On one point — the parting of Paul and Barnabas — Gal. lias been regarded as supplementing Acts. In Paul's account of the trouble with Peter at Antioch over the eating with Gentiles (2i'"'**), his co-worker is represented as taking part with his opponents. Probably, for the moment, the mediat- ing character of Barnabas betrayed him into a policy of vacillation which was the real origin of his disagreement with the Apostle. Their quarrel may have culminated in a separation over John Mark, but its actual cause was a matter of principle. From a subsequent reference of Paul to Barnabas (1 Co 9*^) it may be inferred tiiat they were reconciled in later years, though nut neces- sarily that they were again associated in their work.
Tradition has been busy with the name of Bar- nabas, but has preserved little that is deserving of trust. According to one legend, he was a personal disciple of Christ, even one of the Seventy mentioned in Lk 10', and preached the gospel in Rome during the lifetime of our Lord. Another asserts tliat he was the founder and first bishop of the Church of Milan, though Ambrose makes no mention of him as one of his predecessors in that
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF
BAENABAS, EPISTLE OF 139
see. A third makes him tlie missionary or apostle to Cyprus, and states tliat lie died by martyrdom at Salamis in A.D. 61. From an early date also the writing of an Epistle has been ascribed to him : (1) the Epistle to the Hebrews, the authorship of which was claimed for him by Tertullian ; and (2) the Epistle to which his name has been attached since the time of Clement of Alexandria (see following article). In both cases the internal evidence is strongly against the authorship of Barnabas, such references, for instance, being made to the Jewish Law as were not likely to come from a member of the Jerusalem Church and a sympathizer with Peter at Antioch. McGiffert {Apostol. Age, Edinburgh, 1897, p. 598 f.) argues very ingeniously in favour of Barnabas as the author of 1 Peter ; but the reasons adduced by him, though plausible, are scarcely sufficient to establish his theory. There is nothing in the Epistle to necessitate a Levite authorship, and Barnabas need not have remained anonymous (Motiat, LNT, 343 n., 437).
Literature. — In addition to references alread.y given, see works generally on Paul, Acts, Galatians, and the Apostolic
Age. D. Frew.
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF.— 1. Object. — The
chief object of the author of this Epistle Avas to impart to his readers a knowledge of what pertains to salvation that they might be saved in the Day of Jesus Christ (ii. 10, iv. 1, 9). The two lessons he impresses upon them are: (1) that the literal observance of the Mosaic Law is useless for salva- tion ; (2) the necessity and duty of a moral life. This is the letter of a true Christian pastor of much moral and spiritual earnestness ; he is deeply con- cerned for the salvation of his flock and desirous of imparting to them the best that he has.
2. Moral interest. — It is only right to emphasize our author's moral and spiritual aims because a large part of what he says, consisting of allegorical interpretations of the Mosaic Law, appears to modern minds strangely unreal and fantastic. But if his letter abounds in allegory, it is only because he is deeply impressed with tlie idea that the Law, if literally observed, will make shipwreck of men's salvation (iii. 6). His earnest advice is : ' Let us flee from ail vanity, let us entirely hate the Avorks of the evil May' (iv. 10 ; cf. 9). In his closing chapters (xix.-xxi.) he forsakes the allegorical method entirely, and devotes himself to a setting forth of ' the two ways,' the way of light and the way of darkness. The duties of loving, fearing, praising, and obeying God are named first. Then follows a series of injunctions, some negative and some positive in form, concerned chiefly with one's relations to others. A man's neighbour must be loved more than his own soul. The way of the ' Black One ' is set forth in the form of a catalogue of vices and evil actions. Only two Command- ments are quoted from the Decalogue — the third and the seventh. There is no direct appeal to either the teaching or the exam|)le of our Lord.
3. Attitude towards Judaism. — The main in- terest which the Epistle has for us to-day lies in the light which it throws upon the relations be- tween Judaism and the Church. In order to appreciate the position of this Epistle in early Christian literature, it is necessary to make a brief review of the transition from Judaism to Christi- anity. Christianity did not come into the world at a point where there was a religious vacuum. It was founded by One who claimed to be the An- ointed One of a definite national religion, which had existed for many centuries. He and His apostles believed in the Jewish religion, as the only true religion, used the Jewish Scriptures as the very word of God, and observed the national
forms of worship as the Divinely-appointed mode of serving God. How then did His followers ever come to abandon the Law ? Did they at any point make a complete break with all that was Jewish and begin afresh on an entirely new basis? By no means ; there was no break, but merely a re- organization. The followers of Jesus believed that He, as Messiah, had authority from God to insti- tute a new Covenant between God and His people Israel, and that He actually did so when He ofl'ered Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. The logical consequences of this belief were not per- ceived all at once, but were bound to come to light as time went on.