SH) 
       {<gk>FRICA/TW</> (SG)    }
       {<gk>FRI/CON</> (H)      }  <gk>H( GH=</> 
{@@RAK--  Do you want the brackets to connect the previous 2 or 3 lines?  es} 

   <gk>O(/TI DU/O</> (+MEGA/LA</>, G) 
     <gk>KAI\ PONHRA\ 
   E)ME\ E)GKATE/L</>(<gk>E</>)<gk>IPON 
     PHGH\N</> (+<gk>U(/DATOS</>, H)
       {<gk>ZW=SAN</>  (HG) 
       {<gk>ZWH=S</>  (S) 
     {<gk>BO/QRON QANA/TOU</> (SH) 
        SUNTETRIMME/NOUS</>  (G) 

3  <gk>MH\ PE/TRA Q)/RHMO/S 
     TO\ A(/GIO/N MOU S</>(<gk>E</>)<gk>INA=</>; 
   <gk>E)/SESQE GA\R 
   W(S PETEINOU= N</>(<gk>E</>)OSSOI\
     {<gk>A)NIPTA/MENOI</> (SHG\rell/) 
     {<gk>A)NISTA/MENOI</> (G\b*cn/) 
                    {<gk>A)FH|RHME/NHS</> (G) 
   <gk>NOSSIA=S</>  {<gk>A)FH|RHME/NOI</> (SH) 

[[col. 3]] 
   <ts><u-col>LXX-Ziegler Jer 2:12-13</></>

     E)PI\ TOU/TW| 




     U(/DWR SUNE/XEIN</> 

   <ts><u-col>LXX-Ziegler Isa 16:1-2</></> 

     E)PI\ TH\N GH=N: 
   <gk>E)/SH| GA\R 




[[Section of text at the bottom of the page]] 
<ts><u-col>JM, D 114:5</></> 

  MH\ E)/RHMON H)=| @@OU(= E)STI TO\ O)/ROS SIW/N</>; <gk>O(/TI


     Although Ps-Barn does not elaborate on how this passage
refers to baptism, JM also applies Jer 2:23 in that context. 
  <qu>For neither do we accept that useless baptism of cisterns
  (<gk>LA/KKWN</>), for it contributes (<gk>E)STI</>) nothing to this
  baptism of life!  Wherefore also God cried out that
    You forsook him, the living fount, and dug for yourselves
    broken cisterns which cannot hold water.</>\3/ 

The contrast here between living (running) water and cistern
water also may have had an influence on the formulation of
preferred baptismal practice in the early church (see, for
example, Did 7:1). 

     \3/D 19:2.  See also 14:1 ("we have made known @@that that
baptism which he announced before ... is the water of life, but
the cisterns which you dug for yourselves are broken and have no
value for you"); compare 29:1 and 140:1f. 

{@@RAK-- Please verify that "that" occurs twice in the text.  es} 


     Philo introduces Jer 2:134 into his discussion of the
meaning of "spring" (<gk>PHGH/</>) in <ts>Fuga</> 117-202.  He
finds that scripture uses the word in many senses:  (1)  of mind
(<gk>NOU=S</>), (2)  of education and reason, (3)  of the bad
disposition, (4) of the good disposition, and (5) of the maker
and Father of the whole (177).  It is in the final sense that Jer
2:13 uses "spring," for "God alone is cause of soul and life, and
especially rational soul and the life which accords with
practical wisdom" (197f).  The impious flee from him and dig for
themselves by elevating their own deeds above God's gifts -- they
dig cisterns which must be filled from outside through
instruction,\4/ rather than self-filling wells (<gk>FRE/ATA</>)
[[225]] which are supplied by reason, but their capacity to hold
teachings is faulty (="broken cisterns," 199-201). 


     \4/See also JM, D 140:1f, where the broken cisterns are
compared to the misleading doctrines of Jewish teachers,
especially the idea that the Kingdom comes to Abraham's fleshly
descendants regardless of their conduct. 


     In later Christianity the "broken cisterns" came to
symbolize the stagnant religion of gnostic schismatics (Iren, AH
III:24:1 [=38:1]) or heretics in general (Lact, <ts>Div Inst</>
IV:30), as well as the Jewish religion in particular (Cl.A,
<ts>Paed</> I:(9):78; Tert, AJ 13:13-15), which cannot hold the
Spirit.  Cyp even applied it to the baptism by heretical groups,
which accumulates rather than removes filth and sin (<ts>Cath
Eccl Un</> 11 and <ts>Ep</> 70:1). 

     Little more can be said about the position of Barn 11:2f in
relationship to these uses of Jer 2:13 than that JM and Ps-Barn
presuppose a common source in which Isa 16:1 already was quoted
in composition with Jer 2:12f and where at least the latter
passage was applied to baptism.  Whether or not such a source
derives directly from Jewish interpretations cannot be determined
with assurance.  The significance which some parts of late
Judaism attached to ritual washings (e.g. Qumran  --  note the
many cisterns) well could have played a part in discussions about
Jer 2:13 in relationship to true Israel in general (compare
Philo) and baptism in particular.  Notice that Isa 16:1f does not
reappear again in preserved Christian [[226]] writings until the
great commentaries such as Hi (where MT, not LXX is

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Note Hipp, <ts>Anti X</> 55, where the eschat. deceiver leads the
<gk>@@NEOSSOI/</> astray so that they follow him as God but later,
                             A)LHQINO\N PATE/RA</>. 
                           {<gk>PLANON</>  } 


     \5/See this writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah Text," p. 347 n. 82. 


     The quotations (or one composite quotation?) from Isa 45:2-
31, 33:16a, 33:16b-17a, and 33:18a in Barn 11:4-5 differ little
from LXX MSS (except in trsps and abbreviation).\6/  The argument
for which they are introduced centers in the reference to <gk>TO\
U(/DWR AU)TOU= PISTO/N</> but also plays on the contrast between
the <gk>PE/TRA A)/RHMOS</> of Isa 16:1 (Barn 11:3) and the
<gk>PE/TRA I)SXURO/S</> of Isa 33:16a (Barn 11:5).  The Jews
build a waterless stronghold for themselves and flutter aimlessly
about, but the Lord, the strong rock, overcomes the believer's
obstacles and leads him into the hidden ("gnostic") treasures,
into a secure and well-watered habitation where he beholds the
glorious King and mediates on him. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Note striking resemblance of sequence of thought here to the
ideas of @@Merkabah Mysticism in the @@Hekhaloth literature on
the ascent ('descent") through the gates to the palace, etc.  At
the 6\th/ gate there is danger of mistaking the marble plates of
the palace for water, & thus revealing that one is not yet worthy
to see the King in his beauty!  cf Scholem, <tm>Trends</> (1955),
52f.  } 


     \6/The most significant differences in Isa 45:2 are (1) 
Barn\SH/ have <gk>KAI\ PU/LAS</> where almost all LXX MSS have
<gk>QU/RAS</> (MS 407 has <gk>PU/LAS</>, see Ps 106:16;
Barn\G/(L?) and Eus have <gk>KAI\ QU/RAS</>); (2)  Barn has
<gk>GNW=SIN</> (so Cl.A) where LXX MSS have <gk>GNW=|S</> (or
similarly in 2nd pers.).  In Isa 33:16a, Barn has <gk>KAI|
KATOIKH/SEIS</> (L, "<lt>inhabitans</>") where LXX MSS read
<gk>OU(=TOS OI)KH/SEI</> (or similarly).  In Isa 33:18, Barn\Gk/
adds <gk>KURI/OU</> after <gk>FO/BON</> (so LXX A-26, 88, 538;
Sah, Fay, JM).  Notice that the Isaiah phrases are not separated
in Barn by real formulae (except for Barn\G/, <gk>EI)=TA
TI/LE/GEI E)N TW=| UI(W=|</> before Isa 33:16b-17a), but possibly
by <gk>KAI/</>. 


     The final words from Isa 33:18b, <gk>MELETH/SEI FO/BON
KURI/OU</>, act as a catch-phrase to introduce Ps 1:3-6 into the
discussion.  Ps 1:2 reads <gk>E)N TW=| NO/MW| KURI/OU</>...
<gk>MELETH/SEI H(ME/RAS [[227]] KAI\ NUKTO/S</>, and its
admonition was embraced closely by both Rabbinic and sectarian
Judaism, where such study of Torah was the key to divine
treasures.  Thus the transition phrase, <gk>O( TAU=TA POIW=N</>
which is embedded in the opening words of Ps 1:3 <lt>apud</> Barn
11:6,\7/ refers to the <gk>MAKA/RIOS A)NH/R</> of Ps 1:1, as is
attested by the subsequent midrash in Barn 11:8 (<gk>MAKARI/OI
OI(...</>).  The present form of the Epistle never quotes Ps
1:2@@, and Ps 1:1 is used in an entirely different connection in
10:10 (see above, pp. 217ff); nevertheless, the tradition
reflected in Barn 11-6-8 presupposes a midrash on the entire


     \7/Apart from this transitional phrase, Barn's form of Ps
1:3-6 significantly differs from LXX only in reading <gk>TA\
FU/LLA</> instead of the singular, <gk>@@TO\S FU/LLON</>  -- 
indeed, the lemma in Barn\Gk/ 11:6 has the singular, but L's
"<lt>folia</>" in this passage is shown to be correct by the use
of the plural in all MSS of the 11:8 interpretation (see also LXX
MS 277 [<gk>TW=N FU/LLWN</>] and Orig\L/). 


     <h1>Midrash on Water and Wood</>.  --  An analysis of
<ts>Strom</> II:(15):67f (partly quoted above, pp. 213f), led
Bousset to conclude that Cl.A here used a ready-made explanation
of Ps 1 which was handed down in his school tradition.\8/  It is
certainly true that Ps 1 was very popular in Cl.A and that he
knew several different ways to interpret it. 


     \8/<tm>Schulbetrieb</>, p. 162:  "<gm>Dies ganze Verfahren
des Clemens findet nur dann seine Erklaerung, wenn sic annehmen
duerfen, dass er an dieser Stelle eine ihm fertig vorliegende
Erklaerung des ersten Psalms in den Zusammenhang einfuegt</>." 


     For example, in <ts>Paed</> I:(10):92:1f, the Psalm is used
as [[228]] an example of the paedagogue's parenesis by means of

  And blessed is that one, he says through David, who sins not;
  and he shall be as the tree planted ... (Ps 1:3f).\9/</> 

<ts>Paed</> III:(12):87 is a similar passage in which the
paedagogue distinguishes the two <gk>O(DOU/S</> -- of salvation
and error:\10/ 

  The Lord knows <gk>O(DO\N DIKAI/WN</>, and <gk>O(DO\S A)SEBW=N</>
    will perish. 
  Follow, then, o child, the <gk>A)GAQHN @@O(DO/N</>, which I will
  exegete to you; lend me ears which are ready to hear 
  and I will give you dark treasures, hidden, unseen by
  the gentiles/nations but seen by us ....  </> 

Again, in <ts>Strom</> IV:(18):117:2f, the angels help a man who
is filled with "gnosis" and righteous works to achieve the vision
of God,

  blessing the man together with his work. 
    And his leaf shall not wither -- 
  of the living tree, which is nourished by the streams of 
  water.  And the righteous one is compared to fruit-bearing
  trees ....  </>

In fact, immediately after the explanation of the food laws in
<ts>Strom</> II:68 (above, p. 214), this passage is found: 

  Thus, the prophet rightly says: 
    Not so, he says, are the impious ... [etc. as in Ps 1:4] 
    For this reason the impious will not stand in judgment --
    they already have been judged since he who does not believe
    is judged already -- \11/
      Nor sinners in the counsel of the righteous --
    they already have been sentenced ... --
      Because the Lord knows ... [etc. as in Ps 1:6].</> 


     \9/In the subsequent interpretation of the quotation, "his
leaf shall not wither"=resurrection, and the blessing of the
Psalm is fulfilled in the prosperity of the righteous man, while
the removal of the impious (Ps 1:4) is intended as a deterrent to

    \10/See also <ts>Strom</> IV:(24):154:4, VI:(14):111:2, and
VII:(18):110:3  --  the unbelievers are like the chaff driven
from the ground (compare Isa 40:15). 

    \11/@@Jn 3:18 this same interpretation is found also in Cyp,
<ts>Test</> III:31.  Notice that for Barn 10:10, the "impious" of
Ps 1=the fish (above, p. 218), and in 10:5, the men who are like
fish "already have been judged" (above, p. 210)!  Certainly here
is strong evidence that a traditional exegesis of Ps 1 lies in
the background which is common to Barn and Cl.A. 


     It is necessary here to note in detail how Barn 11 moves
from from Ps 1:3-6 into a larger exposition: 

{@@RAK-- I used the symbol "*" to indicate a dot in the middle of
the line.  I did not use ":" because that already appears in the text.  es} 

  6    [Ps 1:3-6 quoted] 
  8  Perceive how he designated the water and the cross
     together, for he says thus: 
       Blessed are those who, having hoped in the cross, 
       descend into the water.   
       Because the reward, he says, in 'in his time' 
       At that time (<gk>TO/TE</>), he says, I will repay* 
     On the other hand, what does he say now (<gk>NU=N</>)? 
       'The leaves will not wither*' 
     This he says, 
       that every word which departs from you (pl.)
       through your mouth in faith and love, 
       shall be for conversion and hope\12/ of many. 
  9  And again another prophet says: 
       And the land of Jacob was praised above every land. 
     He says this: 
       He glorifies the vessel of his spirit.\13/ 
 10  What then does he say?  
       And there was a river flowing from the right hand,
       and beautiful trees came up from it,
       and whoever should eat from them will live forever. 
 11  This he says, 
       that we, on the one hand, descend into the water
       bearing sins and pollution, 
       and we come up bearing fruit in the heart, having 
       in the spirit the fear and hope in Jesus.\14/ 
       'And whoever should eat from these, 
       shall live forever' --
     This he says: 
       Whoever, he says, should hear these ones speaking 
       and should believe, will live forever.\15/</> 


    \12/L has here what may be more original to the tradition,
"<lt>erit in spem et resurrectionem multis</>." 

    \13/Cl.A, <ts>Strom</> III:(12):86:2, quotes this verse
(without mentioning Barn) in a totally different context
concerning the merits of celibacy, but with direct reference to
seeking spiritual rather than physical treasurers.  Thus it may
be that the "praised land" was a symbol of the "new creation" or
"gnostic" perfection in the Alexandrian tradition. 

    \14/L has "<lt>in deum</>." 

    \15/L lacks the final interpretation (through haplography in
its Greek <ts>Vorlage</>?). 


     For Ps-Barn, the <gk>CU/LON </> is the <gk>STAURO/N</>;\16/
the <gk>U(/DWR</> is baptism; the <gk>KARPO\N AU)TOU=</>
signifies the <gk>MISQO/N</> (resurrection?) which believers will
receive "then" (at the eschatological consummation?); the
<gk>FU/LLA</> are the believers' {@@RAK note:  Lord's ??} words
which <em>now</> lead other to life.\17/  The subsequent
quotations provide further commentary on the picture of ever
fruitful trees [[231]] (<gk>DE/NDRA</>) which produce life.  The
"praised land is the "vessel of his spirit" (Jesus in flesh
and/or the new creation; see 7:3, compare 21:8), probably by way
of contrast to the "suffering land" of Barn 6:9.  The description
of this "praised land" seems to be continued in 11:10, where its
fruitfulness (trees bearing fruit=Christians) is emphasized. 


    \16/On <gk>CU/LON</> = <gk>STAURO/S</>, see also Barn 5:13,
8:1,5(!); 12:1,7; compare JM, D 86.  One of the classic passages
used by early Christian fathers in this respect was Ps 95(96):10
with the inclusion of <gk>A)PO\ TOU= CU/LOU</> after <gk>O(
KU/RIOS E)BASI/LEUSEN</>.  Possibly Barn 8:5 alludes to this
passage, while JM (Ap 41:4, D 73:1), Tert (AM III:19, AJ 10 and
13), Ambrose, Aug, Leo, Greg Max, etc. repeat it.  It is also
found in a few LXX witnesses (MSS 1093, R\L/; Bo, Sah).  Note
that in Tert, <ts>Psenetentia</> 4:3 (compare AM II:19), the
believer also is likened to the tree of Ps 1:3 (<gk>CU/LON</>). 
JM, D 86:1, interprets the tree of life (in paradise) as meaning
the crucified Christ who returns in glory, and sees in the tree
of Ps 1:3 a reference to the righteous one (D 86:4); in 86:6, he
also speaks of the water and wood together.  Meth, <ts>Symp</>
IX:(3):246, equates the tree of Ps 1:3 with wisdom (see Prov

    \17/Compare the Rabbinical interpretation in <ts>Sukka</>
21b, where the non-withering leaf of Ps 1 is the casual
conversation of scholars!  {@@RAK addition:  cf. G. Thom 19
(84:17ff).  Jesus said.  Blessed is he who was before he came
into being.  If you become disciples to me and hear my words,
these stones will minister to you.  For you have 5 trees in
Paradise, which are unmoved in summer or winter and their leaves
do not fall.  Whoever knows them will not taste death.  } 


     The resemblance between this material and the section of
Barn 6 which dealt with the "good land" (above, pp. 159-69) is
striking, and suggests the same sort of "gnostic"-apocalyptic
source behind both passages.  It is possible that also in Barn
11, themes from the creation story (trees and river, food of
life) and entering the promised land (land of Jacob, descent and
ascent from the water) are the framework of the tradition.  The
use to which this material is put in Barn clearly is Christian,
but this does not immediately indicate whence it originated.\18/ 


    \18/B. Violet, <tm>Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch</>
(GCS, 1924), pp. xcii and 297 suggests (following F. Perles) that
II Baruch VI:10:7 (=61:7) is quoted by Barn 11:9.  The passages
are too dissimilar to support this contention, although a common
tradition may lie behind them both.  II @@Bar 61:7 (<lt>apud</>
Charles) concerns the interpretion of the vision of the 6th
bright waters (=the era of David and Solomon) which come from the
cloud with both bright and black waters (=periods of Jewish
<gm>Heilsgeschichte</>) and reads as follows: 
  And the land was then (under Solomon) beloved 
  and because its inhabitants sinned not 
  it was glorified beyond all lands 
  And the city Zion ruled then over all lands and regions.  </> 

Compare also Zeph 3:19 (eschatological restitution) and Ezek
20:6,15 (the glorious promised land). 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

[already on p. 15  ]  } 



     <h1>Concerning the Cross</>  --  When in 12:1, Ps-Barn turns
to the predictions of the cross itself, he does not immediately
depart from his apocalyptic source: 

  <qu>Similarly again he singles out the cross, @@saying in
  another prophet: 
    And when will  these things happen?  Says the Lord.\19/ 
    When a tree (<gk>CU/LON</>) falls and rises,
    And when blood drips from a tree.</> 

{@@RAK-- "saying" is circled with an "x" written above it.  es} 

Almost exactly the same quotation in found in Ps-Greg 7, and
similar phrases occur in late Jewish and early Christian
literature.\20/  The passage has been discussed much in the
commentaries and elsewhere, but no satisfactory explanation as to
its origin has been suggested.\21/  In the OT, probably Job 14:7-
14 and Hab 2:11 are closest to the quotation, but they are not
very close.  Its original setting seems to have been a context
concerning the signs of the end-time, which also was used by the
author of IV Ezra. 


    \19/L seems to make this into two quotations (perhaps
correctly, see Windisch, p. 369) by reading "<lt>et dixit
dominus</>" (<gk>KAI\ @@EI)=PEN KU/RIOS</>) here. 

    \20/IV Ezra 4:33 (=I:11:1)  --  "<lt>usquequo et quando
haec</>?"; 5:5(=I:13:9)  --  "<lt>et de ligno sanguis
stillabit</>"; Slavonic <ts>Ladder of Jacob</> 7 (James, <tm>Lost
Apocrypha</>, p. 101)  --  "a tree felled by the axe shall drip
blood" (as a sign of the coming of the promised one); Ps-Hi,
<ts>Comm in Mk</> 15:33  --  "<lt>hic stillavit sanguis de
ligno</>"; compare Sib Or III:804 and 683. 

    \21/See especially Hilgenfeld and Windisch; other noteworthy
discussions include J.R. Harris, <tm>The Rest of the Words of
Baruch</> (1889), pp. 42-46; M.R. James, "Introduction" in R.L.
Bensly's ed of IV Ezra, pp. xxviiif. 


     In Barn 12:2-3, however, Ps-Barn returns again to the
[[233]] history of Israel where he finds a type of the cross in
Moses' outstretched hands during the battle between
<gk>I)HSOU=S</> and Amalek (see Ex 17:8ff).  In fact, the
remainder of ch. 12 centers in the figures of Moses and
Jesus/Joshua, with supplementary proofs from Isaiah and Psalms
added to the argument.  Although it would be interesting to
examine tin detail the ways in which the Pentateuchal material
found in Barn 12 is used in Jewish and Christian sources,\22/ we
must content ourselves here with describing the peculiar features
in the Barnabean presentation and showing their implications for
the investigation of Barn's sources.\23/ 


    \22/For preliminary studies in this vein, see Wallach,
"Origin of Testimonia Biblica," pp. 131ff; and T.W. Manson, "The
Argument from Prophecy," JTS 46 (1945), pp. 130ff. 

    \23/Actually, Barn 12:2, 5-7, 8-9 present a good deal of
(narrative) material which is not formally quoted in the same
manner as is usual in the Epistle, and yet which must be treated
in connection with the more formal quotations. 


     According to Ex @@17:3-14, Moses instructed <gk>I)HSOU=S</>
to choose out men for battle against Amalek, Israel's attacker. 
Meanwhile Moses took the rod of the Lord in hand and, with Aaron
and Hur, ascended a hill overlooking the battlefield.  When Moses
held up his hands, Israel prevailed, but when his hands came
down, the opposite.  When Moses tired, Aaron and Hur placed a
stone for him to sit upon, and supported his hands until sunset,
with the result that <gk>I)HSOU=S</> was [[234]] victorious. 
Thereupon the Lord commanded Moses to write in a book and
rehearse to <gk>I)HSOU=S</> that Amalek will be utterly blotted

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

J. Smit Sibinga, <tm>The OT Txt of J.M I:Pent</> (1963), p 134 
"According to Ex 17:11 MT Moses held up 'his hand,' i.e. one hand
[\4/See EX 17:9, 16 <@@lang?>T'</> ....]  But the context (v. 12)
and the ancient versions [\5/Sam., LXX, Syr, Targ. Onk., Targ.
Jesus {@@RAK addition:  I. } II, Vulg] mention his hands, i.e.
both his hands.  According to Targ. Jesus I and II the gesture
indicates that Moses is praying [\6/See also Targ. Jesus II Ex
17:12], for which <gk>@@E)KPETA/Z EIN TA\S XEI=RAS</> [cf JM, D
90:4  --  under discussion] is a normal expression [\7/Cf. Ex
9:29, 33:  Targ Onk and Targ. Jer. I add <hb>Hebrew text</>; and
see 2 Esr 9:5; Ecclus 48:20.]  Again it appears that the
Christian midrashic tradition on which Justin depends is closely
related to the Targums."  [But cf also Philo, <lt>etc</> !! ]  } 

     The passage is loaded with potential Christian types:  Moses
takes <gk>H( R(A/BDOS TOU= QEOU=</>\24/ in his hand, sits upon a
<gk>LI/QOS</>,\25/ stretches out his hands;\26/ <gk>I)HSOU=S</>
fights and conquers "by a hidden hand" (v. 16);\27/ after the
victory a secret book is given to <gk>I)HSOU=S</> concerning the
final annihilation of Amalek.  We find, as the notes show, that
many of the early fathers capitalized on these details.  The
[[235]] generalized application seems to be that Jesus secretly
conquered his spiritual adversaries on the cross, and openly will
be victorious over all foes in the last times. 


