BAENABAS, EPISTLE OF
BAEN-ABAS, EPISTLE OF 141
the Atonement and no definition of sacrifice ; he is content to show tliat according to the Scriptures Christ died for our sins and that we are thereby saved.
5. Authorship. — The Epistle is anonymous. Tradition, however, has ascribed it to Barnabas the fellow-worker of St. Paul. Clement of Alexandria quotes it as the work of ' the Apostolic Barnabas, who was one of the seventy and a fellow- worker of Paul ' (Strom, ii. 20 ; cf. ii. 6, 7, 15, 18, v. 8, 10). Origen speaks of ' the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas ' (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius calls it ' the Epistle of Barnabas,' i.e. the Apostle (HE vi. 14, iii. 25). It seems to have been held in high esteem in Alex- andria towards the end of the 2nd cent. ; and, since it is found in Codex Sinaiticus beginning on the leaf where Revelation ends, one may conclude that it was once read in churches. In the West it was never regarded as canonical. Eusebius objected to it, and finally its connexion with the NT was severed entirely.
The external evidence is thus wholly in favour of the apostolic authorship. But, coming as it does from a period as late as the closing years of the 2nd cent., this testimony cannot overbalance the weighty considerations drawn from internal evidence which make it impossible to ascribe it to the companion of St. Paul. What we know of the apostolic Barnabas indicates that he took a view of the Mosaic Law wholly difierent from that re- flected in this Epistle. The ' Son of Consolation ' belonged to the earliest stage of the Jewish Chris- tian controversy ; he was ready to give the Gen- tiles liberty, but by no means ready to say that the Jews might abandon the Law altogether (Gal 2'^). It is, of course, quite possible that, after the incident of Gal 2, Barnabas might have come to acknowledge the entire freedom of the Jews, but even this would not bring him into the atmosi^here of our Epistle ; for here there is no question as to whether a believing Jew may or may not abandon the Law ; the main idea is that no Jew, believing or unbelieving, ought ever to have observed the Law at any time, even before Christ came. Such an attitude as this lay altogether outside the pur- view of the thoughts of St. Paul's companion, if we may judge fi'om what St. Paul tells us of him. And it is difficult to think that any Jew, born under tlie Law, and nurtm-ed in the stirring tra- ditions of its maintenance in the face of cruel per- secution, could come to feel so little enthusiasm for and interest in the national struggles and heroisms that he could sweep them all away as things which never ought to have been. A soul so dead to patriotism was no true Jew. None but an alien could be so unsympathetic to the national history of the Jews.
Not very much more can be added to this. The author was probably one of t^ie class distinguished by a charisma or ' gift ' of teaching. Though he disclaims any intention of writing professionally, yet he was conscious of possessing ' some claim to a deferential hearing' (Bartlet, EBr^^ iii. 409). Two theories are advanced to account for the ascription of the Epistle to Barnabas. It was the Avork of a namesake of St. Paul's companion ; or, it was known as coming from Alexandria, and hence was ascribed to Barnabas as to one prominent in the early history of that Church.
6. Place. — There is a general agreement among scholars that Alexandria is the probable scene of its composition. The general style and the use of the allegorical method are thoroughly Alexandrian. At Alexandria, again, the Jews were particularly strong, and in constant conflict with the Christians. Hence the bitter opi)Osition to the Jews as a nation, and the anxiety to cut ofl'all sympathy with Jew- ish practices. It has been observed that there are
serious blunders in the descriptions of Jewish rites ; our author agrees neither with the OT nor with the Talmud. But possibly his knowledge is de- rived from Alexandria rather than from Palestine. Kohler, in JE ii. 537, remarks that the letter shows an astonishing familiarity with Jewish rites.
7. Date. — There is much less agi-eement on the question of the date of the Epistle. It is plainly later than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70, for it alludes to that event (xvi. 4). Again, it is earlier than the second destruction under Hadrian in A.D. 132 ; otherwise, as Light- foot remarks, some reference to this event would have been found.
A closer determination of the date depends mainly on the interpretation of a passage from ch. iv. This chapter contains a Avarning that ' the last offence ' is at hand ; for the Lord has shortened the times and the days that His beloved may come quickly. As a proof that the last ofl'ence, i.e. the Antichrist, is at hand, the writer quotes a prophecy from the Book of Daniel (Dn 7'* ^^) to the ett'ect that ten kings shall reign, and after them shall arise a little king who shall subdue three of the kings in one (v4) ev). It is evident that the writer thinks that this prophecy has been, in part at least, fulfilled ; he has seen something in recent history which corresponds with this vision. Thus much then seems clear ; when he wrote this, there had been ten Csesars on the Imperial throne. Unless we are to omit some of the Emperors from the list — a proceeding for Avhich there seems no justification — the tenth Emperor brings us to the reign of Vespasian. If the ' little horn ' had al- ready appeared when the Epistle was Avritten, then we must look for three Emperors subdued by the successor of Vespasian. And this, of course, Titus did not do. Hence it seems better to inter- pret the little hom as Antichrist, who has not yet been revealed, for this gets rid of the difficulty of finding one Emperor who had already subdued three. The Avriter found tliis reference to tlu'ee kings in his text of the prophecy, and meant to leave it to the future to show who the three were and how they would be overthrown. But no matter how this point is settled, the tenth horn can scarcely be other than Vespasian, and this fixes the date of the Epistle at between A.D. 70 and 79. Another chapter (xvi.) is sometimes referred to as having a bearing on this question. This chapter speaks of a building of the Temple of God. Many com- mentators, including Harnack, take tliis as refer- ring to the material Temple at Jerusalem, which they say the Jews expected Hadrian to rebuild. Hence they place this Epistle c. A.D. 120. But this rests on a misinterpretation of ch. xvi. It seems certain that the writer has in view the spiritual Temple built up in the hearts of believers, and hence the passage has no bearing on the ques- tion of date (cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 241). Certain other considerations, such as the absence of a reference to Gnosticism and the apparent possibility of a relapse into Judaism, have also been brought forward. Suffice it to say that none of these is incompatible with the date given above.