MS. of them now known. In the earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistle,' but the great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the composition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed to Barnabas the friend and fellow-worker of Paul. Those who maintain the former opinion date the Epistle about A.D. 70-73, or even earlier, but this is scarcely the view of any living critic. There are many indications in the Epistle which render such a date impossible, but we do not propose to go into the argument minutely, for it is generally admitted that, whilst 1 Henke, De Epist. quæ Barnab. tribuitur, authentia, 1827; Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Biblioth., 1765, i. p. xxix. f.; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 13; Du Pin, Bibl. des auteurs, &c. i.; Schenkel considered parts to be by Barnabas, with much added by others, Theol. Stud. u. knit., 1837, p. 652 ff.; Pearson, Cave, and others, maintained the authenticity. 2 Anger, Synops. Ev., p. xx.; Basnage, Ann. Pol. Eccles., A.D. 50, n. 52 f.; Baur, Lehrb. Dogmengesch. p. 80 f., anm. Vorles. chr. Dogmengesch., 1, i. p. 248 f.; Bleek, Einl. N. T., 1866, pp. 520, 681; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, 1866, viii. p. 520; Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 119; Cotelier, Patr. Ap., 1724, i. p. 5 f.; R. Ceillier, Hist. gén. des auteurs sacrés et Ecclés., i. p. 498 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. p. 218; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 204 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 156 ff.; Gfrörer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 302; Guericke, H’buch. K. G., i. p. 143; Hase, Lehrb. K. G., 1848, p. 36 ff.; Hagenbach, K. G., i. p. 106, an. i.; Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Ap. Barnabas, 1840, Patr. Ap. p. vii. ff.; Horne, Introd. N. T. ed. Tregelles, 1869, iv. p. 333; Ittig., Select. Cap. Hist. Eccles., Sec. I. i. p. 20; Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. Zeitalter, p. 482 f.; Lumper, Hist. theol. crit. de vita, &c., SS. Patr., 1783, i. p. 149 f.; Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, i. proleg. Mosheim, Instit. hist. Christ., p. 161, Ménard, Præf. ad Epist. S. Barnab. cur. L. Dacherio, 1645, Clericus, Patr. Ap. 1724, i. p. 8 ff.; Müller, Erkl. d. Barnabasbr., p. 16 ff.; Michaelis, Einl. N. T., ii. p. 1398 ff.; Mynster, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1829, ii. p. 323; Neander, K. G., 1843, i. p. 1136; Natalis, Hist. Eccles., Sec. 1., c. 12, § 8; Ritschl. Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 254, p. 294; Semler, Hist. Einl. in Baumgarten's Unters. theol. Streitigk., 1763, ii. p. 2 ff.; Tillemont, Mémoires, &c., i. p. 414; Tischendorf, Wann wurden u. s. w., p. 91; Ullmann, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., i. p. 381; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 37 f.; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. s. v. Barnabas, &c., &c., &c. there is a clear limit further back than which the Epistle cannot be set,' there is little or no certainty how far into the second century its composition may not reasonably be advanced. Critics are divided upon the point; a few are disposed to date the Epistle about the end of the first century; others at the beginning of the second century; while a still greater number assign it to the reign of Adrian (A.D. 117-138); and others, not without reason, consider that it exhibits marks of a still later period. There can be no doubt that it is more or less interpolated. Until the discovery of the Sinaitic 1 Chap. xvi. 2 Eichhorn, Einl. N. T,, i, p. 129; Reuss, Gesch. h. Schr. N. T. § 234, p. 232 f., cf. Hist. de la Théol. Chrétienne au Siècle Apost., 1864, ii. p. 306; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 76; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Joh., 1866, p. 89; Weizsäcker, Zur Krit. d. Barnabasbr. 3 Ewald, Die Johan. Schriften, 1862, ii. p. 394, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 156 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Väter, p. 36 f.; Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 482; Lücke, Einl. in. d. Offenb. Johan., 1852, i. p. 318; Ritschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 55, p. 294; Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 334; Tischendorf (A.D. 90—110), Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 92; Ullmann, Stud. u. Krit., i. p. 381; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 38; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. s. v. Barnabas; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 7. Anger, Synops. Ev., p. xx.; Baur, Lehrb. Dogmengesch., p. 80 f., anm.; Vorles. chr. Dogmengesch., I. i. p. 248 f.; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 522; Cotelier, Patr, Ap., p. 5 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. pp. 268, 513; Hefele, Patr. Ap. Proleg., p. vii. ff.; Sendschr. d. Ap. Barn., p. 141 f.; Horne (first quarter of second century), Introd. N. T. ed. Tregelles, 1869, iv. p. 333; Köstlin, Der Ursprung synopt. Evv., p 121; Keim (A.D. 120—130), Jesu v. Nazara, 1867, i. p. 143; Lipsius, in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, s. v. Barnabas, 1869, i. p. 372; Müller, Erkl. d. Barnabasbr., 1869, pp. 18, 109; Neander, K. G., 1843, p. 1133 ff.; Schneckenburger, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1859, p. 294; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter., ii. p. 240 f.; Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 392 ff., H'buch Einl. in. d. Apocr., 1863, ii. pp. 290, 376 f., Der Ursprung, p. 143 ff., Die Evangelien, 1870, p. 631; Wieseler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1870, p. 289. Donaldson (later than first quarter, but before end of second century), Hist. of Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 220 ff. