Saint Barnabas the Apostle

S. BARNABAS APOSTLE

PROLEGOMENA

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING ST. BARNABAS AND HIS EPISTLE

I. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, *Stromata*, lib. II, cap. 6, p. 445, Oxford edition.

Meritously, therefore, the apostle Barnabas says: "From that which I have received," etc. ^A *Epist.* cap. 1.

IDEM, *ibid.*, cap. 7, p. 447.

And the apostle Barnabas: "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes." ^B *Cap.* 4.

IDEM, *ibid.*, cap. 15, p. 464.

But even David, and before David, Moses, show through these things the knowledge of the three dogmas. Barnabas says these things indeed. ^C *Cap.* 10.

IDEM, *ibid.*, cap. 18, p. 472.

Barnabas, in truth, says mystically: "May God, who rules over the whole world," etc., he says. ^D *Last cap.*

IDEM, *ibid.*, cap. 20, p. 489.

I have no need of many words if I bring forward as a witness the apostolic Barnabas (he was, moreover, one of the LXX and a helper of Paul), who says in these words: "Before we believed in God," etc. *Cap.* 16.

IDEM, *ibid.*, lib. V, cap. 8, p. 677.

On the other hand, he permits eating those things which have a cloven hoof and which ruminate; signifying, says Barnabas, that it is necessary to adhere to those who fear the Lord, etc. *Cap.* 10.

IDEM, *ibid.*, cap. 10, p. 683.

Furthermore, Barnabas, who himself also preached the Word together with the Apostle in the ministry of the Gentiles, says: "I write more simply to you, that you may understand." Then, a little further down, already exhibiting more clearly a vestige of gnostic tradition, he says: "What does the other prophet Moses say to them? Behold, these things says the Lord God: Enter into the good land," etc. *Cap.* 6.

II.

ORIGEN, *Contra Celsum*, bk. 1, no. 63, vol. 1, p. 378, Paris ed. (1733). It is written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas that Jesus chose his own apostles, who were more wicked than all wickedness. *Philocalia*, ch. 17.

THE SAME, *De Principiis*, bk. 3, ch. 2, no. 4, vol. 1, p. 140. Barnabas also declares the same in his Epistle, when he says that there are two ways, one of light and one of darkness, and that certain angels are set over them: the angels of God over the way of light, and the angels of Satan over the way of darkness. *Cap.* 18. Please read the same Origen’s *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, 1. 24.

III.

EUSEBIUS, *Hist. eccl.*, bk. 3, ch. 25. *Rufinus’ translation:* After these, there is the writing which is called the Acts of Paul; but also the book which is called the Shepherd, and the Revelation of Peter, concerning which it is doubted in the highest degree. The Epistle of Barnabas is also cited. *Valesius’ translation:* Included among the spurious works are also the Acts of Paul, and the book inscribed with the title of the Shepherd, and the Revelation of Peter; likewise the Epistle of Barnabas. Read Nicephorus, bk. 2, ch. 46.

THE SAME, *ibid.*, bk. 6, ch. 14. *Rufinus’ translation:* In his *Hypotyposes*, to speak briefly, he provided a summarized account of all the divine Scripture, omitting none of those that are disputed, such as the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic epistles; also the Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation-called-of-Peter. *Valesius’ translation:* The same (Clement) in his *Hypotyposes*, to speak in a word, prepared a summary narrative of the Scriptures of both Testaments; not even passing over those Scriptures which are disputed among many: by which I mean the Epistle of Jude and that of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic epistles, and the Revelation which is called Peter’s. Read Nicephorus, bk. 4, ch. 33.

We have previously recorded another passage from EUSEBIUS, *Hist. eccl.*, bk. 6, ch. 13, among the testimonies of the ancients regarding the Epistles of CLEMENT.

IV.

JEROME, *De viris illustribus*, ch. 6, with the ancient Greek interpreter. Barnabas the Cyprian, who is also called Joseph the Levite, having been ordained with Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles, composed one Epistle pertaining to the edification of the Church, which is read among the apocryphal scriptures. Read Ado of Vienne, in his book *De festivitatibus*, at the 3rd Ides of June: Notker, Freculf, Honorius of Autun.

THE SAME, *Commentary on Ezekiel*, bk. 13, ch. 43, 19. He mentions not only the calf which was sacrificed for us, and many places of Scripture, but especially the Epistle of Barnabas, which is held among the apocryphal scriptures. *Cap.* 8.

The same JEROME, *Adversus Pelagianos*, bk. 1, ch. 1, incorrectly cites under the name of St. Ignatius a passage of St. Barnabas concerning the apostles, which was praised by Origen in his *Contra Celsum*, bk. 1.

NICEPHORUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE had placed the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of his *Chronographia* among the books of the New Testament, which was contradicted, as is evident from the version of Anastasius the Librarian.

LATER JUDGMENT ON THE EPISTLE OF SAINT BARNABAS THE APOSTLE. I. (J. B. COTELERIUS, Patres Apostolici, vol. I, p. 5, ed. Amsterdam 1724.)

Concerning the life and name of Barnabas. Blessed Luke ^A writes that he was called by the apostles "Barnabas, that is, the son of consolation," because, when he had a field, he sold it and laid the price of it at the feet of the apostles, for the consolation of the poor; and those also who, in Jerome’s book *On Hebrew Names*, translate it "son of consolation." Yet, one can also be led to the latter meaning by the exposition of Saint Chrysostom, Homily 11 on the Acts: *Barnabas, which is, son of consolation, was surnamed by the apostles; and it seems to me that he received the name from his virtue, as being capable and suitable for this.* Barnabas, that is, "son of consolation and exhortation," was surnamed by the apostles. And it seems to me that he took the name from a virtue, for he was fit and suitable for that, namely, to console and to exhort. To this is added the etymology of Jerome: *Barnabas, son of a prophet, he says, that is, of prophecy, that is, a prophet.* It belongs, of course, to prophets or teachers to exhort and console the people of God. Wherefore, Acts xv, 32, states: *Judas and Silas, being prophets themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.* According to our interpreter: *But Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, with many words consoled the brethren, and confirmed them.* And I Cor. xiv, 3: *But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and consolation.* For he who prophesieth speaks to men for edification, and exhortation, and consolation. Verse 31: *For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.* From the same version: *For ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.* ^B That this Barnabas was one of the seventy disciples of the Lord can be proven by the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, both in book II of the *Stromata* and in the *Hypotyposes*, as recorded by Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* book I, chapter 12, and book II, chapter 1; and this tradition is followed by Epiphanius at the end of volume I, book I, *Adversus Hæreses*, the author of the so-called Alexandrian Chronicle, Dorotheus in his *Synopsis*, and those who have written down the deeds of Barnabas. Against this, Bede objects on Acts iv: *It is a wonder how this Barnabas, who was afterwards ordained an apostle to the Gentiles with Paul, and after his long companionship, returned again to Cyprus, whence he had sprung, to preach...*

and return, Eusebius, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, considers him to be of the number of the Lord Savior’s seventy disciples; though Saint Luke writes manifestedly that he came to the discipleship of the apostles after the Lord’s ascension: unless one should think that he had followed Christ’s discipleship so thoroughly beforehand, that he had not yet renounced all that he possessed; and whether this would have been consistent with the evangelical doctrine, is very easily apparent to anyone. But, with the permission of that venerable man, neither does Luke say that Barnabas began to believe after the Lord’s ascension, nor does it seem necessary that all the disciples should have discarded everything of theirs: and even if it were so, our man could have sold a field recently acquired by inheritance, to lay the money at the apostles’ feet.

Furthermore, many things are recounted concerning Barnabas in the New Testament; among other things, Acts xi, 29, 30, that the Christians of Antioch sent alms to those in Jerusalem by his hands: from which fact I suppose it occurs that the Greeks, in the ordination of a great steward, say: ^A εὐχαῖς καὶ πρεσβείαις τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου Βαρνάβα τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ γενναιομάρτυρος, "by the prayers and intercessions of the holy and all-praised Barnabas, apostle and noble martyr," just as can be seen in Joannes Morinus, *Sacris ordinationibus*, part II, p. 115. The remaining matters pertaining to this apostle are known—some true, some fabulous—and they do not greatly concern our plan: wherefore we pass them over.

The Epistle of Barnabas

composed [it], he would not have situated the Epistle of Barnabas among the books of the New Testament, as he did, which he himself read along with the apocryphal Scriptures, had he not seen that it had been so treated by Origen. We discover the same opinion in the ancient Latin Stichometry, which exists in two manuscript books: one belonging not long ago to the Putean Brothers, now to the Most Christian King, [and] the other to the monks of Saint-Germain. In that, the Epistle of Barnabas is placed after the Epistle of Jude, [and] before the Revelation of John and the Acts of the Apostles.

But the teacher of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, had gone off in a different direction, inasmuch as he impugns the work which he believes to be Barnabas's, although, for the sake of honor, the name is suppressed; *Paedagogus* II, ch. 10. Furthermore, he would by no means have committed this if he had thought it pertained to the Canon. And perhaps there will be the suspicion in someone that Clement vacillated, or accommodated himself to the opinion of many, at the time when the Canon of the Scriptures had not yet accepted fixed limits. Indeed, in the books of the *Hypotyposes*, as Eusebius relates (Hist. lib. VI, ch. 14), he had expounded the Epistle of Barnabas along with the books of the New Testament; which perhaps he rejects as pseudepigraphical when he was refuting [it]. But Jerome also, cited above regarding the notion of the word *Apocryphum* for a work of that title, nonetheless in the passages cited among the Testimonies of the ancients, considers the Epistle apocryphal, not pseudepigraphical. Furthermore, by Gelasius, apocrypha are not taken solely as pseudepigraphs, or works whose authors are secret and unknown, but for all which, because they seem to merit some mark—whether of supposition, error, or impiety—ought to be hidden and unknown (*ἀποκρυφῆς μᾶλλον ἢ ἀναγνώσεως ἄξια* [more worthy of being hidden than of being read], says the author of the *Synopsis of Holy Scripture* believed to be Athanasius), nor be versed in public knowledge, as are the canonical books of the Scriptures, and those ecclesiastical [writings] of the Fathers which can be traversed with an unoffending foot. Wherefore he lists among the apocrypha the minor works of Clement of Alexandria, of Tertullian, of Cyprian, of Arnobius, of Lactantius, of Eusebius, and of others, although [these are] undoubted.

From all of which it is concluded that it is not very clear whether we ought to adjudicate the present Epistle to Barnabas the apostle, or to another apostolic man, who either assumed the name of Barnabas, or was of the same name as Barnabas, just as Dionysius of Alexandria, apud Eusebius (lib. VII, ch. 25), teaches us that the names of the apostles had been affected by the early Christians. I the more incline to think it is not the apostle's. But if anyone brings forward more certain proofs, he will do a most gratifying thing. I cannot profess to know what I do not know.

*When the Epistle of Barnabas was written.* You will say: If it is not the apostle's, when was it written? What authority-level is it to be held in and has it been held in? Regarding the first, it is evident from chapter 16 of the Epistle that it was given after the Jerusalem destruction. It is also clear from Clement of Alexandria, a praiser of the Epistle, that it had appeared before the end of the second century. But just as from the first one would not rightly conclude the origin of it, so one would wrongly conclude from the second that its nativity happened immediately before Clement composed his books. For was it necessary that a literary monument [that is] apocryphal, as soon as it had gone out of the hands of the writer, should immediately come to common notice, and be cited by the Fathers? Especially in that time, when few were writing, and those who committed their own works to letters used almost only the sacred books in testimony: not to mention the most mournful loss of ecclesiastical volumes written in the earlier centuries. Thus, it seems a middle path must be walked; and the work must be referred to the time that intervenes between the two, yet so that it leans more to the first: which thing the character of the diction, redolent of apostolic antiquity, signifies not obscurely.

*Of what authority.* Regarding the second question, no difficulty arises concerning the present time. It is agreed among all that the Epistle does not have a place in the canon. Nor should it be less agreed that it is worthy of great veneration, which had been of such age and reputation. But if we consider the first centuries, when the Churches used a different canon, Christians were split into various studies. To understand this, it is necessary to observe that among the holy Fathers, one does not find a single division of the Scriptures that are either holy or are held as such by many. Sometimes a twofold division of Scripture is made: canonical, whose dictator is the Holy Spirit, and apocryphal, whose author is man alone. Thus Jerome in the *Prologue Galeatus*, Augustine in *De doctrina christiana*, lib. II, ch. 8, and Isidore in *Originum*, lib. VI, ch. 2. So also two types of Scriptures are placed in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* lib. III, ch. 3—accepted (*ὁμολογουμένων*) and undisputed (*ἀναντιῤῥήτων*)—and the ones not of that kind; in the *Synopsis* of Athanasius, or another's, the canonized (*κανονιζομένων*) and not-canonized (*μὴ κανονιζομένων*); in the fourth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem—of the Scriptures and those confessed by all, versus the apocryphal and disputed—in the 33rd poem of Gregory Nazianzen—divine (*θείων*) or genuine (*γνησίων*) and spurious (*παρεγγράπτων*)—among Jerome in epistle 129, and in chapter 1 of the Epistle to Titus, and [in his] *Commentary on the Psalms*, if indeed the author of this book is to be considered such, on Psalm CXLIX, ecclesiastical and apocryphal; among Pope Innocent, epistle 3, chapter 7, [as] those received in the canon and those rejected. Sometimes a triple [division of] Scripture is presented: canonical, to be received entirely; apocryphal, to be rejected completely; and doubtful, placed between the two; admitted by some, rejected by others; mixed and middle between genuine and spurious; indeed, very close [to the genuine], to which it is indeed contradicted, but it is held in honor so that it may be read to the catechumens; which, finally, although Catholics do not hold it in the same esteem as the canonical, so as to confirm the dogmas of faith from it, they do not therefore abominably reject it like the apocryphal, nor cast it out of the temples, but rather receive it with reverence, and read it in the churches for the edification of the people. This they teach—

precisely as Origen [testifies] in ^A John iv, 22; Eusebius, *Hist.*, bk. II, ch. 23, 25, 31, and elsewhere; Athanasius in his *Festal Letter* and in the *Synopsis of Holy Scripture*; Amphilochius in his iambic poem to Seleucus; Jerome in his prefaces to Judith and to the three volumes of Solomon; Rufinus in his *Exposition of the Creed*, and Nicephorus of Constantinople in his *Canon of the Scriptures*.

Moreover, the branches of both these divisions are further subdivided. In the first, the canonical Scriptures, according to the opinion of Saint Augustine (in the place cited from *On Christian Doctrine*), are either accepted by all Catholic churches, or by the majority and those of greater weight, or by those fewer in number and of lesser authority, or perhaps by the majority but not the weightier ones, or finally perhaps by the weightier but not the majority; and thus they must be evaluated as being of either absolute, greater, or equal authority. That this inequality of authority was not unheard of among the Jews, I conclude from Philo, *On the Contemplative Life*; Josephus, *Against Apion*, bk. I; and Jerome, in his prefaces to the Books of Kings, to Tobit, to Judith, to the Works of Solomon, and to Daniel. From the same Augustine, *City of God*, bk. XVIII, ch. 36, it appears that a double canon of Old Testament Scriptures is posited: those which the Jews hold as canonical, and those which the Church holds (on which matter one should consult Isidore’s *Etymologies*, bk. VI, ch. 1). In the same first division, the apocryphal books similarly obtain degrees, according as they incline more or less toward truth and piety, or toward falsehood and impiety. ^C In the second division, likewise, the doubtful Scriptures, as found in Eusebius (bk. II, ch. 23; bk. III, ch. 3 and 25), receive varying categorization based on their proximity to the canonical or the apocryphal works; since they are read publicly by many churches, are found cited by ancient doctors, and are also seen as spurious and are the subject of the greatest doubt.