    \24/<gk>R(A/BDOS</> is used as a Christological title by JM
(D 100:4, 126:1, see also 86), although his appeal never is to
this incident but to Isa 11:1 (D 86:4, 87:2; see also Ps 44(45):7
in D 38:4, 56:14, 63:4) and (in D 86) to Moses' rod in Ex 4:17,
14:16, 17:5f (Nu 20:8); Jacob's rod(s) in Gen 30:37f and 32:10;
Aaron's rod in Nu 17:8(23); and David's rod in Ps 22(23):4.  In
Ap 45:3, the "rod of power" in Ps 109(110):2 is the apostolic
logos of power.  Compare Sib Or VIII:251ff. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  8:251  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

In Samaritan eschat., the @@Ta'eb has Moses' Rod as proof of
messiahship when he returns @@~ cf @@Gosher <ts>Aeatir</>.  } 

    \25/On <gk>LI/QOS</> as a Christological title, see above,
pp. 155f. 

    \26/This is the most widely used type found here.  In
addition to Barn, see JM, D 90:4, 111:1, etc.; Iren, AH
IV:24:1[=38:1], 33:1[=50], AP 46b; Tert, AM III:18=AJ 10; Cyp,
<ts>Test</> II:21, Ad Fortun 8; T-A (pp. 79f). 

    \27/JM makes much of this in D 49:8  --  in the crucifixion
Christ fought the battle with the demonic powers (=Amalek; see
also Cyp, <ts>Ad Fortun</> 8; Tht, <ts>QuEx</> 34; and T-A [pp.
79f, where Amalek is both devil and antichrist]) "with a hidden
hand" (compare D 131:4f).  See also Iren, AH III:16:4 [=17:4]  -- 
"<lt>absconda manu expugnabat dominus Amalech</>" (compare the
passages from Iren cited in the preceding note); Tert, AM
III:18=AJ 10  --  "<lt>dimicaturi quandoque adversus
diabolum</>"; Archelaus, <ts>Disp cum Manes</> 44b (PG 10, col.

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

<ts>T. Reuben</> 6:12 <ts>Add Slav.</> on the "seen + unseen wars" of the
Messiah of Judah  -- 



     Jewish sources attest {@@to?} the fact that the battle with
Amalek also was a point of discussion among pre-Christian
exegetes.  In the Rabbinical materials, Amalek comes to symbolize
the enemies of Israel in general, and Rome and Haman in
particular (Ex 17:8 ff was read annually at the Feast of Purim at
an early period).\28/  God would completely blot out Amalek both
from this world and the next,\29/ by the hand of a descendent of
Joseph through Ephraim.\30/  The Rabbis even [[236]] speculated
about the stone (rather than cushion) on which Moses sat, which
they took to signify his sharing the distress of Israel.\31/ 
More important, however, is the symbolism attributed to Moses'
outstretched hands in <ts>Mekilta:  Amalek</> 1: 

  <qu>When Moses raised his hands toward heaven, it meant
  that Israel would be strong in the words of the Torah, 
  to be given through Moses' hands.  And when he lowered 
  his hands, it meant that Israel would lower their zeal 
  for the words of the Torah to be given through his hands.</>  
                                                     (p. 144)


    \28/On this purim lection, see <ts>Megillah</> Mishnah
3:6=30b (p. 187).  Amalek is represented by Haman in <ts>LamR</>
9 (to 3:66, p. 213) and <ts>EsthR</> 10:13 (p. 122); for
Amalek=Rome, see Kohler, "Amalek," <te>Jewish Encyc</> I (1901),
p. 483; Amalek represents chastisement on Israel in <ts>NumR</>
16:18 (see also <ts>ExR</> 26 [pp. 317ff]), and human pride in
13:3.  The Rabbinic sources also emphasize that Amalek's was a
sneak-attack on a weary people (so Deut 25:17). 

    \29/For example, <ts>Mekilta:Amalek</> 2 (p. 160), <ts>ExR
27:6 (p. 325), and <ts>LamR</> 9 (to 3:66, p. 213).  Compare
Josephus, Antiq III:(2:4):56  --  <gk>U(PH=RCE D AU)TOI=S OU)K
(see also III:60). 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Also Joseph. Ant IV:8  (44)  } 

    \30/For example, <ts>GenR</> 75:12 (p. 698f); <ts>NumR</>
1:12 (p. 19).  Joshua was from Ephraim according to Nu 13:8 (this
is emphasized when Josephus tells of the battle with Amalek in
<ts>Antiq</> III:49).  It may well be that there once was a link
between this idea of the ultimate defeat of Amalek and the idea
of Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim (=<gk>I)HSOU=S</>?) who dies. 
Notice that in IV Ezra 7:28f, which also speaks of a dying
Messiah, the Latin text even has "<lt>filius meus Iesus</>,"
which is considered by the commentators to be a Christian
substitution for "<@@lang?>Messiah</>" (so v. 29 in most texts),
but it could also reflect Jewish speculation on the second
Joshua=Messiah ben Ephraim, who overcomes Amalek at the last. 
For literature on the dying Messiah, see most recently S.
Hurwitz, <tm-gm>Die Gestalt des Sterbenden Messias</> (1958);
C.C. Torrey, "The Messiah son of Ephriam," JBL 66 (1947), pp.
253-77; G. H. Dix, "The Messiah ben Joseph," JTS 27 (1926), pp.
130-43.  The classic work on the subject is G.H. Dalman, <ts-
gm>Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im erster
nachchristlichen Jahrtausend</> (1888).  Notice also that the
text usually applied to the dying Messiah by Judaism, Deut 33:16f
(see Torrey's article), is applied to the cross by JM, D 91, in
the same context in which the defeat of Amalek is mentioned (and
the serpent in the wilderness, see below).  Barn 13:4ff also
exalts the typological role of Ephraim in <gm>>Heilsgeschichte</>
(see below, pp. 247ff). 

    \31/<ts>Mekilta:  Amalek</> 1 (p. 45), <ts>Ta'anith</> 11a
(p. 48).  <ts>Berakoth</> 54a-b (pp. 530f) says that the
Israelite should give thanks to God whenever he sees this stone. 
Josephus does not mention the stone in narrating the story of the
battle (<ts>Antiq</> III:53), nor does Philo (see below, n. 33). 


     Philo's interpretation is, of course, more psychological. 
Amalek is the "devourer" of people=passion, and will be blotted
out to minds which are lifted up (as Moses lifted his hands).\32/ 
Elsewhere, Philo elaborates on the symbolical significance of
Moses raising and lowering his hands, which [[237]] indicates the
two kinds of people, earthly and heavnely.\33/ 


    \32/<ts>Leg Alleg</> III:186f.  See also <ts>Migr Abr</> 143f
on Amalek as he who "lies in ambush" and cuts off people. 

    \33/<ts>Vita Mos</> I:216-18.  Moses' hands became
successively lighter until they lost all weight and remained in
the air.  Neither the stone nor Aaron and Hur enter Philo's


     Barn 12 narrates the story of Moses' uplifted hands with a
similar emphasis  --  "if they will not hope <gk>E)P' AU)TW=|</>,
they will be engaged in a battle forever" (v. 2a), "so that they
might know that they cannot be saved unless they hope <gk>E)P'
AU)TW=|</>" (v. 3).  Nowhere does Ps-Barn refer to Moses' hands
being supported or to Israel winning the victory.  He is
emphasizing the suffering of <gk>I)HSOU=S</> at this point  -- 
the fact that the battle often turned against him.  For the
present, "hope in him"; in the future there will be victory, when
"the Son of God will cut off from the roots all the house of
Amalek in the last days" (12:9).\34/ 


    \34/After "Son of God" L adds "Jesus."  For later Christian
interpretation, Amalek came to signify demonic powers or the
devil himself, or even the antichrist; see above, n. 27.  Notice
also that in <ts>Test Simeon</> 6:5, Amalek is parallel to
Canaan, the Kittim, etc. as Israel's adversaries who will be
defeated at last (compare Jubilees 24:30-33). 


     The exact wording in which Barn tells of the battle and the
outstretched hands has almost nothing in common with LXX.  Moses
does not sit on a stone, not do Aaron and Hur hold up his hands. 
Instead, "placing one shield upon another in the midst of the
battle and standing elevated over all, Moses stretched out his
hands ...."  Whence the mound of [[238]] shields (<gk>O(/PLON</>
where LXX speaks of the top of a hill  --  <gk>KORUFH\N TOU=
BOUNOU=</>)?\35/  Whence the words of Moses to <gk>I)HSOU=S</> in
v.9 (compare Ex 17:14)?  Once again we seem to meet another
examples of the targumic Pentateuchal source noted elsewhere in
the Epistle (especially 4:7f=14:2f; 6:8ff; chs. 7-8 and 10). 


    \35/Notice a similar oddity in the version of the story in T-A
(p. 80), where stones are piled under the hands of Moses for


     After supplementing the cross typology of Ex 17:8ff with an
obvious parallel from Isa 65:2 (basically LXX\36/), Barn turns to
the "serpent in the wilderness" type (Nu 21:6ff).\37/  The way in
which both of these events from Moses' ministry also are
juxtaposed and interpreted in the earliest Rabbinic sources
suggests that even in its general arrangement, Barn [[239]] 12:2-
7 rests on an older tradition.\38/ 
  <u-col>                                  <u-col> 
  <ts>Rosh Ha-Shanah Mishnah 3:8=291</></> <ts>Mekilta:Amalek 1</></>  
    [Quotation from Ex 17:11]                [Quotation from Ex 17:11] 
  <qu>                                     <qu> 
  Now did the hands of Moses               Now, could Moses' hands 
  wage war or break war?                   make Israel victorious or could 
                                           his hands break Amalek? 
  Not so ...                               It merely means this: 
  So long as Israel                        When Moses raised his hands 
  turned their thoughts above              toward heaven, the Israelites 
  and subjected their hearts               would look at him and believe 
  to their Father in heaven,               in Him who commanded Moses
                                           to do so; 
  they prevailed,                          then God would perform for them 
                                           miracles and mighty deeds.  
  but otherwise they fell. 
    [Quotation from Num 21:8]              Similar to this:  [Num 21:8]... 
  Now did the serpent kill                 Now could that serpent kill 
  or did the serpent keep alive?           or make alive?  
  No.                                      It merely means this: 
  When Israel                              When Moses did so,
  turned their thoughts above              the Israelites
  and subjected their hearts               would look at him and believe 
  to the Father in heaven,                 in Him who commanded Moses
                                           to do so; 
                                           then God would
  they were healed,                        send them healing.  
  but otherwise they pined away.                                (pp. 143f)</> 
                        (pp. 133f)</> 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

on the "outstretched hands" = cross,
cf also Odes Sol 27=42:1-3  } 

    \36/Differences from extant LXX MSS include trsps at the beginning of the
quotation (as
in Rom 10:21, under the influence of Ps 87(88):10  --  probably Barn\H/ is
correct in
reading <gk>DIEPE/TASA</> with the Psalm parallel, rather than
<gk>E)CEPE/TA=SA</> [so SGL] with Isa 65:2), and a summary ending of
<gk>O(DW=| DIKAI/A| MOU</>, which has no parallel. 

    \37/Other Christian sources which use the brazen serpent
typology include the Gospel of John, JM, Iren, Tert, Hipp, Ps-
Ign, and some later fathers.  It is strange that, relatively
speaking, such a congenial "proof" is so little used in Christian
"testimony" type literature.  Perhaps this was because of the way
in which Marcion and some Gnostic sects used the passage (saying
Moses was inconsistent, or saying the serpent in paradise was
good; see below), or because of the use of the serpent symbolism
in "pagan" healing cults.  Notice that Cl.A does not mention it
in his extant writings. 

    \38/Wallach, "<tm-lt</>Testimonia Biblica</>," pp. 131ff,
deals with these passages in relation to (1)  Barn 12; (2)  JM, D
111-112; and (3)  Tert, AM III:18=AJ 10.  He thinks that JM and
<ts>Mekilta</> go back to the same tradition, which also included
comments on Ex 12:13 and 23 (sign of the blood on doorposts at
Passover), and that the combination of texts is of hellenistic
Jewish origin.  He sees the Mishnah passage, which certainly is
unrelated to its context (no Gamara is given for it!), as part of
the "silent apologetic challenge" to Christian exegesis, and
finds no reason for seeing any <em>direct</> relationship (as
source to copy) between the various passages. 


     Hellenistic Judaism, as represented by Wisdom 16:5ff, also
interpreted the brass serpent in a manner similar to the Rabbinic

  6  But they were harrassed for a little while as a
     warning, having a symbol of salvation as a reminder 
     of the law's commandment. 
  7  For he who turned was saved not through that which he 
     saw, but through you, the savior of all.</> 

     In Barn, the lesson from the brazen serpent is presented as
follows:  (1)  Moses made another type of <gk>I)HSOU=S</>
<em>suffering and making alive</> (again, not simply a mechanical
representation of the cross) <gk>E)N SHMEI/W|</> when Israel was
falling from serpent bites; (2)  remember that the transgression
came upon Eve through a serpent; (3)  and Moses himself forbad
the making of such images;\39/ (4)  but Moses set up the brazen
serpent; (5)  the people came for help; (6)  Moses instructed
them, when bitten, to hope and believe that the serpent's corpse
<gk>@@E)PI\ TOU= CU/LOU</> is able to make alive; (7)  those who
did this were healed. 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "harrassed" or "harassed?"  es} 


    \39/Despite the definite way in which this "quotation" is
introduced, it has little verbal relation to LXX (compare Lev
26:1 and Deut 27:15)  --  Barn 12:6 reads:  <gk>OU(K @@E)/STAI
lacks the final three words).  Nevertheless, the Alexandrian
catechetical tradition of Cl.A knew similar material:  <gk>OU)
III:(4):37:3, among other ethical injunctions). 


     The contrast between Eve's serpent and Moses' serpent
already had been exploited by the Philonic tradition, where the
former symbolizes pleasure and the latter is the self-mastery
and steadfast endurance of the man of God.\40/  It also [[241]]
would be very unusual if late Jewish exegesis had not already
felt the embarrassment of Moses making an image in direct
defiance of his own laws.  The story of the brazen serpent is one
of the few Pentateuchal narratives "overlooked" by Josephus in
<ts>Antiq</> (another is the golden-calf incident, which also
invites the charge of idolatry).  In fact, one of the Jewish
disputants in JM, D 94:4, complains that "many times I asked the
teachers [about this contradiction] and none gave me any reason,"
and for want of an explanation, the prophetic teachings have been
subjected to ridicule.  The combination of such materials in Barn
12:5-7 (Eve's serpent, Moses' serpent, command against images),
therefore, probably originated in Jewish discussions of Nu
21:8ff, and thence came into Barn's tradition.\41/ 


    \40/<ts>Leg Alleg</> II:71, 77-81; <ts>Agric</> 94-98.  Philo
sees in the <em>brass of Moses' serpent the quality of
<em>strength</>.  Hipp@@, <ts>Ref</> V:16:6-11, says that the
<lang?>Peratae</> Gnostics equated Eve's and Moses' serpent as a
good symbol. 

    \41/See also JM, D 94 and 112 (compare 91:4) where the same
items are connected.  Tert, AM III:18=AJ 10, AM II:22, and
<ts>Idol</> 5, also mentions the prohibition in connection with
Moses' serpent (but does not mention Eve's serpent). 


     As was the case in 12:3, the details of Barn 12:5-7 do not
accord at all points with the Pentateuchal narrative, and seldom
does the wording of Barn agree with the LXX.  Parallel passages
in other early sources show the same tendency:  the sin for which
Israel was being punished was idolatry,\42/ they [[242]] were
bitten by all sorts of poisonous creatures,\43/ the bronze
serpent was set up n the tabernacle\44/ or on a tree,\45/ the
serpents finally died,\46/ and all kinds of bites were
healed.\47/  Thus, once again it seems probable that a long
tradition lies behind the narrative in Barn, which helps account
for those elements which are foreign to the canonical account. 
To Christianize what Judaism had already done with the bronze
serpent episode required little more than applying it to the
specific event of Jesus' passion. 


    \42/Tert, AJ 10 ("<lt>post idololatriam</>"; but not in AM
III:18); in Nu 21:4ff, the people grumble about their food

    \43/JM, Ap 60 (<gk>I)OBO/LA QHRI/A E)/XIDNAI/ TE KAI\
A)SPI/DES KAI\ O)/FEWN PA=N GE/NOS</>); Wisdom 16:5, 9f
(<gk>QHRI/WN ... O)FEWN ... A)KRI/DWN ... MUIW=N ... I)OBO/LWN
DRAKO/NTWN ...</>); compare Iren, AH IF: 2:7[=4:2] and
24:1[=38:1], "<lt>serpentis plaga</>," and Barn 12:5, <gk>PA/NTA
O)/FIN</>.  LXX has simply <gk>TOU\S O)/FEIS</>. 

    \44/JM, Ap 60 (<gk>E)PI\ TH=| A(GI/A| SKHNH=|</>); LXX says
<gk>E)PI\ SHMEI/OU</>. 

    \45/Tert, AM III:18=AJ 10 ("<lt>ligno impositum</>"); Barn
12:7 (<gk>E)PI\ TOU= CU/LOU</>); see also Barn\Gk/ 12:6b
(<gk>E)NDO/CWS</>, compare 16:6) and Rabbinical lore
<lt>apud</>Ginzberg, <tm>Legends</> III, p. 336 (he put it on a
pole and "hurled it on high" where it "remained floating in the
air"; <ts>Sanhedrin</> 110a). 


    \47/Rabbinical lore <lt>apud</> Ginzberg, <tm>Legends</> III,
p. 336, and VI, p. 658f.  There is no mention of these details in
Nu 21:8ff. 


     <h1>Whose Son is Jesus/Joshua</>.  --  The typology drawn
from events in the lives of Moses and Joshua leads to a
digression from the proofs of the cross in Barn 12:8-11.  Early
Christianity frequently appealed to Moses' changing the name of
<gk>AU(SH\ UI(O\S NAUH/</> to <gk>I)HSOU=S</> (Nu 13:8,16) as a
prototype of [[243]] the savior.\48/  JM, D 113:1f, complains
that the Jewish scholars had paid too little attention to this
change, although they quibbled about other minutiae in their
texts (compare Philo, <ts>Mut Nom</> 61!).  For Barn 12:8-10a,
after the change of name Jesus the son of Naue writes in a book
the Lord's message through Moses that Amalek will be defeated in
the last days by Jesus (so Barn\L/) the Son of God (see Ex 17:14
?).\49/  Therefore the eschatological Jesus is not son of man
(Barn\L/, son of Naue), but son of God. 

{@@RAK notes on facing pages: 

1.  Annie Jaubert  Origen's Homilies  (Sources Chre/tiennes 71, 1960) 
    pp 40ff  -- discusses Barn 12:8-10. 

{@@RAK--  I revised "A." to "Annie."  es} 

2.  <u-head>Son of God-Son of Man</> 
Vict Pet <ts>Comm in Rev</> I:2 (to 1:13)  --  cp IV:1 allusion back to this. 

<lt>Quod autem dicit: 

<em>inter medium candelabroriem aureorium ambulantem 
similem filii hominis</> 

"similem" dicit post mortem devictam 
in callis cum ascendisset odunato et isto corpore cum ap-u- glorial 
quam recepit patre 
potest iam quasi filius dei diei 
  non quasi filius hominis 
"ambulans inter m. c. aur." 
id est inter medium ecclesiariem</>. 

3.  J.M.  <ts>D</>.  113:4  -- 





    \48/JM, D 75:1f, 106:3, 113; Iren, Ap 27; Tert, AM III:16=AJ
9 (cited above, p. 169 n. 109); Cl.A, <ts>Paed</> I:(7):60; Lact,
<ts>Div Inst</> IV:17:12; TractOrig 12 (p. 128); etc.  On
<gk>I)HSOU=S</> = savior in hellenistic Judaism see above, p. 165
n. 101. 

    \49/See above, pp. 234ff.  In the apocalyptic tradition
reflected in Assump Moses I:9,16, etc.@@, @@Jesus also receives
books about the last times from Moses. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

<ts>Joshua</>/  } 

{@@RAK --  You underlined "Jesus."  es} 


     This contrast between "son of Naue/man" and "Son of God"
leads Barn to one further question:  what about the Jewish claim
that Messiah would be "son of David?" 

  10b  Since, then, they were about to say that Messiah is 
       son of David, that very David prophesies, fearing and 
       understanding the deceit of the sinners: 
         [Ps 109(110):1 as in LXX] 
  11   And again Isaiah says: 
         [Isa 45:1 in a form close to LXX]\50/ 
       See how David says he s 'Lord,' and does not say 'son.'\51/</> 


    \50/See TEXT X, p. 244, and this writer's "Barnabas' Isaiah
Text," p. 341 n. 35 on the problems here. 

    \51/So HS\*/.  S\c/G have "... 'Lord' and 'Son of God'."  The
confusion arises through the similarity of <gk>QU</> and
<gk>SU</>.  {@@RAK addition:  In fact, S\*/ wrote
<gk>OULEGEI</> which is "corrected" by S\c/ to <gk>QU</> (with
<gk>LEGEI</> marked with signs for deletion) by the simple
addition of the stroke!  }  Barn\L/ has "See how the
<em>prophets</> say he is 'Lord,' not simply 'son'." 



                        <u-text>TEXT X</>



di-x-(it) dn-s-
  dn-o- meo
sede ad
dex tera-(m) mea-(m): 
donec pona-(m) 
  inimicos tuos
  pedibus tuis: 

Et iteru-(m) 
  dicit esaias: 

dicit dn-s- 

  x-p-o- meo dn-o-

cuius tenui 

et virtute-(m) 


   <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 12:10b-11a</></> 

   ... (+<gk>AU)TO\S PROFHTEU/EI</>
     {+ <gk>O(</>, H]  <gk>DABI/D</>, SH) ... 
   ... (+ <gk>LE/GEI</>, G) 

   <gk>EI)=PEN</> (+ <gk>O(</>, HG)  <gk>KU/RIOS 
     TW=| KURI/W| MOU 


   E(/WS A)\N QW= 
     TW=N PODW=N SOU</>. 

11 <gk>KAI\ PA/LIN LE/GEI @@OU(/TWS</> 
     {<gk>H(SAI/AS</>  (SHG\rell/) 
     {<gk>H( BASILEI/AS</>  (G\b/) 

   <gk>@@EI)=PEN KU/RIOS 

     {<gk>TW=| KURI/W| MOU</>  (S\*/H) 
     {<gk>TW=| XRISTW=| MOU KU/RW|</>  (S\c/G\b*f/) 
     {<gk>TW=| XRISTW=| MOU KURI/W|</>  (G\rell/) 

   <gk>@@OU\=</>  {<gk>E)KRA/THSEN</>  (SH) 
                  {<gk>E)KRA/THSA</>  (G) 

   <gk>TH=S</>  (+ <gk>XEI=ROS TH=S</>, S\c/) 
     <gk>DECIA=S AU)TOU= 
     (+ <gk>E)/MPROSQEN</>, S\c/HG)  <gk>AU)TOU= 


<ts><u-col>LXX-Rahlfs Ps 109(110):1</></> 

                 the same 

<ts><u-col>LXX-Ziegler Isa 45:1</></> 

  O( QEO\S 
    TW=| XRISTW=| MOU 




     We will not enter into the much discussed problem of the
relationship between this passage and its Synoptic parallels,\52/
except to say that we find no reason to think that Barn made use
of @@that tradition.  Why Ps-Barn (or his tradition takes such
pains to deal with the "son of David" Christology\53/ is not
entirely clear -- possibly a polemic against Ebionites is
reflected, or perhaps this is confirmation that Barn builds on a
Christology in which Messiah ben Ephraim (= <gk>I)HSOU=S</>) is
the prime figure.  Whatever the rationale behind Barn @@12:10b-
11, the juxtaposition of Ps 109:1 and Isa 45:1 probably is a
traditional feature, as its use in other early fathers

{@@RAK note in text:  our Gospels here.  } 

{@@RAK note in margin:  []?  } 


1.  Do you want this text to replace "that tradition?"
2.  I corrected "Barn 11:10b-11" with "Barn 12:10b-11.' 



    \52/Mk 12:36 and parr (compare Acts 2:35, Heb 1:13); see,
most recently, Koester, <ts>Synopt. Ueberlief.</>, pp. 145f. 

