•_'. Au/h irsMp mi./ Date.— Some of the e irly editors (e. g. Voss), and some eminent modern critics (e. g. Pearson, Carr, Wake, Lardner, Giescder, Black), main- tain tint this epistle was written by Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul. But the current of criticism i In- other way, and it is now held as settled that Barnabas was not the author. For a history of the discussion, see Jones, Canonical Authority of the New Testament (Lond. 1726; new ed. Oxford", 1827, 3 vol-. 8vo); Lardner, Credibility, etc.. Works, ii, 19; Hefele, Patres Apost. Prolegomena. Kitto's Cyclopae- dia gives tb- following summary of the reasons against '"■lie- of the epistle: '
" '■ Though the exact date of the death of Barnabas cannot be ascertained, yet, from the particulars already -t ,t id respecting his nephew, it is highly probable that that eve,,' took plaee before the martyrdom of Paul, A.D.64. Bui a passage in the epistle (ch.xvi) speaks ■ J the r/emple at Jerusalem as already destroyed, it was consequently written after ti„. vear 7o_
•••-'. Several passages have been adduced to show writer, as well a- the persons addressed, be- longed to the Gentile section of tl hurcn ; but. waiv- ing this point, the whole tone of the epistic is different
' from what the knowledge we possess of the character of Barnabas would lead us to expect, if it proceeded from bis pen. From the hints given in the Acts, he appears to have been a man of strong attachments, keenly alive to the ties of kindred and father-land. We find that, on both his missionary tours, his native island and the Jewish synagogues claimed his first attention. But throughout the epistle there is a total absence of sym- pathetic regard for the Jewish nation ; all is cold and distant, if not contemptuous. ' It remains yet that I speak to you (the lGth chapter begins) concerning the Temple ; how those miserable men, being deceived, have put their trust in the house.' How unlike the friend and fellow-laborer of him who had ' great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart for his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh' (Rom. ix, 2).
" 3. Barnabas was not only a Jew by birth, but a Levite. From this circumstance, combined with what j is recorded in the Acts of the active part he took in ! the settlement of the points at issue between the Jew- ish and the Gentile converts, we might reasonably ex- I pect to find, in a composition bearing his name, an ac- j curate acquaintance with the Mosaic ritual, a clear conception of the nature of the Old Economy and its relation to the New Dispensation, and a freedom from that addiction to allegorical interpretation which mark- ed the Christians of the Alexandrian school in the sec- ond and succeeding centuries. But the following spe- cimens will suffice to show that exactly the contrary may be affirmed of the writer of this epistle ; that he makes unauthorized additions to various parts of the Jewish Cultus ; that his views of the Old Economy arc confused and erroneous; and that he adopts a mode of interpretation countenanced by none of the inspired writers, and at utter variance with every principle of sound criticism, being to the last degree puerile and absurd.
"(1.) He mentions in two passages the fact record- ed in Exod. xxxii, 19, of Moses breaking the two ta- bles of stone, and infers that Jehovah's covenant was thereby annulled. The falsity of this statement need not be pointed out to the Biblical student. He says, • They (the Jews) have forever lost that which Moses received. For thus saith the Scripture : And Moses
received the covenant from the Lord, even
two tables of stone, etc. But, having turned them- selves to idols, they lost it ; as the Lord said unto Mo- ses, Go down quickly, etc. And Moses cast the two tables out of his hands, and their covenant was broken, that the love of Jesus might be sealed in your hearts unto the hope of his faith' (eh. iv). The second pas- sage, in eh. xiv, is very similar, and need not be quoted.
"(2.) On the rite of circumcision (Acts xv, 1, 2) wc find in this epistle equal incorrectness. The writer denies that circumcision was a sign of the covenant. 'You will say the Jews were circumcised for a sign, and so arc all the Syrians and Arabians, and all the idolatrous priests.' Herodotus (ii, 37), indeed, asserts that the Syrians in Palestine received the practice of circumcision from the Egyptians ; but Josephus, both in his Antiquities and Treatise against Apion, remarks that he must have alluded to the Jews, because they were the only nation in Palestine who were circum- cised (A nt. viii, 10, 3 ; Apion, i, 22). ' How, ' says H ug, 'could Barnabas, who travelled with Paul through the southern provinces of Asia Minor, make such an asser- tion respecting the heathen priests !'
"(3.) Referring to the goat (ch. vii), either that mentioned in Num. xix or Lev. xvi, he says, 'All the priests, and they only, shall eat the unwashed entrails with vinegar.' Of this direction, in itself highly im- probable, not. a trace can be found in the Bible, or even in the Talmud.