These things being posited, every difficulty vanishes. The Epistle of Barnabas was regarded as canonical by Origen and some churches; by Clement of Alexandria it was sometimes deemed canonical, sometimes doubtful, sometimes non-canonical, or apocryphal in the positive sense of the first division; by Eusebius it was held as doubtful and spurious, although cited by the ancients, yet closer to the apocrypha of a better stamp; ^B by Jerome, it was held to be apocryphal, or outside the canon, pertaining to the edification of the Church: according to Nicephorus of Constantinople, it is not canonical, nor apocryphal, but a work to which exception is taken—[yet] by no one is it considered apocryphal of the worse sort, that is to say, noxious, heretical, or impious; of which class the Gospel inscribed with the name of Barnabas appears to have been, which was condemned in the Roman council by the work of Gelasius. See above, at the beginning of the notes to the *Apostolic Constitutions*, the *Indiculum* of the Scriptures, taken from the Royal Library.

*The Title of the Epistle.* Nothing remains but to inquire into the title of the Epistle, and to whom it was written. The matter is not of great moment. For, as Tertullian well says: "It makes no difference regarding the titles, since the apostles wrote to all, [and] also to some." And perhaps it was always *anepigraphos* (without a formal address); such as we see in the first [epistle] of the Apostle John. But if the matter is otherwise, I would conjecture from the whole series of the discourse that it was sent to the Christian Hebrews, who were exceedingly tenacious of the ancient law, and that it was inscribed "To the Hebrews." From this it could have come about that, having heard a rumor about a certain Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews which he had not seen, Tertullian (*De Pudicitia*, ch. 20) thought that the canonical Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, concerning whose author and authority there was doubt, had been intended by Barnabas. And thus far regarding the Epistle.

*Ancient version.* The ancient translation, however, displays barbarism everywhere and negligence everywhere; it is imperfect and mutilated, both here and there, and especially at the end, where the later chapters are cut off, perhaps because they seemed less learned to the translator and [less] relevant to morals. Therefore, having omitted those, and inserted a few words, he places a conclusion with a doxology. Yet that version has its own value, to which we owe the earlier chapters, with not a few emendations of the Greek context, to say nothing of the antiquity and simplicity of that work.

*Stichometry.* Furthermore, it has pleased me to append here the unpublished Stichometry, of which I made mention, even though it is mutilated and corrupt; because it will bring no small benefit to those reading and comparing it with the one of Nicephorus of Constantinople, with manuscript copies of the Scriptures, and with the lists of the Scriptures.

Verses of the Holy Scriptures

Genesis ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMMD. Exodus ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMDCC. Leviticus ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMDCCC. Numeri ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMDCL. Deuteronomium ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMCCC. Jesu Nave ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MM. Judicum ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MM. Ruth ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ CCL. Regnorum. Primus liber‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMD. Secundus liber ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MM. Regnorum Tertius liber ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMDC. Quartus liber ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMCCCC. (Excidisse videntur libri Paralipomenon.) Psalmi Davidici ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMMM. Proverbia ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MDC. Ecclesiastes ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ DC. Cantica canticorum ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ CCC. Sapientia ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ M. Sapientia Jesu ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMD. Duodecim Prophetae ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ MMMCX. Osee ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ DXXX.

Amos. CCCCX. Michæas. CCCX. Joel. XC. Abdias. LXX. Jonas. GL. Nahum. CXL. Ambacum. CLX. Sophonias. CLX. Aggæus. CX. Zacharias. DCLX. Malachiel. CC. Esaias. MMMDC. Jeremias. MMMMLXX. Ezechiel. MMMDC. Daniel. MDC. Machabæorum sic: Liber primus. MMCCC. — Liber secundus. MMCCC. — Liber tertius. M.

Judith. MCCC. Esdras. MD. Esther. M. Job. MDC. Tobias. M. Evangelia quatuor. Matthæus. MMDC. — Joannes. MM. — Marcus. MDC. — Lucas. MMDCCCC.

Epistolæ Pauli. Ad Romanos. MXL. — Ad Corinthios prima. MLX. — Ad Corinthios secunda. LXX. — Ad Galatas. CCCL. — Ad Ephesios. CCCLXXV. (Deest ad Philipp. et ad Thes.) — Ad Timotheum prima. CCVIII. — Ad Timotheum sec. CCLXXXIX. — Ad Titum. CXL. — Ad Colossenses. CCLI. — Ad Philemonem. L.

Petri prima. CC. Petri secunda. CXL. Jacobi. CCXX. Joannis prima. CCXX. Joannis secunda. XX. Joannis tertia. XX. Judæ. LX. Barnabæ Epistola. DCCCL. Joannis Revelatio. MCC. Actus apostolorum. MMCC. Pastoris. MMMM. Actus Pauli. MMMMDLX. Revelatio Petri. MMLXX.

II.

Saint Barnabas, by nationality a Cypriot, by race a Jew, and of the tribe of Levi, who was also called Joseph—one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as Clement of Alexandria teaches in book II of the *Stromata*, and Eusebius in book I of *Ecclesiastical History*, ch. 12, and in book II, ch. 1—sold the field he possessed, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles, as it is written in *Acts* iv. Together with Saint Paul, he was declared an apostle of the Gentiles by the prophets and teachers who were at Antioch, the Holy Spirit revealing it (*Acts* xiii). He traveled over many lands and seas to disseminate the faith of Christ, having endured many and various labors. He founded many churches, among which was that of Milan. ^C Concerning the time when he suffered, nothing certain can be stated, since no ancient writer of any note is available who has written about his death, as Baronius notes. It is reported that a certain epistle was written by him, which is not held among the canonical Scriptures; although Clement of Alexandria and Origen cite it, yet it is counted among the doubtful, bastard, and apocryphal scriptures, since it was never received by the authority of the Church as canonical. That experience sufficiently proves, and also Eusebius, in book III of *Ecclesiastical History*, ch. 19, who does not count it among the genuine scriptures. Among the scriptures that are not legitimate are counted the *Acts of Paul*, and the book which is called *The Shepherd*, and the *Apocalypse of Peter*, and in addition to these the *Epistle of Barnabas*—that is, to these should be added that which is circulated under the name of the Epistle of Barnabas. The divine Jerome holds the same opinion in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*: "Barnabas the Cypriot, who is also Joseph the Levite, having been ordained an apostle of the Gentiles with Paul, composed one epistle that pertains to the edification of the Church, which is read among the apocryphal scriptures"; and in book XIII of his *Commentaries on Ezekiel*, ch. 43: "The Epistle of Barnabas, which is held among the apocryphal scriptures..." Nicephorus Callistus is of the same opinion in book II, ch. 46, and book IV, ch. 33. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his *Canon of the Scriptures*, counts it among the Scriptures of the New Testament that are "contradicted"—that is, those that are disputed—but not among the apocryphal. ^D The Roman Synod under Pope Gelasius is silent about it, making mention only of the *Gospel of Barnabas*, which it counts among the apocryphal scriptures.

These are the ancient authors who wrote about or made mention of this epistle. It is, indeed, rightly numbered among the apocryphal scriptures by the cited authors, both because it is uncertain whether it is by Barnabas, and because there are found in it certain things that are not without difficulty. For there are some things in it, perhaps, at which the less cautious might take offense, which, however, I have explained according to my measure; not indeed with the intention as if I wished to excuse it too stubbornly of every defect; just as I see today some persons who, with such contention of mind (though without reason), attempt to defend certain old documents published by themselves, which contain mere nurse-maid tales, or rather the dreams of a sick old man, which at first glance move learned men to nausea, that they wish for them to be preferred to the authority of all ancient and modern writers. ^A Nor should it move anyone that Clement of Alexandria and Origen, when they cite this epistle, never said it was apocryphal. For such authors often use apocryphal books, as the book of Enoch, the Shepherd, the book of the Traditions of Matthias, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the like. One thing, however, is certain: that this epistle, which is now coming out from us, is the same one that Saint Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen once had in their hands; since all the passages cited by them from it may be found in this epistle which we are publishing. And it will be manifest from our observations, with one exception, which is brought forward by Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, book VI, when he explains this passage of the Psalmist: *This is the gate of the Lord, the just shall enter through it*, and likewise: ^B *Expounding the utterance of the Prophet, Barnabas adds: There are many gates opened, this is righteousness, which is in Christ, in whom are all the blessed who have entered.* That is: *Explaining the statement of the Prophet, Barnabas infers: Since many gates are opened, which is justice, it is that which is in Christ, into which all the blessed who have entered are.* But I think that either the memory of Clement of Alexandria has slipped, or certainly the passage has been corrupted, and instead of "Barnabas" it should be read "Clement." For this passage is found in the epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, where the same passage of the Psalmist is explained: *“This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter into it.” Since therefore many gates are opened, that which is in righteousness is that which is in Christ, in whom are all the blessed who have entered.* That is: *“This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter into it.”* Since therefore many gates are opened, that which is in righteousness is the same also in ^A Christ, into which all the blessed who have entered. In which place it must be read, according to Clement of Alexandria, 1 Stromata, *in justice*, and it should be explained, *that which is in justice*. This is also evident from Clement of Alexandria himself, 1 *Stromata*, where the same passage is quoted, but at greater length, from the same epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, with Saint Clement merely named near the end of the context, with a few words changed, in this manner: *“This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter into it:”* Since therefore many gates are opened in justice, this was in Christ, into which all the blessed who have entered, and directed their path in the power of knowing sanctity. *Immediately Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians says word for word, setting forth the distinctions of those who are approved according to the Church: “Let anyone be faithful, let anyone be powerful in expressing knowledge, let anyone be wise in the discernment of speeches, let anyone be vigorous in works.”* That is: *Now Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians says in these words, explaining the difference of those who are approved in the Church: “Let someone be faithful, let someone be powerful in explaining knowledge, let someone be wise in the discernment of speeches, let someone be stupendous in works.”* Finally, it should be noted that some have thought that these words of Clement of Alexandria in *Stromata* II, *the law forbids the lending to a brother at interest* (ὁ νόμος ἀπαγορεύει ἀδελφῷ δανείζειν), that is, the law forbids lending to a brother at interest, etc., are cited from the Epistle of Barnabas, which is not so; but a little before these words are cited from Barnabas, which are held in this Epistle near the end of it, *Verily mystically Barnabas: For God, he says, who rules over the whole world, may he also give you knowledge, etc.*, up to those words, *children of love*, etc., which are from the text of Clement of Alexandria, who finally adds, *it suffices to say this, that the law forbids lending to a brother at interest*, which words indeed do not exist in this epistle, which is ascribed to Saint Barnabas. A certain slight difficulty remains regarding the Hebrew names, ^C which Saint Jerome brings forward from the Epistle of Saint Barnabas in the book *On Hebrew Names*. For one of them, namely Nahum, is missing in the epistle: for thus says Saint Jerome, *Manasses, forgotten, Nahum, germ.* But an error has crept in, and we must read *Nave*, as it is held in this Epistle, who was the father of Josue, according to the Septuagint; or *Nun*, which is the same according to the Hebrew text. And the reason is, because Nahum does not signify germ, but comforter, by the testimony of the same Jerome, in the book cited in the chapter on Jonas, and Nahum. *Nahum*, he says, *comforter, from the root Dנח, that is, to be comforted.* But *Nave*, or *Nun*, is germ, according to the same Jerome, in the same book, chap. 1: *Nave, seed, germ, beauty, from the verb of the conjugation Niphal, that is, it will germinate.*

Since, however, this unique Epistle of Saint Barnabas is handed down, I thought it should be noted, nevertheless, that the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews is attributed to Saint Barnabas by Tertullian, in the book *On Modesty*, as is clear from his words: *For there also exists a title of Barnabas to the Hebrews;* so sufficient in authority is the man, whom Paul near himself had constituted in the tenor of abstinence: *“Or I*

alone, or Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working?” (I Cor. ix): and it is surely more acceptable to the Churches ^A than the apocryphal Shepherd of profligates. Persuading, therefore, the disciples, having put aside all beginnings, to tend rather toward perfection; and not again to lay the foundations of repentance from dead works: “For it is impossible,” he says, “for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God,” etc., which words may be read in the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, chap. vi. From this place Philastrius is to be understood, lib. *De hæresibus*, cap. 60: "There are others who do not claim the epistle of blessed Paul to be to the Hebrews; but say that it is either of blessed Barnabas the apostle, or of Clement." Where, without doubt, he understands Tertullian. But enough on these matters for now; it remains that I should treat briefly of its argument, or subject.

Epistle’s argument, division. When certain Jews converted to the faith of Christ were “galaticizing” (to speak with Tertullian), that is, thought that the Mosaic law was to be retained along with the Gospel, and were persuading many Christians of this, Saint Barnabas, or whoever else it was, imitating Saint Paul, attempts in this epistle to refute their doctrine, and teaches by many passages of Scripture and figures that the Law of Moses has already been abrogated, and the Gospel has succeeded it. This is the scope of this epistle; to which some things are referred here which are not *proēgoumenos*, or of primary argument, but reside as if in a secondary treatise, such as those regarding the coming of Christ, his passion, etc.: for they are treated for its sake, since they contribute not a little to its understanding, according to the custom of orators, who sometimes digress to other matters—not uselessly, indeed, as they are wont to do so for the sake of a fuller elucidation. Toward the end of the epistle he teaches many things to Christians which contribute greatly to the proper ordering of one's life. Hence it comes about that this epistle can be conveniently distributed into two parts: the former of which is didascalic, which teaches by many arguments that there is no longer any use for the Mosaic Law and Jewish ceremonies:

Prior part of the epistle. The prior part comprises twelve chapters. In the first, it treats of the cessation of the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law; in the second, of the abolition of the fasts of the same Law; ^B in the third, it treats of the impending calamities and the faithful are admonished to the study of the virtues, which the Jews postponed for their fasts and ceremonies; in the fourth, it treats of Christ’s advent, the mission of the apostles, and Christ’s passion and exaltation; in the fifth, it argues concerning the restoration of man; in the sixth, again concerning Christ’s passion and certain of its circumstances; in the seventh, concerning the antiquation of the old circumcision and regarding the circumcision of the ears and of the heart; in the eighth, concerning the foods prohibited in the old Law and their mystical interpretation; in the ninth, concerning baptism and the cross; in the tenth, concerning the reprobation of the Jewish people and the election of the Gentiles; in the eleventh, concerning the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath; in the twelfth, concerning the rejection and demolition of the Jewish temple and the building of the spiritual temple.

Second part of the epistle. The second part is concluded in two chapters. The first treats of the way of light, that is, of those things which must be done by a Christian; in the other, of the way of darkness, that is, of those things which must be shunned and avoided by the faithful soul: then finally the epilogue follows.

But this epistle is called by Origen, lib. 1 *contra Celsum* toward the end, "Catholic," that is, universal, because it was not written to one certain people or nation, but to all Christians: for so are the catholic epistles of the apostles defined, as is manifest from Leontius, lib. *De sectis*, cap. 2: Καθολικαὶ δὲ ἐκλήθησαν, ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρὸς ἓν ἔθνος ἐγράφησαν, ὡς αἱ τοῦ Παύλου, ἀλλὰ καθόλου πρὸς πάντα, that is, they are called Catholic because they were not written to one nation, like the Epistles of Paul, but generally ^C to all.