    \53/In this connection, compare Cl.A, <ts>Strom</>
VI:(15):132:4  --  <gk>A)ME/LEI KAI\ TW=N E)PI BOWME/NWN TO\N
also Ps-Clem <ts>Hom</> 18:3 (Windisch, p. 373). 

    \54/See Iren, AP 48f; Tert, <ts>APrax</> 11; Nov, <ts>Trin
26(21); Lact, <ts>Div Inst</> IV:12f; Ps-Greg 16.  Compare
Harris, <ts>Testimonies</> I, p. 37; {@@RAK addition to text: 
see also Klevinghaus, <tm>Theologische Stellung</>, p. 42 n. 1.  } 


                          <ch>Chapter 9 
                  THE PEOPLE OF INHERITANCE </> 

     Barn 13-14 deals once again with the problem of the covenant  -- 
to whom was it promised and how has it been given?  Within these
chapters, the material neatly breaks down into the following

  13:1-6  Two people, the elder and the younger:  
            The children of Isaac and Rebecca [Gen 25:21-23];
            Jacob's blessing on Joseph's sons [Gen 48:9-20]. 
  13:7    The promise to Abraham, father of gentiles/nations.  
  14:1-8  The giving of the covenant:  
            Received by Moses but "they were not worthy";
            We received it from <gk>I)HSOU=S</>, the heir, who
            prepares us as the new people; 
              [Isa 42:6f, with minor variation from LXX]\1/  
              [Isa 49:6f, with minor variation from LXX] 
              [Isa 61:1f, with minor variation from LXX].</> 

     \1/For the textual problem in the arrangement of these
quotations, see below, p. 255.  We have followed the usual order
of HL, but without full conviction.  On the relation of these
Isaiah quotations to the LXX, the following readings in Barn are
the most noteworthy:  (1) <em>in Isa 42:6f</>, <gk>SOU</> after
<gk>QEO/S</> (no other support); (2)  Barn\S/ reads
<gk>I/SXU/SW</> with JM (rell have <gk>E)NISX?</>); (3)  Barn\Gk/
reads <gk>KAI/</> before <gk>E)/DWKA</> with JM, Cyp, MT (rell
lack; Tert has "<lt>ecce</>"); (4)  <gk>KAI/</> before
<gk>E)CA?GA/GEIN</> with MSS 36-130, "<lt>catena</>" group, 403'
and Syp (rell lack); (5)  <gk>PEPEDHME/NOUS</> with JM, Ps-Greg,
Lact, S-T (rell have <gk>DEDEME/NOUS</>); (6)  <em>in Isa
49:6f</>, <gk>LUTRWSA/MENOS</> (rell have <gk>P(USA/MENOS</>, see
below n. 16); (7)  <em>in Isa 61:1f</>, Barn\G/ has
<gk>TAPEINOI=S XA/RIN</> (L=Tert, "<lt>hominibus</>"; H lacks a
few words by <lang?>homoioteleuton</>) where LXX witnesses S\*/,
Q\mg/, Sah, Syh\mg/, and Iren\p/ have <gk>TAPEINOI=S</> (rell
have <gk>PTWXOI=S</>). 


     <h1>The Two People</>.  --  Two relatively lengthy
Pentateuchal contexts, in wording which clearly is related to the
LXX, provide the heart of the argument that the younger people is
heir of the covenant (see TEXTS XI and XII, pp. 248-50): 

  1  But let use see if this people is heir or the former, 
     and if the covenant is for us or for them.  
  2  Therefore hear, concerning the people, what 
     the scripture says: 
       [Gen 25:21-23, abbreviated but basically LXX]\2/
  3  You ought to perceive who Isaac is and who Rebecca is,
     and with reference to whom he had pointed out 
     that this people is greater than that. 
  4  And in another prophecy @@Jacob says more clearly,
     when Jacob says to his son Joseph:  
       [see Gen 48:11a, @@9b, 13-15a, 17-20, with ed comment]\3/ 
@@6  See on whom he placed (it [i.e.{@@,?} his right hand]) -- 
     this people is to be first and heir of the covenant!</> 


1.  "Jacob" is your correction for "he."
2.  Please verify that "9b" is correct and that it isn't "9a." 
3.  Is "6" correct? 



     \2/TEXT XI, p. 248.  Very little of the material in Gen
25:22 (the children struggle in Rebecca's womb) is found in the
quotation, and there is some confusion in Barn where the
transition between Gen 25:21 and 23 is made  --  H has "...and
she did not conceive.  And then Rebecca went out to inquire...";
SG have "...and she conceived.  (And) then..." (as in H); L has
"...and Rebecca inquired from the Lord what she was carrying...." 
Other differences from LXX MSS are minor, such as the use of
<gk>SUNE/LABEN</> (so LXX MSS bw) where most MSS have
<gk>E)/LABEN</>, and <gk>PRO\S AU)TH/N</> where LXX MSS have
<gk>AU)TH=</>.  There is one significant difference from almost
all LXX witnesses, and that is the parallelism 


Most other texts have for the second element 

(so LXX, MT, Barn\L/, Philo [see below]).  The text of Barn\Gk/
here is supported by Iren, AH IV:21:2 [=35:2], "<lt>et duae
gentes in ventre tuo</>," and probably reflects an early Greek OT
variant which has disappeared from the MSS (see also Chr, <ts>Hom
50, in Gen</> 25 [PG 53/54, 447f], <gk>E)N TH= KOILI/A| SOU
DIAST.</>).  {@@RAK addition:  [= MS V]  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

cf now R.A.K.  "A Note on the Oracle of Rebecca (Gen XXV.23),"
JTS 13 (1962), 318-320.  } 

     \3/TEXT XII, pp. 249f.  Much of the phraseology here is
Septuagintal, but the material has been recast with the closing
words from Gen 25:23 conflated into the ending by means of the
<lang?>Stichwort</> <gk>MEI/ZWN</>.  Note that Barn\S/ reverses
the picture and has the blessing fall on Manasseh! 


     The discussion about the elder/greater and younger/lesser
people already was commonplace in Philonic Judaism.  In <ts>Sacr
Abel et Cain</> II:4, Rebecca= <gk>U(POMONH/</>, while the twins
[[251]] struggling in her womb are two natures, <gk>A)GAWO/S</> and
<gk>KAKO/S</>.\4/  When she asked the Lord what her trouble was,
he replied that the two natures "shall be separated" from each
other and virtue would ultimately triumph over evil.\5/  More
significantly, in <ts>Leg Alleg</> III:87-93, Philo interprets
<em>both</> of the "proofs" used by Barn 13, and in the same
order:  Isaac=joy and gladness; Rebecca=the soul that waits on
God; while yet unborn, Jacob=leader and master while Esau=subject
and slave; Ephraim=fuit-bearing and memory;
Manasseh=forgetfulness and (inferior) recollection;
Jacob=overthrower of passions and trained seeker of virtue.\6/ 


     \4/Compare here Rom 9:11, especially the variant reading
<gk>KAKO/N</> in P\46/ <lt>et al</>. 

     \5/The same basic interpretation also is found in <ts>Qu
Gen</> IV:155 and in Ambrose, <ts>Cain et Abel</> I:1:3. 

     \6/Notice how much Philo, like Barn, relies on paraphrase in
narrating the episode in Gen 48. 



                         <text>TEXT XI</> 


si hic popu-l(us)
et test- 
in illis est 
aut in nobis 
de hoc audite
sic scriptum 
Rogabat isaac 
p_(ro) rebecca 
uxore @@sua 
quia sterilis

quaerebar a dn-o 
et dixit 
  illi dn-s-: 
Du(a)e nationes
in utero tuo SUNT
et duo populi ex utero tuo 

et major 
serviet minori: 
qui sit isaac
et qu(a)e
rebecca et qui 
populus minor
  aut major:  </> 

   <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 13:1-3</></>

1  (+ <gk>A)LLA'</>, G)  <gk>I)/DWMEN</>  (+ <gk>DE\</>, SH) 

   <gk>EI) OU(=TOS O( LAO\S</>    {<gk>KLHRONOMEI=</>  (S) 
                                  {<gk>KLHRONOMOS</>  (HG) 
   (+ <gk>H)\</> HG [S\c/]) {<gk>O( PRW=TOS</>  (SG) 
                            {<gk>E)KEI=NOS</>   (H) 
   <gk>KAI\</>  (+ <gk>EI)</>, HG  )  <gk>H( DIAQH/KH 
   EI)S H(MA=S  @@H)\ EI)S E)KEI/NOUS</>; 
2  <gk>AKOU/SATE    {<gk>@@OU)=N</>    (SH)  } 
                    {<gk>NU=N</>      (G)    }  <gk>PERI\ TOU= LAOU=</> 
   <gk>TI/ LE/GEI H( GRAFH/: 

   O(/TI STEI=RA H)=N 

   KAI\</>  (+ <gk>OU)</>, H)  <gk>SUNE/LABEN</> 

   <gk>EI)=TA</>  (+ <gk>KAI\</>, HG) 
     <gk>E)CH=LQEN  P(EBE/KKA 
     PRO\S AU)TH/N: 
   DU/O E)/QNH 
     E)N TH=| GASTRI/ SOU 
     E)N TH=| KOILI/A| SOU</> 

   <gk>KAI\</>  {<gk>LAO\S LAOU= U(P.</>  (HG) 
                {(trsp to 312, S) 
   <gk>KAI\ O( @@MEI?ZWN 

   TI/S O( I)SAA\K</>  (+  <gk>KAI\</>, SH)  <gk>TI/S H( P(EBE/KKA 


   <ts><u-col>LXX-A Gen 25:21-23</>

   <gk>E)DEI=TO DE\ I)SAA\K KURi/OU 
   O(/TI STEI=RA H)=N 
   P(EBE/KKA H( GUNH\ AU)TOU=</>. 
   E)N @@AU)TH=|</>@@. 
   EI)=PEN DE/:  EI) OU(/TWS 
   I(/NA TI/ MOI TOU=TO</>; 
   <gk>E)POREU/QH DE\ 
   DU/O E)/QNH 



                       <u-text>TEXT XII</> 


iose (@@+p,\c/ 
filio suo 

dn-s- non
fraudavit @@me 
ex GENERE twuo 
perduc ad me 
filios tuos
ET b enedica-(m) 
et addu-x-(it) 
et efrem: 
Volens aute-(m)
quia maior 
ad dextera-(m) 
patris SUI: 

Vidit aute-(m) 
iacob in s-p-u-
populi qui 
postea fut-
urus erat
et con-
et trans-
{@@RAK-- Is there a blank line here?  es}  
super caput
et bene- 
dixit illu-(m)</>

   <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 13:4-6</></>

4  <gk>KAI\ E)N A)/LLH| PROFHTEI/A| 
   O( I)AKW\B 
   PRO\S</>  (+<gk>TO\N</>, G)  <gk>I)WSH\F 
   TO\N @@UI(O\N AU)TOU=

     (+ <gk>KAI\ MANASSH/</>, SH) 
   (+ <gk>TO\N MANASSH\</>, HG) 
   <gk>QE/LWN</> (+ <gk>TO\N EPFRA/IM</>, S) 
   <gk>@@I(/NA AU)LOGHQH=|</>  (@@/  -<gk>HSH|</>, S) 
   <gk>O(/TI PRESBU/TEROS @@H)=N 
   O( GA\R I)WSH\F 
     XEI=RA</> (/  -<gk>AN</>, S\*/) 
   <gk>TOU= @@PATRO\S I)AKW/B 

     TW=| {MEI<ATO 
   KAI\ TI/ LE/GEI</>; 

   E)NALLA\C</>  (/  -<gk>CAS</>, S\c/) 
     <gk>TA\S XEI=RAS AU)TOU= 
   KAI\</>  (<gk>E)P</>) <gk>E/QHKEN</> 
   (+  <gk>TH\N DECIA\N</>, SH</>) 
     (+  <gk>AU)TOU=</>, H) 
   <gk>E)PI\ TH\N KEFALH\N</>  {<gk>E)F</>.  (HG) 
                               {<gk>MA</>.  (S) 
{@@RAK--  Do you want a blank line here?  es} 


   <ts><u-col>LXX-A Gen 48:9b-20</></>

   <gk>KAI\ EI)=PEN I)AKW/B: 
10 .... 
   PRO\S I)WSH/F: 
   KAI\ I)DOU\
     AU)TOU\S  I)WSH\F 

   @@OU(=TOS DE\ @@H)=N O( NEW/TEROS 

   KAI\ @@EI)=PEN....</> 


<u-head>TEXT XII</>

<lt>et di-x-(it) 
manu-(m) tua-(m) 
sup_(er) caput 
quia primi-
tius filius
meus est: 
et di-x-(it) 
scio fili scio 


sed et hic 



[[col. 2]] 
   <ts><u-col>Barn\Gk/ 13:4-6</> (cont.)</> 

   <gk>KAI\ EI)=PEN I)WSH\F 
   PRO\S I)AKW/B: 

   E)PI\ TH\N KEFALH\N</>  {<gk>MA</>.  (HG) 
                           {<gk>EF</>.  (S) 
     UI(O/S E)STIN</>  (trsp, G) 
   <gk>KAI\ EI)=PEN I)AKW\B 
   PRO\S I)WSH/F</> (/<gk>I)AKW/B</>, S) 
   <gk>OI)=DA TE/KNON @@OI)=DA 


   O( MEI/ZWN 

   KAI\ OU(=TOS DE\ 


   E)PI\ TI/NWN</>  {<gk>TE/QEIKE</> (HG) 
                    {<gk>E)/OIKEN</> (S) 
     EI)=NAI</>  (G trsp to 1243)  <gk>PRW=TON 


17 <gk>I)DW\N  DE\ I)WSH\F O(/TI 

   TW=| PATRI\ AU)TOU=: 

   A)LLA\ EI)=PEN: 

     O( NEW/TEROS 
   E)N TH=| H(ME/RA| E)KEI/NH| 

[[251, continued]] 

     Philo's interpretation here is less important for our
purposes than his evidence that Gen 25:21ff and 48:9ff already
were treated together in hellenistic Judaism.  Philo uses exactly
the same examples also in <ts>Sobriet</> 26-29, in a discussion
of the relationship between younger and older.\7/  Strangely
enough, these passages are not juxtaposed in early [[252]]
Christian writers other than Barn (compare Heb 11:20f).  Even
Cyp, under the rubric concerning "Duo Populi" (<ts>Test</> I:19)
quotes only Gen 25:23 and Hos 2:23(25), 1:10(2:1); the passage
from Gen 48 occurs in some MSS of Cyp in <ts>Test</> I:21,
concerning Gentile salvation.\8/ 

{RAK notes on facing page: 

1.  Was there any direct connection between this material + the
lost "Prayer of Joseph" (cf James, <ts>Lost Apcry</>, 21ff) which
contained the 'Testament of Jacob' +/ ? 

2.  Gen 48:8-16, 18-19 is expounded by Hipp, <ts>Blessing of
Jacob</> 11f (TU 38:1, 23f) 

<gk>DU/O KLH/SEIS KAI\ DU/O LAOU(S GINOME/NOUS</>  --  younger in faith 
                                                       older in law 

Joseph <gk>MH\ NOH/SAS ... PNEUMATIKW=S TO\ GINOMENON</> + objected 

3.  On the <em>2 people</> see also 5 Ezra <lt>passim</>.  "my
people"/"people to come"  } 

     \7/Philo also quotes from or alludes to the Gen 48 passage
in several other places; see <ts>Leg Alleg</> III:177, <ts>Quod
Deus Sit Immut</> 157, <ts>Conf Ling</> 181, <ts>Fuga</> 67,
<ts>Mut Nom</> 41. 

     \8/In fact, even individually neither Gen 25:21ff not 48:9ff
became very widely used in the early Christian apologetic.  The
former is found only in Iren (in context of Rom 9), Tert, Cyp,
Ps-Cyp, and Hipp of the earliest writings; the latter (mostly
48:15b-16, which is not in Barn) is found in Cyp, Origen, Nov,
and later writers like Hilary, Ath, Chr, Cyr, Tht.  Philo alone
uses each passage almost as frequently as the entire ante-Nicene
Christian tradition now preserved! 


     Apparently the people to whom Ps-Barn wrote were better
instructed in typological interpretation of this sort than are
we, for he assumes that they need no explanation of the Isaac and
Rebecca types.  On the basis of Barn 7:3b, Isaac might signify
the suffering Lord (in contrast to Philo, where he is joy and
gladness!)  --  Ps-Cyp, <ts>De Mont Sina et Sion</> 3, interprets
Gen 25:21ff in this vein, with Rebecca-Church (bride of
Isaac=Christ), and the two people=Church (!) and unbelieving
Jews.  Somewhat more tempting as a clue to Barn's meaning is the
interpretaion of Hipp, where Isaac=God the Father and
Rebecca=Holy Spirit.\9/ In any case, the main point of Ps-Barn
rest on the clear identification of the lesser/younger people
with the Christians as the true heirs, [[253]] and not on such
details as the meaning of Isaac or Rebecca. 

     \9/<lt>Apud</> Hi, <ts-lt>Ep 36 ad Damasum</>.  Notice also
that in <ts>Strom</> IV:(25):160:2, Cl.A equates Rebecca with
<gk>QEOU= DO/CA</>=<gk>A)FQARSI/A</>. 


     <h1>The Covenant with Abraham</>.  --  The argument in Barn
13 is clinched by reference to God's original promises to
believing Abraham: 
  <qu>If, then, yet also through Abraham it was mentioned,\10/
  we fully have the perfection of our "gnosis." 
  What, then, does he say to Abraham when he only, by
  believing, was placed <gk>EI)S DIKAIOSU/NHN</>?
     Behold, I have place you, Abraham, a father of
     gentiles/nations which believe through uncircumcision
     in God.</>\11/ 


    \10/Harris, <ts>Testimonies</> I, p. 38, emends this to read "gentiles
were mentioned" by suggesting corruption of <gk>E)QNH\ E)MNH/SQH</>
into simply <gk>E)MNH/SQH</> (G\vfob\mg// read <gk>E)QNH/SQE</>!). 

    \11/Or "in the Lord" according to GL. 


     Barn alludes to Gen 15:6 ("Abraham believed God and it was
reckoned to him as righteousness") and @@17:4f ("I have placed
you as father of many nations," etc.), which were relatively
popular texts for Christianity in general\12/ and for Paul in
particular (see especially Rom 4, Gal 3).  In fact, the last part
of the "quotation" in Barn verbally coincides with part of Paul's
argument in Rom 4:11, <gk>PATE/RA E)QNW=N</>(Barn)/<gk>PA/NTWN</>(Rom)
<gk>TW=N PISTEUO/NTWN DI' A)KROBUSTI/AS</>, [[254]] although only
the words <gk>PATE/RA E)QNW=N</> are found in LXX Gen 17:4f. 


    \12/At least the ideas found in these texts were widely used,
perhaps partly because of Paul's influence:  see Cl.R 10:6; JM, D
92:3f (see also 11:5, 23:4, etc.; compare 19:3f, 33:2); Cl.A,
<ts>Strom</> I:(29):132:2 (following Philo); Tert, <ts>Patien</>
6 and <ts>Monog</> 6; Cyp, <ts>Test</> I:5 and III:42; etc. 
Philo frequently refers to Abraham's faith in God (<ts>Abr</>
262, <ts>Leg Alleg</> III:228, <ts>Mut Nom</> 186, etc.), and
also explains Gen 17:4 (see below). 


     Nevertheless, there is very little reason to suggest that
Barn shows a knowledge of Romans here.  It is true that both
contexts are discussing the Jew/Gentile problem (see Rom 3:29),
but Paul is emphasizing the relationship of <em>circumcision</>
to God's promises, while Barn is primarily interested in the
younger people, the <em>gentiles</>.  Probably Paul reflects the
fuller context of a traditional discussion concerning
circumcision as the seal of God's covenant with Abraham -- a
covenant which affects all nations (compare Barn 9:4b-8a).  The
passage in Barn has the same background, but is used in isolation
from the more detailed discussion. 

     Philo indicates an awareness of similar problems when he
explains the three senses in which Abraham is the "father of many
nations"  --  (1)  each of his sons will found a nation, (2)  he
supervises many nations (especially those which submit to right
reason and virtue), (3)  he is sovereign over a variety of
inclinations.  In the same passage Philo paraphrases the meaning
of God's words in Gen 17:4 as, "Do not seek [the covenant] in
writing, for I myself am, in the highest sense, the genuine
covenant."\13/  Concern for the [[255]] fact that Abraham was
uncircumcised, however, is not found in Philo's extant writings
(although, as we have seen above, pp. 191ff, he does deal with
the meaning of Abraham's circumcision). 


   \13/<ts>Qu Gen</> III:42 (compare the briefer presentation of
the same material in <tm>>Mut Nom</> 57ff). 


     <h1>The Covenant:  Given and Received</>.  --  We already
have discussed the tradition concerning Moses on Sinai as found
in Barn 4:6ff and 14:1ff (above, pp. 130-139).  The argument in
Barn 14 is that God not only promsed the covenant to the fathers
but he also gave it to Moses.  But although Moses received it,
they (the Jews) were not worthy to receive it (because of their
idolatry at Sinai).  Yet we have received it -- not from Moses,
who acted in the capacity of a servant (compare Heb 3:5, Nu
12:7), but through the Lord himself who suffered for us.  Thus we
are the holy people, the people of the inheritance.  They filled
full the measure of their sins in rejecting the Lord, but we have
been redeemed from darkness and death and error and have been
given the covenant of the Lord by <gk>I)HSOU=S</>, the heir (see

     There is some textual difficulty in the order of the three
Isaiah quotations given at the end of Barn 14.  In the MSS of
family G, the formula and quotation from Isa 49:6f is found after
KURI/OU I)HSOU= LA/BWMEN </> in 14:51.\14/  In some ways this
[[256]] makes more sense:  (1)  the comparison between the
promise to Abraham in 13:7 (<gk>I)DOU\ TE/QEIKA/ DE ... PATE/RA
E)QNW=N</>) and the fulfillment in <gk>I)HSOU=S</> is emphasized
(<gk>I)DOU\ TE/QEIKA/ SE EI)S FW=S E)QNW=N</>), (2)  the contrast
between failure under Moses and salvation through the
eschatological <gk>I)HSOU=S</> is made more central (... <gk>EI)S
SWTHRI/AN</>\15/ <gk>E(W/S E)SXA/TOU TH=S GH=S</>), and (3)  the
repeated use of <gk>LUTRWSA/MENOS</> in 14:5b-6 is more easily
explained if the quotation in which that word occurs were in the
immediate context rather than appended after what seems to be the
conclusion drawn from the preceding section at the end of 14:7 


    \14/In S\*/, however, Isa 49:6f is displaced to the very end
of the chapter.  S\c/ inserted it where it occurs in H and L, but
then erased it (when he discovered it at the end?). 

    \15/L has "<lt>sanctitas</>" here, which probably reflects
the Greek <gk>A\GI/ASMA</> (see Isa 8:14, Ezek 11:16), and may be
original (see Barn 15:7). 

