THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS:
ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

by Robert Alan Kraft

PhD Thesis (Harvard University) April 1961

---

SUMMARY

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

PhD Thesis (Harvard University)

Robert Alan Kraft

April 1961

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Title page, i]]

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS:
ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES

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


Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 1961

[[ii]]

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

[[iii]]

CONTENTS

AIDS TO THE READER

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS OF MODERN LITERATURE

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

Series, Encyclopedias, older Periodicals, etc.--

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

ANCIENT LITERATURE: ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

Biblical

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

[[x]]
Late Jewish and Rabbinic

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

Early Christian

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

Secular Sources

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

MISCELLANEOUS ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS

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

GLOSSARY OF SOME POSSIBLY MISLEADING EXPRESSIONS

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

[[1]]

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

\3/See above, p. viii.

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

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

\6/See above, p. ix.

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

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

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

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

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

[[5]]

PART I

ORIENTATION

[[6]]

Chapter 1
THE ENIGMAS OF THE EPISTLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[25]]

Chapter 2

THE TEXT OF BARNABAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\12/Orthographical problems include: MWSH=S/MWUSH=S in 6:8 and 10:12; 'ISA/K/'ISAA/K in 6:8, OU)DE//OU)/TE in 10:1 and 4, DABI/D/DA(UEI/)D in 10:10, and PTHNA//PETEINA/ in 10:10. Closely related letter-variants which have little value for determining textual affinities include: 6:8 EI)SE/LQETE (HG\c/Cl.A)/--ATE (SG\vop bn/) 10:1 KO/RAKAN (Cl.A)/KO/RAKA (rell) :1 O(/S (rell)/O(/ (G\vo*p/) :4 I_KTI=NAN (Cl.A)/IKTI=NA (rell) 10:11 KOLLA=SQAI (SGCl.A)/KOLLA=SQE (HL) {@@RAK note: 10:11 DIXHLOU=N (rell)/-HLON(H)} 16:7 EI)DWLOLATRI/AS (Cl.A)/--EI/AS (rell) :7 DIAMO/NWN (Cl.A)/-I/WN (rell) :8 GENW/MEQA (Cl.A)/-O/MEQA (?L)/see SHG 21:6 EU(/RHTAI (Cl.A)/--HTE (H)/see SG === {@@RAK-- Please note that you have underlined and circled a lot of the text on pages 34-37. I typed what I think is the final revision. es} (1) Readings of Barn\Cl.A/ unsupported by the other MSS 1:5 A)F' PI)= (FHSI/N) E)/LABON ME/ROUS (beginning of the quotation)] SH (comp. L) have PERI\ U(MW=N TOU= ME/ROS TI METADOU=NAI A)F' OU(= E)/LABON :5 lacks the phrase O(/TI E)/STAI MOI - MISQO/N, which is found in SH and L. :5 PE/MYAI] SH, PE/MPEIN; L has "mittere" 2:2 TH=S ME\N OU)=N PI/STEWS U(MW=N] SH(L), TH=S OU)=N PI/STEWS H(MW=N :2 OI( SULLH/PTORES] SH, BOHQOI/; L has "adiutor est" 4:11 PAR' E(AUTOI=S] H(=LXX), E)N E(AUTOI=S; S, E(AUTOI=S; L has "sibi soli" {@@RAK note in margin: Cl.A = H} :11 PNEUMATIKOI\ GENW/MEQA] SH, GENW/MEQA PNEUMATIKOI/, GENW/MEQA; L has "simus spiritales simus ... " {@@RAK note in margin: Cl A = H } [[35]] 6:8 H(\N W)/MOSEN KU/RIOS O( QEO/S (see earlier in verse)] GSHL lack{@@s} O( QEO/S :8 O( QEO\S A)BRAA/M] GSH(L), TW=| A)BRAA/M :9 GH=S] GSH, TH=S GH=S; L has "terra" :10 KU/RIOS] GSH, O( KU/RIOS; L has "d[omi]n-[u]s-" 10:4 OU) @@FAGH| (see 10:1,5)] S, OU)/TE FA/GH|; H, OU)DE\ FA/GH|; G, OU)DE\ MH\ @@FA/GH| FHSI/N L has "nec manducabis inquit" :4 [ - ] ... KAI\ ... KAI/] SHG, OU)DE\ ... OU)DE\ ... OU)DE/ (OU)/TE, S); L has "aut ... [omit] ... aut" :4 OU) KOLLHQH/SH| FHSI/N] SHG, OU) MH/ FHSI/N KOLLHQH/SH|; L has "hoc dicit non adiunges te..." :4 TOI=S A)NQRW/POIS TOU/TOIS] SHG, A)NQRW/POIS TOIOU/TOIS; L has "ta