III. (Isaac VOSSIUS, Preface to the Epistle of S. Barnabas, edited by him at Amsterdam in the year 1646 at the end of the Epistles of S. Ignatius the martyr.)

Some years have now passed since I had decided to bring to light this Epistle of Barnabas, which I had received from the incomparable Salmasius. But my journey hindered me, so that I could not finish that project at that time. While I was traveling through England, another occasion offered itself, by which that writing, which had long deserved the light, might finally be divulged. The most reverend Primate of Ireland, Ussher of Armagh, was then preparing a new edition of Ignatius. Therefore, at his requesting and offering that this epistle of Barnabas also be printed together with the Ignatian writings, I not only gladly consented to this, but I was also ^D greatly delighted to happen upon those hands, from whom the most ancient monument could borrow for itself an immense amount of splendor. And had not that great fire, which devastated no small part of the city of Oxford, also consumed all the copies, we would have had a most beautiful edition of its author long ago. There were not lacking, however, learned men in Gaul who thought it unworthy that this writing should linger longer in darkness. And so, recently, Hugo Menardus, a monk of the order of Saint Maur, has adorned a new edition for us. That he has deserved much from the public on this account, no one

is there who would deny. Yet he would have deserved still more, had it been his good fortune to see more manuscripts. For since that entire edition proceeded from a single codex, it could not have turned out otherwise than very faulty. To me, although fortune has not been so favorable that anyone should be envious, yet that happiness has befallen me, that in correcting this work I have been able to use three manuscripts. The first was provided to me from the Medicean Library in Florence, and the other two from the Vatican Library and that of the Theatines, who reside in Rome. I acknowledge my debt for their use to Lucas Holstenius, a man of the highest standing and one who can never be praised enough in accordance with his merits. What, therefore, has been achieved by the help of these three codices, he will see who considers it worth the effort to compare this edition with the other that I have mentioned.

I do not know, however, why some have supposed that this Epistle is not by Barnabas, when nevertheless Clement, and Origen, and others, attribute it to him. Learned men are offended, I believe, because in this place certain passages of the Holy Scriptures are explained otherwise than they ought to have been. They cannot be persuaded that things could have been understood in that way by a man of such authority, of whom the holy books make mention so often, since he was always the constant companion of the apostle Paul, and he himself was also one of the lesser apostles. But who would demand total, universal knowledge and doctrine from those first Christians; who would not consider them to have been just as capable of hallucinating as their descendants; especially in matters that pertain nothing to the faith? Are there not similar things to be found in the Epistle of Clement, which the very great man Patricius Junius, the royal librarian (to whom I owe so much that I cannot be in his debt for more), gave to us? For who, with a sound mind, can stomach that fable which he tells about the phoenix, and about the many worlds beyond the Ocean? I do not think anyone would wish to admit that interpretation, that the scarlet thread of Rahab the harlot was a sign of the blood of Christ, and other things of that kind which are not the place here to recount. And yet this Clement, by equal right just as Barnabas, is called an apostle. And so they ought not to find fault in the one what they excuse in the other. It is well known to anyone how excessively, mystically, and superstitiously (one might almost say ineptly) those first Christians interpreted the Holy Scriptures. If, therefore, there occur in this author some things that displease the learned, that should be attributed to the customs of the ancient Christians rather than that it should be thought to be a supposititious writing. But neither should it move anyone that Eusebius and later Greeks placed the Epistle of Barnabas among the apocrypha. For this was not done because they doubted the author, but because they did not approve of those mystical interpretations of many passages of the Holy Scripture. For the same reason, the works of Clement of Alexandria and many of Origen’s works were referred to the apocrypha. Yet it was never doubted that those works were genuine. And certainly: if we were to wish to reject all things that have at some time been held among the apocrypha, we would also have to reject the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, likewise the Epistle of the apostle Jude, and that of Clement to the Corinthians. That this is absurd, who is it that does not see?

Others have said, from the style and the character of the writing, that they discern this epistle to be spurious. They affirmed the same regarding the Epistles of Ignatius. But they who boast of such things desire to seem excessively astute. It is not as easy to distinguish spurious writings from genuine ones as it is to distinguish native gems from adulterated ones. For when true stones are placed and compared with fictions, then for the most part the makeup appears: just as purple is judged against purple, so it is with other items of trade. But what is it, from where could those who deny that these epistles are by Barnabas and Ignatius have gathered this? Have they seen other writings of theirs? Certainly not. Whence, therefore, became it known to them what style Barnabas and Ignatius used? But, they say, they nevertheless know that their views are true. If that is the case, I shall add no more. Let us go forward, and let us see whether it has been worth the effort to have annotated this Epistle.

IV. (From the preface of the Oxford Edition of the year 1680.)

When I was engaged in the edition of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, I could not pass by the Epistle of St. Barnabas, most highly commended for its primitive antiquity, its sacred subject matter, and the name of its author (which it keeps) which is likewise sacred. After this had lain hidden for many centuries on library shelves, through the zeal and patronage of the most reverend Ussher, Primate of Armagh, it was committed to the press in this place in the year 1643. But a great part of the city of Oxford having been seized by a grave fire, the printing house, together with all the equipment, printed sheets, and the exemplar itself, burned down, so that nothing of that collapse remained, except for a few pages which, as far as can be conjectured, were with the corrector; and which the most learned man Edward Bernard, Doctor of Theology and Savilian Professor of Astronomy, bought, and kindly communicated to me. A little later, namely in the year 1645, the work, illustrated with learned notes by Hugo Menardus, a monk of the congregation of St. Maur, was brought forth into the light at Paris through the care of his colleague Lucas Dacherius, Menardus having been carried off by death. Furthermore, in the year 1646, the most illustrious Mr. Isaac Vossius added this epistle to his most splendid edition of the Epistles of St. Ignatius; and he added notes, brief indeed, but learned. Finally, in the year 1672, Jean-Baptiste Cotelier, a theologian of the Sorbonne Society, inserted this Epistle into his Library of the Holy Fathers who flourished in apostolic times, and adorned it with a new version, and added most praiseworthy notes.

^A What remains to be said concerning the work itself, in order that the memory of such a great man may be preserved, I shall present in the words of the most illustrious primate aforementioned, which have erased the flames [of controversy].

PREMONITION OF JAMES OF ARMAGH CONCERNING THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

"Franciscus Turrianus, a priest of the Society of Jesus, had persuaded Baronius that the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians existed in Greek in his possession, far longer than the one which is currently in print. But James Sirmond, a theologian of the same society, later discovered, after examining that exemplar more diligently, that the greatest part of it pertained to the epistle which was once borne under the name of the apostle Barnabas. And Petrus Halloix, himself a Jesuit, showed that the codices of neither the Vatican Library nor those of Cardinal Colonna contained anything otherwise."

^B "Indeed, in the first exemplar from which that Colonna codex (which is thought to be the oldest of all) and the rest which survive today were copied, through the fault of the copyists, a quaternion was either omitted or transposed; by whose defect it has come to pass that, in the surviving Greek texts, we lack both the end of the Epistle of Polycarp and the beginning of Barnabas."

"For, in times even much more ancient, I was almost induced by a pleasing conjecture to believe—as it is clear from the end of the Epistle itself—that not only the letters of Ignatius were subjected to this Epistle of Polycarp, but along with them also this one of Barnabas, from that place of Jerome in his book against the Pelagians: *Ignatius, an apostolic man and martyr, writes boldly: The Lord chose as apostles those who were sinners above all men.* For as in the latter collection of Ignatian Epistles, when the letters inscribed with the name of Maria Castabalita had been prefixed along with the rest, we notice they were also produced under the inscribed title of Ignatius himself in Antonius Melissa: just so, in that earlier one, when the epistle of Barnabas was also read as if inserted between the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius, it is no wonder if Jerome, with a similar mnemonic [lapse] and in the same excusable manner, cited under the name of Ignatius that which ought properly to have been attributed to Barnabas."

"For in that [epistle] which we now provide, this sentiment is found: *He chose his own apostles, those who were about to preach his Gospel, being lawless above every sin.* The fact that those very words existed even before Jerome's time is made certain by Origen: *'It is written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas (whence perhaps Celsus, taking his cue, said the apostles were infamous and most wicked), that Jesus chose his own apostles, being lawless above every lawlessness.'* It is indeed written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas (from which Celsus perhaps snatched the occasion to call the apostles infamous and most wicked), that he chose his own apostles, who were more lawless than all iniquity. Where he calls this epistle 'Catholic,' because it was not inscribed to any particular person or church, but to the very universality of Christian brethren, wheresoever they might be dwelling. Nor indeed will one wonder that it was produced by Jerome under the name of Ignatius, when it was Barnabas’s; who might also have noticed it praised under the title of Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria, because it ought to have been ascribed to the Roman Clement. For he, having cited the place of the Psalm (*Open to me the gates of justice; I will enter into them and confess to the Lord; this is the gate of the Lord, the just shall pass through it*), says that this prophetic dictum was thus expounded by Barnabas: *Of many gates being opened, [the one] in justice is that which is in Christ, in which all are blessed who have entered.* Though many gates be open; that which is of justice is that which is in Christ: in which all are blessed who have entered. Which indeed, sought in vain in Barnabas, we find expressed in the same words in the first Epistle of Clement (edited not long ago by the most learned Patrick Young)."

"Furthermore, the most illustrious Claudius Salmasius received from Isaac Vossius, the son of that most famous Gerard and a youth of the highest promise, these two imperfect Greek epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas, copied in his own hand from the apograph of Andreas Schott; together with an ancient Latin version of Barnabas, which had been transcribed from an old codex of the Corbie library by Johannes Cordesius. This he then prepared for the press, joined with the Greek text of Barnabas, with learned notes also added. Therefore, just as at the beginning of this Collection we exhibited the Greek Polycarp, supplied in its latter part from the ancient Latin version: so too at its end, it seemed good to represent Barnabas, restored in its earlier part from another old translation (not without the most kindly consent of Vossius). From the mutual collation of both, it was discovered that not only was the first part of the Epistle preserved in the Latin exemplar, which we said was lacking in the Greek; but also the latter part was conversely retained in the Greek, which was absent from the Latin; and furthermore, that the Greek contains some things in the intermediate parts which are lacking in the Latin, and the Latin in turn has that which is not found in the Greek; of which kind are those which we have taken care to include in parentheses in both contexts."

"Now the whole of this Epistle consists of two primary members; which we see connected in the Greek context by this transition: *'These things then are so. Let us pass on also to another knowledge and teaching.'* Where, for *let us pass on* (μεταλάβωμεν), others [conjectured] *let us change* (μεταβάλωμεν), [though] our Patrick Young conjectures that *let us impart* (μεταδῶμεν) ought to be read. In the earlier part, however, this thought had preceded long before: *'You have also in this the glory of Jesus, that in him are all things, and to him,'* which […].

the ancient Latin interpreter moved to its proper place and transferred here, establishing this as the epilogue of the whole Epistle. These things are thus. You have meanwhile regarding the majesty of Christ, how all things were made in him and through him. To whom be honor, virtue, glory, now and unto the ages of ages. The second part of the Epistle having been entirely omitted, which we have therefore taken care to enrich in this edition with the Latin version of the most learned Gerard Langbaine.

"From this distinction of the two ways, however, this part takes its beginning: 'There are two ways of doctrine and authority, both that of light and that of darkness. But there is a great difference between the two ways; for over one are set the light-bringing angels of God, over the other the angels of Satan.' ^A There is no doubt that Origen looked to these words in his book III *On First Principles*, ch. 2, writing as follows: *'Barnabas also declares this in his Epistle, when he says that there are two ways, one of light, another of darkness: over which he says that certain angels are set: the angels of light over the way of light, but the angels of Satan over the way of darkness.'* For although in the earlier part of the Epistle (as also in the pseudo-Clementine *Constitutions*, the author of which, as one will see at first glance on reading, has intercepted from this very Epistle of Barnabas the things he narrates more fully concerning the two ways of life and death, just as he has done with other things from the Roman Clement, Ignatius, and others), mention is made of the two ways, yet only in this place does the commemoration of the angels of light and of Satan, as those set over them, occur. Add that the name of Satan himself is counted by Jerome, at the end of his little book *On Hebrew Names*, among those things which are selected from the Epistle of Barnabas, and yet it does not exist anywhere in the earlier part of this Epistle, in which all other things have been found: if only you substitute Nave (by which name the Greeks signify the father of Jesus, or Joshua) for Nahum; the adjacent interpretation of 'germ' sufficiently proves that this was inserted here through the rashness of the scribes. Since Nahum is 'comforter,' but Nave is 'seed,' 'germ,' or 'beauty': as Jerome himself had already explained earlier in the same book.

"That this Epistle was also longer, that *Stichometria* sufficiently indicates, which Anastasius, librarian of the Roman Church, handed down from the Chronography of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Latins (for the Greek edition here is mutilated). In which, as the seven Catholic Epistles (as they are called) of James, Peter, John, and Jude are said to have been comprised in 1300 lines, so also this one of Barnabas is said to have been contained in 1306. Finally, in the latter part of the Epistle, these things are found, cited from Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria in book II of the *Stromata*: *'But may God, who is lord of the whole world, give also to you wisdom, and understanding, and science, and knowledge of his justifications, and patience. Be therefore taught by God, seeking out what the Lord seeks from you; that you may find at the day of judgment those who are the ensnarers of these.'* ^B O children of love and peace, he addressed you gnostically. Where that last part, from the context of our Barnabas, is to be restored thus: *'That you may be saved in the day of judgment. O children of love and peace, he addressed you gnostically.'*—the same, that is, Barnabas; under the conclusion of the Epistle itself, a little later, saluting those to whom he writes thus: *'Be saved, O children of love and peace.'* So that both from the beginning and from the end it may be manifestly discerned that this later member (however much omitted in silence by the Latin interpreter) is a part of the same body of which the former is also a part.

"As regards the author and authority of the whole Epistle, that same Clement (not to mention his disciple Origen) believed it to be both the work of Barnabas and of apostolic authority. For in that book of the *Stromata*, afterwards producing other testimonies from it, he uses this preface: *'But how we say that the operations of the devil and the unclean spirits are sown into the soul of the sinner, I have no need of more words, having cited as witness the apostolic Barnabas (and he was one of the seventy, and a co-worker of Paul) in these words saying thus.'* How we say that the operations of the devil and the unclean spirits are sown into the soul of the sinner, there is no need for me to use more words, if I adduce as witness the apostolic Barnabas (for he was one of the Seventy, and a helper of Paul) saying thus in these words. And in: 'Barnabas, who himself also preached the word together with the Apostle according to the ministry of the nations.' Barnabas, who himself also preached the word in the ministry of the nations along with the Apostle Paul. Nor does he praise the same Epistle only by the name of the apostolic, but even of the apostolic Barnabas, in book II of the *Stromata*, and exhibited contractive explanations of it, ^C no less than of the other canonical Scriptures, in his books of *Hypotyposes*.