    \16/Note that the use of <gk>LUTRWSA/MENOS</> in Barn's
quotation from Isa 49:6f (so also Symm) has no support from LXX
witnesses, which use the synonym, <gk>R\USA/MENOS</> (but see Isa
41:14, 43:14, 44:24).  Possibly one could argue that Ps-Barn
substitutes the former word <em>because</> it is emphasized in
the editorial context, but there is little precedent for this
elsewhere in the Epistle.  More probably it is a true Greek OT
variant influenced by the parallel passages in Isaiah.  In
reading <gk>GINW/SKETE</> in 14:7, we follow GL against SH,


     The quotations from Isa 42:6f and 49:6f (see Acts 13:47)
have the phrase <gk>EI)S FW=S E)QNW=N</> in common (note also the
interchange of <gk>TE/QEIKA</>/<gk>E)/DWKA</> in LXX MSS [see
above, p. 148] and the common phrase <gk>EI)S DIAQH/KHN
GE/NOUS</> in many LXX MSS of both passages [but not in Barn]),
and frequently are cited in [[257]] Christian literature where
they have exerted a reciprocal textual influence on one another. 
Nevertheless, they seldom are quoted together as in Barn 14 (see
Ps-Greg 16, JM, D 121f).  Isa 61:1f is even more popular (because
of its use in Lk 4:18f?), but seldom is found in juxtaposition
with either of the other Isaiah quotations of Barn 14:7-8 (see
Tert, <ts>APrax</> 11).  It is, therefore, not possible to
advance any convincing arguments as to the likelihood that these
quotations already had been collected (as messianic passages?) by
Barn's tradition.  The least we can say is that they were used
early and often in the Christian apologetic.  [[258]] 

                          <ch>Chapter 10

                   KEEPING THE SABBATH HOLY</> 

     Barn 15 consists of commentary on and elaboration of a
peculiar quotation which Ps-Barn attributes to Moses'

  1  Yet also concerning the sabbath it is written in the
     <gk>DE/KA LO/GOIS</> by which he spoke to Moses face to face
     in mount Sinai: 
       And hallow (<gk>A(GIA/SATE</>) the Lord's sabbath with clean 
       hands and a clean heart. 
  2  And elsewhere (<gk>E)N E(TE/RW|</>) he says:   
       If my sons guard the sabbath, 
       then will I place my mercy on them. 
  3  'The sabbath' he mentions (<gk>LE/GEI</>) in the beginning of  
       And God made in six days the works of his hands,
       And he finished in the seventh day, 
       and rested in it and hallowed it. 
  4  Pay attention, children, how he says
       'he finished in six days'  -- 
     This he says, 
       that in 6000 years the Lord finishes everything,  
       for the day with him is 1000 years.\1/  
     And he witnesses to me, saying: 
       Behold, today shall be a day\2/ like 1000 years. 
     Therefore, children, 'in six days' -- in 6000 years 
     everything will be finished. 
  5    And 'he rested in the seventh day.' 
     This he says, 
       when his son comes, he will destroy the time of 
       lawlessness, and judge the impious, and change the
       sun and the moon and the stars. 
       Then @@he will truly rest completely (<gk>KALW=S</>) 
       'in the seventh day.'</> 

{@@RAK-- I replaced "there will be" with "he will truly."  Please
verify that this is a correction  es} 

{@@RAK note in margin:  "|--| lawless one."} 
{@@RAK--  Do you want "lawnessness" repleced with "lawless one?"  es} 

  6  Furthermore, he says, 
       You shall hallow it with clean hands and a clean heart. 
     If, then, someone <em>now</> is able to hallow the day which
     God was hallowing, by being clean in heart,\3/
     we have deceived ourselves in everything! 
  7  But if\4/ he who is resting completely (<gk>KALW=S</>) hallows it\5/ 
     <em>then</>, when we ourselves shall be able after we have
     been declared righteous and receive the promise, when
     lawlessness no longer exists, and all things have been
     made new by the Lord --
     <em>Then</> we shall be able to hallow it, when we ourselves
     are fist hallowed!  
  8  Further he says to them:  
       I can't stand your new moons and sabbaths [Isa 1:13].  
     See how he speaks (<gk>LE/GEI</>): 
       Not the sabbaths <em>now</> are acceptable to me, but that
       which I made, in which, when I rest all things, 
       I will make a beginning of an eighth day, which is
       a beginning of another world. 
  9  Wherefore also we observe the eight day in rejoicing, 
     in which also <gk>I)HSOU=S</> arose from the dead and, having 
     appeared, ascended into the heavens.</> 

     \1/S\c/ adds here "For David witnesses to me saying:  [Ps 89
(90):4, LXX]." 

     \2/So GL, <gk>SH/MERON H(ME/RA</>.  SH have <gk>H(ME/RA
KURI/OU</> which may be preferable in the light of other
Christian and Rabbinic parallels, see below, p. 265. 

     \3/So S\*/H.  S\c/GL have "except (<gk>EI) MH/</>) he be
clean in heart." 

     \4/See H, <gk>EI) DE\ O(/TI</>.  The corruption of the MSS
here is great:  S\*/ has <gk>@@EI)=DE OU)</>, S\c/ has
<gk>@@EI)=DE OU)N</>, G has <gk>EI) DE\ OU)D0</>, while L reads
"<lt>videns ergo quia</>." 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

?  } 

{@@RAK--  Please note you have circled "<gk>EI)=DE</>" both times
it occurs.  Is this the word to which the question mark applies?  es  } 

     \5/So GL, <gk>KATAPAUO/MENOS A(GIA/ZEI</>/<gk>-H
A)UTH/N</>="<lt>refrigerans sanctificavit illum</>."  SH have
<gk>KATAPAUOME/NOI A(GIA/SOMEN AU)TH\N</>.  L lacks the rest of
this sentence, perhaps through homoioteleuton


     <h1>Hallowing the Sabbath</>.  --  Once again we find Ps-
Barn presenting material concerning the covenant in the framework
of apocalyptic interpretation.  There is no one passage in the
LXX which corresponds verbatim to the quotation in Barn 15:1 or
to that 5:2, although approximate parallels to some of the words
and phrases can be found: 

   1  <gk>KAI\ Q(GIA/SATE               compare Ex 20:8=Deut 5:12,15
        TO\ SA/BBATON KURI/OU             II Est 23:22 (Neh 13:22)
                                          Jer 17:22,24,27; Ezek 20:20, 44:24

{@@RAK note in margin:  Jer 17:22ff?  } 

      XERSI\N KAQARAI=S                 compare Ps 23(24):4; Job 17:9, 22:30
        KAI\ KARDI/A| KAQARA=|            Ps 50(51):12; Gen 20:5f. 

   2  <gk>E)A\N FULA/CWSI/N MOU OI(     compare Ex 31:12-17; Isa 56:1-8 
        UI(OI\ TO\ SA/BBATON\6/           Lev 19:30, 26:2; Deut 5:12, 15
      TO/TE E)PIQH/SW TO\               compare Isa 56:1 
        E)/LEO/S MOU E)P'  AU)TOU/S</>    (see also Nu 11:17, Isa 44:3) 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

<gk>KAQARA=| KARDI/A|</>  --  Hipp, AX 50 (re mystery of God!) 
T. Jos. 4:6 
Ps-Ezek freq 2 l. 4 (<em>Bonner</>, @@Sb + Docs 12, 1940)  } 


     \6/Note Cl.A, <ts>Strom</> III:(14):98:1, in quoting an
extremely variant form of Isa 56:3-5 (not noted in Ziegler)
including the words <gk>E)A\N FULA/CHTE TA\ SA/BBATA/ MOU</>
where LXX MSS have <gk>O(/SOI</> (<gk>E)</>)<gk>A\N FULA/CWNTAI
TA\ SA/BBATA/ MOU</>.  {@@RAK addition:  Note that Barn\S*G/ have
<gk>OI( UI(OI/ MOU...</>  } 


     Actually, the only passages listed above which promise
blessing as a result of keeping the sabbath (and covenant) are
Isa 56 and Jer 17, but their precise wording is far from Barn. 
By analogy to what we have found in the rest of the Epistle, Ps-
Barn probably reflects his parenetic school tradition here, which
quotes first from the "decalogue" section of a rewritten
Pentateuch, and then from a source in which the commandment was
applied to the situation of Israel.\7/ 


     \7/Windisch finds Jewish parallels to the former citation in
rules for washing hands in preparation for the sabbath (p. 381). 
Rabbinic ideas about God delivering his people when they keep one
sabbath correctly also provide parallels to Barn 15:2a; see
Moore, <ts>Judaism</> II, p. 26 n. 1 on Palestinian <lang?>@@Ta
'anit</> 64a, etc. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  <lang?>Ta'anith</>  } 


     In 15:6ff, Ps-Barn returns to the theme of perfectly keeping
the sabbath, as God kept it after completing creation (see
15:3b).  Since it is impossible for any man <em>now</> to keep it
holy (note Ps-Barn's emphasis throughout the Epistle [[261]] that
now is the <em>lawless age</>), the real fulfillment of the
commandment awaits the coming of the eschaton -- a holy sabbath
requires a holy people (15:6f).  Or, to put it another way, the
keeping of the sabbath is the cosmic rest which precedes the new
creation (15:8). 

     <h1>The Sabbath Rest</>.  --  Although Barn 15:3-5 is more
directly concerned with interpreting the sabbath rest of Gen 2:2
than with pursuing the theme of hallowing the sabbath, this in no
way destroys the unity of the chapter, but rather, emphasizes the
eschatological framework in which the entire discussion is cast. 

     We already have commented briefly on some problems in this
section (above, pp. 64ff):  despite the fact that 15:3 seems to
say that God finished creation on the seventh day (so MT, etc.),
15:4 demands that he finished in the sixth day (so LXX, etc.). 
If the present text of Barn 15:3-5 is not hopelessly corrupt on
this paradoxical situation (and there is little reason to suggest
this), the solution may be that the tradition used by Ps-Barn
(intentionally?) left the point ambiguous.  Notice that the
timetable here does not really define whether the eschatological
judgment takes place at the very end of the 6000 years @@or at
the very start of the millennial rest (15:5).\8/  Furthermore, if
God "will [[262]] make" an eighth day during the period of rest
(15:5b), his creative activity could not have ceased before the
beginning of the seventh day.  In short. it is necessary to the
argument that God <em>both</> finishes creation in the seventh
day (when he creates the new world) <em>and</> finishes
everything in six days (in @@anticipation of the eschatological

{@@RAK--You underlined the text "or at the very start of the
millennial rest (15:5).\8/"  es} 

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

{@@RAK-- You have "anticipation of" crossed out very lightly.  Do
you want this text deleted?  es} 

     \8/According to the Greek fragment of Iren, AH V:28:3 (there
is no equivalent in the Latin, however, "in the seventh
millennium he judges the inhabited world," while the eighth
millennium is the age to come.  Other Christian sources reserve
the judgment to the end of the millennial reign of the Lord (so
Rev 20, JM, D 81).  On such problems see J. Danie/lou, "<fr>La
typologie mille/nariste de la semaine dans le christianisme
primitif</>," <ts>Vig Chr</> 2 (1948), pp. 1-16; A. Hermans,
"<fr>Le Pseudo-Barnabe/ est-il mille/nariste</>?"  [no]@@,
<ts>Eph Th Lov</> 35 (1959), pp. 849-76; H. Riesenfeld,
"<fr>Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur</>," in <tm>NT Essays</>
(T.W.Manson Festschrift, 1959), pp. 210-17. 


     Precedents for Barn's interpretaion of the creation account
of Genesis are found in late Judaism and early Christianity. 
Philo frequently explores the meaning of creation,\9/ and
concludes that the sentence "God finished on the sixth day his
works" (Gen 2:2) has nothing to do with actual time, but refers
instead to mortal things which are symbolized by the number six,
while seven is the symbol of more divine things:  [[263]]

  First, then, while resting in the seventh day from the 
  construction of mortal things, he begins the 
  configuration of other things more divine.  For God never ceases 
  (<gk>PAU/ETAI</>) making ..., thus it is said <gk>PATE/PAUSEN</>, not 

Thus the "seventh day" is the day in which heavenly man, paradise
(=wisdom),\11/ in short, the most perfect archetypal world, is
brought into existence. 


     \9/See especially <tm>>Leg Alleg</> I:1-21; <ts>Qu Gen</>
I:1-27.  The summary which follows is based for the most part on
the former.  Notice that in <ts>Post Cain</> 64f, Philo even
equates the seventh and the first day, and in <ts>Leg Alleg</>
I:19-21, the <tr-gk>logos</> is equated with the day (=both first
and seventh) of creation. 

    \10/<ts>Leg Alleg</> I:5f.  It would be interesting to know
what Philo's tradition would do with the words of Ex 31:17 as
found in most extant LXX MSS, that God <gk>KATE/PAUSEN KAI\
E)PAU/SATO</> in the seventh day; see also <ts>Decal</> 97,

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

<ts>Vict Pet  De Fabrica Mondi</>:  on 6\th/ day God made men +
everything @@"<lt>quae super terram et super aquam creavit. 
Pruis tamen angelos atque archangelos creavit, quam @@hominim
@@fivixit, spiritalia terrenis anteponens.  Hic dies 'parascene'
appelatur, praeparatio scilicet regni</>."  } 

    \11/In a less philosophical vein, Theophilus also speaks of
the fact that God finishes everything in the sixth day and rested
in the seventh (II:19), but later says that "he manifested his
creation in the seventh day, when he also made the paradise"


     Cl.A repeats and expands much of the Philonic exposition and
also reflects a knowledge of Aristobulus' earlier comments about
the seventh day.\12/  Undoubtedly Philo's thoughts on creation
also owe much to his predecessors at Alexandria, including
Aristobulus.  It is out of this kind of speculation about
creation and its meaning that Barn's tradition partially arose. 
Nevertheless, a definitely non-Philonic [[264]] element also
permeates Barn 15  --  the eschatological orientation. 


    \12/<ts>Strom</> VI:(16):137-45 (commenting of the
Decalogue).  The fragment from Aristobulus (c. 150 B.C.) on
creation is preserved by Eus, <ts>>Pr Ev</> XIII:12:9-16.  In the
context, Aristobulus argues that Greek Philosophers showed a
knowledge of Moses' writings, and even quotes as an example the
section of Aratus which is cited in Acts 17:28.  The exposition
by Aristobulus reflects the same sort of "gnostic" emphasis as is
found in Philo, Barn, Cl.A, and the Alexandrian school in


     The picture of millennial epochs of <gm>Heilsgeshichte</>
patterned on the days of creation also is found in late Jewish
and early Christian sources.  II Enoch 33 speaks of the
establishment of the eighth day, which is the first day of God's
rest,\13/ and at the beginning of which the cosmos is in a state
of timelessness.  Some Rabbinic sources divide the 6000 years of
the world's existence into three periods of 2000 years each  -- 
void, Torah, and Messiah.\14/  Numerous other writings provide
modifications and expansions of such ideas.\15/ 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
in 1\st/ pers, as Barn 15:8.  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On Messiah coming in year 5500 

cf   Acta Pilate (G. Nic.) 2:12 (27) - James 144f 
     Heppa\l <ts> 4:23:3 (Bonw 242f) 
     Vita Adae et Evae 42 (I:2?) 
     Lact, Instit 7:24:6  } 


    \13/Or, the first day after his word (the passage is not
without its textual problems throughout); for parallel passages
see the note in Charles, <ts-lt>Pseudepigrapha, ad loc</>.  In
Cl.A we find an ingenious argument by which the seventh and the
eighth (or first, in a new cycle) days are identified
(<tm>>Strom</> VI:(16):141)  --  the Greek symbol for 6 (digamma)
is not written as a letter, thus the seventh letter=<gk>H</>, but
<gk>H</>=8 (as a number). 

    \14/<ts>Sanhedrin</> 97b Baraita; <ts>Abodah Zarah</> 9b
Baraita.  For a discussion of similar passages, see K. Kohler,
"Eschatology," <te>Jewish Encyc</> V (1903), 211a. 

    \15/Rev 20; Iren, AH V:28:2-29:3; Cl.A, <ts>Strom
IV:(25):158f; Hipp, <ts>Comm in Dan</> IV:23:5, Sib Or 8:424ff;
TractOrig 8 (pp. 94f) and 18 (p. 196): Ps-Cyp, <ts>De Mont Sina
et Sion</> 4; etc.  (see Windisch, pp. 385f, and the articles
listed above, n. 8). 


{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Hipp, <ts>Comm Dan</> IV:23:4 ~
       BAPLEI/AS TW=N A(GI/WN ... 
     H(ME/RA GA\R KU= W(S XI/LIA E)/TH</>.  (cf 4:24:5 - <gk>HM=
       DE KU= X.ETH</>) 
     ... TO\N E(/BDOMOU ... E)N W(=| E)/STAI H( KATA/PAUSIS</>.  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

E. Ginsburg 

Book <ts>Bahir</> (Kabbalistic) - 12\th/ c Provence (see Scholem --> earlier) 

[{@@Paragraph symbol} 51] = Scholem tr.  (Germ.)    
about 3/4 way through 
context of 7\th/ Sefira  -  Right one  -  Sabbath 

on 7\th/ day God rested, + why called 8\th/?  Is it not the
7\th/?  Because God rested on it.  } 

     The use of a quotation in which a day with the Lord is
equivalent to 1000 years in this connection also became
commonplace in the early Christian tradition, although the origin
of his complex is not entirely  clear.  Ps 89(90):4 [[265]]
contains a similar idea, but neither Barn 15:4 nor II Pet 3:8
(the earliest eschatological applications of the idea) come very
close to the present LXX form of the Psalm.  Nor do Barn and II
Pet coincide.  The problem becomes even more complicated when JM
(D 81:3), Iren, and Hipp (see n. 15) are introduced into the
discussion, since they are in basic agreement and offer a form of
the passage which is close to Barn\SH/: 

          E)XQE/S</> ... 
            KAI\ SI/LIA E)/TH W(S H(ME/RA MI/A</> 
  Barn--<gk>H( GA\R H(ME/RA GAR' AU)TW=| XI/LIA E)/TH|</> ... 
          {<gk>I)DOU\ SH/MERON H(ME/RA</> (GL)}
          {<gk>I)DOU\ H(ME/RA KURI/OU</>  (SH)}<gk>E)/STAI W(S XI/LIA E)/TH</>
  JM\16/--<gk>O(/TI H(ME/RA KURI/OU W(S XI/LIA E)/TH</>
  Iren--<gk>H( GA\R H(ME/RA KURI/OU W(S A E)/TH</>
  Hipp--<gk>H(ME/RA GA\S</>/<gk>DE\ KURI/OU @@W\S XI/LIA E)/TH</> (twice) 

By the time that TractOrig and Barn\Sc/ (above, n.1) were
written, Ps 89:4 (according to LXX) had come to be quoted with
relative precision in this connection. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 


{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Vict Pet <ts>Fab Mund</> (follows ctxt on next p.) 

<lt>Ut verum illud et justum sabbatum septinio millario annorum observaretur. 
Quaniobrem septem diebus estis dn-s singula millia annorum adaignavit 
sic enim cautum est <@@em>in oculis tuis Dn-e- mille anni ut dies una</> 
Ergo in oculis De- singula (-is?) millia annorum constituta sunt 
  septem enim habeo oculos Dn-e-</>. 
{@@Therefore symbol} X will reign w/ elect for this sabbath (= 7000 yrs?  -
txt prob)  } 


    \16/JM, D 81:3, refers in context not to the days of
creation, but to Adam's death in the "day" (i.e. before he
reached 1000 years of age) in which he ate of the tree.  This
follows the Jewish tradition already present in Jubilees 4:29ff,
which cites the words "For 1000 years are as one day in the
testimony of the heavens" to prove that Adam died in the "day" of
his sin.  The overall discussion in JM, however, does refer to
the millennium in which Messiah will literally reign from
Jerusalem (following Rev 20).  Note that JM recognizes the fact
that some Christians do not look for such a literal reign and re-
establishment of the holy city. 


     All this evidence (which unfortunately cannot be marshalled
in greater detail here) seems to point to a Jewish [[266]]
apocalyptic tradition which contained the exegesis of Gen 2:2 in
terms of the millennial day and from which the early Christian
sources drew.\17/  Ps-Barn is not the creator of this pattern,
although he may have modified it somewhat through his confusing
attempt to emphasize the seventh and eighth days at the same time
(since the Lord arose and ascended on the eighth day\18/). 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On <em>dissolving the Sabbath cf Vict Pet <ts>De Fab Mundi</>: 

becomes solemn day of prep. for Dominical day! 
God hates Jewish Sabbath  "<lt>Xps- per prophetas suos <em>odisse
  @@ammiem</> suam dicit</>" 
X dissolved sabbath "<lt>corpore suo</>" 
Moses + circumcision on 8\th/ day 
War w/ the foreigners 

cf David in Ps 6:1:  "<lt>hic est enim revera futuri illius judicii
dies octavus</>" 

Joshua, Moses{@@'} successor, had Israel march round Jericho on sabbath 
Matthias <lt>vs</> Antiochus Epiph fought on Sabbath 
@@{Isa} + his colleagues (cf Mb 12:3) similarly [?? - w/ ref to Matt] 
David  } 


    \17/For a discussion of the Jewish background of the words "A
day of the Lord is 1000 years" and the numerous Rabbinic sources
which also contain or reflect them (<tm>>Midrash Tehillim</> to
Ps 90:9, 4, 15; <ts>Yalkut Shemoni</> to Ps 72; etc.), see
J.K.Th. von Otto, "<gm>Haben Barnabas, Justinus und Irenaeus des
2 Petrusbrief (3:8) benuetzt</>?" (No, they all used a common
Jewish source), ZWT 20 (1877),, pp. 525-29 (in his ed of JM to D
81, Otto adds <ts>Tanchuma</> fol. 255a to the list of Rabbinic
parallels).  Note that despite his allusions to "gnostic"
speculations on <gk>E(BDOMA/S</>/<gk>O)GDOA/S</> (for example,
<ts>Strom</> IV(17):109:2, (25):159:2f; VI:(14):108:1;
VII:(10):57:5; <ts>Ex Theod</> 80), Cl.A never cites anything
like Ps 89:4. 

    \18/Note <ts>Ep of the Apostles</> 17(28), "I have come into
the Ogdoad, which is the Lord's Day" (James, p. 491), and see
Riesenfeld's article referred to above, n. 8. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  Epistle  } 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Qur'an 22:47\b/ 
And they will bid you to hasten on the Doom 
And God fails not his promise 
But lo!  A Day with God is as 1000 years of what you reckon."  } 



                          <ch>Chapter 11 
                       THE HOUSE OF GOD</>

     The final chapter of Ps-Barn's <gk>DIDAXH/</> concerning
things which have come to pass deals with the problem of the
Temple.  The first part of Barn 16 present quotations about the
use and misuse of the Jerusalem Temple, while 16:6-10 contains a
quotation and its midrash on the eschatological Temple (built at
the completion of the <gk>E(BDOMA/S</>).  Thus, for the most
part, Ps-Barn continues here to draw from his apocalyptic
tradition, and offers three more "peculiar" quotations from it. 
For the present investigation, the most relevant parts of the
chapter read as follows: 
  1  Yet also concerning the Temple I will speak to you,
     since\1/ the wretched ones who have been led astray
     hoped on the building and not on their God who created
     them, who is God's house. 
{@@RAK-- note in margin:  as though there is a house of God.  } 
  2  For, roughly speaking, they consecrated him in the
     Temple like the gentiles.  But how does the Lord
     speak (<gk>LE/GEI</>) when he renders it useless?  Learn: 
       [Isa 40:12 + 66:1, clearly Septuagintal]\2/
     You know that their hope is vain! 
  3  Furthermore, again he says: 
       Behold, those who demolished this Temple
       shall themselves build it. 
  4  This is happening.\3/  For through their warring it was
     torn down by the enemies.  And now the very servants
     of the enemies\4/ will rebuild it. 
  5  Again, since the city and the Temple and the people
     Israel were about to be given up, it was made clear
     @@beforehand.  For the scripture says: 
       And it shall be in the last days,
       and the Lord will give over their sheep of the pasture
       and the fold and the tower to destruction. 
     And it happened @@in accord with the things which the Lord

{@@RAK note in margin: 
"just as"  } 

1.  "beforehand" is circled. 
2.  "in accord with the things which" is underlined. 
3.  Do you want "just as" to be typed in the text as a
    correction?  For which part of the text?  es} 

  6  But let us inquire if there is a Temple of God? 
     There is, where he says that he makes and equips (it). 
     For it is written: 
       And it shall be when the <gk>E(BDOMA/S</> is coming to
       completion, God's Temple will be built gloriously in
       the Lord's Name. 
  7  Thus I find that there is a Temple
     [The old Temple of our heart was filled with corruption

{@@RAK-- Where does "]?" go?  After "corruption?" es} 

  8  and idolatry, but now through forgiveness of sins and
     hope in the Name, we have become new, created again
  9  from the beginning.  Thus God dwells in us through his
     word of faith, having opened to us his mouth, which is
 10  the door to the incorruptable Temple.  Now the word of
     salvation spoken through Christians "is a pneumatic
     Temple being built by God.")\5/</> 

     \1/<gk>W(S</> with SH.  GL have <gk>PW=S</>="<lt>quomodoe</>." 

