Friday, July 02, 2004
The Epistle of Barnabas
Text here; see very interesting commentary by Robert Kraft. It is difficult to express
how much the material that prof. Kraft has put online is valuable to me.
Of all the extant sources, note that the OL (maybe originally from the 3rd or late 2nd century, and therefore most likely the oldest source) contains only Barnabas 1-17 and leaves out the Two Ways. This makes one wonder whether the "first edition" only extended till chapter 17. For what regards the Two Ways, cmp with 1QS and with the Didache.
The numerous quotations in 1-17 make it clear that Barnabas is the result of a school with its roots firmly in Judaism. But this statement needs to be better qualified. Typical of the quotations is the fact that:
Now, if Barnabas was a Gentile (without a long-standing exposure to Jewish thought and traditions), perhaps one could also explain why the epistle on the one hand does not express particular creativity ("a spokesman for a living tradition", the AB article says); and, on the other hand, why the epistle raises some important doctrinal problems. In other words, one could see here the conflicts deriving from the recent adoption of an entirely new belief system. The pattern of a "learned convert".
At the same time, it seems clear that Barnabas deals not only with Scripture, but also with the whole corpus of Jewish background (midrash, halakic and haggadic material). Still, I wonder why he does not seem to quote much of the Jewish historical tradition. Perhaps the right answer lies in the fact that he was a learned Gentile, and as such had some access to (primary and secondary) Jewish material. That he was a learned one, and maybe even a teacher, is implied in several places in the epistle. He would have been interested in compiling material he deemed to be useful for salvation. He is interested not in speculative theology, but in practical matters (this - and the teaching attitude - reminds me of Sirach), and this shapes his writing and his selection of the material.
The key concepts of the epistle:
On homosexuality and pederasty: as I said, Barnabas explains Scripture sometimes in a midrashic way. This note by Jim West on the Liber Gomorrhianus by Petrus Damianus made me think about the references made by Barnabas on the subject. Let's have a look at Barnabas, 10:6-8:
Categories: Church_History
Of all the extant sources, note that the OL (maybe originally from the 3rd or late 2nd century, and therefore most likely the oldest source) contains only Barnabas 1-17 and leaves out the Two Ways. This makes one wonder whether the "first edition" only extended till chapter 17. For what regards the Two Ways, cmp with 1QS and with the Didache.
The numerous quotations in 1-17 make it clear that Barnabas is the result of a school with its roots firmly in Judaism. But this statement needs to be better qualified. Typical of the quotations is the fact that:
- They are not usually concerned about giving the exact source ("it
is written", etc). Sometimes they just seem to retain the flavor of a
certain biblical passage.
- They often differ in words from the biblical text as we have it
today. Cf. the problem of the "rewritten scriptures" I worked on for
the Intertestamental Studies course.
- They derive for 1/4 from the OG of Isaiah; there is material from
the Psalms and from the Pentateuch. Only one quotation (4:14, "many
are called but few are chosen") seems to refer to a NT text (hence,
some say that Barnabas should be dated perhaps before the end of the
first century; for what regards the terminus a quo, an alleged
reference to the destruction of the Second Temple in 16:3-5 is often
used). I find the statement that Barnabas did not know the NT in written form (Kraft) intriguing.
- he may not have been a Jew. He would have been a Gentile,
converted to Christianity. Or,
- he may have been a Christian Jew, with access to Greek material
only. How
realistic is this? Not much, unless we assume that the epistle was born
outside of Palestine. This would be consistent with the fact
that the first witnesses to the epistle are from Alexandria (but the
epistle being
from the Alexandrian area is consistent also with the hypotesis that he
was a Gentile, see later).
Before we believed on God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because we did whatsoever was contrary to God.To me, this seems to point more toward a Gentile context rather than a Jewish one: the words above, applied to Judaism, would assume complete rejection of the covenant, etc: which would not be very consistent with the frequent references to the OT as an authoritative source. Israel worshippers are also referred to as "them".
Now, if Barnabas was a Gentile (without a long-standing exposure to Jewish thought and traditions), perhaps one could also explain why the epistle on the one hand does not express particular creativity ("a spokesman for a living tradition", the AB article says); and, on the other hand, why the epistle raises some important doctrinal problems. In other words, one could see here the conflicts deriving from the recent adoption of an entirely new belief system. The pattern of a "learned convert".
At the same time, it seems clear that Barnabas deals not only with Scripture, but also with the whole corpus of Jewish background (midrash, halakic and haggadic material). Still, I wonder why he does not seem to quote much of the Jewish historical tradition. Perhaps the right answer lies in the fact that he was a learned Gentile, and as such had some access to (primary and secondary) Jewish material. That he was a learned one, and maybe even a teacher, is implied in several places in the epistle. He would have been interested in compiling material he deemed to be useful for salvation. He is interested not in speculative theology, but in practical matters (this - and the teaching attitude - reminds me of Sirach), and this shapes his writing and his selection of the material.