"Barnabas the Cyprian, who is also Joseph the Levite, ordained with Paul as the apostle of the nations, composed one Epistle pertaining to the edification of the Church, which is read among the apocryphal scriptures, says Blessed Jerome in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*, and in book XIII of his *Commentaries on Ezekiel*, chapter 43. 'The calf,' he says, 'which was sacrificed for us, and many places of the Scriptures, and especially the Epistle of Barnabas, which is held among the apocryphal Scriptures,' he names. Whether, indeed, he said this Epistle was composed by the apostle from his own mind for the edification of the Church, but cast it into the class of apocrypha according to the sense of others, let others inquire; that he had at some time inclined to that opinion, may seem to be gathered from his little book of *Hebrew Names*; in which we see that this Epistle of Barnabas was joined by him with the other Scriptures of the New Testament."

^A In that *Stichometry* of the Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, which we have said was handed down to the Latins by Anastasius, the librarian of the Roman Church, it is indeed separated from the apocryphal writings of the New Testament, but is numbered among those which are disputed (as is also the Apocalypse of John). In the other *Indiculus*, however, which we have seen subjected to the *Questions on Holy Scripture* of Anastasius of Nicaea, it is simply enumerated along with the apocryphal books: and with the supplement of the suffrage of Jerome himself in his *Helmeted Prologue*, and at the same time the judgment of the universal Church, it is found that no writing of Barnabas was ever admitted into the sacred Canon. For Tertullian was inflated by the spirit of Montanus, when with the Epistle to the Hebrews he affixed the title of Barnabas: and that other, namely, ^B *Barnaba epi-stole*, was placed by Eusebius not only among the scriptures which are disputed, but also among the spurious. That this may also have its place, which was said by Augustine concerning others of the same kind: "The chastity of the Canon did not receive these writings: not because the authority of those men, who pleased God, is reprobated; but because these are not believed to be their own."

"Although this Epistle was written not long after the times of Barnabas himself, the many testimonies cited from it in the books of the *Stromata* by Clement of Alexandria (who flourished in the century next after the apostles) provide credence. To which may be added that of the same in the *Paedagogue*, book ii, chapter 10: 'And they say that the hare, from year to year, increases the number of its defecation, according to the years of its life having turning points.' The fact that this was borrowed from this Epistle was pointed out to me by the most learned D. Peter Turner, Savilian professor of mathematics in the University of Oxford: 'That the hare from year to year increases the defecation; for as many years as it lives, so many turning points it has.' ^C But these, even if they bear some appearance of antiquity, are not a few citations of those very apocryphal scriptures, the memory of which has long since faded in the Church: among which one might perhaps enumerate that 'The ten kingdoms will reign on the earth: and a little one will rise behind, who will put down three into one'; although I have indeed thought that this was taken from Daniel chapter vii, as it was formerly read in the edition of the LXX Interpreters: since the interpretation of Theodotion, which the Church afterwards received—as Jerome confirms—concerning that which was passed over in Daniel, presents us today with this reading: *And [they] will rise [behind], and after...*

The rest is missing: but what the most learned man, who holds the primacy of Ireland and of the better literature, may have thought concerning the author of this epistle, although it does not clearly appear from what has been said, yet the indications are sufficiently clear to make one believe that he leaned toward this opinion, that he believed this work should be attributed to an unknown writer. Therefore, let this work be assigned to a hand other than that of St. Barnabas. ^D It is certain that this Epistle, which is almost entirely concerned with the rites of the Synagogue and the unfolding of the mystical senses of the holy Scriptures, is less accommodated to the grasp of the uneducated common people, and it is therefore probable that the Church abstained from its public reading after some time: which has also happened today concerning some passages of a more recondite character which are contained in the sacred Canon. But I would confidently say this: the more deeply this Epistle is understood, the more acceptable it will be, and it will contribute much to the knowledge of the sacred Letters and also of the most ancient Fathers. For although the perpetual exposition of the Old Testament may appear formerly alongside the strictures of the Chaldean Paraphrast, the writings of the Talmud, and the malicious interpretations of the Rabbis, yet at a time when in every Synagogue the Scriptures were not only read but also interpreted weekly; this mystical, or evangelical, *Midrash* of the Old Testament was known to all no less than the sacred text itself: and therefore it provided arguments no less suitable for convincing the Jews than those which are found in the most eloquent of the sacred Letters.

We do not desire, however, too stubborn a patronage. ^A Let those who wish to do so act from envy, so that we may not fall away from the truth by seeking what is unjust. The requests we make for his sake are trifling, and, as I believe, not easy to refuse: namely, that if we do not grant him the honor of an apostle, we might at least pay him the respect due to a Father; and if we do not judge him worthy of being received into the Canon, we might at least count him among the classic writers, in accordance with the dignity he once held among the most ancient writers of the Church.

V. (D. LE NOURRY, *Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam vet. Patr.*, Paris. 1703, in-fol., p. 38.)

ARTICLE I. An Analysis of the Epistle of St. Barnabas.

The author of this Epistle, having first addressed those to whom he writes with a brief salutation, praises their faith, charity, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit with which they were filled. He declares that he was moved to write for no other reason than to render their faith more perfect, and to show that God breathed His Spirit into the prophets for the purpose of announcing to all the new covenant to be inaugurated by the Incarnation of His Son. Having thus begun his argument, he demonstrates from the oracles of these same prophets that Christ the Lord justly and deservedly abrogated the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, and that He demands none other than those of the spirit and the heart. For this reason, he solicitously warns them to beware of those who taught that the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ were to be observed simultaneously. He proves, therefore, that the former was abolished: so that the love of Jesus may be sealed in your hearts—in the hope of His faith—and that, by these three virtues, we contemplate the fear of God and keep His commandments. ^B Following this, by means of other passages from the prophets, he clearly shows that Christ took on flesh and suffered death for the very purpose of destroying the empire of death and redeeming the world with His blood. Since the Jews would not believe this, He willed that His Gospel be preached to all nations by the Apostles. He adds that Christ, even though He died willingly according to the precept of the Father, as had been foretold, was nevertheless the true Son of God. He explains then how the prophets, both in words and in figures, signified that Christ would be given vinegar and gall to drink during His passion, that He would be clothed in purple, and crowned with thorns; but all these things were sung to the deaf ears of the Jews. From this, he concludes that the ears of the heart must be circumcised, and he teaches that the circumcision of the Jews is obsolete, and that the Mosaic laws prohibiting certain foods are to be understood in a spiritual sense. After this, he shows that it was furthermore foretold by the same prophets that the Jews would be neither washed by the baptism of Christ nor acknowledge His cross, and that, because they abjured the divinity of this same Christ, they would be disinherited, and Christians would be substituted in their place. Finally, after he has discoursed upon the celebration of the Sabbath, the institution of the Lord's Day, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and the indwelling of God in our hearts, he concludes the first part of the Epistle.

In the second part, which is shorter, he turns his style to the instruction of Christian morals; and for this reason, he demonstrates that there are two ways for men. He explains the first, which is presided over by angels and called the way of light, and places before the eyes of all what a Christian ought to do and what he ought to flee. Through the explanation of the latter—which is under the angels of Satan and is named the way of darkness—he makes clear what the vices and evil works are, by which the soul, when defiled, is rendered subject to the punishments of hell. Lastly, he exhorts them to offer obedience to the divine commands, and he prays that they may be mindful of themselves before God; by desiring to remain always in His grace, he imposes the final seal upon the Epistle.

ARTICLE II. That this Epistle is the same as that which is praised by the most ancient Fathers of the Church.

It is established that this Epistle is identical to the one cited under the name of Barnabas by the Fathers of the earliest times of the Church, as is made clear from their own testimonies. This is demonstrated most invincibly by the authority of Clement of Alexandria alone. For it is most manifest that the passages he cited from it were excerpted from the beginning of the Epistle, where the Greek words have been lost, and from the middle, and finally from the end, where the Latin translation fails. ^C Moynius, therefore, formerly a minister of the Calvinist sect at Rouen, erred in supposing that the latter part of this Epistle did not appear to be the work of the same writer or of the same style as the former. For we read that this very part, besides being cited by the aforementioned Clement, was cited under the same name of Barnabas by Origen and Gregory Nazianzen.

ARTICLE III. The opinions of ancient writers concerning the author of this epistle.

The entire difficulty regarding this Epistle lies in the fact ^D that it is to be considered whether, in seeking what is inequitable, we might lose what is fair. The requests we make for his sake are minor, and, as I believe, not easy to refuse: that is to say, if we do not acknowledge him as an apostle, we might at least revere him as a Father; and finally, if we do not judge him worthy to be received into the Canon, we might at least count him among the classic writers, in view of the dignity he once held among the most ancient ecclesiastical writers.

Whether it truly proceeded from the Apostle Barnabas, whose name it bears, is a question on which there has not been a single opinion among the ancient Fathers of the Church. Later writers, however, have diverged into more numerous and varied opinions. Clement of Alexandria, indeed, never once doubted that it was the true and genuine offspring of Barnabas, whom he calls an apostle, an apostolic man, one of the seventy, and a helper of Paul. This may be seen in the second, fifth, and sixth books of his ^A *Stromata*. Origen further subscribed to the view of his teacher Clement; and later, Gregory of Nazianzus, by transcribing the very words of Origen, signified not obscurely that he too held the same opinion.

But Eusebius seems to fight against Clement; for when he enters upon a discourse concerning the works of this same Clement, he says: "In the same books he brings forward testimonies from the Scriptures which are repudiated by some, namely, from the Wisdom of Solomon, and also from the Epistle of Clement and of Barnabas." And a little later: "The same author, in his books of the *Hypotyposes*, to speak in one word, provides a compendious narration of the Scriptures of both Testaments, not even ^B omitting those Scriptures about which there is disagreement among many, by which I mean the Epistle of Jude and of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic Epistles." Then finally he pronounces his own judgment thus: "The Acts of Paul must also be held as spurious... as must the Epistle of Barnabas." From which you may understand that Eusebius, by adhering to the footsteps of certain ancients, held the Epistle of Barnabas to be spurious. Jerome, moreover, consigns it among the apocryphal Scriptures. Furthermore, both Nicephorus of Constantinople and Calixtus expressed the words and the sense of Eusebius; but what the opinion of Eusebius and Jerome is concerning the definition of apocryphal works remains, even now, in controversy.

ARTICLE IV. The opinion of the more recent writers.

As for the more recent writers, Hugo Menardus, a monk of the Benedictine order, thinks thus of this Epistle: "Rightly," he says, "is it numbered among the apocryphal scriptures by the authors cited; partly because it is uncertain whether it is by Barnabas; and partly because certain things are found in it which are not without difficulty; for there are some rough spots in it, on which the less cautious might stumble." Nor, he adds, should it be a wonder to any that it is not deemed apocryphal by Clement or by Origen, since such authors make use of apocryphal writings. Cotelerius is of a wavering mind, and says that he is held back by the greatest difficulties from attributing it to Barnabas, yet he does not dare to utterly reject it from him. Having weighed the matter, he concludes in this way: "I am more inclined to judge that it is not the work of the Apostle"; and he professes that he would be grateful to those who might wish to bring forward more certain evidence. Natalis Alexander, indeed, and the aforementioned Moynius, ^C entirely judge it to be alien to Barnabas, and contend that it is apocryphal and supposititious. On the contrary, Hammonds, Vossius, Bull, and Dupin argue that it has no other author than Barnabas.

ARTICLE V. The first argument examined.

Those who judge this Epistle to be alien to Barnabas rely upon these arguments. And primarily, indeed, they make use of the authority, brought forward by us above, of those Eusebians and Hieronymians who relegate it to the apocryphal and spurious works. For this same Jerome teaches: "Apocryphal books are not those by whose titles they are marked, or," as Pope Gelasius adds, "they are tainted by some error." Yet others deny that the words of Eusebius and Jerome regarding the Epistle of Barnabas should be accepted in either sense. Not in the first, indeed, since they do not deny that this Epistle is inscribed with the name of Barnabas, and Jerome himself affirms that it was composed by Barnabas. Nor in the second, since they recognize it not only as bereft of all error, but even, as Jerome says, as pertinent to the edification of the Church. In that sense, therefore, each said it was spurious and apocryphal, because it is not numbered among the canonical books of Divine Scripture.

But their adversaries press them with the rule once laid down by Augustine: that those writings ought to have been received by the Church which are established to have proceeded from any apostle. For, indeed, that holy doctor proves that the books against the adversary of the Law and the Prophets, which present the name of Andrew and of John, are apocryphal, because if they were theirs, they would have been received by the Church. But if you reply that some have thought this Epistle to be counted among the canonical Scriptures by Origen, and for that reason is found in the number of the catalogs of those same Scriptures in antiquity, they will insist that other books are likewise found in the same catalogs which were never considered canonical; and they will contend that by Origen’s words that which they claim is signified in no way.

Others, therefore, respond according to the mind of Augustine: that not all writings whatsoever of the apostles, or rather of apostolic men, such as Barnabas, are to be referred to the number of the canonical; since even the book of Hermas, and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, are by no means referred to this number. They add, moreover, that a writing is not to be considered canonical for this reason alone, that it was published by some apostle; but they assert that it must be further declared so by the definition of the Church.

We, however, judge the mind of Augustine to be explained by a surer rule, other than that which he established concerning the apocryphal books. For when he himself defines more accurately which book should be called apocryphal: "Scriptures," he says, "are called apocryphal, for the reason that their hidden origin was not known to the Fathers by whom ^D complete removal from Barnabas is sought, and who contend it is apocryphal and supposititious. On the other hand, Hammonds, Vossius, Bull, and Dupin argue that it has no other author than Barnabas.

^A Since the authority of the true Scriptures has reached us through a most certain and well-known succession, he rightly responds to his adversary—who brings forward the books of Andrew and John from this definition of apocryphal books—that those are plainly apocryphal, because if they had truly proceeded from those who had such great authority among the Church, that fact would have been perceived by the Fathers and received by the Church. Wherefore, since, on the contrary, the origin of the Epistle of Barnabas was known to the Fathers, namely Clement, Origen, and others, it ought not to be numbered among the apocryphal scriptures according to the definition of Augustine that has been brought forward.

ARTICLE VI.

The second argument by which this Epistle of Barnabas is rejected is taken from the fact that it seems incredible that an apostle could have written the things we read there—namely, forced allegories, unlikely narrations of the Scriptures, and old-wives' fables about animals. Hammond responds that the Gnostics, arrogating to themselves the faculty of interpreting Sacred Scripture mystically, applied many testimonies of the Old Testament to impure uses... Hence, Barnabas opposes the doctrines of the Gnostics in this nearly whole Epistle of his, by expounding the many locations of the Old Testament mystically, and even cabalistically.

Others respond that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others who adjudge this Epistle to Barnabas, found nothing forced in its allegories, nothing unlikely in its narrations, and finally, nothing fabulous in it; nay, they find nothing that does not show forth an apostolic man, nothing alien to the style of Barnabas himself, or unworthy of him. Wherefore, they boldly accuse certain men of our age of temerity, who boast that they can judge the style of apostolic writers better than their own disciples, and others who were their contemporaries or of the same age. To this they add that the temperament of those who, like Barnabas himself, were newly converted from the Jews to the Christian faith, was such that they interpreted the Holy Scriptures with allegories and mystical narrations, and observed many things in the properties of animals.

We will add that we shall demonstrate shortly that this Epistle, if it be not of Barnabas, is by an author of the same or certainly the next age. For it will seem likely to no one that a pious and learned writer, a contemporary of the apostolic men—who indeed knew excellently how the apostles used to explain the Scriptures—would have entirely departed from their style and their method of writing and interpreting in this Epistle.