     \2/Peculiarities in this composite quotation include (1) the
LXX words <gk>TH= XEIRI\ TO\ U(/DWR KAI/)</> are lacking after
the opening <gk>TI/S E)ME/TRHSEN</> (see also Cl.A, <ts>Strom</>
V:(14):125:1 and <ts>Protrep</> (8):78:2; Iren, AP 45 [compare AH
IV:19:2 (=33:1)]; Tert, <ts>AHermog</> 45; Nov, <ts>De Trin 30;
Ps-Cyp, <ts>De Mont Sina et Sion</> 4; TractOrig 1 [p. 2]); (2) 
<gk>H)\</> (+<gk>TI/S</>, G) <gk>TH\N GHN DRAKI/</> where LXX MSS
have <gk>KAI\ PA=SAN TH\N GH=N DRAKI/</> (see Barn\L/, <gk>H)\
TI/S PA=SAN TH\N GH=N GH=N DRAKI\ SUNE/LABEN</> ?); (3)  a unique
transition phrase <gk>OU0K E)GW/; LE/GEI KU/RIOS...</> between
the passages; (4)  <gk>H)\ TI/S TO/POS</> (=LXX MSS 26, 86, 534;
Cyp, Acts) where other LXX MSS have <gk>H)\</>/<gk>KAI\ POI=OS</>
(<gk>OU)=TOS</>) TO)POS</>.  The juxtaposition of these two
Isaiah quotations (but not in the same way as in Barn) occurs in
Iren, Cl.A (twice) and TractOrig (see references above).  On the
relationship of the citations from Isa 66:1 in Barn and Acts
7:49, see L.W. Barnard, "St. Stephen and Early Alexandrian
Christianity," NTS 7 (1960/61), pp. 31-45 (especially pp. 38-45). 
Barnard's analysis of the affinities between "Stephen's Speech"
and Barn shows a relative unawareness of some important issues,
e.g. the use of Isa 66:1 in Matt 5:35, the use of <gk>O(
DIKAI/OS</> as a Christological title in early Christian
literature (see above, pp. 158f), the lack of <em>verbal</>
affinities between Acts 7 and Barn apart from the quotation, etc. 
His conclusions that Barn knew and used Acts 7 is highly
improbable.  Nevertheless, he does point up the need for a more
thorough consideration of such "anti-cultic" attitudes in early

{@@RAK notes in margin: 

1.  } =Iren (2)  } 

2.  }  comp Acts 7:50 
    }  <gk>LIK-...OUXI-</>  } 

     \3/So G, <gk>GI/NETAI</>  --  see L, "<lt>et fiet</>."  SH
lack this comment. 

     \4/So HGL; S has "they <em>and</> the servants..."; see
above, p. 16 n. 21. 

     \5/For an analysis of the structure of the argument in 16:6-
10, see Schille, "Tauflehre," pp. 44-48.  On the supposed
relationship of 16:7 to the NT, see Koester, <tm>Synopt.
Ueberlief.</> pp. 130f. 


     <h1>The Temple Quotations</>.  --  Because of its possible
significance for the problems of dating the Epistle (see above,
pp. 15ff), Barn 16:3f probably has received more attention from
commentators than any other part of chs. 1-17.  Most recently,
Barnard summarizes the evidence that the Jews attempted (with
Roman aid) to rebuild the Temple around the year A.D. 119, and
argues that this is the catalyst for Ps-Barn's tractate.\6/ 

     \6/See all his general articles on Barn, especially on "The
Date of the Epistle."  Barnard gives the relevant Rabbinical
passages and other materials, as do the commentators (see
especially Windisch, above, p. 16 n. 21). 


     This overemphasis on 16:3f (after all, Barn 16 is concerned
primarily with the <em>spiritual</> Temple which exists, not with
the rebuilding of Jerusalem!\7/), however, has tended to obscure
the background of the "quotation" found in v.3.  [[270]]  Despite
the frequent claim to the contrary, it is not a citation of Isa
49:17, with which it has only superficial affinities.  Nowhere
else does Ps-Barn present Isiainic material in such a garbled

  <ts>Barn 16:3</>                      <ts>LXX-Ziegler, Isa 49:17a</>\8/ 
  <gk>I)DOU\ OI\ KAQELO/NTES            <gk>KAI\ TAXU? OI)KODOMHQH/SH|</> 
     <gk>TO\N NAO\N TOU=TON 
  (v.4 uses <gk>KAQH|RE/QH</>)          <gk>KAI\</> ... 

     \7/How Ps-Barn intended to interpret the quotation of 16:3
is a separate question.  In later Christian literature, ideas
similar to Barn 16:3f are used to prove that the Jewish-
Christians and Gentiles have rebuilt a spiritual Temple to God
through the Church; see T-A (pp. 94f); Hi, <ts>Comm in Isa</> to
49:17; Peter of Blois (c. 1200), <ts>Contra Perfidiam
Judaeorum</> 31 (PL 207:865, the Temple was destroyed because of
Jewish sin, and Apostles of Jewish descent rebuilt it). 

     \8/The only place in Isaiah where the word <gk>NAO/S</> is
found is in 66:6.  The nearest occurence of <gk>I)DOU/</> is in
49:16a.  The readings of Symm and Theodotion (<lt>apud</> Chr) in
49:17a show a somewhat closer relationship to Barn: 
Symm--        <gk>TAXOU/NOUSIN OI( UI(OI/ SOU        OI( KAQELO/NTES SE</> 
(@@RAK note:  see Syr)  } 
There are no relevant LXX variants recorded in Ziegler. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

See Isa 49:16 as evid. of heavenly Temple (Ted Bergren 4/87).  } 


     More probable is the suggestion that Ps-Barn here cites his
apocalyptic tradition, which used similar ideas to those found in
I Esd 6:15ff:  One king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) was
remembered for <gk>TO/N TE OI)=KON KAQELO/NTES E)NEPU/RISAN</>,
but a later king (Cyrus) wrote <gk>OI)KODOMH=SAI TO\N OI)=KON
OI)KODOMHQH=NAI</>.\9/  Similar ideas occur in Tob 14:4-6, where
those of the captivity return to Israel, <gk>KAI\
OI)KODOMH/SOUSIN TO\N OI)=KON</>  ....  Notice also the [[271]]
"Psalms of Joshua" quotation in "4Q Testimonia": 

  <qu>Then he said, cursed be the man who builds this city ....
  And behold, a man accursed, the one of Belial shall arise ...
  And they shall return and build the ... (lacuna) 
  establish for it a wall and towers, to provide a refuge
  of wickedness ... in the boundary of Jerusalem.\10/</>  


     \9/See also Williams, "Date," p. 342.  In 5:64(67) the words
are also found that <gk>OI( E)K TH=S AI/XMALWSI/AS OI)KODOMOU=SIN
TO\N NAO/N</>.  Contrast Isa 60:10, <gk>KAI\ OI)KODOMH/SOUSIN
A)LLOGENEI=S TA\ TEI/XH SOU</>....  Elsewhere in the OT is found
the idea that God himself will rebuild what is torn down  --  see
Jer 51(45):34(4), Ezek 36:36; compare Jer 49(42):10.  Compare
also such NT references as Mk 14:58=Matt 26:61, John 2:19; and
see Gospel of Thomas 93:34f. 

    \10/Excerpts from the translation by Allegro, "Messianic
References," pp. 185f.  Although the OT basis on which this
material rests refers to Jericho (Josh 6:26), it apparently is
applied to Jerusalem by the "Psalms of Joshua" (see Allegro, p.
187 n. 109).  This kind of material may represent the <ts>Sitz im
Leben</> of some of Ps-Barn's apocalyptic citations. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 

but see Cross, Ave Lib, p_n_ (and T R. Qum 1960)  } 


     Barn 16:5f continues to use the apocalyptic tradition.  The
quotations about the sheep and tower strongly resembles portions
of I Enoch 89:50-73, although it is not an exact reproduction of
any one portion of that material.\11/  The reference to the
glorious Temple build in God's Name usually is attributed to Dan
9:24f, but again, the similarities are superficial.\12/  It would
seem that in these three citations concerning the destruction and
re-establishment of the "Temple," Barn reflects non-canonical
materials concerning the last days  --  materials which are
closely related to late Jewish apocalyptic thought. 


    \11/I Enoch refers to the tower built for the sheep, and the
subsequent judgment on the sheep for their godlessness; the tower
is burned, the sheep are devoured.  Later the sheep rebuild the
tower, but it is inferior to the former tower. 

    \12/The glorious eschatological Temple also is mentioned in
Tob 14:5 and Sib Or 5:423-38 (compare Test Levi 5:1, 17:10,


     <h1>Judaism and the Temple</>.  --  Barn is not alone in its
harsh [[272]] attitude to the Jerusalem Temple.  "Stephen's
Speech" in Acts 7 reflects some of the same attitudes -- that
Jewish Temple worship is akin to idolatry, that God needs no
house to inhabit (see 7:41-51 and above,  n.2).  Precedents for
such views certainly existed in late Judaism.  The Essenes were
critical of the Jerusalem priesthood, although this does not mean
that they opposed the Temple cultus in principle.\13/  Philo
recognizes that deity needs no house in which to dwell,\14/ and
that the cosmos is God's Temple,\15/ although Philo also
eulogizes the <em>one</> Temple at Jerusalem which God has
established for worship.\16/  Strabo's source for
<ts>Geography</> XVI:35f also emphasized Moses' sophisticated
monotheism, in which the Temple area played a minor role (see
above, pp. 219f). 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

S.G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Basel Studies of
@@<gk>QG</>. 1) 
ch. 4  "The Symbolism of the Sanctuary" 
p. 55  -  hellenism's reaction to human built temples 
(Plato  --)  Zeno, De tranq. anini 477 C 
Xerxes, Cicero <ts>Rep.</> 3.14     ;  Euripides frg 968 
Philo, Cher. 100 <lt>etc.</>  [2 temples - world + @@Jesus]  } 


    \13/See Cross, <tm>Ancient Library</>, pp. 75ff, for a
discussion of the Essene attitude to the Temple cultus. 

    \14/See <ts>Qu Ex</> II:83.  Compare Sib Or 4:8, 24ff, 115f. 

    \15/Especially in <ts>Spec Leg</> I:66; see also <ts>Qu Ex</>

    \16/<ts>Spec Leg</> I:67.  See also Qu Ex II:83. 


     It is in Philo's refutation of his radical opponents,
however that we find the most extreme Jewish view intimated: 
  <qu>Then also we will be careless about the sanctity of the
  Temple and or myriads of other things if we pay attention
  to only the things revealed by hidden meanings.\17/</> 
It is not entirely clear whether his opponents actually ignored
the Temple just as they ignored sabbath, feasts, and
circumcision, or whether Philo warns that they are in danger of
reaching that extreme.  In any case, <em>at least</> the seed was
planted from which the attitudes of Barn 16, Acts 7, and other
less antagonistic passages on the same theme could develop.\18/ 


    \17/<ts>Migr Abr</> 92.  For the larger context of this
polemic, see above, pp. 193 and 219f. 

    \18/See also Heb 9:24; Harris, <tm>Testimonies</> I, p. 106. 
For a discussion of the view held by Bousset and others that late
Judaism in general was not particularly zealous about the Temple,
see the "Introduction" to J. Townsend's Harvard Dissertation,
<td>The Jerusalem Temple in NT Thought</> (1958). 



                           <ch>PART III



     There is a certain irony about the way in which some
commentators have described the Epistle of Barnabas.  On the one
hand, its author is accused of being disorganized, unimaginative,
and lacking in originality.\1/  In almost the next breath, Ps-
Barn is depicted as rewriting most of the scriptural materials
which he uses, and willfully allegorizing the OT to such a degree
that its literal meaning vanishes.\2/  It, indeed, a unique
author who can fulfill this paradoxical role as Ps-Barn has done

     \1/For example, Muilenburg, <tm>Literary Relations</>, p.
68:  "The Epistle of Barnabas has no true literary style.  Its
author possesses little originality.  He is clumsy and stiff in
his phraseology, repetitious, verbose, formal in plan and
expression, fond of contrast and parallel structure, and emphatic
throughout  ....  He is the pedagogue who finds it difficult to
write freely and yet accurately, unconsciously and yet vividly,
simply and yet forcefully  ....  He begins with an idea, only to
drop it, pick it up again some time later, and clothe it in a
slightly different dress, most all of which has been pieces out
of other scraps." 

     \2/<lt>Ibid</>., p. 85:  Ps-Barn "shows the greatest freedom
imaginable in his use of the Jewish canon.  He is capable of
altering the text in order to make a passage reveal more clearly
what he believes to be the true sense.  He feels himself quite
superior to the succession of words of the LXX, from which he
seems to draw most of his passages.  The literal meaning of the
OT had never been the real one.  As a Christian he is free to
interpret the real meaning, with which he feels himself divinely
endowed."  See also Andry, <tm>Intro</>., pp. 10f:  "The Epistle
is a shameful production, a composition dreadfully biased in
which the author performs allegorical exegesis and factual error
with vengeance.  It is a self composed epitaph of the author's
own preposterous attitude, and of the degradation to which the
church or churches he influenced were exposed..." (etc., with
supporting quotations from older literature). 



     <h1>Diversity and Unity in Barn</>.  --  Actually, as the
foregoing investigation attempts to demonstrate, both of these
aspects of Barn find ready explanation when the traditional
background of the Epistle is recognized.  Ps-Barn seems to lack
originality precisely because he writes, for the most part, as an
<em>editor</> rather than as an author.  To put it another way,
"<gm>der Schreibende [steht] bereits in einer Tradition,  ... 
die er mehr oder weniger mechanisch benutzt haben mag</>."\3/ 
His supposed freedom in using "scripture" seldom is his own
contribution, but derives mainly from the sources (written and
oral) which he employs.  That we do not always possess the same
sources as Ps-Barn had at his disposal is not sufficient reason
for discounting the faithfulness of his quotations.  For example,
the fact that Isaianic material in Barn is so consistently close
to extant LXX MSS of Isaiah (see above, pp. 54ff) should warn
against concluding that almost all the other quotations have been
subjected to the "willful emendation" of the author.\4/ 

     \3/Oepke, <tm>Gottesvolk</>, pp. 28f.  See also above, pp.
20ff.  The Epistle is somewhat like a research paper in which
much detailed information from numerous sources is given by means
of excerpts and paraphrases, but the "author" has not really
become part of the paper  --  the material has not been digested
by him, but instead is presented in a somewhat mechanical

     \4/If, as we have implied (above, pp. 68f), even Barn's
Isaiah material was taken from secondary sources rather than from
an actual MS of the Prophet, how is its close textual
relationship to extant LXX MSS to be explained?  (To a lesser
degree, the same question can be asked about the material from
Psalms.)  Systematic harmonization of Barn's quotations by later
scribes is out of the question (why only for Isaiah?). 
Apparently the Epistle came from a tradition in which the present
LXX text form of Isaiah already had been fixed for a long time,
and the material was so familiar that it remained fixed even in
its secondary uses (<lt>via</> testimony collections, etc.). 

{@@RAK note in text:  Perhaps Isa testimonies are a X\n/ development?  } 



     We have emphasized that the Epistle as we now have it is
based on the somewhat haphazard collection of smaller units of
material.  Nevertheless, many of the smaller units have common
characteristics which disclose the personality of the tradition
from which they and the author came.\5/  The parenetic emphasis
is clear at almost every point, with its "gnostic" flavoring. 
Similarly, throughout the Epistle, Ps-Barn betrays a vivid
emphasis on the history of salvation, with its focal point in the
<em>present</> eschatological crisis. 

     \5/It is not enough to say that the common elements are
editorial, since the very quotations themselves as well as their
traditional interpretations (where these are obvious, as in Barn
10) also share the emphases.  Here Ps-Barn is transmitting
material from the school tradition in which he stands, both in
his choice of sources and in his editorial orientation. 


     In Barn's view of <gm>Heilsgeschichte</>, the Lord's
covenant plays a major role (see especially 4:7f=14:2f, above,
pp. 130-39).  For example, the interpretation of the covenant as
<gk>DIKAIW/MATA</> rather than external rites (10:2) is
presupposed throughout the Epistle (compare 1:2, 2:1, 4:11,
10:11, 16:9, 21:1 and 5).  Similarly, the setting for 9:1-4a and
11:2 could well have been the discussion of the Lord's covenant
[[278]] and its demands on man.  It is, therefore, not impossible
that much of Barn's  tradition reflects late Jewish and early
Christian preoccupation with elements from the ancient pattern of
covenant renewal,\6/ although the Epistle itself cannot be
considered a <em>literary</> unity (in origin) for that reason. 

     \6/So, K. Baltzer, <tm>Bundesformular</>, pp. 128-31.  If
Baltzer's general thesis is correct, it provides a comprehensive
<ts>Sitz im Leben</> from which the diversity of material
(homily, commentary, didache, etc.) in Barn could arise.  It
would be difficult, however, to describe the present form of the
entire Epistle as following a literary pattern based on the
covenant formula (<ts>Vergeschichte</>, Ethics, Blessings and
Curses).  Instead, Barn 1-17 may reflect a collection of various
materials which originally were used at different times but in
which the same emphases were presented in the framework of the
covenant formula. 


     <h1>Christian Influence on Barn's Sources?</>.  --  Among
the many quotations in the Epistle which have been discussed or
noted above, there actually are very few which justly can be
accused of having been reworked (either by Ps-Barn or by his
sources) under the influence of a particularly Christian
Tendenz.\7/  Probably the type of variant which is most
vulnerable to such a charge is that which tends to imply
dissociation of Christianity from Judaism:\8/ 

 <ts><u-col>Barn</>                 <ts><u-col>LXX</>     <u-col>Above</> 
 5:12--"their (own) shepherd"(SH)   "the shepherds"       pp.139-42
 9:5b--"this people"         "the whole house of Israel"  p.189
11:2 --"this people"\9/             "my people"           p.223
11:3 --"Sinai"                      "Zion"                pp.222f
11:4 --"they might know"          "you might know"        p.226 n.6
11:5 --"you will inhabit"          "he will dwell"        p.226 n.6


     \7/Danie/lou, <tm>The/ologie</>, pp. 101-29, thinks that
there is a great deal of evidence from early Christian sources,
particularly Barn, that Christianity had introduced its ideas
into its Jewish texts <lt>via</> targumic, midrashic, and
apocalyptic exegesis at the earliest period.  Klevinghaus,
<tm>Theologische Stellung</>, pp. 41f, also lists some passages
from Barn in which he finds Christian <em>Tendenz</> at work
(Barn 5:12, 6:14, 11:1-3, 13:4f, 13:7). 

     \8/On a similar phenomenon in the "Western" text of Acts,
see E. Epp's Dissertation (above, p. 52 n. 67).  As long as Barn
9:3c ("this people") was thought to be quoting Isa 1:10 ("people
of @@Gomorrah"), it was open to the same accusation.  Actually
the citation is closer to Isa 28:14 (see above, p. 181). 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "Gomorrah" or "Gomorra?"  es} 

     \9/Note that LXX Jer 8:5,7 (var); 9:1f contain the phrase
<gk>O( LAO/S MOU OU(=TOS</>, which probably influenced similar
passages such as 2:13 even in pre-Christian times.  Notice that
Barn's variant for Jer 9:26 (Barn 9:5b) also is attested by Cl.A
and Ps-Greg. 


     A detailed analysis of these passages, however, lends little
support to the claim that a necessarily <em>Christian</> redactor
has been at work (in fact, Barn 11:3 seems to argue in the
opposite direction!).  Notice also that in 2:7f, 3:3ff, 9:2a,
9:5a, and 15:2, the Epistle preserves quotations in which God is
depicted as the God of Israel without any hesitation. 

     Some other of the quotations employs phrases which look very
Christian to us:  for example,\10/ 
    <u-col>                                      <u-col>         <u-col>
    <ts>Barn</></>                               <ts>LXX</>      <ts>Above</> 
 6:1 --<gk>TW=| PAIDI\ KURI/OU</>(see also 9:2b) <gk>MOI</>      pp.152f 
12:7 --<gk>E)PI\ TOU= CU/LOU</>(not in L)  <gk>E)PI\ SHMEI/OU</> pp.240,242
12:9 --<gk>O( UI(O\S TOU= QEOU=</>                   --         pp.234ff,242f
12:11--<gk>KURI/W|</>                      <gk>KU/RW|</>(Cyrus)  pp.243f 

Nevertheless, even this kind of material is scarce in Barn in
proportion to the wealth of quotations given, and Ps-Barn
sometimes fails to mention details on which later Christianity


    \10/Bousset, <tm>Kyrios Christos</>\2/, p. 223 n. 4, lists
passages in Barn which reflect a "high" Christology, while in n.
5 he lists places where God is called "Lord" (especially in Barn
8:7-10:12, which [with 2:4-3:5] Bousset thinks is from a Jewish

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Philo, <ts>Vit. Mos</> I:290 reads <gk>O( LAO\S AU(=TOS</> where LXX
Nu 24:8 has <gk>AUTON</> +/-. 

Sibinga, pp. 86ff., deals with JM Ap 62:3-4 (paraphr. Ex 3:10) = <gk>TO\N

<lt>vs</> Ap 63:7 = MT Vg Targ Onk Targ Jer' LXX + <gk>MOU</> 

cp Ex 3:12 "the people" MT Targ Onk Targ Jer' Syr LXX\v.1./] LXX @@Vg "my
people" (v10) 

3:10  "my people, the Sons of Israel" MT LXX Targ Onk Targ Jesus' Syr
Vg] om @@"my people" Cyr 1/2 

"the people of the Israelites" JM Ap 62:3-4 

Acts 7:34 <gk>TON LAON MOU</> (Ex 3:7)  ]  om <gk>MOU</> D\*/
d 47 [cf Epp] 

JM on Isa 5:25 (D 133:5) om <gk>EPI TON LAON AUTOU</> 
            40:1  (D 50:3)  om <gk>MOU</> after <gk>TON LAON</>
            @@|| so 65:10 (D 135:4)  <gk>TW| LAW|</> (om <gk>MOU</>) 
            53:8  (=D 13:6, 43:3 <gk>TOU LAOU MOU</>) om <gk>MOU</>
            D 63:2, 89:3; cf <gk>@@AU)TU=N</> @@Ap 51:1 (@@Ka 53:12?) 

"evidently in Justin; the variants of this type are
traditional.\2/  Curiously, he applies Isa 65:10 to the
Christians.  Anti-Judaic feelings with a redactor do not in every
single case provide the best or even a good explanation of the
variant.  But when we take these readings together, the tendency
cannot be denied" (p. 87). 

p. 87 n. 2.  "That they cannot originate w/ Justin himself is
evident also from his use of the term <gk>LAO/S</>, which
deserves close attention.  It is apparently a term full of
meaning for Justin, and even a title of honor, also when used by
itself ... [examples] ... If Justin himself had any anti-Judaic
feelings, we certainly cannot discover them by way of these
variants."  } 

    \11/For example, 5:14 ("shame of spitting," above, pp. 148f),
9:1a ("those who knew me not," pp. 184f), 12:2 ("stone" on which
Moses sat, etc., pp. 234, 37), 13:7 (Abraham uncircumcised when
reckoned righteous and given covenant, pp. 253ff). 


