Epistle of Barnabas

The "Epistle of Barnabas" is a Greek treatise with some features of an epistle containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century "Codex Sinaiticus" where it appears at the end of the New Testament. It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, though some ascribe it to another apostolic father of the same name, a "Barnabas of Alexandria," or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher. A form of the "Epistle" 850 lines long is noted in the Latin list of canonical works in the 6th century "Codex Claromontanus" [http://www.ntcanon.org/codex_Claromontanus.shtml] . It is not to be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas.

Manuscript tradition

The most complete text is in the "Codex Sinaiticus" (=S; 4th century) and the "Codex Hierosolymitanus" (=H; 11th century), which are usually in agreement on variant readings. A truncated form of the text in which "Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians" 1.1-9.2 continues with Barnabas 5.7a and following, without any indication of the transition, survives in nine Greek manuscripts (=G; from 11th century onward) and often agrees with the old Latin translation (=L) against S and H.
#Until 1843 eight manuscripts, all derived from a common source (G), were known in Western European libraries: none of them contained chapters 1 to chapter 5.7a.
#The 4th century "Codex Sinaiticus", in which the "Epistle" and the "Shepherd of Hermas" follow the canonical books of the New Testament, contains a more complete manuscript of the text, which is independent of the preceding group of texts.
#The 11th century "Codex Hierosolymitanus" ("Jerusalem Codex" -- relocated from Constantinople), which includes the "Didache", is another witness to the full text. This Greek manuscript was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios at Constantinople in 1873, and Adolf Hilgenfeld used it for his edition in 1877.
#There is also an old Latin version of the first seventeen chapters (the "Two Ways" section in chapters 18 to 21 is not present) which dates, perhaps, to no later than the end of the 4th century and is preserved in a single 9th century manuscript (St Petersburg, Q.v.I.39). This is a fairly literal rendering in general (but sometimes significantly shorter than the Greek as well), often agreeing with the family G manuscripts. There are also brief citations from the "Epistle" in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, and a few fragments of the "Two Ways" material in Syriac and elsewhere.

Early citations

Toward the end of the second century Clement of Alexandria cites the "Epistle." It is also appealed to by Origen of Alexandria. Eusebius, however, objected to it and ultimately the epistle disappeared from the appendix to the New Testament, or rather the appendix disappeared with the epistle. In the West the epistle never enjoyed canonical authority (though it stands beside the "Epistle of James" in the Latin manuscripts). In the East, the "Stichometry of Nicephorus", the list appended by the 9th century Patriarch of Jerusalem to his "Chronography," lists the "Epistle of Barnabas" in a secondary list, of books that are "antilegomena"— "disputed"— along with the "Revelation of John", the "Revelation of Peter" and the "Gospel of the Hebrews."

Origin of the "Epistle of Barnabas"

The first editor of the epistle, Hugo Menardus (1645) advocated the genuineness of its ascription to Barnabas, but the opinion to-day is that Barnabas was not the author. Many scholars today believe it was probably written in the years 70 – 131, and addressed to Christian Gentiles. In 16.3-4, the Epistle reads: :"Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it."

This passage clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must come from the period between the two revolts. The place of origin remains an open question, although the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean appears most probable (Treat).

Although the work is not gnostic in a heterodox sense, the author, who considers himself to be a teacher to the unidentified audience to which he writes (see e.g. 9.9), intends to impart to his readers the perfect gnosis (special knowledge), that they may perceive that the Christians are the only true covenant people, and that the Jewish people had never been in a covenant with God. His polemics are, above all, directed against Judaizing Christians (see Ebionites, Nazarenes, Judaizing teachers).

In no other writing of that early time is the separation of the Gentile Christians from observant Jews so clearly insisted upon. The covenant promises, he maintains, belong only to the Christians (e.g. 4.6-8), and circumcision, and the entire Jewish sacrificial and ceremonial system are, according to him, due to misunderstanding. According to the author's conception, Jewish scriptures, rightly understood, contain no such injunctions (chapters 9-10). He is a thorough opponent to Jewish legalism, but by no means an antinomist. At some points the Epistle seems quite "Pauline", as with its concept of atonement.

It is likely that, due to the resurgence of Judaism in the early second century, and the tolerance of the emperor Hadrian, Christians, such as the text's author, felt a need to polemically resist Jewish influences. In this case, the author seems to aim to demonstrate that Jewish understanding of the Mosaic legislation (Torah) is completely incorrect and can now be considered superseded, since in the author's view the Jewish scriptures foreshadowed Jesus and Christianity when rightly understood.

The author quotes liberally from the Old Testament, including the apocryphal books. He quotes from the New Testament gospels twice (4:14, 5:9), and is in general agreement with the New Testament presentation of salvation-history. He quotes material resembling 4 Esdras (12.1) and 1 Enoch (4.3; 16.5), which did not become part of the Biblical canon except in some traditions (e.g. 1 Enoch is considered scriptural in the Ethiopian church). The closing "Two Ways" section (chapters 18-21), which contains a series of moral injunctions, presents "another gnosis and teaching" (18.1) in relation to the body of the epistle, and its connection to the latter has given rise to much discussion.

External links

* [http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/barnabas_a.htm Greek text of "Epistle of Barnabas"]
* [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-40.htm#TopOfPage "Ante-Nicene Fathers", vol. i:] introduction and text
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1907:] "Epistle of Barnabas" from the official Roman Catholic point-of-view: "the chief importance of the epistle is in its relation to the history of the Canon of the Scriptures."

ources

*Kraft, Robert A., Barnabas and the Didache: Volume 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, edited by Robert Grant. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965. [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/barn/barndidintro.htm]
*Treat, Jay Curry, in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary", v. 1, pp. 613-614.
*Prostmeier, Ferdinand R., Der Barnabasbrief. Übersetzt und erklärt. Series: Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern (KAV, Vol. 8). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1999. ISBN 3-525-51683-5