ARTICLE VII.

The third argument is that Barnabas would not have called the apostles "the most wicked of men" and "sinners above every sin" in such a hyperbolic manner. But ^B we respond that this same argument was already refuted long ago by Origen. For since Celsus, as Origen himself testifies, perhaps seized an opportunity from these same words of our author to say that the apostles were infamous and most wicked, and that Jesus chose as his apostles men more wicked than all iniquity, he [Origen] refutes him, and indeed fittingly to our matter: What absurdity is there, therefore, if Jesus, wishing to show the human race how much his medicine avails against the plagues of souls, chose the infamous and most wicked, so that they might become an example of the purest morals to those embracing his Gospel? Origen, a man of highest erudition, judged that there was, therefore, no absurdity in these words, nothing unworthy of Barnabas, and nothing too hyperbolic. Jerome, moreover, believed this sentiment to be so worthy of an apostolic man that, in the book he wrote against the Pelagians, he did not hesitate to praise it in the name of the martyr Ignatius.

ARTICLE VIII.

Moyne fights against this same epistle with certain other conjectures, which, although they may be very light, yet since no one is read to have answered them up to this point, we shall, according to our custom, examine them one by one so that we may leave nothing untouched. He says, therefore: "If this epistle were by Barnabas, he would have commanded it to be buried in his tomb no less than the Gospel of Matthew." But who made it known to Moyne that Barnabas always kept a copy of his Epistle with him, or at least did so when he died? Is it the custom among men to keep copies of their own epistles with them? Let us, however, grant to Moyne that Barnabas had a copy of his Epistle at his death: does it follow, therefore, that this most modest man held his own labor in the same esteem as the Gospel of Matthew? If Moyne contends that, we will say that he would have chosen to be buried with this Gospel, but not with his own Epistle, because that volume contained the history of the life, death, and miracles of Christ, which he had always kept before his eyes.

Moyne insists, however, that apocryphal books are cited by our author. What of it? Do not even most learned men admit that Paul and Jude praised books that were likewise apocryphal? And did not Paul even bring forward the authority of the heathens, whom no one would say excel the apocrypha cited by our author?

Moyne further urges ^C that Barnabas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is prefixed with the name of Paul. "But," he says, "I do not see why he would have treated this argument again in a second attempt with a certain first tasting, as if he had treated that matter in the Epistle to the Hebrews too perfunctorily and less happily."

Nor is this argument more valid than the former. For first, it is false that Barnabas wrote this Epistle to the Hebrews. Then, grant that he did; could not the same author, by letters sent to different men in different regions whom he wished to imbue with the same doctrines and precepts, treat the same argument? Finally, is not the same author compelled to write several letters on the same subject, and in them to repeat and sometimes inculcate the same things?

Moynius again urges that this epistle is nowhere cited by writers of the first and second centuries, such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and even Ignatius in his disputations against the Jews. But he ought to have brought forward what other epistles and writings of other authors the same writers might have cited. Truly, what if this Epistle did not come into their hands? But there is no need for conjectures; for it is certain that this Epistle is cited by Clement of Alexandria, an author of the second century, as we have seen above; which should be more than enough to dissipate a hollow objection.

Lastly, he insists that this Epistle could not have been written by Barnabas, who suffered martyrdom under Nero, since it was given after Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. And this is what he calls a most invincible and evident argument in his notes and observations. This, therefore, must be solved with a somewhat lengthier reply.

ARTICLE IX. When this epistle was written.

For we must now investigate the time when this Epistle was written. Those who attribute it to Barnabas declare without doubt that it was given before his death. Those, however, for whom the matter is in doubt, nonetheless suppose it more likely that its author flourished in the times of the apostles. Finally, those who deny that it proceeded from Barnabas think that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, but before the end of the second century. Moynius adds to these that it was sealed after the death of Justin, who perished as a martyr in the year 162 or 163, and before the death of Tertullian, which occurred around the year 215. ^A Yet he does not confirm his opinion by any other reason than that some ceremonies concerning the scapegoat of the Jews are mentioned in this Epistle, which—although you might search for them in vain in Justin, even though he speaks of them—you find only in Tertullian. But from whom did Moynius learn that this Epistle was ever in Justin’s possession, and that he himself had read it? Yet suppose he did have and read it; was he therefore bound to commemorate all the ceremonies of the scapegoat, not leaving out even those which occur in the Epistle of Barnabas? This negative conjecture, therefore, is nothing but frivolous, and less than suitable for asserting anything.

Furthermore, it is uncertain at what time Barnabas died. Hence I do not know what Moynius means when he asserts, from the more common opinion, that he was put to death by martyrdom under the reign of Nero. For those who admit this more diligently and honestly confess that they are assisted by no ancient writers from whom it might be defined with certainty when Barnabas returned from the island of Cyprus and ended his life through martyrdom. ^B It is certain, however, that after Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in the year 72—or in the year 70, according to more learned chronologists—he could have prolonged his life. For Peter and Paul attained the palm of martyrdom in the year 66 only, that is, one or three years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing, therefore, prevents Barnabas from having made mention of this destruction in his Epistle.

But it is certain beyond doubt that this same Epistle is cited not only by Origen, but also by Clement of Alexandria, who, as Eusebius says, testifies that he was near to the first times of the apostles. From this it is concluded that Clement, who seemed to hold this Epistle in such high regard—as is clear from his frequent citations of it—had inquired more curiously as to who its true author was, and had not learned it with difficulty. Furthermore, the same Clement died around the year 200; consequently, he had already published his books, in which he praised this Epistle, to the world. Yet he praises it not as something recent, but as a writing of ancient authority, and therefore he considered it older than the martyrdom of Ignatius. ^C Nay, he everywhere sets it down as certain that it was written by Barnabas the apostle, and there is no one, to his knowledge, who contradicts this opinion. The authority of such a man, of such learning, and so close to the apostolic times, must certainly carry the greatest weight with everyone; especially since no firm arguments of reasoning and nothing but a certain conjecture, and that a weak one, is opposed to it. Moreover, however much Clement might be said to have erred in the name of the author of the Epistle, yet from his authority it is demonstrated most invincibly that it was written either by one of the apostles, or at least by some one of their immediate successors.

That indeed could have been confirmed from Greek and Latin manuscripts, had any survived to us that were entirely uncorrupted and bearing the true title of the Epistle. But in the Greek codices its head is amputated, and the title which is read in the Greek edition of Menard seems to be taken from Eusebius. ^D The Latin codex of our library, however, which is without doubt the most ancient of all, is inscribed only with this epigraph: *Here begins the Epistle of Barnabas happily*, and finally concludes at the end thus: *Here ends the Epistle of Barnabas*.

ARTICLE X. To whom this epistle was written.

But if those entire manuscripts existed, they would surely have indicated to us not only the title of this Epistle, but also those to whom it was directed. For this is not without its difficulty. Some, indeed, think it can be conjectured from the whole series of the discourse that it was sent to the Jews who were Christians, being, of course, tenacious of the ancient law, and that it was inscribed to the Hebrews. But even from the synopsis of the whole Epistle which we made above, it is ascertained that it was therefore especially...

^A that its author was prompted to write it, so that he might forearm those to whom he wrote, and prevent them from being deceived by those who asserted that the law of Moses and of Christ ought to be kept simultaneously. Yet this error is of almost the same age as the Christian religion, and it is most certain that it was taught not only to the Hebrews, but also to heretics, such as the Ebionites and Cerinthians. Moreover, even if this error had been disseminated by the Hebrews alone, they could nevertheless, by the zeal for their religion with which they burned, have disseminated it everywhere among both Hebrews and Gentiles converted to the Christian faith. Our author, therefore, could have directed his Epistle not only to the Hebrews, but also to Christians whom he feared might be deceived by Hebrews or heretics.

It is objected, however, that Tertullian cited the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews by the name of Barnabas; perhaps, they say, having accepted a rumor concerning a certain Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews which he had not seen? But this conjecture is proven by another objection much lighter than this one. Truly, if Tertullian assigns the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas, others adjudge it to Luke, others to Clement. ^B Did they therefore fall into this opinion: perhaps having accepted a rumor concerning a certain Epistle of Luke or Clement to the Hebrews which they had not seen? What is more futile than this conjecture? It must therefore be said that the Epistle to the Hebrews is cited by Tertullian by the name of Barnabas either because he truly thought him the author of that Epistle, or, if you prefer, the translator; or because, believing it to have been written by some companion and disciple of Paul, he judged that it should be attributed to no one with a better right than to Barnabas; or finally, relying on other conjectures, taken from the false testimony of erring authors or manuscripts, which it is now not easy to divine.

Furthermore, if it cannot be certainly defined who the men were, or of what region they were, to whom Barnabas sent this Epistle, it is nonetheless certain that they were Christians who had already made some progress in attaining the perfection of the Christian life, and whom he exhorts to progress in it more and more; whom, finally, he warns to beware diligently of heretics, who with vain arguments and subtleties tried to persuade others that the law of Moses and of Christ should be kept simultaneously. For which reason our same author fortifies them throughout his whole Epistle against the errors of those heretics, and instructs them in the precepts of Christian piety.

ARTICLE XI. Concerning the fortune of this Epistle, and its various editions.

This Epistle had a various, and in a wondrous manner, changeable fortune. For since it had shone with such, as we said above, splendor in the second and the two, and perhaps even the three following centuries of the Church, it thereafter vanished to such an extent that, besides both Nicephoruses, who transcribed the words of Eusebius or at least their sense, scarcely anyone else can be found to have made mention of it. At length, in our own century, having been happily discovered in various libraries, both in Greek and Latin, it emerged from the darkness of so many centuries.

Archbishop Ussher of Armagh, indeed, prepared its first edition at Oxford in the year 1642 from manuscripts which he had borrowed from others. But, as Vossius testifies, one part of this city having been consumed by fire shortly after, all the copies of this edition perished in this conflagration. One codex, however, rescued from the flames, is kept in the library of the same city, if any faith is to be had in the Catalogue of it that was edited.

This first edition of our Epistle was so little known to the learned that there is scarcely one or two who do not recognize it as having been first edited by Hugo Menard. But certainly all will easily concede that he was the first who, having committed it to print, placed it in our possession. For when he had chanced upon a Latin manuscript of the Corbie library, a codex of more than 900 years, and had received another ^C Greek one, found at Rome among the writings of Sirmond, from the most learned Sirmond, he applied himself with all his might from both copies to prepare his edition. But after the codices had been collated, the other part of the Epistle translated into Latin, and various observations composed, before anything could be committed to the press, he was extinguished by an untimely death. Wherefore Lucas Dacherius took upon himself the care of the edition prepared by him and completed it in the year 1645, after a preface had been prefixed by him.

In the following year, Isaac Vossius again issued the same Epistle to the public in Amsterdam from three manuscripts, one from the Florentine library, another from the Vatican, and the third from the Roman Theatines. In all these codices, however, which were written by hand, the Epistle lacks its beginning, and is joined, without a title, closely to one of the Epistles of Ignatius.

Cotelerius in the year 1672 again edited it from the Greek manuscript codex of Sirmond, of which we spoke before, and provided it with a new version, though not omitting the older one; and he prefixed it to the Works of the holy Fathers who flourished in the times of the apostles. But many copies of this edition were consumed by fire in the book-seller's warehouses.

Finally, when Moynius had betaken himself to Leisdam from Rouen for the sake of teaching theology, he arranged for the same Epistle to be edited among his *Varia sacra*. That this last edition, moreover, he professes to have prepared from a manuscript Florentine codex, which Rullæus had brought into Holland, and in which this Epistle is connected, without title or beginning, to one of the Ignatian [epistles]. Which is surely a great indication to us that this handwritten codex is none other than the first of those three which we said Vossius used in accurately preparing his edition. However, both Vossius and Moynius employed no other Latin version than the older one, discovered and prepared by Menard, and edited by Dacherius.

ARTICLE XII. Concerning the notes and observations on this Epistle.

Individual authors of these editions illustrated that Epistle with their own notes and observations. Those which Menard edited are almost all either for the correction and explanation of the text, or as that ^D of style

of the apostolic age, are found to be conducive. Nevertheless, he sometimes admitted proofs of his own erudition, from which you may easily understand that his edition would have been far more perfect had it been allowed him, through death, to bring that work to its conclusion—to the umbilicus—for so learned a man.

No one has edited fewer and shorter annotations on this Epistle than Vossius; nor was he accustomed to make them longer. They concern almost entirely the correction of the text. Some, but very few, explain certain obscure passages; and in their principal observation, it is debated of what sort of thorns the crown of the suffering Christ was composed.

Many more and longer animadversions on this Epistle were composed by Cotelier. But it is certainly to be wished that, in those which are numbered as no less than thirty-seven, that learned man had not so often digressed from the author's scope, and had not so easily indulged his own conjectures.

Moynius was the last of all to publish notes and observations on this Epistle, by far the most diffuse of all the others and of such prolixity that they seem composed for the sole purpose of a display of his own erudition, especially Hebrew. For there is no observation where there are not digressions, and often from the digressions themselves another digression is made again, so that the text of the author, buried by the notes, vanishes from the eyes of the readers. Nor indeed does he intimate that he published such numerous and diffuse animadversions for any other reason than that, the opportunity having been snatched away from him of sending to the press a new edition of the Works of Josephus, which he had long been planning, he thought that whatever he had prepared—more learned and more curious—for the perfection of that work should be accumulated into his notes and observations. We do not despise the erudition of a learned man, but it ought to have been arranged with more prudent judgment and in more appropriate places.

ARTICLE XIII. New observations on this Epistle.

If anything remained for us to add to so many and such diverse observations, we would, with Christian liberty, expostulate with Moynius and certain others concerning their confidence, by which they argue that both our author and the most ancient writers of the Church were in error, because they interpreted more passages ^B of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah than they themselves thought to refer to him in any way. For nothing seems to us more unjust, nothing clearly more absurd, than this accusation. For it is certain that Christ, as Scripture itself says, opened the understanding to his apostles and disciples, that they might understand the Scriptures 29, and especially those passages of the same Scripture which foretold his advent, his death, and his other deeds. And yet the apostles and disciples of Christ imparted the same senses of Scripture, which they had received from their divine teacher, also to their own disciples, that is, to our author, and other writers of the same age. Why then are they accused of having erred so basely in explaining the Sacred Scriptures, in which Christ was preached? Are the men of our own latest age more learned and sharper in explaining them than those who, received and educated by the apostles or their disciples, learned the knowledge of the Scriptures in their school? Let the inconsiderate accusers of the Fathers beware lest, struck by the letter that kills through the vain pretext of the literal sense which they everywhere peddle, they themselves fall into the error of blindness, which they rashly cast upon others.

It is to be observed besides that our author has cited certain testimonies of both Testaments which, since they are not found in the Sacred Books, must be thought to have been taken by him from the traditions of the Jews and Christians. He brought forward some indeed from the fourth book of Esdras: but anyone can easily understand how unjustly he is branded by the censorious note of Moynius, from those things which we have argued in our admonitions to the Works of St. Ambrose 30 regarding this writing.

