Barnabas and the Didache

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

PREFACE

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

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

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

Preface vii

Aids to the Reader	xiii
General Abbreviations and Notations	xiii
Modern Literature: Selected Significant Works	xv
Ancient Literature: Method of Citation, Translations	xvii
Glossary	xviii
Remarks on Procedure	xviii

Introduction

General Orientation

1. "Evolved Literature" and the Role of Author-Editor	1
2. Barnabas and the Didache as Representatives of School and Community	2

1. Background of the Two Ways Approach	4
2. Pervasiveness of the Two Ways in Barnabas	5
3. The Two Ways in the Didache	6
4. Source of the Two Ways Material in Barnabas and the Didache	7
5. The Separate Circulation of the Two Ways Material	9
6. General Characteristics of the Two Ways Teaching	11
7. Didache 16, the Eschatology of Barnabas, and the Two Ways	12

The Epistle of Barnabas

1. Explicit Quotations	19
2. Blocks of Traditional Material	20
3. "Pseudo-Barnabas" as a Teacher	20
4. "Pseudo-Barnabas" as an Author-Editor	21 [[x]]

1. Exegetical and Ethical Gnosis	22
2. Gnostic-Parenetic Terminology	24
3. Eschatological Atmosphere	27
4. The Quest for Salvation	29
5. The Terminology of the Salvation Quest	30
6. Salvation-History	33
7. Jesus: His Role in Salvation and Titles	34
8. The Function of the "Word"	36
9. God: Creator and Sovereign	37
10. "Spirit" and "spirit"	38
11. The Community: Its Organization, Practices, and Background	38

1. Undisputed Early Use in the East	40
2. Evidence from the West and in Lists of Books	41
3. Summary of the Traditional View	41
4. Date: The Epistle's Evidence and Its Interpretation	42
5. Authorship: The Traditional View and Its Critics	44
6. The Problem of Background and Origin	45
7. Alexandrian Affinities	45
8. Palestinian Affinities	48
9. Syrian Affinities	51
10. Affinities with Asia Minor	52
11. Affinities with the West (Rome, North Africa)	53
12. Summary and Suggestions Concerning Origin	54

The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles 57

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

1. Kinds of Redactional Evidence	59
2. Development as Attested by the Various Forms of the Didache	60
3. Major Internal Evidence of Development	61
4. Supplementary Evidence from Style and Content	61
5. Toward a Reconstruction of the Stages of Development Behind Our Didache	63

1. Ethno-Religious Background	65
2. Practices of the Community	66
3. Leadership	67 [[xi]]
4. Commandments, Gospel, and Christian Conduct	67
5. Eschatology and Future Salvation	68
6. Absence of "Traditional" Soteriology	69
7. Gnosis, Revelation, and Exegesis	69
8. Jesus the Lord	70
9. God the Father	71
10. "Spirit" and "spirits"	71

1. Alleged Use of Didache Materials	72
2. References to Documents Known as "Didache"	73
3. Undisputed Use of the Didache	74
4. Internal Clues as to Place of Origin	74
5. Alleged "Primitive" Elements in the Didache	75
6. Conclusions Concerning Date	76
7. Probable Place of Origin	77
8. The Author-Editor	77

Translation and Commentary

Indexes

1. Relatively verbatim quotations of (Greek) Scripture	179
2. Quotations not clearly traceable to any known text-forms of Jewish Scripture	182
3. Strong allusions to scriptural incidents and/or phraseology	184

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

AIDS TO THE READER

General Abbreviations and Notations

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

Modern Literature: Selected Significant Works

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

Ancient Literature: Method of Citation, Translations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossary

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks on Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[17]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of Barnabas and the Didache	78
Barnabas 1.1<->17.2	80
The Two Ways (Barnabas 18.1<->21.9; Didache 1.1<->6.2)	134
Didache 6.3<->16.8	163

The Apostolic Fathers

Volume 3 : BARNABAS AND THE DIDACHE

by Robert A. Kraft