     Despite their numerous peculiarities, then the quotations in
Barn seem to have been derived from Jewish sources, with a
minimum of Christian tampering.\12/  At point after point our
investigation has disclosed a close correspondence between the
kind of material which concerned Barn (ethical, apocalyptic,
etc., see below) and the interests of some representatives of
late Judaism.  As the commentators often claim, Ps-Barn's methods
of dealing with his sources also are paralleled in late Judaism. 
To some degree these observations also are true for some other
early Christian authors (notably [[281]] Paul, Cl.R, Justin);
nevertheless, in both the diversity (and peculiarity) of
materials used, and in the strongly anticultic application of
these materials, Barn is unique among Christian heirs of Jewish

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On this matter of <em>method</> of interpretation in general in
the Early Church, Late Judaism, and the Hellenistic World, see
the excellent treatment by R.M. Grant, <tm>Letter + Spirit</>. 


    \12/Additional support for placing Barn at a very primitive
stage in the development of Christianity includes:  the relative
lack of appeal to the life and teachings of Jesus or to other
early Christian literature, lack of ecclesiology or pneumatology,
paucity of sacramental emphasis, eschatological urgency. 


     <h1>Barn and Judaism</>.  --  The fact that Barn denies to
Jewish cultic rituals (sacrifice, fasting, circumcision, food
laws, [baptism ?], sabbath, Temple) any literal value in
worshipping God, and that the literal interpretation of Torah is
attributed to the work of an "evil angel" (9:4),\13/ has led some
commentators to see here a radical anti-Jewish polemic which is
unparalleled in early Christianity.\14/ 


    \13/Note also the Ebionite emphasis on <gk>O( PONHRO/S</> as
the @@falsifyer of Torah (Schoeps, <tm>Theologie</>, pp. 148f). 
Compare John 8:44. 

{@@RAK--  Do you want "falsifyer" or "falsifier?"  es} 

    \14/For example, Altaner, <tm>Patrology</>\5/, p. 81:  "the
radically anti-Jewish tendency of the work is unique in primitive
Christian literature." 


     It is clear from Philo's criticism of some radical Jews of
his time, however, that Barn's attitudes are not so
irreconcilable with late Judaism after all (see above, pp. 193,
220, 272).  Pre-Rabbinic Judaism apparently was quite diverse in
such matters, and Philo by no means represents the most extreme
expression of that hellenistic Judaism in which the mechanics of
the cultus were minimized.  Between a lengthy quotation from
Aristobulus on @@anthromorphisms and Philo's descriptions of the
Essenes, Eus gives a characterization of [[282]] Judaism which
probably was accurate for Philo's day (compare also Josephus,
<ts>Antiq</> I:24):\15/ 

{@@RAK-- Should "anthromorphisms" be "anthropomorphisms?"  es} 

  <qu>The whole Jewish nation is divided into two sections. 
  The <gk>LO/GOS</> was subjecting the majority to accepting the
  prescriptions of the Laws according to the literal sense
  (<gk>KATA\ TH\N R(HTH\N DIA/NOIAN</>), but the other class he exempted
  from this ... that they might pay heed to a philosophy
  which was more divine and too elevated for the multitude,
  and to behold those things signified in the Laws according
  to their meaning (<gk>KATA\ DIA/NOIAN</>).</> 
Even in semitic Judaism, the Jerusalem cultus was not free from
criticism <lt>via</> Qumran and its sister communities (see
above, p.272).  Although our picture of Judaism before it became
"normative" is not entirely clear, there is no necessary
contradiction between it and the traditions used by Ps-Barn.\16/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Schoeps, <tm>Paul</> (1961 [1959]), 265 n 3 

"Is it possible that the free-thinking heterodox Jews of
Alexandria to whom Philo makes angry reference (De Migr. Abr. 89)
were precursors of Barnabas?  In this matter there is much that
still needs explanation."  } 


    \15/<ts>Pr Ev</> VIII:10:18.  According to E.R. Goodenough,
<tm>By Light, Light:  The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism</>
(1935), p. 94, "A better summary of Philo's attitude toward the
Law could not be found."  The passage is difficult to translate,
as a comparison of the above excerpts with Gifford's trans
(reproduced by Goodenough) shows.  Although Goodenough probably
is wrong in seeing a developed hellenistic Jewish mystery cult
behind the Philonic tradition (see A.D. Nock's review in Gnomon
13 [1937], 156-65), his investigation is valuable in showing one
of the directions in which pre-Christian diaspora Judaism already
had moved:  "The Law became a difficult problem  ....  As a set
of commands concerned with physical life it ... was said to be
only the projection of the true Law, the Logos, into the material
medium of nouns and verbs  ....  Its spiritual value was
secondary altogether to that of the great Source of the written
Law, the Unwritten Law, the unwritten streaming Logos-Nomos of
God.  Only as one came up into this, the true Law of Judaism, had
one fulfilled the Law of Moses" (p. 8).  "The true Jew ... got
his Law through the mediation of the Patriarchs, especially of
Moses, who had ascended the Stream to the Logos, and were God's
'loans' to help other men, Jews and proselytes, to come to the
same vision  ....  The great temple cultus was also allegorized
as representing a Mystery.  But it was the 'Lower Mystery,' and
seems to have been stressed at all only because the Jews did not
want to abandon that cultus, and yet, if they kept it, had to see
mystic rationalistic significant in it" (p. 8).  "If the Mystery
did exist, if Judaism in the circles that were using the
Septuagint had come to mean what I have indicated, we must look
closely at Christian origins for the answer to many problems that
have baffled use" (p. 9).  Granting that Goodenough is wrong
about the "Mystery" as such, he certainly is correct that the
emphases latent in this kind of Judaism provide many clues to
problems of Christian origins. 

    \16/See also L. Ginzberg's articles on "Antinomianism" and
"Elisha Ben Abuyah" in <te>Jewish Encyc</> I (1900), 630f, and V
(1903), 138f.  In a note appended to the former, Kohler quotes
Joel (1880) as follows:  "We claim that the antinomistic (and
antinational) movement in Christianity originated among the
Hellenistic Jews already in the days of Philo, and that its
representatives were thus uninfluenced by Christianity" (P.


     <h1>Barn's Sources</>.  --  It is striking how little of the
Pentateuchal material used in Barn shows any close dependence on
the LXX as we know it.  Only Gen 1:26,28; 2:2; and 25:21,23 can
be considered as relatively faithful reproductions of the
canonical wording, and even these citations are not without
problems.\17/  On the other hand, Barn quotes passages from the
"Decalogue" (15:1), "Deuteronomy" (10:2), and frequently from
"Moses" (see above, p. 46), which have little verbal relationship
to extant Pentateuchal texts.  Apparently Ps-Barn is writing from
a background in which [[284]] targumic Pentateuchal compositions
(haggadic and halakic) freely were used.\18/ 


    \17/Note that Gen 1:26 was extremely popular in Ps-Barn's
world (see Jervell, <ts>Imago Dei</>), as was Gen 2:2 (see
Philo!).  Barn's quotation from Gen 25 is not without
periphrastic elements (see above pp. 247f) and contains poetic
words from the Lord, which would tend to be preserved more
faithfully than narrative material. 

    \18/Although Philo often is relatively close to extant LXX
texts of the Pentateuch, he is not without such periphrastic
renderings; see especially <ts>Virt</>, where "there are scarcely
any literal quotations" (P. Katz, <tm>Philo's Bible</> [1950], p.
70), although a great many Pentateuchal contexts are there
"quoted."  Also of great interest is the strange quotation
dealing with curse and blessing in connection with obedience to
the covenant found in Tht, <ts>Qu Deut</> 38B (PG 80:441), in the
context of a discussion of Deut 29:19ff. 


     Similarly, the recurrence of <em>apocalyptic</> material is
characteristic in the Epistle.\19/  Frequently there is a close
relationship between the apocalyptic and the targumic
Pentateuchal sources by means of the emphasis on
<gm>Heilsgeschichte</> -- the last things will parallel the first
(new creation theme), Christians are the new people who will
inherit and rule the good land (second Exodus/<@@ts>Landnahme</>
theme).  Sometimes Barn also seems to reflect speculation about
Messiah as a "second Joshua" in this connection.\20/ 



    \19/See 4:3-5, 4:14(?), 6:8-19, 11:8-11, 12:1, 12:9, 15:3-8,

    \20/Barn also has a clear "Son of God" Christology, and
possibly a "second Adam" Christology (see 6:9).  Passages in Barn
which provide support for a Jesus/Joshua ben Ephraim Messianology
include: 6:9 (above, p. 165; compare 11:11, p. 230), 12:8ff (pp.
242ff; note the denial that Jesus is Messiah ben David), 13:5 (p.
249f; blessing on Ephraim), and 14:5 (p. 255; <gk>I)HSOU=S</>
gives the covenant).  Other late Jewish and early Christian
literature sometimes hints at the same possibility:  (1)  Joshua
symbolizes salvation (above, p. 165 n. 101); (2)  Messiah ben
Joseph/Ephraim defeats the eschatological Amalek (above, p. 235
n. 30); (3)  Joshua becomes heir of Moses' covenant and "gnosis"
according to Ps-Philo 20; (4)  the role of Joseph, the righteous
sufferer (see Wisdom 10:13f !), is emphasized in the Testaments
of the XII Patriarchs and in many Christian fathers (see M.
Philonenko, <tm-fr>Les interpolations chre/tiennes des Testaments
des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qoumra^n</> (1960),
pp. 50-58; A.W. Argyle, "Joseph the Patriarch in Patristic
Teaching," ExpTim 67 (1955/56), 199-201); (5)  Samaritan thought
also afforded Joseph a significant role as the first king of
Israel, and one of the Samaritan sects even may have looked for
the return of Joshua in the last times (see J.A. Montgomery,
<tm>The Samaritans</> [1907], pp. 258, 248 n. 176, 245 n. 162);
(6)  Hebrews and JM (especially D 113, 115:4) see Christ
foreshadowed in Joshua, the successor of Moses (compare Jude 5
var), and in Joshua the High Priest of Zach 3:1; (7)  Tht, <ts>Qu
Gen</> 109 (PG 80:213), in a periphrastic presentation of Jacob's
blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, says that the "kingdom" will be
from Ephraim, and the 10 (!) tribes will be subject as in
Joseph's dream (Gen 37:9): etc.  Note the extreme view that the
pre-Christian <gk>I)HSOU=S</> had become an Essene cult-god, A.
Drews, <tm>Die Christusmythe</> (1924\2/), pp. 27-48.  {@@RAK
addition:  On the Jesus/Joshua typology in the early Church in
general, see Danie/lou, <tm>Sacramentum Futuri</>, "Le cycle de
Josue/" (1950), pp. 203-16.  } 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
IV Ezra 
"Jesus"  } 


     Numerous other quotations, drawn mainly from Isaiah and
Psalms (a few from Jeremiah and Proverbs), often are used as
supplementary "proof texts" in the course of the Epistle.  It is
in these passages that Barn's tradition consistently stands
closest to the LXX, even when secondary Psalmic compositions are
used.  Nevertheless, there is little reason to believe that all
or even most of these citations were taken directly from LXX MSS
(see above, n.4) -- Ps 1, for example, seems to derive from a
commentary source@@, and the quotations in Barn 2-3 probably
already had been collected for purposes of instruction concerning
"what the Lord requires." 

     <h1>The Affinities of Barn's Tradition</>.  --  In its
allegorical interpretation, @@paraenetic tone, and "gnostic"
emphasis, Barn's tradition must have some close relationship to
the [[286]] hellenistic Jewish school tradition of Alexandria
(Ps-Aristeas, Aristobulus, and especially Philo) which later
exerted such a great influence on the Christian catechetical
school there (Cl.A, Origen, etc.).  The way in which Barn 10
treats the Mosaic food laws (above, pp.197-220) offers the
clearest proof of this relationship.  We have seen numerous other
places where Barn and Philo, or Barn and Cl.A are in striking
harmony as to what materials are cited and how they are
interpreted.  There can be no question but that a sophisticated
school tradition like that of Alexandria has strongly influenced
the Epistle and its author. 

{@@RAK-- Do you want "paraenetic" or "parenetic?"  es} 

     Nevertheless, Philonic Judaism differs <lt>toto caelo</>
from Barn in one of the Epistle's major emphases, the
apocalyptic.  It always is possible that Philo does not
faithfully represent his tradition in his apparent lack of
concern for eschatology, but the Alexandrian Christian school
shows a similar coolness in such matters.  On the other hand, the
ethical-apocalyptic preoccupation of Barn shares the same
mentality which produced IV Ezra, Testaments of the XII
Patriarchs,\21/ and other apocalyptic literature of that sort
(Enoch cycle, [[287]] II Baruch, etc.).\22/  In fact, the
<gm>heilsgeschichtliche</> character of much of the apocalyptic
tradition (notably Jubilees, compare also Ps-Philo\23/) also is
shared by Barn; nor should we overlook the motifs of secrecy
("gnostic") which often permeate the apocalyptic revelations. 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Knox, <ts>Hell. Els</> 40:  "Philo has consistently eliminated
eschatology and the Messiah from his writings {Cf. Knox, St. Paul
+ Ch. of Gentiles, 27], and in view of his carelessness in
revising his sources [cf. Note "Philo's Use of Sources" on pp 47-
54 of this book], this can only mean that the whole tradition of
Alexandrine teaching had done so for him."  cf De. Conf. Ling. 62
on Zech 6:12. 

Nock, \rev/ Class. Philol 43 (1948), 124, takes issue with Knox: 
"Philo cherished the idea of the Day of the Lord and has an
occasional reference to the Lord's Anointed Agent."  But Nock
gives <em>no</> refs. except <ts>Praem. poen.</> 165, where he
thinks there is 'No personal Messiah" (so Colson VIII, 418 n). 
For Nock, it is not so much that Philo + his trad. de-
eschatologized as that X\ty/ heightened the eschat. 

The most eschat. passages in Philo [Knox, Gentiles 27 n. 3] = 
<ts>De praem. et Poen.</> 15f (95)  -  a human warrior messiah
tames the beasts

cf Nu 24.@@] 

<ts>De Execr.</> 9]  (165ff)  --  a miraculous return to
Palestine.  } 


    \21/Philonenko's conclusion concerning claims of Christian
interpolation in the Testaments is interesting in the light of
Barn's tradition and its affinities with the Testaments: 
"<fr>Les <ts>Testaments des Douze Patriarches</> nous ont
e/te/transmis avec une remarquable fide/lite/ et, tels que nous
les connaissons par la tradition grecque, ils sont libres de
toute interpolation chre/tienne de quelque importance</>" (p. 59). 

    \22/Note also the affinities on the clearly Christian side of
the picture with Hipp of Rome.  {@@RAK notein margin:  [Iren,
Melito]  } 

    \23/On some apocalyptic elements in Ps-Philo, see James'
Introduction, pp. 34ff, 41f. 


     Where should we look for the fountainhead from which came
these various elements in the personality of Ps-Barn and his
tradition  --  the "gnostic," the paraenetic, the
<gm>heilsgeschictlich</>, and the apocalyptic?  It must have been
a tradition in which the participants engaged in a great deal of
scriptural study -- a school tradition.  The Qumran caves, with
their eschatological commentaries, scriptural excerpts, targumic
renderings, hymns, rules of conduct, etc., provide the most
obvious answer,\24/ but there is no evidence that Ps-Barn or his
immediate sources arose from a semitic background.  On the
contrary, in language and in thought, Ps-Barn moves primarily in
the hellenistic world -- and often in a rather sophisticated
hellenistic world (see 10:6-8) like that of Alexandrian Judaism. 

{@@RAK-- Should "heilsgeschichtlich" be "heilsgeschichtliche?"  es} 

    \24/Some of the similarities of Barn with Qumran are explored
by Audet, "Affinite/s," and Barnard, "Observations" (see above,
p. 8 n. 2). 



     In short, the sources used in Barn seem to presuppose an
Essene-like hellenistic tradition which had contacts with
Alexandria (or a similar school tradition).  The presence of
Greek fragments in the Qumran caves (4Q LXX, for example\25/) may
indicate that Greek communities resembling Qumran existed and
maintained some sort of contact with their semitic counterparts
in Palestine.  In fact, the Therapeutae eulogized by Philo in
<ts>Vita Contempl</> certainly seem to be a hellenistic Essene
group, and Philo's description of them makes them the most likely
candidate for illuminating the possible origin of Barn's sources. 


    \25/Three of the Greek (LXX) scraps from 4Q are discussed by
P.W. Skehan, "The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,"
<tm>Vetus Testamentum Supplement</> IV (1957), 155-60. 

{@@RAK note in margin:  also Ep. Jerem.  } 


     According to <ts>Vita Contemp</>, communities of this sort
were scattered everywhere in the Greek world, but especially in
Egypt and near Alexandria (21).\26/  The individual Therapeutae
isolated themselves for study and meditation during the week, but
on the <gk>E(BDOMA/S</> they gathered together to eat a simple
meal (bread, salt, water) ad to hear a wise discourse from one of
the elder and most learned members [[289]] (30f, 36f).  In their
scholarly pursuits,

  <qu>They read the Holy Scriptures ad seek wisdom from their
  ancestral philosophy by taking it as an allegory, since
  they think that the words of the literal text are symbols
  of something whose hidden nature is revealed by studying
  the underlying meaning. 
  They have also writings of men of old, the founders of
  their way of thinking, who left many memorials of the form
  used in allegorical interpretation and these they take as
  a kind of archetype and imitate the method in which the
  principle is carried out.  And so they do not confine
  themselves to contemplation but also compose hymns and
  psalms to God in all sorts of metres and melodies.</> 
                                       (28-29, Loeb trans)\27/ 


    \26/Philo may not mean that the Therapeutae had sister
communities throughout the world, but only that their devotion to
"philosophy" and scholarship and simple, virtuous living was not
without parallel elsewhere.  The community which Philo then
describes was located near Alexandria, <gk>U(PE\R LI/MNHS
MAREI/AS</> (22). 

    \27/The Loeb ed notes several problems of translation in this
passage, but the overall sense seems clear. 


     Despite the fact that Philo in no way condemns the
Therapeutae, he nowhere describes their precise attitude to the
Jerusalem cultus and its rites.\28/  They seem to have observed a
sabbath of some sort, and voluntary fasting was part of their
study habit (but according to Philo, not an end in itself), but
the quotation given above certainly resembles Philo's description
of the radical Jews in <ts>Migr Abr</> 89-93 (see above, pp. 193,
272), and it is not unlikely that these two groups somehow were
related (if not identical).  Also of note is the parallel between
the significance of dreams among Philo's Therapeutae\29/ and the
way in which Strabo's anti-cultic [[290]] source for
<ts>Geography</> XVI:35 (see above, p. 220) describes the
function of Moses' "sacred precinct (<gk>TE/MENOS</>) and
remarkable enclosure (<gk>SHKO\N A)CIO/LOGON</>)" which had no
image in it (since God surrounds the entire cosmos): 

  <qu>Those who have good dreams (<gk>TOU\S EU)ONEI/ROUS</>) should 
  sleep in it ..., and those who live prudently and with 
  righteousness should always expect some good thing
  and gift and sign from God, but others should not
  expect such.</> 
The fact that Philo does not indicate any apocalyptic elements
among the Therapeutae may be due to his own lack of interest in
that area -- note that his description of the Essenes also lacks
this item (compare Josephus).  Perhaps it also is significant
that according to Philo, the Therapeutae commemorated the Exodus
events with hymns, etc.\30/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

On Strabo's probable use of Posidonius of Apamea, cf Nock
"Posidonius" JRS 49, 1-15. 

Cf. also S.L. Guterman, Relig. Toleration + Persecution in
Ancient Rome (1951). 64 n 105 

"In Apamea there had existed from early times a Jewish community
which, according to the Talmud, had forsaken Jerusalem and which
exercised great influence, as is evidenced in coins of the period
of Philip the Arab depicting Noah's Ark landing in Apamea." 

Knox, <tm>Hell. Els.</>, p. 23 (4):  "Josephus' story [Antt.
2.205 re Moses' birth + infancy] goes back to the propaganda of
Alexandrine Judaism, fragments of which, combined with the anti-
semitic propaganda of Manetho (cf. Jos. c. Ap. 1.238ff.), appear
in STRABO 16.2.35 (760) and Diod. @@Sic. 40.3.3.  It would be
interesting to know if this Jewish propaganda was based entirely
on the O.T. and the inventive faculties of the pseudo-Hecataeus,
or whether it preserved any popular legends; it may be observed
that the story was originally non-Jewish, ... and that Hall,
<tm>Ancient History of the Near East</>, 408, suggests that
Manetho's identification of Moses with the runaway Egyptian
priest Osarsiph may imply his knowledge of an Egyptian legend out
of which the Moses story in the O.T. has been developed; if so,
it is possible that some of Josephus' legends of Moses' birth
were drawn from Jewish or Egyptian folk-lore." 

Grant, "Gnostic Worship" McCormick Quarterly 18:4 (1965), 39.  -- 

"outside X\ty/ there was a theory, set forth by the der
Posidonius presumably with some help from Hellenistic Jews, that
originally Judaism was a pure, non-ritualistic religion;
superstitious successors of Moses added the dietary legislation,
circumcision, etc., and, by implication, the whole cultic
apparatus" [\N/. Strabo, <ts>@@Geog.</> 760-61; see E. Norden in
<tm-gm>Festgabe ... Harnack</> (1921), 292-301].  } 


    \28/Apparently they did not eat the flesh of animals (73),
but Philo implies that they imitated Temple rites concerning
unleavened bread and salt (81). 

    \29/<ts>Vita Contempl</> 26:  "They keep the memory of God,
alive and never forget it, so that even in their dreams (<gk>DI)
D)NEIRA/TWN</>) the picture is nothing else but the loveliness of
divine excellences and powers.  Indeed, many when asleep and
dreaming (<gk>E)N U(/PNOIS O)NEI/ROPOLOU/MENOI</>  ) give
utterance to the glorious verities (<gk>DO/GMATA</>) of their
holy philosophy" (Loeb trans). 

    \30/<ts>Vita Contempl</> 85-89; after the special meal held
on Pentecost or every 7 weeks (65), they gather as a choir in
imitation of the ancient choir beside the Red Sea, and they sing
all night. 


     It is at least possible, therefore, that the anti-cultic
quotations, the "gnostic" and parenetic emphases, the targumic
covenant materials, the psalmic compositions, and the apocalyptic
orientation of Barn are products of a hellenistic Essene
tradition which also had contacts with Alexandrian Judaism and
which was fertile ground for Christianization.  [[291]] In any
case, Barn has drawn from sources which are quite closely related
to hellenistic late Judaism.  Thus the Epistle is of great value
for giving us insight into the relationship of one branch of
early Christianity to its scholarly Jewish background, and to the
congenial sources which were available from that background.\31/ 

{@@RAK note on facing page: 

Hefele\4/, XIV:  Dress; XIII 

"<lt>Idem vir doctus, Daniel Schenkel</>\3/  [In <ts>Ullmanni</>,
etc.:  <gm>Studien und Krit.  1837.  p. 652-686], <lt>ut litem de
authentia epistolae componeret, probare conatus est, epistolam
Barnabae genuinam quidem esse, sed non integram, omnesque ejus
@@partes, viris doctis displicentes, a Therapeuta quodam,
Christianorum sacra secuto, originem troxisse, qui mystica sua
sapientia viri apostolici @@littevas augere sit ausus.</>" 

Schenkel breaks of chs. 18-21 
                        15-16  } 


    \31/We have note entered into a comparison between Barn and
Hebrews, which certainly would be instructive in the light of the
similarities in content and method between these writings. 
Compare C. Spicq's commentary on <tm>L'Epitre aux Hebreux</>



For the Bibliography: 
1.  I added your additions. 
2.  I used the notation system already in place for duplicated names.  A duplicated name is represented by a line. 
3.  I removed all page numbers. 
4.  I indicated the page numbers that you added between citations with the notation: 

{@@RAK--  Do you want the same notation for these page numbers as for the page numbers of your dissertation?  es} 

5.  I standardized the citation format to :  last name then first name. 


[[section divider]] 



For Editions and Translations of Primary Sources other than
Barnabas, see under "Aids to the Reader," above, pp. ix-xvi.