It must also be noted that by our author not only are ancient heretics overcome, but even the impious Socinians of our own century, against whom the divinity of Christ is most invincibly asserted in this Epistle. For does not Barnabas there openly call him the Lord of the world, and testify that this is the very one to whom it was said by his eternal Father before the creation of the world: "Let us make man in our image and likeness"? But it is better to hear him speaking in his own words: "And for this the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, being the Lord of the whole world, to whom He said on the day before the foundation of the world: 'Let us make man in our image and likeness.'" ^C

But what of the fact that the same author of ours asserts not only that He alone is the work of His hands, namely Christ, but declares distinctly that all things are in Him and through Him: "You have also," he says, "in this the glory of Jesus, that in Him are all things, and for Him."

Finally, lest we accumulate many other things said in a similar way here and there in this Epistle, it helps to add only this, by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts as in temples consecrated to God: "Because it was necessary for Him to appear in the flesh and to dwell in us; for the holy temple, my brothers, is the habitation of our heart for the Lord."

Who, however, I ask you, unless a man already completely blinded by a prejudiced opinion, would dare to deny that all these things could ever have been written by our author about no one else but the true and genuine Son of God, who is of the very same nature and substance as His Father, and perfectly and plainly coeternal with Him?

It must finally be observed that this Epistle of our author has not come down to us entire: since the Greek manuscripts lack a title and a beginning, and abound with many errors, which cannot be corrected except by the aid of other codices. In the Latin codex

the second part of the Epistle is missing; but the end is added to the first, as if nothing more were desired. The ancient Latin translator did not render all the author’s words, and in some places things which are contained in the Greek were omitted by him. Therefore, he either happened upon a mutilated codex, or he deliberately omitted certain things, or, finally, he did not grasp the sense of his author.

VI. (GALLANDIUS, *Vet. Patr. Bibliotheca*, vol. I, Venice, 1765, in-fol., Proleg., p. XXIX.)

CHAPTER ONE

Among the most ancient ecclesiastical monuments of the century, the Epistle which circulates under the name of St. Barnabas occupies the third place. There is not one opinion among writers, both ancient and modern, regarding the author.

To begin from here, at the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria, in several places—as mentioned above among the testimonies of the ancients—constantly attributes this Epistle to Barnabas, and indeed to the apostle, the apostolic witness, the one from among the seventy disciples of the Lord, and an assistant to Paul, as he himself calls him. Indeed, in his books of

Hypotyposes

Origen, having followed his teacher Clement of Alexandria, around the middle of the third century, not only thought the Epistle was written by Barnabas but also called it "catholic" and distinguished it by the name of Scripture. "There are," he says, "moreover (as we find in many places of Scripture) certain advocates and assistants of either party or either way, angels, etc." By which words it is clear that Origen aimed his finger at chapter 18 of our Epistle.

One might rightly say that St. Jerome also held the same opinion regarding Barnabas as the author of the Epistle, perhaps moved by the authority or example of Clement of Alexandria or, rather, of Origen. For in the work

On the Interpretation of Hebrew Names

On Illustrious Men

But the fact that Jerome relegates the Epistle of Barnabas to the apocryphal scriptures should not cause so much trouble that it must immediately be considered adulterine and judged to be taken away from the apostle himself; rather, the holy doctor clearly reports it to have been composed by him. And so that this may appear even more clearly, I will illustrate it with an example. It is read in the Gelasian Decree: "The History of Eusebius Pamphili is apocryphal." Tell me, did the holy pontiff define by these words that the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius was falsely attributed to that Caesarean bishop? Not at all: Gelasius only wanted to declare that the History of Eusebius was not to be read publicly in the Church, since he declared it apocryphal. Indeed, the force and meaning of this word

apocrypha

-dox and heretical. These are completely rejected, and are opposed to the canonical ones, and are deprived of public reading in the Church only because of certain flaws.” So far the learned man. Therefore, while Jerome writes that the Epistle which is read among the apocryphal scriptures was composed by Barnabas, his words must be understood in such a way that he affirms the Epistle to have been truly composed by Barnabas, which nevertheless is by no means counted among the canonical scriptures. For Basnage is in vain 42 when he tries to persuade us that Jerome spoke in a popular way and with regard to the title, not according to the truth of the matter, while he handed down by letter that Barnabas composed this Epistle.

But it is not necessary that some ^B more recent critics should urge the authority of Eusebius so strongly, in order to deprive our Epistle of Barnabas. For it is so far from the case that Eusebius considered it spurious, adulterine, or supposititious, that he ought rather to be said to have recognized it as integral and sincere; inasmuch as he enumerates it among the books *antilegomena* [disputed], in whose register he also lists 45 the Epistle which is called that of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter; likewise the second and third of John, and also the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. In a word, regarding the authority of the Epistle—namely, whether it should be placed in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures—Eusebius was in doubt, with several of the ancients, as Tillemont 46 proves at greater length. To which I would wish you to add that, by the author of the Stichometry which is attributed to Nicephorus of Constantinople, the Epistle of Barnabas is enumerated among those scriptures which are *antilegomena*. Indeed, in the ancient Latin Stichometry, in the preface to Barnabas edited by Cotelier, the same Epistle is seen to be related after the Epistle of Jude and before John’s Revelation and the Acts of the Apostles.

Since, therefore, it is established by the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that our Epistle’s author was Barnabas the Cyprian, an apostle, an apostolic witness, one of the 70 disciples of the Lord, and a helper of Paul; the figment of the Christian Scotan disappears into nothing, who distinguishes two Barnabases 47; of whom “the one was from the evangelists and companions of the apostles, but the other from the more sublime apostles, that is, properly so called.” To which learned man indeed we address these words of Isaac Vossius 48: “Whence do you have it,” he asks, “that there were two Barnabases among the apostles or the disciples of the apostles? Whence, likewise, do you have it that one was of the more sublime, that is, of the twelve apostles, and not of the 70 disciples, as Clement of Alexandria has it? But I, regarding what I have written, am confirmed by the very inscription of this Epistle, in which he is called a *sunekdēmos* [fellow traveler] of Paul; this is confirmed by Jerome in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*, etc., so that I marvel what moved you, wherefore you have invented two Barnabases.” Nor does Tentzel 49 fare any better; who, led by some weak conjectures, arrives at the opinion that our Epistle was fabricated at Alexandria in Egypt in the final times of Hadrian, by some doctor of the Alexandrian catechetical school under the name of Barnabas 50. Moreover, I pass over Moyne, who makes the author of the same Epistle St. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, for the sole reason that in some

manuscripts it is joined to the Polycarpian ^A Epistle, and the existing copies exhibit neither its end nor its beginning. How weak and empty this argument is, Cave, Tentzel, 51 Basnagius, 52 and others have long since demonstrated. And indeed, Moyne himself would surely have refrained from urging it, had he been permitted to read the words of Ussher in his preface concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, published by John Fell in the very same year that he issued his own *Varia sacra*: "Indeed," he says, "in the first copy from which the Colomesius codex (which is thought to be the most ancient of all) and the rest which survive today were transcribed, a quire was either omitted or transposed by the fault of the copyists; by whose defect it has happened that in the surviving Greek texts we long for both the end of the Epistle of Polycarp and the beginning of Barnabas." But if the learned man had not yet decided to depart from his opinion, he ought at least to have observed for himself that in both ancient translators there exist even now both the end of the Polycarpian Epistle and that which is the beginning of Barnabas.

CHAPTER II.

But, passing over these things, let us examine what else the patrons of the opposing view especially object. And first, they attribute the Epistle to Barnabas because the author brings forward certain passages of the Old Testament that are less fittingly alleged and too mystically expounded. ^B However, it is pleasing to counter this objection with the words of Hammond, which are as follows 53: "The Epistle which has not long since appeared under the name of the Apostle Barnabas will be able to be explained conveniently from this one characteristic of the Gnostics; otherwise, as a complicated and prolix enigma, it would surely prove a cross to the readers. For those followers of Simon, arrogant in their ability to interpret Holy Scripture mystically, adapted many mysteries of the Old Testament to their own impure uses... Hence Barnabas, in almost this whole Epistle of his, opposes the doctrines of the Gnostics by expounding a great many passages of the Old Instrument [Testament] mystically and even cabalistically." Following in Hammond’s footsteps, John Fell 54 says: "It is ^C certain," he says, "that this Epistle, which is almost entirely concerned with the rites of the Synagogue and the unfolding of the mystical senses of the Holy Scriptures, was less than accommodated to the understanding of the rude populace; and hence it is likely that the Church refrained for some time from its public reading... But this I will confidently say, that the more thoroughly this Epistle is understood, the more acceptable it will be, and it will contribute greatly to the knowledge of the sacred letters and the most ancient Fathers. For although the perpetual regard of the Old Testament for the Messiah is known to us, as if through a lattice, from the strictures of the Chaldean Paraphrasts and the writings of the Rabbis, ^D yet in the old days, when the Scriptures were not only read but also explained weekly in every synagogue, that mystical or evangelical Midrash of the Old Testament was no less known to everyone than the sacred text itself; and therefore it provided evidence no less suitable for convincing the Jews than that which had been deduced from the most explicit words of the Holy Scriptures... And if by chance some things occur in our author that seem far-fetched, who could find the same things, or at least their traces, in the Pauline Epistles?" So much for him. Hence I conclude with the learned men, that the most ancient of the Fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the rest who acknowledge our Epistle as the sincere offspring of Barnabas, discovered nothing discordant in his expositions, nothing distorted, forced, or wretched in his allegories, and finally nothing in it unworthy of an apostolic man; and thus nothing that its age would not bear: so that recently some, who trust that they can judge the style of apostolic writers better than their own disciples and other men who were synchronous or peers, seem by no means to be heard. Concerning this matter you may find more observed quite appositely by others in Zorn. 55

The adversaries continue, and they bring up what the author of the Epistle pronounces concerning the apostles in these words 56: "But when," he says, "He chose His own apostles, who were to preach His Gospel, he chose men who were greater sinners than all sin, ὄντας ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους, in order to show that He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; then He made it manifest that He is the Son of God." But who, they ask, would believe that the apostles were called by Barnabas the most iniquitous of men and sinners above all sin? We read that they were indeed simple, rude, unlearned, and sometimes evil men in the Holy Scriptures; but we do not read that they were the greatest sinners of all. To which we reply first, from the opinion of most learned men, that nothing occurs in the Scriptures that is repugnant to this statement of Barnabas. Then truly, what prevents his words from being accepted as sounding nothing other than that the apostles, before they were called, had sinned much and grievously? That is certainly evident concerning Matthew the publican; it is also so concerning the apostle Paul, who, as he himself writes concerning himself 57, was previously a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an injurious person; he calls himself the first of sinners, saying thus: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief, to which perhaps Barnabas referred in the first place, calling the apostles, by the same [logic as] Paul, men who were ὄντας ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους before they were chosen; for nothing compels us to understand that he said this of every single one of the apostles. What more do you seek? Two illustrious

patrons of the opinion produced by Barnabas ^A are at hand: Origen and Jerome. The former, indeed, while disputing against Celsus, who perhaps seized upon the saying of Barnabas to aver that the apostles were infamous men, publicans, and most wicked sailors, holds these words: "Wishing to demonstrate to the human race how great is the medicine for souls that Jesus possesses, [he chose] the most denounced and most wicked men, and brought them forward to such a degree that they might be an example of the purest character to those brought by them to the Gospel of Christ." What absurdity is there, then, if Jesus, wishing to show the human race how efficacious the remedies are that he applies to the diseases of the souls, chose infamous and wicked men, and promoted them so that they might be an example of the purest life to those who, through their ministry, were brought to the Gospel of Christ? Do you see that Origen, that man who was by far the most learned, in whom there was such power of intellect, so profound, so sharp, so elegant, that he nearly surpassed all by a great and wide margin, I say, deemed that there was nothing discordant in this opinion, nothing unworthy of Barnabas?

Nor does Saint Jerome think otherwise, who objects with the same opinion of Barnabas against the Pelagians ^B, although by a lapse of memory he attributes it to Ignatius the martyr; and so far is he from even slightly censuring it, that he rather confirms it from the Psalmist, immediately concluding gravely: "If you do not use these testimonies for authority, use them at least for the antiquity of what all ecclesiastical men have thought." Furthermore, Saint John Chrysostom seems to add force to the testimony of both; and though his words be directed only toward the apostle Paul, yet that they square marvelously with the mind of Barnabas, no one, I believe, would gainsay. Thus, therefore, he speaks: "If, then, anyone should say that the King wishes to grant forgiveness to all, they will not readily believe the word until they see the most worthless of all of them obtaining this; for then there is no longer any room for doubt. This also Paul says, that God, wishing to assure men that he grants them all things, chose the greatest sinner of all." If, therefore, anyone were to say that the king wishes to grant pardon to all, they would not so easily believe until they saw the most abandoned of all having obtained pardon; for then no doubt would remain thereafter. This also Paul says: that God, indeed wishing to make men more certain that he bestows all things upon them, chose him who was prone to sin more than all others.

But, hastening to other matters, it is in our interest to resolve briefly one further objection, by which the integrity of this Epistle is attacked ^C. Some learned men therefore believe this most ancient monument to have been either defiled by many interpolations or augmented by idle scraps brought in from elsewhere. But if you were to ask those same men why they finally pass such a judgment, they press upon you their own conjectures, grounded upon no moments of reason. In particular, they contend that the latter, paraenetic part of the Epistle, consisting of the last four chapters (18-21), is plainly supposititious. And indeed, the suspicion of interpolation, drawn from the forced allegories and other chapters, we have already sufficiently refuted: now, however, we turn our stylus to that principal matter of the addition that is objected. Nor is there much need of many words whereby the groundless interruption may be refuted. For Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from the last chapter of our Epistle, described in these words ^D: "Forgetting himself, Barnabas says: 'The God who rules over the whole world, he says, grant you wisdom,' etc." Mystically indeed does Barnabas [speak]: "The God, he says, who rules the whole world, grant you wisdom," etc. Origen likewise, in most clear words, and indeed in two places, praises the opinion of Barnabas concerning the two ways, which occurs in the 18th chapter of his Epistle: "The same," he says, "Barnabas also declares in his Epistle, when he says that there are two ways, one of light, the other of darkness, over which he says certain angels reside." Thus also Saint Jerome, in the book which he composed, imitating Philo and Origen, *On the Interpretation of Hebrew Names*, lists among the Hebrew names that exist in the Epistle of Barnabas the word *Satan*, which certainly occurs nowhere else but in the 18th chapter of that same Epistle. Since, therefore, the most ancient of the Fathers from the second, third, and fourth centuries—Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome—read the same things in the Epistle of Barnabas that we still do even now, it is unjustly that some more recent ones suspect that the latter part of the same was added in later times. Hence, indeed, Dodwell himself, moved by the authority of the ancients, dares not adjudge the four aforementioned last chapters from Barnabas, although he conjectures that they might be held to be the *Didache* of the same Barnabas. But as to this: that they may at some time have borne the title of *Didache*; does one on that account have any right to say that they are of a later hand? "Truly, to use the words of the learned Fell, in the first centuries some, in order to prescribe against heresies or to commend their own tenets, committed the dogmas of apostolic men to writing, and called them their *Didachai*." A book of this kind seems to have been the one that Eusebius and Athanasius mention, whose title was: *Didachai* (Teachings). But besides the fact that the count of lines, assigned to this Epistle in the most ancient Stichometries, persuades that this addition is not at all lacking in its bulk; it is likewise cited by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and indeed by the author of the *Constitutions*, just as are other parts of this Epistle. And if it be lacking in the Latin copies, it is an adequate argument from which it might be concluded, whatever is thus...

contained in manuscripts, that it is not a genuine writing; and the faith of the former part of the Epistle will be doubted, since it does not appear in Greek. But the conclusion which appears in the present Latin copies, I would gladly concede should be attributed to the copyists; since they frequently adorned books transcribed by them with epilogues of that sort elsewhere. But there are also not lacking examples of reiterated writing after a formal valediction. Thus, the Second Epistle to Timothy, after the doxology, has certain things appended, the pen having been resumed, like other things of that kind besides it." Thus he.