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 221 ff.; Schenkel, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1837, p. 652 ff. MS., a portion of the "Epistle of Barnabas" was only known through an ancient Latin version, the first four and a half chapters of the Greek having been lost. The Greek text, however, is now complete, although often very corrupt. The author quotes largely from the Old Testament, and also from apocryphal works.1 He nowhere mentions any book or writer of the New Testament, and with one asserted exception, which we shall presently examine, he quotes no passage agreeing with our Gospels. We shall refer to these, commencing at once with the most important. In the ancient Latin translation of the Epistle, the only form, as we have just said, in which until the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus the first four and a half chapters were extant, the following passage occurs : "Adtendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum est, multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur.”2 "Let us, therefore, beware lest we should be found, as it is written: "Many are called, few are chosen." These words are found in our first Gospel (xxii. 14), and as the formula by which they are here introduced-"it is written," is generally understood to indicate a quotation from Holy Scripture, it was and is argued by some that here we have a passage from one of our Gospels quoted in a manner which shows that, at the time the Epistle of Barnabas was written, the "Gospel according to Matthew was already considered Holy Scripture." Whilst this portion of the text existed only in the Latin version, it was argued that the "sicut scriptum est," at least, must be an interpolation, and in any case that it could not be deliberately applied, at that 1 Cf. chaps. ii., iv., vi., ix., xii., xvi., &c. 2 Ch. iv. date, to a passage in any writings of the New Testament. On the discovery of the Sinaitic MS., however, the words were found in the Greek text in that Codex: προσέχωμεν, μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι SÉ EKλEKTOì EvρEО@μev. The question, therefore, is so far δέ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν. modified that, however much we may suspect the Greck text of interpolation, it must be accepted as the basis of discussion that this passage, whatever its value, exists in the oldest, and indeed only (and this point must not be forgotten) complete MS. of the Greek Epistle. Now with regard to the value of the expression "it is written," it may be remarked that in no case could its use in the Epistle of Barnabas indicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons to be presently given, be considered to represent the decision of the Church. In the very same chapter in which the formula is used in connection with the passage we are considering, it is also employed to introduce a quotation from the Book of Enoch, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, ὡς Ενωχ λέγει, and elsewhere (c. xii.) he quotes from another apocryphal book as one of the prophets.3 Again, he refers to the Cross of Christ in another prophet saying: "And when shall these things come to pass? and the Lord 3 1 Enoch, lxxxix. 61 f., xc. 17. This book is again quoted in ch. xvi. 2 Cf. IV Ezra iv. 33, v. 5. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. receptum, Fasc. ii. p. 75, Die Proph. Ezra und Daniel, 1863, p. 70, Die ap. Väter, p. 47; Wiesler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1870, p. 290; Müller, Erkl. d. Barnabasbriefes, p. 272; Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, ii. p. 836; Hefele, Sendschr. d. Barnab., p. 225; Cotelier, Patr. Ap., p. 38; Volkmar, H'buch in d. Apocr., ii. p. 24; Holtzmann, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1871, p. 340; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 159, anm. 1; Riggenbach, Zeugn. Ev. Joh., p. 87; Lücke, Einl. Offenb. Joh., p. 151 f.; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 244 f. Those of the above critics who do not admit that the quotation is absolutely taken from IV. Ezra, at least fully recognize it to be from an apocryphal source, which is sufficient for our present argument. saith: When, &c. ἐν ἄλλῳ προφήτῃ λέγοντι λέγει Κύριος κ.τ.λ. He also quotes (ch. vi.) the apocryphal "Book of Wisdom" as Holy Scripture, and in like manner several other unknown works. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas itself, and many other apocryphal works have been quoted by the Fathers as Holy Scripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may be understood. With this passing remark, however, we proceed to say that this supposed quotation from Matthew as Holy Scripture by proving too much absolutely destroys its value as evidence. The generality of competent and impartial critics are agreed, that it is impossible to entertain the idea that one of our Gospels could have held the rank of Holy Scripture at the date of this Epistle, seeing that, for more than half a century after, the sharpest line was drawn between the writings of the Old Testament and of the New, and the former alone quoted as, or accorded the consideration of, Holy Scripture. If this were actually a quotation from our first Gospel, already in the position of Holy Scripture, it would indeed be astonishing that the Epistle, putting out of the question other Christian writings for half a century after it, teeming as it does with extracts from the Old Testament, and from known, and unknown, apocryphal works, should thus limit its use of the Gospel 1 Credner, Beiträge, i. p. 28; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. p. 513; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 246; Dressel, Patr. Ap., p. 7; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 127; Orelli, Selecta Patr., 1820, p. 5 f.; Rumpf, N. Rev. de Théologie, 1867, p. 364; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 10 ff.; Weiss, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1864, p. 145; Weizsäcker, Zur Kr. d. Barnabasbr., p. 34 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 119, H'buch Einl. Apocr., ii. p. 290 f. |