The key concepts of the epistle:
- Gnosis - both Kraft and
AB specify that this is "exegetical and ethical gnosis". Exegetical
because it teaches how to read scriptures correctly (and Israel failed
because it misread scriptures); ethical because it
teaches how to live correctly. For what regards in particular ethical
gnosis, this is perfectly in line with what Clement of
Alexandria writes:
Who then is perfect? He who professes abstinence from what is bad. Well, this is the way to the Gospel and to well-doing. [...] But now in the Gospel the Gnostic attains proficiency not only by making use of the law as a step, but by understanding and comprehending it, as the Lord who gave the Covenants delivered it to the apostles. And if he conduct himself rightly (as assuredly it is impossible to attain knowledge (gnosis) by bad conduct) [...]
(Clement, Stromata IV.21) On the other hand, we do not find in Barnabas gnostic cosmological speculations, or clear theories about Jesus' nature (but see later the notes on Christology). Kraft points out that important (especially to later gnostic writers) terms like αλλεγορια, μυστεριον, συμβολον are absent in Barnabas. - Eschatology - since "The day is at hand, in which everything shall be destroyed together with the Evil One" (21:3), good conduct (and therefore parenesis) it is all the more important for Barnabas, who lives at a time where "the days are evil, and [...] the Active One himself has the authority" (2:1). Eschatology is not surprising in a gnostic context; but it must be noted that Barnabas does not elaborate much on what will happen at the end of days, nor on the significance of the resurrection of Jesus in this eschatological framework.
- Soteriology - this is
something that should concern everybody, and the
readers are warned that this is something that requires active
participation: "Do not enter in privily stand apart by yourselves, as
if ye were already justified, but assemble yourselves together and
consult concerning the common welfare" (4:10). In the overall context,
this seems contrasted with the self-sufficiency shown by Israel. This
soteriology is made
possible by the work of Jesus, but the believer must assume
responsibility for his own salvation.
- Role of Israel - this gives us an important insight on the attitude of Barnabas' environment toward Israel. Israel proved unworthy of the covenant: "So we ought to perceive, unless we are without understanding, the mind of the goodness of our Father; for He speaketh to us, desiring us not to go astray like them but to seek how we may approach Him." (2:9) The tension between the critic of the ritualistic aspects of Israel and the adoption of Jewish ethical teachings and hermeneutical methods throughout the epistle is apparent. The keyword here is again understanding, a gnostic, spiritual understanding of the "new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:6) that Israel totally lacked. The covenant that God gave to Moses was never really delivered to Israel, because Israel turned to idols (4:7-8).
- Christology - there is
definitely little interest in the earthly Jesus' works; there is no
mention of its birth and baptism, although baptism (by immersion) is
practiced in Barnabas' community: see 11:8. It is remarkable that
Barnabas looks more to scripture than to Jesus' sayings for authority
in teaching. Atonement is recognized (5:1-14), and Jesus is more
depicted as "Son of God" than son of man; cf 12:10-11:
Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.
Kraft says, "Jesus' functions often seem to overlap with those of God." We can probably trace this down to a gnostic influence.
And again thus sayith Isaiah; The Lord said unto my Christ the Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give ear before Him, and I will break down the strength of kings. See how David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.
On homosexuality and pederasty: as I said, Barnabas explains Scripture sometimes in a midrashic way. This note by Jim West on the Liber Gomorrhianus by Petrus Damianus made me think about the references made by Barnabas on the subject. Let's have a look at Barnabas, 10:6-8:
Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons; for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.This is the Lightfoot translation. If we look at the translation by Kirsopp Lake, the same passage is not translated (apparently not to offend the sensitivities of its readers) and left in Latin:
Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For this animal conceiveth with its mouth.
Sed nec "leporem manducabis." Non eris, inquit, corruptor puerorum nec similabis talibus. Quia lepus singulis annis facit ad adsellandum singula foramina; et quotquot annis vivit, totidem foramina facit."Foramina" is obviously anal orifices here. Hence some identification in v.6 between homosexuality and pederasty. V.8 gets in the Lightfoot translation an explicit reference to women, which I don't see in the Latin. All in all, these verses seem to condemn very clearly pederasts, homosexuals and bisexuals (bestiae quae alternis annis mutant naturam). Sometimes people desiring to deny that Paul in Rom 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality point out that what he is really doing there would be differentiating between Gnostics and Jewish Christians, not talking about homosexuality per se. But here in Barnabas we have the interesting fact of an epistle that lives within a gnostic background, uses Jewish hermeneutics, and still condemns homosexuality. It does not seem to be alone in this regard: see for example Clement of Alexandria in Pedagogos III.3 (to remain in roughly the same gnostic-aware enviroment and period). This would suggest to me a common and traditional understanding of sexual practices within the early church and before (although this certainly would need to be dealt with more in detail).
Sed "nec beluam, inquit, manducabis"; hoc est non eris moecus aut adulter, nec corruptor, nec similabis talibus. Quia haec bestia alternis annis mutat naturam et fit modo masculus, modo femina.
Sed et quod dicit mustelam odibis. Non eris, inquit, talis, qui audit iniquitatem et loquitur immunditiam. Non inquit adhaerebis immundis qui iniquitatem faciunt ore suo.
Categories: Church_History