For Older Literature on the Epistle of Barnabas, see especially
the Bibliographies in the Gebhardt-Harnack, pp. XL-XLIV, and E.C.
Richardson in the Supplement to the American Edition of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, pp. 16-19.

<h1>Barnabas:  Texts, Translations, Commentaries, and General

Altaner, B.  Patrology.  Trans by H.C. Graef from the 5th German
ed of 1958.  Freiburg, 1960, pp. 80-81.

Alzog, J.  "Der katholische Brief des Barnabas," Grundriss der
Patrologie.  Freiburg, 1888/4 (1866), pp. 32-39.

Andry, C.F.  An Introduction to the Epistle of Barnabas.  Harvard
Dissertation, 1949.  [[7]] 

Backhouse, J.H.  The Editio Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas
by Archbishop Ussher as printed at Oxford A.D. 1642.  Oxford,
1883.  [[25]]

Bardengewer, O.  Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literature I:2. 
Freiburg, 1913/2 (1902), pp. 103-16.

Bareille, G.  "Barnabe/ (E/pi^tre dite de saint)," Dictionaire de
The/ologie Catholique II (1903), 416-22.  [[6]]

Bartlet, J.V.  "Barnabas (The Epistle of Barnabas)," Encyc
Brit./11 III (1910), 408-9.

Bihlmeyer, K.  Die apostolischen Vaeter, Neubearbeitung der
Funkschen Ausgabe.  Tuebingen, 1924 (reprinted with added notes
by W. Schneemelcher, 1956/2).  [[27]]

Carrington, P.  The Early Christian Church I.  Cambridge (Eng.),
1957, pp. 486-91 and <lt>passim</>.

Colombo, S. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera.  Turin, 1934.

Crafer, T.W.  The Epistle of Barnabas.  Texts for Students 14. 
New York, 1920.

Cunningham, W. and Randall, G.H.  A Dissertation on the Epistle
of St. Barnabas.  London, 1877.

@@Eltester          INTERPRETERS DICT. OF BIBLE I (1962). 

Fischer, J.A.  Die apostolischen Vaeter.  Munich, 1956.

Funk, F.X.  Patres Apostolici I.  Tuebingen, 1901/2 (1878).  Ed
minor, 1906/2.  [[6,26]]

Gebhardt, O. von, and Harnack, A.  Barnabas Epistula.  Patrum
Apostolicorum Opera I:2.  Lipsius, 1878/2 (1875).  Ed minor,
1877.  [[2, 6, 26]] 

Glimm, F.X.  "Barnabas," in The Apostolic Fathers.  The Fathers
of the Church.  New York, 1947. 

Goodspeed, E.J.  The Apostolic Fathers, an American Translation. 
New York, 1950.

________.  A History of Early Christian Literature.  Chicago,
1942, pp. 30-35.  [[7, 9]]

Guedemann, M.  "Zur Erklaerung des Barnabasbriefes,"
Religionsgeschichtlichen Studien II.  Leipzig, 1876.

Haeuser, P.  Der Barnabasbrief neu untersucht und neu erklaert. 
Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte
II:2.  Paderborn, 1912.

Hamilton, H.  "Barnabas, Epistle of," HDAC I (1916), 139-42. 

Hamman, G.A.  Naissance des Lettres Chre/tiennes:  Odes de
Salmon, Lettre de Barnabe/....  Paris, 1957.

Harnack, A.  "Barnabas," New Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religious
Knowledge I (1908), 487-88.

________.  Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis
Eusebius.  Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur I.  Leipzig,
1897, pp. 410-28.  [[6]]

Heer, J.M.  Die Versio latina des Barnabasbriefes un ihr
verhaeltnis zur altlateinischen Bibel.  Freiburg, 1908.  [[1,

_______.  "Der lateinische Barnabasbrief:  ein Nachwort,"
Roemischen Quartalschrift 23 (1909), 215-44 (also published
separately).  [[26]]

Hammer, H., <lt>et al</>.  Les Pe\res apostoliques I:2.  Paris,
1926/2 (1907).

Hilgenfeld, A.  Barnabae Epistula.  Lipsius, 1877/2 (1866). 

________.                                             1871 

Klauser, T.  Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum, Barnabae Epistula
@@Florilegiun Patristicum I.  Bonn, 1940.  [[27]]

{@@Do you want "Florilegiun" or "Florilegium?"  es} 

Kleist, J.A.  "The Epistle of Barnabas" in Ancient Christian
Writers 6.  Westminster (Maryland), 1948, pp. 27-65 and 166-83. 

Kohler, K.  "Barnabas, Jones:  Epistle," Jewish Encyc II (1902),
538.  [[6]] 

Kraft, B.  "Barnabasbrief," LexTK I (1957), 1256-57.  [[7]]

Lake, K.  The Apostolic Fathers I.  Loeb.  Cambridge (Mass.),
1912, pp. 337-409.

Lietzmann, H.  The Beginnings of the Christian Church.  Trans by
B.L. Woolf.  New York, 1937, pp. 289-94.

Lightfoot, J.B.  The Apostolic Fathers.  Ed and completed by J.R.
Harmer.  London, 1891, pp. 239-88.  {@@RAK addition in text: 
Intro by J.B.L., Text by Harmer, Transl. from notes of L.  }

Milligan, W. "Barnabas, Epistle of," A Dictionary of Christian
Biography I.  Ed by W. Smith and H. Wace.  Boston, 1877, pp. 260-
65.  [[6]]

Mueller, J.G.  Erklaerung des Barnabasbriefes.  Ein Anhang zu
deWette's exegetischem Handbuch zum neuron Testaments.  Leipzig,
1869.  [[57]] 

Pellegrino, M.  "Barnaba:  Lettera di B.," Enciclopedia Cattolica
II (1949), 865-66.

Puech, A.  History de la Litte/rature grecque chre/tienne depuis
les origines jusqu'a\ la fin du IV\e/ sie\cle II.  Paris, 1928,
pp. 22-31.

Quasten, J.  Patrology I:  The Beginnings of Patristic
Literature.  Westminster (Maryland), 1950, pp. 85-92.  [[7]]

Rhodokanakis, Georgios D.

ed. of Barn, Smyrna (privately published, ca 100 copies) 1843
text established by Constantinos Simonides [info. from martin Guy
[France] 9/23/87) [see Geb-Harnack XXIII n 3 citing Athenaeum (8
Jan 1876) 53f exposing this as a forged date to upstage

Roberts, A.  and Donaldson, J.  The Ante-Nicene Fathers I. 
Edinburgh, 1867.

Ruiz Bueno, D.  Padres Apostolicos.  Bibliotheca de Autores
Christianos.  Madrid, 1950, pp. 729-810.  [[7]] 

Schmid, J.  "Barnabas:  IV Barnabasbrief," RAC I (1950), 1217-17. 

Schuetz, R.  "Barnabasbrief," RGG I (1957/3), 880-81.  [[7]] 

Sharpe, S.  The Epistle of Barnabas from the Sinaitic Manuscript
of the Bible, with a Translation.  London, 1880.  [[26]] 

Thieme, K.  Kirche und Synagoge:  die ersten nachbiblischen
Zeugnisse ihres Gegensetzes im Offenbarungsverstaendnis (Barn and
JM, D).  Olten, 1945, pp. 27-65 and 224-36.  [[7]] 

Veil, H.  "Barnabasbrief," Neutestamentliche Apokryphen.  Ed by
E. Hennecke.  Tuebingen, 1904/1, pp. 143-50 (greatly condensed in
1924/2, pp. 503f).  [[6]] 

Veldhuizen, A. van.  De Brief van Barnabas.  Groningen, 1901. 

Voelter, D.  Die apostolischen Vaeter neu untersucht I.  Leiden,
1904.  (See also his "Der Barnabasbrief neu untersucht,"
Jahrbuecher fuer Prot. Theologie 14 (1888), 106-44.)

Weiss, J.  Der Barnabasbrief kritisch untersucht.  Berlin, 1888.

Wengst, Klaus

Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, A Kgsch. 42 (de
Gruyter, 1971) pp. x + 129 34DM. 

Windisch, H.  Der Barnabasbrief.  Lietzmann's Handbuch zum neuen
Testament.  Ergaenzungsband:  Dei apostolischen Vaeter III. 
Tuebingen, 1920.  [[1]] 

<h1>Barnabas:  Literature Limited to Specific Aspects of the

Note that some of the literature listed below in the General
Bibliography also treats specific aspects of the Epistle (e.g.
@@Bultzer, Harris-Burch, Hatch, Klevinghaus, Koester, Oepke,
Swete, etc.).

Allon, G.  in Tarbiz 11 (1939/40), 23-38 <hb>hebrew text</> ["The
Halacha in Barnabae Epistola"]; also p. 223 

Summary by S. Lowy, p 24 "Furthermore it has been proved by Allon
that Barn used a Jewish written tradition current among the Jews
in Alexandria which was attached to the whole scripture.  It was
a kind of Midrash written in Greek, interlocated into the
scripture [n. cf 7:3-7, 8:1-4, 10:7,15:1] and considered as an
entity with it.  Similar phenomena of Midrash interwoven into
scripture and fused into one unit, we find also in other books of
the period [n. - Jubilees, Ps-Philo," etc."].  Allon suggests
that the source which Barnabas used was probably similar to the
Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, but composed in Greek; for in that
paraphrase we also have Halakhah and 'Aggada grafted into the
verses of Scripture." 

Andry, C.F.  "'Barnabae Epist. Ver. DCCL,'" JBL 70 (1951), 233-

Arnold, C.F.  Quaestionem de compositione et fontibus Barnabae
epistolae capita nonnulla.  Inaugural address.  Regimonti

Audet, J.-P.  "Affinite/s litte/raires et doctrinales du Manuel
de Discipline," RB 59 (1952), 219-38 (on Did and Barn), and 60
(1953), 41-82 (on Hermas).  [[8]] 

Bacon, B.W.  "Stephen's Speech:  its Argument and Doctrinal
Relationship," in <tm>Yale Bicentennery Publs.</>  (1901), 211-

Bang, J.P.  "Studier over Barnabasbrevet," Teolog. @@Tidsskrift
(1900 or 1901), 374.

Barnard, L.W.  "The Date of the Epistle of Barnabas -- A Document
of Early Egyptian Christianity," JEArch 44 (1958), 101-107. 

________.  "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls: 
Some Observations," ScotJT 13 (1960), 43-59.  [[8]] 

________.  "The Epistle o Barnabas and te Tannaitic Catechism,"
AnglTR 41 (1959), 177-90.  [[8]] 

________.  "Judaism in Egypt -- A.D. 70-135," ChQR 160 (1959),

________.  "The Problem of the Epistle of Barnabas," ChQR 159
(1958), 211-30.  [[7]]

________.  "St. Stephen and Early Alexandrian Christianity," NTS
7 (1960/61), 31-45.

Barnard, L.W.  "The Epistle of Barnabas -- A Paschal Homily?  Vig
Chr 15 (1961), 8-22.

________.  "Some Folklore Elements in an Early Christian
Epistle," Folke-Lore 70 (1959), 433-39.

________.  "Barnabas I.8," Exp. Times 69 (1957/58), 239.

________.  "A Note on <ts>Barnabas</> 6:8-17" St. Patr 4, TU 79
(1961), 263-67. 

Bartlet, J.V.  "The Epistle of Barnabas" in The New Testament in
the Apostolic Fathers.  Ed by A Committee of the Oxford Society. 
Oxford, 1905, pp. 1-23.

Baumstark, A.  "Der Barnabasbrief bei den Syrern," OrChr 2
(1912), 235-40.  [[26]] 

Braun, F.M.  "La 'lettre de Barnabe/' et l/E/vangile de Saint
Jean," NTS 4 (1958), 119-24.  [[14]] 

Braun, F.M.

@@R.B. 67 (1960), 516-49 [on T. XII P.s - + Barn-Did-Herm pp 522-

Braunsburger, O.  Der apostel Barnabas, sein @@Leben und der ihm
beigelegte Brief.  Mainz, 1876.

Bruell, N.  (review of Guedemann's Erklaerung).  Jahrbuecher fuer
Juedische Geschichte 3 (1877), 179-80 and 211-12.

Burger, J.-D.  "L'Enigme de Barnabas," Museum Helveticum 3
(1946), 180-93.  [[7]] 

Burkitt, F.C.  "Barnabas and the Didache" (review of Muilenburg's
Literary Relations), JTS 33 (1931/32), 25-27.  [[8]] 

Butler, B.C.  "The Literary Relations of Didache, Ch SVI," JTS 11
(1960), 265-83.

________.  "The 'Two Ways' in the Didache"  JTS 12 (1961), 27-38. 

Cadbury, H.J.  "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache," JQR 26
(1936), 403-406.  [[8]] 

Chapman, D.J.  "Barnabas and the Western Text of Acts," RBe/n 30
(1913), 219-21.

Connolly, R.H.  "Barnabas and the Didache," JTS 38 (1937), 165-
67.  [[8]] 

________.  "The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas,"
JTS 33 (1931/32), 237-53.

________.  "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache," JTS 35
(1934), 114-18.

Dahl, N.A.  "La terre ou\ coulent le lait et le miel selon
Barnabe/ 6.8-19," in Aux Sources de la tradition chre/tienne. 
Festschrift M. Goguel.  Neuchatel, 1950, pp. 62-70.  [[162]] 

Danie/lou, J.  "Les origines de la Typologie" (review of Dahl's
article), RechSR 37 (1950), 606-608.

________.  "Un Testimonium sur le Vigne dans Barnabe/, XII, 1"
RechSR 50 (1962), 389-99.

           Reprinted in E/tudes (1966), 99-107.

Duchesne, L. "Saint Barnabe," Me/langes de Rossi (Paris, 1892),

Froidevaux, L.-M.  "Sur trois textes cite/s par Saint Ire/ne/e,"
RechSR 44 (1956), 408-21.  [[12]] 

Funk, F.X.  "Der Barnabasbrief und die Didache," TQ 79 (1897),

________.  "Der Codex Vaticanus gr. 859 und seine Descendenten,"

________.  "Didache und Barnabasbrief" TQ 87 (1905), 161-179. 

________.  "Die Zeit des Barnabasbriefes," Kirchengeschichtliche
Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen 2 (1899), 77-108.

Funk (apud Audet on Didache, p. xiii), "Didache und B. brief,"
Theol. Quartalschr.  87 (1905), 161-79.

________.  "Der Barnabasbrief, eine Schrift vom Ende des ersten
Jahrhunderte," T.Q. 66 (1884). 

Goodspeed, E.J.  "The Didache, Barnabas and the Doctrina," AnglTR
27 (1945), 228-47.  [[8]] 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
Reprinted +/- in transl. of Ap.Fs as appendix  }

________.  "The Salutation of Barnabas," JBL 34 (1915), 162-65. 

Harris, J.R.  "On the Locality of pseudo-Barnabas," JBL 9 (1980),

d'Herbigny, M.  "La date de 'l'E/pi^tre de Barnabe/'," RechSR 1
(1910), 417-43 and 540-66.  [[6]] 

d'Herbigny, "Nouvelles e/tudes sur l'e/pi^tre de Barnabe," Rech
SR 4 (1913), 402-8.  }

Hermans, A.  "Le Pseudo-Barnabe/, est-il mille/nariste?" ETL 35
(1959), 849-76.

Kraft, R.A.  "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony Book'
Hypothesis," JBL 79 (1960), 336-50.  [[4]] 

Ladeuze, P.  "L"E/pi^tre de Barnabe/," RHE 1 (1900), 31-40 and

Lightfoot, J.B.  The Apostolic Fathers I:2  @@S. Clement of Rome
(1890\2/), App. B "The Epistle of Barnabas"  pp 503-12 [cf. also
Lightfoot-Harmer]{@@.  }   

Loman, A.D.  "De Apocalypse van Barnabas," TTijd 18 (1884), 182-
226, 493-95 (in answer to Volkmar), 573-81 (in answer to van

Lowy, S.  "The Confutation of Judaism in the Ep. of Barn" J
Jewish St 11 (1960), 1-34.

[p. 32 summary:  "The <ts>Epistle</> was written as an answer to
the Jewish messianic movement which prophesied the early
reconstruction of the Temple, the @@ingathering of the exiles,
the coming of the Messiah, political freedom, etc.  ...  By its
preaching, prophecies, and supposed success, the movement drew
converts and @@sympathisers to Judaism and the Law, including some
from the rank and file of Christianity."]  [Lowy is at Leeds] 


1.  Is "ingathering" one word? 
2.  Do you want "sympathisers" or "sympathizers?" 


van Manen, W.C.  "Een vraagteeken bij het geboortejaar van
Barnabas' brief," TTijd 18 (1884), 552-72.

Marmorstein, A.  "L'E/pi^tre de Barnabe/ & la pole/mique Juive,"
RE/Juiv 60 (1910), 213-20.

Marshall, J.C.  "Was Barnabas Ignorant of Jewish Ritual?"  Exp 4
(1882), 63-77.  [[170]]

Meinhold, P.  "Geschichte und Exegese in Barnabasbrief," ZKG 64
(1940), 255-303.  [[7]]

Muilenberg, J.  The Literary Relations of the Epistle Barnabas
and The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.  Marburg, 1929.  [[7]]

O'Hagan, A.P., "Early Christian Exegesis Exemplified from the
Epistle of Barnabas," Aus(tralian) Bib Rev 11 (1963), 33-40 [NTA
9 (1965), 1104]. 

Oesterreicher, J. and Thieme, K.  "Um Kirche und Synagoge im
Barnabasbrief," ZKT 74 (1952), 63-70.  [[7]]

Otto, J.K.T. von, "Haben Barnabas, Justinus und Irenaeus des 2
Petrusbrief (3;8) benuetzt?" ZWT 20 (1877), 525-29.

Palazzini, P.  "Summa theologiae moralis lineamenta in Didache\
et in Epistula Pseudo-Barnabae," Euntes Docete 11 (1958), 260-73.

Prigent, P, Les Testimonia dans le Christianisme Primitif: 
L'E/pi^tre de Barnabe/ I-XVI et @@Ses Sources (1961). 

Robinson, J.A.  Barnabas, Hermas, and Didache.  London, 1920.

________.  "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache,"  JTS 35
(1934), 118-46.  [[8]]

Sagnard, F.M.M.  "Y a-t-il un plan du 'Dialogue avec Tryphon'?"
in Me/lenges Joseph de Ghellinck.  Louvain, 1951, pp. 171-82
(deals with points of contact between Barn and JM, D).

Schille, G.  "Zur urchristlichen Tauflehre:  stilistische
Beobachtungen am Barnabasbrief," ZNW 49 (1958), 31-52.  [[8]]

Schlaeger, P.  "Die Komposition des Barnabasbriefs," NiewTTijd 10
(1921), 264-73.

Streeter, B.H.  "The Much-@@belaboured Didache," JTS 37 (1936),
369-74.  [[8]] 

Taylor, C.  "The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas," Exp 3
(1886), 401-28.  {@@RAK note:  (subtitle; "An Argument for the
priority of the Didache")  } 

@@Taylor. (apud Audet on Didache, p. XVI)  "The Didache & Barn,"
Exp. 3 (1886), 316f. 

{@@RAK--  Should I type "Taylor" or "________?"  (Is it the same
"Taylor?"  es} 

Volkmar, G.  "Ad @@Barnabeam apocalypsin brevis adnotatio," TTijd
18 (1884), 491-92.

{@@RAK--  Do you want "Barnabeam" or "Barnabean?"  es} 

________. "Ueber Clemens von Rom ... mit bes. Beziehung auf den
Barnabasbrief," Tuebingen Theol. Jahrb.  (1856), 350 ff. 

Wallach, L.  "The Origin of Testimonia Biblica in Early Christian
Literature," RevRel 8 (1943/44), 130-36 (see above, p. 239 n.

Williams, A.L.  "The Date of he Epistle of Barnabas," JTS 34
(1933), 337-46.  [[7]]

Wohleb, L.  "Zur Versio latina des Barnabasbriefes@@," Berliner
philol.  Wochenschrift 33 (1913), 1020-24, 34(1914), 573-75. 

Wrede, W.  Das literarische Raetsel des Hebraeerbriefes, mit
einem Anhang ueber den literarischen Charakter des
Barnabasbriefes.  Goettingen, 1906.

<h1>General Literature</>

Allati, L.  "In Eustathii Antiocheni Hexaemeron notae uberiores
et collectanea," in PG 18:795-1066 (especially cols. 951ff on
some of the animals in Barn 10).

Argyle, A.W.  "Joseph the Patriarch in Patristic Teaching,"
ExpTim 67 (1955/56), 199-201.

Baltzer, K.  Das Bundesformular.  Wissenschaftliche Monographien
4.  Netherlands, 1960 (see pp. 128-31 on Barn).  [[9]]

Bardy, G.  "Aux origines de l'e/cole d'Alexandrie," RechSR 27
(1937), 65-90.

________.  La Question des langues dans l/E/glise ancienne I. 
Paris, 1948.  [[28]]

________.  La The/ologie de l'E/glise de saint Cle/ment de Rome
a\ saint Ire/ne/e.  Paris, 1945 (see pp. 157-62 on Barn).

Bartlet, J.V.  "Papias's 'Exposition:'  its Date and Contents,"
in Amicitiae Corolla.  Festschrift J.R. Harris, ed by H.G. Wood. 
London, 1933, pp. 15-44.  [[87]]

Baur, W.  Rechtglaeubigkeit und Ketzerei im aeltesten
Christentum.  Beitraege zur historischen Theologie.  Tuebingen,
1934.  {@@RAK note in text:  [repr 1964 G. Strecker] (review by
H. Koch, TLZ 59 [1934], 343-46.)  }

Bickerman, E.  "The Septuagint as a Translation," Proceedings of
the American Academy for Jewish Research 28 (1959), 1-39.  [[72]]

________.  "Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint," in
the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume:  English Section.  New York,
1950, pp. 149-78.  [[@@71s]]

Birt,T.  (ed).  Claudii Claudiani Carmina.  Monumenta Germaniae
Historica.  Berlin, 1892.  [[77]]

________.  Kritik und Hermeneutic, nebst Abriss des antiken
Buchwesens.  Munich, 1913.  [[77]]

Black, M.  "The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarianism,"
BJRylL 41 (1958/59), 285-303.

Bonwetsch, N.  "Der Schriftbeweis fuer die Kirche aus den Heiden
als das wahre Israel bis auf Hippolyt," in Theologische Studien. 
Festschrift T. Zahn.  Leipzig, 1908.

Bousset, W.  Juedisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und
Rom:  literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von
Alexandria, Justin und Irenaeus.  Goettingen, 1915  [[3]]

________.  Kyrios Christos:  Geshichte des Christusglaubens von
den Anfaengen des Christentums bis Irenaeus.  Goettingen, 1921/2
(1913).  {@@RAK note:  1934/3 [?]  }[[116]]

Buechler, A.  "The Reading of h Law and the Prophets in a
Triennial Cycle," JQR 5 (1892/93), 420-68, and 6 (1893/94), 1-
73.  [[86]]

Bultmann, R.  The Theology of the NT.  Trans K. Grobel 

Burkitt, F.C.  Jewish and Christian Apocalypses.  London, 1914.

Campenhausen, H. Freiherr von.  The Fathers of the Greek Church. 
Trans by S. Godman.  New York, 1959 (German ed in 1955).

Carmignac, J.  "Les citations de l'Ancien Testament, et
spe/cialement des Poeme\s du Serviteur, dans les <ts>Hymnes</> de
Qumra^n," RQum 2 (19600, 357-94.  [[76]]

Carrington, P.  The Primitive Christian Catechism.  Cambridge
(Eng.), 1940.  [[88]]

Cross, F.M. Jr.  The Ancient Library of Qumra^n and Modern
Biblical Studies.  London, 1958.