As regards the remaining difficulties of lesser moment, the most learned Papebrochius dissolves them with truly admirable dexterity, whom it is therefore better to consult. I omit those which were first raised by Moyne, and afterwards renewed by Tentzel, Basnage, and others, to save time; especially because the illustrious Nourry, in criticizing the Moynian arguments, appears to have also refuted the others. Furthermore, that which the praised Papebrochius conjectured from the 15th chapter of this Epistle—that it was perhaps written by some one of the Chiliasts after the year 97—from that suspicion indeed he would have been cleared by Menardus in particular, and by Cotelerius, whose editions he testifies he was not fortunate enough to see.

CHAPTER III. In what time it was written, is inquired.

But at length let us proceed to inquire into the time in which the Epistle itself is thought to have been written. Indeed, as Millius very well says, a little after the year of the common era 70, or when the temple had just recently been destroyed, and the city of Jerusalem razed. And this indeed is sufficiently clear from the same Epistle. For thus it says there: "Finally, he again says: 'Behold, those who destroyed this temple, they themselves shall build it.' IT IS HAPPENING. For because they waged war, it was destroyed by the ENEMY NOW." And at length again he says: "Behold, those who destroyed this temple, they themselves will build it. And THAT CAME TO PASS. For because they wage war, it has been destroyed BY THE ENEMY NOW." For thus, with Fell and Cotelerius, this passage in the edition is to be distinguished, although Menardus dissented, who supposed that "NOW" should be wrongly joined to the noun "enemies."

I am not indeed unaware that Moyne and Tentzel seize on this rather as a handle for adjudging the Epistle concerning Barnabas, on the ground that the times do not correspond at all to the common opinion that Barnabas suffered martyrdom under the Emperor Nero, and so before the temple of Jerusalem was leveled to the ground: which objection these critical men value so highly that they do not hesitate to call it an invincible argument. Yet, so far are others from thinking that any force exists in such a difficulty, that they believe it has in addition exactly the same status. And rightly indeed. For the common opinion which is current concerning the martyrdom of Barnabas under Nero is confirmed by no suitable witness and by no authority of the ancients: nor does any trace occur among ancient writers from which it might be determined with certainty at what time Barnabas died. On the other hand, since it is certain from Eusebius and Jerome that the apostles Peter and Paul attained the palm of martyrdom in the last year of Nero, that is, in the year 68, why then could not Barnabas have lived for some years still after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70, after the martyrdom of those apostles, and indeed especially when, Nero having been removed from the midst, the persecution had ceased; so that consequently he wrote the Epistle about the year 72 or 73?

But truly, from the eulogy of the monk Alexander on St. Barnabas, it is evident that he departed from this life while Paul the apostle was still living: and this appears from his last words to John Mark, his cousin, which are as follows: "On this day I must be perfected into the hands of the disobedient Jews; but do thou, going out of the city toward the west, shalt find my body; and having buried this, depart from Cyprus and go to Paul, and be with him, until the Lord shall provide for thy affairs; for thy name is to be magnified in all the world." Today I must be consumed by the hands of the disobedient Jews: but thou, depart outside the city toward the west, and thou shalt find my body: which when thou hast buried, depart from Cyprus, and set out to Paul; and be with him, until the Lord shall have disposed thy affairs: for it is to be that thy name shall be divulged through the whole world. These things are there. And that Mark complied with the exhortation of Barnabas is evident from the Epistles of Paul. For he, writing to the Colossians, salutes them in the name of Mark, cousin of Barnabas; who indeed had first been the cause why Paul had separated from Barnabas, as is held in the Acts; and who afterwards, returning to duty, adhered as a faithful companion to Paul, and to him at length after the death of Barnabas rendered useful service in the apostolic ministry, as the same Apostle testifies, writing to Philemon and from his later bonds to Timothy. Yet the Epistles which exist inscribed to the Colossians and to Philemon are held by the opinion of learned men to have been written by the Apostle in the year 62; but those which are the second to Timothy in the year 67, when, of course, Barnabas had long since departed from the living, at whose urging John Mark had subsequently become a companion to Paul. Thus nearly Tentzel, who also considers this objection to have such weight that he asserts that nothing can be opposed to it except that the Epistle

^A has been written largely, and perhaps imparted by word of mouth, which makes it seem less worthy of credit in our eyes as we pursue these investigations. Let us now see whether this objection is so firm that it cannot even be refuted, let alone weakened in any way. To do this, we must first note that the entire line of argument of Tentzel rests on the testimony of a certain Alexander, a Cypriot monk, a writer, to be sure, of obscure name and uncertain age. Indeed, it is established among scholars that he was not older than the tenth century, for he is said to have recorded the Life of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who is found to have flourished at the beginning of the ninth century. Moreover, what credence should be given to this writer, who seems to act as a panegyrist rather than a historian, and who relates to us things that happened many centuries before his own time? Nor can one object that this monk, towards the end of his Eulogy ^B, declared that the few things he offers regarding the life and martyrdom of Barnabas were collected and set forth by him from the writings of Clement, author of the *Stromata*, and other ancient authors. For we have at hand what Clement of Alexandria presents concerning Barnabas; yet you would find hardly any trace of this in the Cypriot monk. The remaining things he took from Theodore the Reader, or from Nilus Doxopatrius, and perhaps other writers of a later age, suffer from a lack of credibility; just like those admonitions of Barnabas supposedly given to John Mark, which the monk himself wove into his Eulogy: so that what is brought forward by writers of this kind has absolutely no force to compel assent. For our Baronius, a very great man, said gravely and truly: "What is brought forward by a more recent author in ancient matters without the authority of someone older is to be disregarded." ^C Added to this is the fact that many dissonant and false things occur in the same monk's Eulogy, which are certainly of no small value for undermining and weakening his credibility; in which matter, the aforementioned Baronius and Tillemont are to be consulted first.

Although these things have barely been recounted, there has reached our hands a learned Commentary on an ancient marble Calendar of the Neapolitan Church by a man of outstanding doctrine and erudition, who undertook to defend the cause of Alexander the monk ^D and contended that he flourished at the end of the sixth century. However, we regret that the work was discovered by us so late, for by now it would have provided us the opportunity to temper what has been said thus far. But this learned man at least concedes that this Cypriot monk "did not have much judgment, and not infrequently strayed from the truth in matters slightly more ancient; indeed, he also followed the greater part of the island narratives handed down orally": so that for this reason he appears to us less worthy of credit as we pursue these investigations.

Therefore, so that we may at last offer surer and more solid objections which come closer to confirming our opinion: first of all, it is sufficiently clear from the Acts of the Apostles that the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas occurred a month or two after the convened Council of Jerusalem. Now, the opinion of the more famous chronologists is that this council was held in the Dionysian year 51: and so, in this very year, or at most towards the beginning of the following year 52, the departure of Barnabas from Paul seems to have occurred. Now, four or five years after that divorce, that they both met again is gathered, not obscurely, in my opinion, from the first Epistle to the Corinthians. For there the Apostle remembers Barnabas as a most faithful companion in these words: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who do not have the right to do this?" Indeed, either I am greatly mistaken, or Barnabas was adhering to Paul when the Apostle wrote these things about him. Now, the first Epistle to the Corinthians is said to have been written at the end of the year 56, or at the beginning of 57. From this it is easy to argue that Barnabas, after he had separated from Paul in the year 51, had already returned to his company, as we just suggested, after an interval of four or five years: so that, therefore, it is no wonder if the Apostle remembers John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, in the year 62, while writing to the Colossians and to Philemon; and if he ranks him first in the year 67, in which he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy, among those companions from whom he received opportune consolation in his chains at Rome, as they assisted him.

Nor did many ecclesiastical writers older than John Chrysostom believe that Barnabas had lived only until the end of 56, but they held that he had lived even until the end of the following year 57, or perhaps the beginning of 58, at which time the latter Epistle to the Corinthians was written. For to those words of the Apostle: "We have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches," Chrysostom notes these things: *Καὶ τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀδελφός; Τινὲς μὲν τὸν Λουκᾶν· καί φασι διὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν ἥνπερ ἔγραψε. Τινὲς δὲ τὸν Βαρνάβαν· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἄγραφον κήρυγμα Εὐαγγέλιον καλεῖ.* "And who is this brother? Some think it is Luke, and they say this because of the history which he wrote. Others, however, think it is Barnabas: for he calls even the unwritten preaching the Gospel."

Whereby you may see that the opinion of those ancient writers who interpreted the Apostle's words concerning Barnabas is approved by Chrysostom. But Theodoret clearly characterizes the words spoken on that same passage 97: "He designates the thrice-blessed Barnabas. For he too, having obtained the ordination in Antioch with the blessed Paul, when the divine Spirit said: 'Separate for me Barnabas and Saul, for the work to which I have called them.' These words designate the most blessed Barnabas. For he himself was ordained at Antioch with the blessed Paul, since the divine Spirit said: 'Separate for me Barnabas and Saul, for the work to which I have called them.'" And surely the Pauline context seems to suggest nothing else. Since, after the words just recited concerning the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches, the Apostle immediately adds: "Not only that, but he was also ordained as a companion of our journey." Who, then, is this companion? Not Luke, not Silas, not Apollos, not John Mark, as some ancient and recent writers have judged; but Barnabas alone. For he alone is read to have been ordained as ^A *synēdēmos* ("fellow traveler") of ours, as Paul speaks in the same place; undoubtedly looking back to those things which are reported concerning himself and Barnabas in the Acts 98: "And when they laid hands on them, they released them," which we nowhere read expressly of others.

What, moreover, of the fact that the same St. John Chrysostom seems also to have judged, as has been noted by a learned man 99, that Barnabas was still alive while the Apostle was writing to the Colossians? For in those words 100: "Marcus, the cousin of Barnabas, greets you," the holy doctor holds these things 1: "And he praised him also for his kinship; for Barnabas was a great man. Regarding whom you received commands: if he comes to you, receive him. For what? Would they not have received him even without this? Yes; but I wish it to be with great diligence, he says; and this shows the man to be great." He also praised him because of his kinship: for ^B Barnabas was a great man. "Regarding whom you received commands: if he comes to you, receive him." What then? Would they not have received him otherwise? Certainly. But by saying, "with great diligence," he shows this to be a great man. Now, we have seen above from the opinion of learned men that this Epistle to the Colossians was written in the year 62. From which, therefore, if the words brought forward from the prior Epistle to the Corinthians are properly accepted; if we attend to Theodoret, John Chrysostom, and those ecclesiastical writers whom the same holy doctor praises, rather than to Alexander the monk, as is proper; it will certainly be concluded that the objection of Tentzel is empty, relying solely on the testimony of that Cypriot monk; since it is sufficiently ^C certain that Barnabas, and thus his cousin John Mark, correctly may be thought to have rejoined the Apostle after the separation in the year 51, in the year 56, and furthermore to have been alive both in the year 58 and in 62, nor does it appear anywhere that he died before the fall of Jerusalem; so that there is nothing to prevent the author from having been able to mention him in his Epistle after the year 70, in which that Jewish catastrophe occurred. But regarding this matter, it is better to consult the learned Mazochius 2, who from the Acts attributed to John Mark judges it to be highly probable that he lived long enough and learnedly deduces the year of St. Barnabas's death, and that he sealed the faith of Christ with his own blood in the year 76.

CHAPTER IV. Of what authority it is, and what value should be placed upon it.

Now, truly, that we may finally examine of what authority this same Epistle is; everyone will rightly confess that it is to be held in the highest esteem, both for the dignity and reputation which it once obtained among the most ancient ecclesiastical writers, and above all for its value and the utility which is known to be derived from it into the Church. And indeed, I use the words of the learned Dacherius 3, "Although we do not bring forward this Epistle as canonical and beyond doubt legitimate in faith: yet it not only truly reflects a style worthy of apostolic majesty, and subject matter accommodated to the affairs of the nascent Church, but it also impresses [these things] upon the more gentle judgments of readers: so that, if *purple must be distinguished from purple*, it ought surely to hope for a secondary vote of approval in comparison with the writings of the other apostles." So he. Regarding which matter we also touched upon some things a little earlier, in chapter 2.

Truly, it will be most helpful to notice that the Catholic Church draws from the Epistle of Barnabas much support for overturning the impiety of the Unitarians, and for bravely constructing and establishing the orthodox doctrine concerning the *pre-existence* of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and his *consubstantiality*: as the learned Prudentius Maranus 6 pointed out at length after Bull 4 and Grabe 5. Furthermore, concerning the other heads of Christian doctrine to be drawn from the same Epistle, the learned Marechal 7 has lately discoursed quite learnedly above others. To these things, however, which have been observed up to this point, it is pleasant to add from Vossius 8 and Hody 9, that St. Barnabas, although he was accustomed to describe places of Scripture from the Greek Septuagint version, nevertheless for the most part followed the Hebrew truth. As one or two examples of this fact are brought forward, from the LXX, Isaiah xxvi, 16, the author recites these: "Behold..."

I will cast into the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, a cornerstone, honorable." The words immediately following he repeats from the Hebrew source: "And he who hopes in him shall live forever." Where the LXX has: "And he who believes shall not be ashamed." Elsewhere, moreover, out of Gen. ii, 2, he has these words: "And God finished in the seventh day," etc. But the LXX has: "in the sixth day." Hence St. Jerome, in his *Hebraic Traditions*, notes that for the sixth day, the Hebrew has the seventh. Upon which place the learned Grabe makes many observations, which are indeed worthy of being read in his own work. Other examples of this kind are to be repeated from the same Epistle.

CHAPTER V

The judgment of the learned Mazochius; whose scholarly observations on some passages of this same Epistle, passed over by other editors, are here produced.

But behold the very learned man whom we mentioned a little while ago, as he pursues the deeds of Barnabas at length and illustrates them with wondrous dexterity of intellect, he also elucidates some passages of his Epistle in an excellent manner, according to his custom; so that I think I shall be doing something worthwhile if I transcribe his brilliant observations in this place. They are as follows: "From the first time that the Epistle, which was praised under the name of Barnabas the apostle by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, saw the light of day through Hugo Menardus, it has been exposed to the remarks of so many most learned men that it would be superfluous to attempt anything new upon it. Yet, as I was perusing it incidentally, certain things occurred to me which others had passed over, which I shall briefly scatter here."