Dalman, G.H.  Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge
im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend.  Berlin, 1888.  [[236]]

Danie/lou, J.  The/ologie du Jude/o-Christianisme.  Histoire des
Doctrine/s chre/tiennes avant Nice/e.  Tournai (Belg.), 1958. 

{@@RAK note in margin: 
ET 1964  }

Danie/lou, J.  "La typologie mille/nariste de la semaine dans le
christianisme primitif," VigChr 2 (1948), 1-16.

________.  Sacramentum Futuri:  E/tudes sur les origines de la
Typologie Biblique.  Paris, 1950. 

________.  E/tudes d'exe/ge\se jude/o-chre/tienne (Les
Testimonia) (1966) 

Davies, W.D.  Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. 
JBL Monograph 7.  Philadelphia, 1952.  [[134]]

De/mann, P.  "@@Moi%se et la Loi dans la pense/e de saint Paul,"
in @@Moi%se, l'homme de l'alliance, CSion 8 (1954), 189-242. 

Dibelius, M.  From Tradition to Gospel.  Trans by B.L. Woolf from
the revised 2n ed of Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1935/2,
1919/1).  New York, 1935.  [[144]]

Dix, G.H.  "The Messiah ben Joseph," JTS 27 (1926), 130-43 (see
also the supplementary note by J.E. Hogg on p. 411).  [[236]]

Dodd, C.H.  According to the Scriptures.  New York, 1953.  {@@RAK
note:  [1952]  }

Doresse, J.  The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics.  Trans by
P. Mairet.  New York, 1960.  [[166]]

Drews, A.  Die Christusmythe.  Jena, 1924/2 (1909-1911/1 in 2

Epp, E.J.  Theological Tendency in the Textual Variants of Codex
Bezae Cantabrigiensis:  Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Acts.  Harvard
Dissertation, 1961.  [[52]]

Filson, F.V.  "The Christian Teacher in the First Century," JBL
60 (1941), 317-28.

Finch, R.G.  The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament:  a
Study of the Three-Year Cycle of Readings from the law and the
Prophets as a Contribution to New Testament Chronology.  London,
1939.  [[86]]

Findlay, J.A.  "The First Gospel and the Book of Testimonies," in
Amicitiae Corolla.  Festschrift J.R. Harris, ed by H.G. Wood. 
London, 1933, pp. 57-71.

Fitzmyer, J.A.  "'4Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," TS 18
(1957), 513-37.  [[80]]

Flessman-van Leer, E.  Tradition and Scripture in the Early
Church.  Assen, 1954 (see pp. 49-55 on Barn).

Foster, L.A.  Clement of Rome and his Literary Sources.  Harvard
Dissertation, 1958.

Friedlaender, M.  Geschichte der juedischen Apologetik als
Vorgeschichte des Christenthums.  Zuerich, 1903.

Froom, L.E.  The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers I.  Washington
(D.C.), 1950.  [[125]]

Ginzberg, L. and Kohler, K.  "Antinomianism," Jewish Encyc I
(1901), 630-32.

Ginzberg, L.  "Elisha Ben Abuyah," Jewish Encyc 5 (1903), 138-39.

________.  Legends of the Jews.  Trans by H. Szold in 6 vols.
Philadelphia, 1912-28 (additional "Index" vol by B. Cohen,
1938).  [[112, 134]]

Goldfahn, A.H.  "Justinus Martyr und die Agada," Die
Kirchenvaeter und die Agada I.  Breslau, 1873 (reprinted from
Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 22
(1873), 49-60, 104-15, 145-53, 194-202, and 257-69).  [[75]]

Goodenough, E.R.  By Light, Light:  The Mystic Gospel of
Hellenistic Judaism.  New Haven, 1935.  (see Nock's review,

Grant, R.M.  "The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch," JBL 66 (1947),

________.  The Letter and the Spirit.  London, 1957.  [[194]]

________.  "Papias and the Gospels," AnglTR 25 (1943), 218-
22.  [[87]]

________.  Studies in Theophilus of Antioch.  Harvard
Dissertation, 1944.

________.  "Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus," HarvTR 40
(1947), 227-56.  [[73]]

Guilding, A.  The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship.  Oxford,
1960.  [[86]]

________.  "Some Obscured Rubrics and Lectionary Allusions in the
Psalter," JTS 3 (1952), 41-55.  [[86]] 

Harnack, A.  "Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit
Trypho," in TU 39:1.  Tuebingen, 1913, pp. 61-73.  [[73]]

Harris, J.R. and Burch, V. Testimonies.  2 vols.  Cambridge
(Eng.), 1916-20.  [[18, 83]]

Hatch, E.  "On Early Quotations from the Septuagint" and "On
Composite Quotations from the Septuagint," in Essays in Biblical
Greek.  Oxford, 1889, pp. 131-214.  [[1]]

Heard, R.  "The Apomnemoneumata in Papias, Justin and Irenaeus,"
NTS 1 (1954/55), 122-34.  [[87]]

Heinisch, P.  Der Einfluss Philos auf die aelteste christliche
Exegese (Barnabas, Justin und Clemens von Alexandria). 
Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 1/2.  Muenster, 1908.  [[3, 60]]

Hirsch, E.G.  "Sacrifice," Jewish Encyc 10 (1905), 615-28.  [[112]]

Hommes, N.J.  Het Testimoniaboek.  Amsterdam, 1935.  [[83]]

Huffmon, H.B.  "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets," JBL 78
(1959), 285-95.  [[63]]

Hulen, A.B.  "The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the
Early Jewish Argument Against Christianity," JBL 51 (1932), 58-
70.  [[84]]

Hunt, B.P.W. Stather.  Primitive Gospel Sources.  New York,
1951.  [[83]]

Hurwitz, S.  Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias.  Zuerich,
1958.  [[ 236]]

Jacobs, J.  "Triennial Cycle," Jewish Encyc 12 (1906), 254-
57.  [[86]]

James, M.R.  "Notes on Apocrypha," JTS 16 (1915), 403-13. 

________.  Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 1920.

Jervell, J.  Imago Dei:  Gen 1.26f im Spaetjudentum, in der
Gnosis, und in den paulinischen Briefen.  Goettingen,
1960.  [[163]]

Juster, J.  Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain.  2 vols.  Paris,
1914.  [[84]]

Katz, P.  Philo's Bible:  the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations
in Some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of
the Greek Bible.  Cambridge (Eng.), 1950.

Kenyon, F.G.  Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome. 
Oxford, 1951/2 (1931).  [[78]]

King, E.G.  "The Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the
Psalter," JTS 5 (1903/4), 203-13.  [[86]

Klevinghaus, J.  Die theologische Stellung der apostolischen
Vaeter zur alttestamentliche Offenbarung.  Guetersloh, 1948 (see
pp. 15-44 on Barn).  [[2]]

Knopf, R.  Die Lehre der zwoelf Apostle, die zwei Clemensbriefe. 
Lietzmann's Handbuch zum neuen Testament.  Ergaonzungsband:  Die
apostolischen Vaeter 1.  Tuebingen, 1920.  [[116]]

________.  Das nachapostolische Zeitalter.  Tuebingen, 1905.

Knox, W.L.  Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity

Koester, H.  Synoptische Ueberlieferung bei den apostolischen
Vaetern.  TU 65.  Berlin, 1957 (see pp. 124-58 on Barn).  [[18]]

Kohler, K.  "Amalek, Amelekites:  In Rabbinical Literature,"
Jewish Encyc 1 (1901), 483-84.  [[235]]

________. and Husik, I.  "Azazel," Jewish Encyc 2 (1902), 365-67.
[[ 172]]

________.  "Eschatology," Jewish Encyc 5 (1903), 209-18.

Koole, J.L.  De Overname van het Oude Testament door de
Christelijke Kerk.  Hilversum, 1938.

Kraus, W.  Die Stellung der fruehchristlichen Autoren zur
heidenischen Literature.  Wien (Austria), 1958.

Lane, W.R.  "A New Commentary Structure in 4Q Florilegium," JBL
78 (1959), 343-46.  [[74]]

Lewis, L.G.  The Commentary:  Jewish and Pagan Backgrounds of
Origin's Commentaries with Emphasis on the Commentary on Genesis. 
Harvard Dissertation, 1958.  [[73]]

Lightfoot, J.B.  The Apostolic Fathers I:2 and II:2.  London,

Loewe, R.  "The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic
Exegesis of the Bible," Studio Patristica I.  Ed by K. Aland and
F.L. Cross.  TU 63.  Berlin, 1957, pp. 492-514.  [[218]]

Mann, J.  The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue:  a
Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as
well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic
homilies.  I:  The Palestinian Triennial Cycle, Genesis and
Exodus.  Cincinnati (Ohio), 1940.  [[86]]

Manson, R.W.  "The Argument from Prophecy," JTS 46 (1945), 129-
36.  [[233]]

Marmorstein, A.  "Jews and Judaism in the Earliest Christian
Apologies," Exp 17 (1919), 73-80 and 100-16.

Massaux, E/.  Influence de l'E/vangile de S. Matthieu sur la
litte/rature chre/tienne avant S. Ire/ne/e.  Louvain, 1950.  [[87]]

McCasland, S.V.  "The Black One" in Festschrift  W.R. Willoughby

Metzger, B.M.  An Introduction to the Apocrypha.  New York,
1957.  [[159]]

Michaelis, W.  "Zeichen, Siegel, Kreuz," TZ 12 (1956), 505-25.

Michel, O.  Paulus und seine Bibel.  Guetersloh, 1929.  [[222]]

Milne, H.J.M. and Skeat, T.C.  Scribes an Correctors of the Codex
Sinaiticus.  Oxford, 1938.

Mohrmann, C.  "Les origines de la latinete/ chre/tienne a\ Rome,"
VigChr 3 (1949), 67-106 and 163-83.  [[28]]

Montgomery, J.A.  The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: 
their History, Theology and Literature.  Philadelphia, 1907.

Moore, G.F.  "Christian Writers on Judaism," HarvTR 14 (1921),

________.  Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era,
the Age of the Tannaim.  3 vols.  Cambridge (Mass.), 1927-
30.  [[112]]

Munck, J.  "Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve," ST 3 (1949), 96-

Nock, A.D.  (review of Goodenough's By Light).  Gnomon 13 (1937),

Odeberg, H.  "'<gk>ENW/X</>," in Kittel's Theologisches
Woerterbuch zum neuen Testament II.  Stuttgart, 1935, pp. 553-
57.  [[76]]

Oepke, A.  Das neue Gottesvolk.  Guetersloh, 1950 (see pp.24-29,
46-56, and <lt>passim</> on Barn).  [[21]]

Oxford Society.  The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers.
Oxford, 1905.

Paap, A.H.R.E.  Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First
Five Centuries AD.  Leiden, 1959.  [[196]]

Pfeiffer, R.H.  History of New Testament Times, with an
Introduction to the Apocrypha.  New York, 1949.  [[159]]

________.  Introduction to the Old Testament.  New York,
1941.  [[71]]

Philonenko, M.  Les interpolations chre/tiennes des Testaments
des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qoumra^n.  Paris,

{RAK note on facing page: 

Ans. to Philonenko by M. de Jonge, "Christian Influence in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," Nov Test 4 (1960), 182-235. 
cf also 5 (1962), 311 ff.  }

Pick, G.  "A Comprehensive General Index to the American ed of
The Ante-Nicene Fathers.  Ed by A.C. Coxe.  Buffalo, 1887.

Plooij, D.  Studies in the Testimony-Book.  Amsterdam, 1932.

Prigent, P. "Quelques Testimonia Messianiques," TZ 15 (1959),

Rabinowitz, L.  "Does Midrash Tillim Reflect the Triennial Cycle
of Psalms?" JQR 26 (1935/36), 349-68.  [[86]]

Rahlfs, A.  Septuaginta-Studien 2:  Der Text des Septuaginta-
Psalters.  Goettingen, 1907 (see pp. 202 f on Barn).  [[67]]

Resch, A.  Agrapha:  aussercanonische Schriftfragmente.  TU 30:3-
4.  Leipzig, 1906/2 (1889).  [[87]]

Reynders, B.  @@Lexiquo Compare/ de texte grec et des Versions
latine, arme/nienne et syriaque de l' 'Adversus Haereses' de
Saint Ire/ne/e.  Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientaium 141,
Subsida 5,6.  Louvain (Belg.), 1954.  [[36]]

Richardson,, E.C.  "Bibliographical Synopsis," in Ante-Nicene
Fathers.  American ed by A.C.  Coxe.  Buffalo, 1887.  [[9]]

Riesenfeld, H.  "Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur," in New Testament
Essays.  Festschrift T.W. Manson.  Ed by A.J.B. Higgins. 
Manchester, 1959, pp. 210-17.

Roberts, B.J.  The Old Testament Text and Versions.  Cardiff,
1951.  [[71]

Rudolph, K.  "Ein Grundtyp gnostischer Urmensch-Adam-
Spekulation," ZRelGg 9 (1957), 1-20.  [[165]]

Ryle, H.E.  Philo and Holy Scripture.  London, 1895.  [[44]]

Sabatier, P.  Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Veriones Antiquae. 
Reims, 1743.

Sagnard, F.M.M.  "Holy Scripture in the Early Fathers of the
Church," Studia Evangelica I.  Ed by K. Aland, F. M. Cross,
<lt>et al</>.  TU 73.  Berlin, 1959, pp. 706-13.

Schoeps, H.J.  Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums. 
Tuebingen, 1949.  [[134]]

Scho%nfeld, H.-G.  "Zum Begriff 'Therapeutai' bei Philo von
Alexandrien," RQum 3 (1961), 219-40. 

Schrenk, G.  "<gk>DI/KAIOS</>," in G. Kittel's Theologisches
Woerterbuch zum neuen Testament II.  Stuttgart, 1935, pp. 184-93
(trans by J.R. Coates in Bible Key Words, G. Quell and G.
Schrenk, Righteousness, London, 1951, pp. 13-25).  [[158]]

Schuerer, R.  Geschichte des Juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi.  3 vols.  Leipzig, 1901-1909/4 (see also the earlier ed
trans by J. Macpherson, <lt>et al</>., A History of the Jewish
People in the Time of Jesus Christ, New York, 1891).

Shroyer, M.J.  "Alexandrian Jewish Literalists," JBL 55 (1936),
261-84.  [[194]]

Sibinga, J.S. The OT Text of Justin Martyr. I:  The Pentateuch

Simon, M.  Verus Israe%l: e/tude sur les relations entre
Chre/tiens et Juifs dans l'Empire Romain.  Paris, 1948.

Simon, M.  "Retour du Christ et reconstruction du Temple dans la
pense/e chre/tienne primitive," Goguel Festschr.  (Aux sources de
la trad. chre/t.), 1950, 247-57. 

Skehan, P.W.  "The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism," in
Vetus Testamentum Supplement IV:  Volume du Congres, Strasbourg
1956.  Leiden, 1957, pp. 148-60.

Smith, M.  Tannaitic parallels to the Gospels.  JBL Monograph 6.
Philadelphia, 1951.  [[219]]

Spicq, @@O.  L'E/pitre aux He/breux.  2 vols.  Paris, 1952-53.

Staehlin, O.  Clemens Alexandrinus und die Septuaginta. 
Nuernberg, 1901.

Starratt, A.B.  The Use of the Septuagint in the Five Books
Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons.  Harvard Dissertation,
1952.  [[82]]

Stein, S.  "The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic
Literature," Studia Patristica II.  Ed by K. Aland and F.L.
Cross.  TU 64.  Berlin, 1957, pp. 141-54.  [[217]]

Stein  "Die Allegorische Exegese des Philo" ZATW 51 (1928/29)

________.  "Philo und d. Midrash," <lt>Ibid</> 57 (1931/32)

Stendahl, K.  The School of St. Matthew and its use of the Old
Testament.  Uppsala, 1954.  [[80]]

Strack, H.L.  Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.  Trans from
the 5th German ed of 1920 (1887/1) with corrections and
additions.  Philadelphia, 1931.

Swete, H.B.  An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 
Cambridge (Eng.), 1902 (corrected reprint of 1900/1; in 1914/2
the book was reprinted with added notes by R.R. Ottley).  (See
especially "Quotations from the LXX in Early Christian

Tcherikover, V.A. and Fuks, A.  Corpus Papyorum Judicarum I. 
Cambridge (Mass.), 1957; II (1960); III (1964).  [[14]]

Thompson, E.M.  An Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography. 
Oxford, 1912.  [[79]]

Torrey, C.C.  "The Messiah Son of Ephraim," JBL 66 (1947), 253-
77.  [[236]]

Townsend, J.  The Jerusalem Temple in New Testament Thought. 
Harvard Dissertation, 1958.

Traube, L.  Nomina Sacra.  Muenchen, 1907.  [[197]]

Ungern-Sternberg, A. von.  Der traditionelle alttestamentliche
Schriftbeweis 'de Christo' und 'de Evangelio' in der alten Kirche
bis zur Zeit Eusebs von Caesarea.  Halle, 1913.

van Unnik, W.C.  Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings.  Studies in
Biblical Theology 30.  Naperville (Ill.), 1960.  [[60]]

Usener, H.  "Milch und Honig," Rhein.  Museum 57 (1902), 177 ff
(reprinted in his Kleine Schriften IV (1913), 398-417).  [[162]]

Van den Eynde, D.  Les normed de l'Enseignement Chre/tien dans la
litterature patristique des trois premiers sie\cles.  Paris,

Volz, P.  Die Eschatologie der juedischen Gemeinde im
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter.  Tuebingen, 1934.

Wenschkewitz, H.  Die Spiritualisierung der Kultesbegriffe: 
Tempel, Priester und Opfer im neuen Testament.  Leipzig, 1932.

Wilde, R.  The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian
Writers of the First Three Centuries.  Catholic University of
America Patristic Studies 81.  Washington D.C., 1949.

Williams, A.L.  Adversus Judaeos:  a Bird's-eye View of Christian
<lt>Apologiae</> until the Renaissance.  Cambridge (Eng.), 1935
(see pp. 14-27 on Barn).  [[84]]

Wilson, R. McL.  "The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen 1.26,"
Studia Patristica I.  Ed by K. Aland and F.L. Cross.  TU 63. 
Berlin, 1957, pp. 420-37.  [[163]]

Wright, L.E.  Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the
Literature of the Second Century.  Cambridge (Mass.), 1952
(revised from Harvard Dissertation in 1945).  [[87]]


1.  Please note that I used the following notation for the indices: 
    <v+>  </>  =  solid underlining 
    <v->  </>  =  broken underlining 
2.  I removed notations for the page numbers and columns in your
original dissertation. 
3.  I typed only the source texts (not the page numbers or the
notes listed). 


                         <ch>INDICES  </> 

                           <h1>INDEX I 
                    OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES</> 

<v+>Solid underlining</> indicates that the LXX passage is extensively
     reproduced in the Epistle. 
<v->Broken underlining</> indicated that there are {@@RAK addition:  strong}
     verbal similarities between the LXX passage and the Epistle. 
An asterisk (*) indicates that the LXX text is transcribed on that page. 

{@@RAK--  Please note that as I did not include page numbers, no asterisks are
included in the text.  Please advise if you want page numbers and note numbers
included.  es  } 


<ts-v+>1:26 (=Barn 5:5, 6:12a)  </>
<ts-v+>1:28 (=Barn 6:12b)  </>
<ts-v->2:2f (Barn 15:3ff)</> 
<ts-v->25:21-23  (=Barn 13:2)</> 
<ts-v->48:9-20 (Barn 13:4f) 


12:13, 23 






5:12, 15 
<ts-v->9:9-18 (Barn 4:7f=14:2f)</> 
<ts-v->10:16 (Barn 9:5)</> 



<ts>I SAMUEL</> 

<ts>II SAMUEL</> 
22:45--see Ps 17:45 

<ts>I ESDRAS</> 

<ts>II ESDRAS (=Ezra-Neh)</> 

11:5(Neh 1:5) 









<ts>PSALMS (LXX numbers)</> 

<ts-v+>1:1 (=Barn 10:10)</> 
<ts-v+>1:3-6 (=Barn 11:6f</> 
<ts-v+>17:44b-45</>=II Sam 22 
     <ts-v+>(=Barn 9:1a)</> 
<ts-v->21:17 (=Barn 5:13, 6:6)</> 
<ts-v-</>21:19 (=Barn 6:6)</> 
<ts-v->21:21 (=Barn 5:13)</> 

{@@RAK note in margin:  21:22 (= Barn 6:16\b/) 

<ts-v->50:18-19</>(Apcl Adam?) 
     <ts-v->(Barn 2:10)</> 
<ts-v+>109:1(=Barn 12:10) 
<ts-v->117:12 (=Barn 6:6)</> 
<ts-v+>117:22 (=Barn 6:4a)</> 
<ts-v+>117:24 (=Barn 6:4b)</> 
<ts-v->118:120 (Barn 5:13)</> 


<ts-v+>1:17 (=Barn 5:4) 
















6:1-8  n.2 









<ts>ZACHARIAH</> (@@below, p. 316)-

{@@RAK--  Do you want the note above regarding the page number
included?  es} 




<ts-v+>1:2 (=Barn 9:3a)</> 
<ts-v+>1:11-14 (=Barn 2:5)</> 
<ts-v+>3:9-10 (=Barn 6:7b)</> 
<ts-v+>5:21 (=Barn 4:11)</> 
<ts-v->16:1-2 (=Barn 11:3)</> 
<ts-v+>28:14 (=Barn 9:3c)</> 
<ts-v+>28:16 (=Barn 6:2)</> 
<ts-v+>33:13(=Barn 9:1c)</> 
<ts-v+>33:16-18(=Barn 11:5) 
37:7, 29 
<ts-v+>40:12(=Barn 16:2)</> 
<ts-v+>42:6-7(=Barn 14:7)</> 
<ts-v+>45:1  (=Barn 12:11)</> 
<ts-v+>45:2-3(=Barn 11:4)</> 
<ts>49:6-7(=Barn 14:8)</> 
<ts-v+>50:6-7(=Barn 5:14)</> 
<ts-v->50:8-9(Barn 6:1f)</> 
<ts-v+>53:5 (=Barn 5:2) 
<ts-v+>53:7 (=Barn 5:2)</> 
<ts-v+>58:4b-10(=Barn 3:1-5)</> 
<ts-v+>61:1-2 (=Barn 14:9) 
<ts-v+>65:2 (=Barn 12:4)</> 
<ts>66:1 (=Barn 16:2)</> 


<ts-v+>2:12-13(=Barn 11:2) 
<ts-v->4:3-4 (=Barn 9:5)</> 
<ts>7:22-23(Barn 2:7)</> 
<ts-v->9:25-26 (Barn 9:5b)</> 
17:22, 24, 27 


20:6, 15 


2:34f, 44f 

<ts>ZACHARIAH</> (@@from p. 314) 

{@@RAK--  Do you want the note regarding the page number
included?  es} 

     <ts-v->(Barn 2:8)</> 

<ts-v+>IV EZRA</> 


{@@RAK addition: 

ENOCH Cycle 123 (n. 15)  } 

                           <h1>INDEX II 



{@@RAK note: 
<em>position</> of possessive 143  n. 48
<gk>MOU THN AULHN</>, etc.  } 

{@@RAK notes on back page: 
1.                    165 (n. 101) 
    Jesus/Joshua - p. 196 (n. 26) 
        242ff         255 
                      235 (n 30) 
    Euseb <ts>HE</> I:3 

2.  Prigent, p 122 n 2! 
    Lindars, pp 70 f. 

3.  <u-head>Suffering + Dying Messiah in Judaism 
    Lindars, p 75 n 1 
    Zimmerli-Jeremias <ts>S cf G</>, 41 + 60-75 
    Mavinchel, <ts>He that H. (@@RAK note:  or C?)</>, 326ff. 
    T. Benj. 3:8 <ts>Arm</>. 
    B. Suhhah 52a  }