^A He adds: "Learn what the Gnosis (Cognition, or Science) says: 'Hope in him who is to be manifested to you in the flesh, Jesus.' No one is ignorant that in the apostolic age the arcana and allegorical significations of the Old Testament were understood under the name of Gnosis, or science. That is the 'Key of knowledge,' which Christ noted that the scribes of the Law had cherished. But we remark this further here: that Gnosis, or science, is cited as if it were a book, and those words are brought forward from it: 'Hope,' etc. Which indeed is much more evident from Clement of Alexandria, where these words are recited from Barnabas in such a way that the word *φησὶν* [it says], which is lacking here, is supplied: 'Learn what Cognition says: Hope, he says, in him,' etc. Where you may observe that this *φησὶν* is brought forward from the mouth of Barnabas, namely, as he is citing from the book of Cognition or Science. That there were many books of such Science circulatated of old, written by Jews who pursued allegory, there is no doubt. To them, therefore, Barnabas usually refers his readers when he digresses to allegories. We know that even today in the Targum, many passages are referred to the Messiah: a practice which flowed from the same Gnosis. It is to be noted, however, in the cited passage, although all things are recited in the same words from the Gnosis, that the word 'Jesus,' which is added at the end, proceeded from the hand of Barnabas, not from the author of the Gnosis. Which author must needs have been a Jew, otherwise he would not have been cited by Barnabas, who was about to convict the Jews. But the Jew knew the Messiah; he did not know Jesus."

"Immediately in the same place there follows: 'For man is *γῆ πάσχουσα*, the earth is suffering.' Here it appears that Barnabas, or whoever the author is, lent his ears to the philosophers. For that *πάσχουσα*, 'suffering,' is to be referred to the technical language of the philosophers, by which they said that matter 'suffers.' Man, he says, is from the earth, not indeed as an agent, but as a patient. The reason for which he immediately renders in these words: 'For the fashioning (or formation) of Adam came to pass from the face of the earth.' Where the most beautiful locution of the Hellenists occurs; for the Hebrew *Mippene* (which Hellenist Jews constantly render *ἀπὸ προσώπου*, i.e., 'from the face') designates any cause, even a material one, just as philosophers use the term. Therefore it is the same as 'from the face of the earth' as if he had said, 'Adam was formed from the earth.' And Clement reports this also in the same place in the same words."

"Chapter 6 thus begins: 'When therefore he made the PRECEPT' [Christ], etc. When he made the PRECEPT, what does he say? 'Who is he that will judge with me?' and what follows from Isaiah l, 8, 9, which he recites. Here it is not unworthy of observation that *ἐντολή*, 'precept,' is called absolutely and by excellence the directive of the Father concerning the Incarnation and the whole business of human reparation, which Christ himself calls *ἐντολὰς τοῦ Πατρός*, 'the precepts of the Father' (John xv, 10). And perhaps Barnabas is alluding to that Psalm xxxix, 8, 9: 'Then said I: Lo, I come... to do thy will,' which will he shortly after calls LAW: 'My God, I have willed, and thy law is in the midst of my heart.' The pages of both Testaments are entirely full of this divine preception: the only thing new here is that it is here called absolutely THE PRECEPT. But the ancient interpreter rendered it 'God's precept,' so that he might make the unusual manner of speaking clearer."

"A little later, after Mosis' testimony about obtaining the land flowing with milk and honey was recited, these things immediately follow."

^C Chapter 7, just as also in the following chapters, that *Προσέχετε*, 'Attend,' is frequently intercalated, which is a peculiarity of those who allegorize, to sharpen attention.

"Chapter 9: 'But even every Syrian and Arab and all the priests of the idols,' etc.: Verily, even every Syrus and Arab and all the priests of the idols"

are circumcised. Which deservedly create a difficulty. But these things are not to be brought to a more severe test, but rather to be accepted ^A *pachytéros*, somewhat crudely, in this manner: Every Syrian, every Arab, every priest of the idols admits of circumcision; or: Not even the Syrians and Arabs, and profane priests, shudder at circumcision. For because among the Syrians and Arabs, and among the profane priests, there were those who in that way rendered themselves purer, it was permitted to the apostle Barnabas to say that circumcision is promiscuously misused by them. Who does not say similar things in such matters? Moreover, that very many of the Arabs were circumcised, just as the Egyptian priests, there is no doubt. And not even concerning the Syrians is there reason for doubt, if indeed it be true what the ancients believed, that the Phoenicians admitted of *peritomēn* (circumcision). Origen (*ad Rom. II, 25*), among other observers of circumcision, counted the Phoenicians also with these words: "If you unfold your histories, you will find not only the priests of the Egyptians, but also Arabs and Egyptians and PHOENICIANS and others, whose studies for the sake of this kind of superstition flourish more notably."

"Chapter 16: Still also concerning the temple I will tell you, how the wretched wanderers, *epi tēn hodon ēlpisan*, hoped in the WAY, and not in God himself who made them, as if it were the house of God." Here there is no doubt that by the name ^B *hodou* (way), the temple is meant: for even in the temple all the hope of the Jews had been placed, as that famous exclamation notes, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord," and what our author proposed to say regarding the temple at the beginning, and what he shortly adds: "As if (that way, clearly) it were the house of God." The old interpreter saw this, who for *hodon* (way) put "shrine"; for he rendered it thus: "In the SHRINE they had hope." Cotelerius indeed suspects an allusion to certain passages of the Elders, in which *hodos* similarly seems to be able to be taken for the temple. But also here Barnabas, and there the LXX, seem to have written *oudon* (threshold), using the customary figure whereby the part is taken for the whole, and which we use even today, when we are said to visit the "Thresholds" of the apostles. Therefore it must be read *epi ton oudon*... in the threshold, i. e., placing their hope in the temple. But if Barnabas had wished to write "way," *tēn hodon*, as it is now read, he would have placed at the end *ousan*, not *onta*, which only agrees with *oudon*: "as," he says, "*onta oikon Theou* (being the house of God)." The same, as I have said, will be the judgment concerning the passages of the LXX *viralibus* (of the kings) in 3 Kings VIII, 44–48, in which now *proseuxontai*... *hodon* is read, when it should be read *oudon*. "They shall worship at the threshold," etc. Just as also in 2 Paral. VI, 34–38. The worship of the threshold is not unheard of among the ancients. It is also known that the ancients originally wrote *o* for the full diphthong *ou* (as in the coins of the Syracusans, *Syrakosion* for *Syrakousion*, and six hundred of the same kind), ^C which later, there is no doubt, was a source of error for copyists. Someone might say that in the aforementioned passages of the Elders *hodos* (way) is to be retained, because to it in Hebrew responds *DERECH*, way; whereas on the contrary *oudos* responds to the Hebrew *SAPH*, which is threshold. But it is to be known that the Hebrew *DERECH*, since it comes from "treading," does not only signify a way, but also a pavement, and in the recited passages also a threshold, which is immediately trodden by those entering. Then, since in Jer. XXXV, 4, *phylassontos tēn hodon*, "keeping the way," is found instead of *ton oudon*, "keeping the threshold" (for the Heb. is *SAPH*), I do not see how the same substitution could not have happened for the passages brought forward above. Finally, not to tarry longer, if we listen to the grammarians, *hodos*, way, and *oudos*, threshold, are one and the same name. For even in Homer *oudos* (threshold) is used instead of *hodos* (way); and on the contrary, Suidas testifies that the word *odos*, if the first syllable is shortened, signifies *oudos*, i. e., threshold, citing a passage of Sophocles. You will find similar things in Eustathius, and in the scholiast on Sophocles regarding his famous passage cited by Suidas and Eustathius. Concerning which see H. Estienne. Nor let it trouble you that these seem ancient and peculiar to the poets: for in the LXX and the Hellenistic Jews very many things occur, partly archaic, partly peculiar to the Alexandrian or other unknown dialects." So far the V. C. (learned man).

CHAPTER VI.

Now indeed, lest we seem to be completely lacking in our duty, let us proceed to review the various and indeed more notable editions and versions of this Epistle. James Ussher was the first to commit it to the press ^D at Oxford in the year 1643. "But," says Fell, "a large part of that city having been caught in a great and serious fire, the printing office with all its equipment, printed sheets, and the copy itself, burned down." Now, at almost the same time that Ussher was preparing his edition at Oxford, Hugo Menard, a Benedictine monk from the congregation of St. Maur, was thinking of publishing the Epistle itself at Paris. And the work was already ready in type, illustrated with learned annotations; but in the beginning of the year 1644, the learned man having been snatched away by death, his syncellus Luke D'Achery took upon himself the care of publishing it, who also, having added his own preface, brought it to light in the following year, 1645. But so that the method of this first edition might be in some way known to the reader, it will be useful to describe the words of the illustrious editor here. Thus, therefore, he: "When the Reverend Father Dom Hugo Menard had once fallen upon a manuscript volume of Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, from the Corbie monastery, he discovered there immediately after Tertullian's Epistle *On Jewish Foods*, an Epistle marked with the name of Barnabas, together with the Epistle of James the apostle: and soon he was prompted in his mind to brush it off from the dust and filth, and to clarify it with appropriate notes. But because among the foremost Fathers of the Church,

^A Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, and not a few others, he had learned without a doubt that Barnabas, or whoever else it was, had spoken in Greek in this Epistle, he hesitated, being not a little perplexed; and he did not dare to bring into the public eye a monument of this kind, so imperfect and teeming with defects, as the age in which the codex was transcribed allowed. However, the most learned Sirmond eventually brought aid. A priest of the Society of Jesus, he most willingly accommodated Menard with a Greek transcript which he had found at Rome among the manuscripts and papers of the Reverend Father Turrianus, who was most illustrious for his erudition and knowledge of many things. But as to where Turrianus transcribed the copy, the matter is completely unknown to us. But the Latin Version itself, undoubtedly written before the nine-hundredth year, convinces us that it is the genuine Epistle under the name of Barnabas, commended and used by ancient writers; since it corresponds almost continuously to the Greek text in all points... The Greek is mutilated, and the Latin version is mutilated. The Greek is deformed only at the beginning of the Epistle by lacunae and gaps... while the version lacks the final part, for which Menard provided an addition through a new interpretation from the Roman Greek. He had a single codex, both Greek and Latin, and it was not perfectly sound everywhere; consequently, he had to apply care at times, and at others conjecture, which he did so sparingly and prudently that he did not easily change a letter in the line, but noted it in the margin.» Thus far Dacherius. In the following year, 1646, Isaac Vossius had the same Epistle printed again at Amsterdam at the end of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, Martyr, illustrated with brief but learned notes; a copy of which, first received from Salmasius, he collated with three manuscript codices retrieved from the Medicean library in Florence, the Vatican, and the Theatines living in Rome. Assisted by these aids, he published this most ancient monument much more accurately: «for since Menard's edition, as he himself says, proceeded from a single codex, it could not have happened otherwise but that it should appear most uncorrected.» Twenty-six years after the first edition of Vossius, John Baptist Cotelier issued this Epistle of Barnabas again in Paris in 1672, adorned with the ancient Latin version, a new interpretation, and clear notes, ^B and he inserted it into his own excellent edition of the Apostolic Fathers. That edition, at the end of the same century, in the year 1698, John Leclerc had printed at Antwerp or rather Amsterdam, with the notes of various others, and again in the current century in the year 1724, augmented by some animadversions of John Davies and his own. Finally, to pass over the editions of Fell, Moyer, and others, Richard Russel committed the same Epistle to the press in the year 1746, in his London collection of the Apostolic Fathers. Among the versions of this Epistle, the old Latin one claims the foremost place for itself, concerning which, besides what we have touched upon here and there, the illustrious Cotelier judges thus: «The old interpretation shows barbarism everywhere, and everywhere negligence; and it is imperfect and mutilated, both passim, and especially at the end, where the later chapters are cut away; perhaps because they seemed less learned to the interpreter, and more pertaining to customs: therefore, these having been omitted, he imposes a colophon or ending doxology. Yet we owe to that version its own value for the earlier chapters, with not a few emendations of the Greek context; to say nothing of its antiquity and simplicity.» But Papebrochius conjectured that the author of this version was St. Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, and ^C Fabricius followed him. But truly without merit. For neither Menard, the first discoverer of that ancient interpretation, nor Vossius, nor Cotelier, nor others who subsequently published this Epistle, ever committed that to writing. The error of those two men perhaps arose from the words of Dacherius just related; by which we are taught that «Menard, in the manuscript volume of Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, from the Corbie monastery, came upon» a volume in which, together with other minor works of the ancients, he discovered the ancient interpretation of the Epistle of Barnabas, which he transcribed from the same codex intending to bring it to light. Galeard, a man of standing, dealt with this matter at greater length in the preface to his brilliant collection of ancient Fathers of the Church of Brescia; to whom, if one has time, the reader may go. The English version by William Wake, however, excels among the more recent ones, along with the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas, published in London in the years 1693 and 1710. Speaking of this version, John Leclerc, in the dedicatory epistle of the later edition of Cotelier's Apostolic Fathers to the same Wake, now Archbishop of Canterbury, has this to say: «There was also another reason, and one of greater weight, for which I thought this edition of the Apostolic Fathers would not be displeasing to you. Surely there was no one who less disdained such writers; most of whom, and indeed the genuine ones, St. Barnabas, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, and St. Polycarp, to whom were added the Shepherd of Hermas and the Martyrdom of Ignatius, you translated into the English language with the greatest fidelity and elegance, as far as the subject permitted, and adorned them with very learned ^D and most judicious introductions.» Thus Leclerc. And it was pleasant to describe these things here, so that it may be evident that he himself changed his opinion, for indeed he had previously, in his Ecclesiastical History, passed a harsh judgment on the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which here at last he calls genuine. It remains for us to explain in a few words by what manner

^A of editing we have preceded, and especially how we have made a selection of those notes that would amend or illustrate the Greek text or the ancient interpreter, with a few things also woven in, whether our own or taken from elsewhere. What belongs to others is recognized by the name of each being placed underneath: but those things which are marked with the note ANONYM. are those which were taken from the margins of the Menardus edition by an unknown hand, which Clericus translated into his own edition: to our own, in truth, we have affixed no sign anywhere; it may suffice to have mentioned this once. ^B

VII. (P. Gottfridus LUMPER, *History… of the life, writings, and doctrine of the Holy Fathers.* Augsburg, 1783, in-8°, vol. I, p. 149.)

CHAPTER ONE. ON THE EPISTLE ATTRIBUTED TO ST. BARNABAS THE APOSTLE.

CHAPTER TWO. THE DOCTRINE OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE.

(2) "For he came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance." *For he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.* Barnabas, cap. 5, compared with Matt. ix, 13. The same, cap. 6: "Let us attend therefore, lest by chance, as it is written, many be called, few chosen be found." Compared with Matt. xxii, v. 14. *To everyone who asks you, give.* Compared with Luke, cap. vi, v. 30, and Matt. cap. v, v. 42.

(4) "But let us see whether this people is the heir, or the former, and whether the testament belongs to us or to them. Hear now what the Scripture says concerning the people: Isaac prayed for Rebecca his wife, because she was barren: and she conceived. Afterwards, however, Rebecca went out to ask the Lord, and the Lord said to her: *Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples in your belly: and one people shall overcome another; and the greater shall serve the lesser.* You ought to understand who Isaac is, who Rebecca is; and concerning whom he declared that this or that people would be the greater." *But let us see, if this people is the heir, or the first, and if the covenant is for us or for them. Hear now concerning the people, what the Scripture says. And Isaac prayed concerning Rebecca his wife, because she was barren, and she conceived. Afterward also Rebecca went forth to inquire of the Lord, and the Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples in your belly, and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the lesser. You ought to perceive who the Isaac, who the Rebecca is, and upon whom he has shown, that the greater* ^D *is this people, or that one.* Barnab., cap. 13, coll. Rom. ix, 10-12, and Gen. xxv, 23. The same, 12: *For in him are all things, and to him.* Coll. Rom. xi, 36.

(5) "But he, that he might abolish death, and show the resurrection from the dead, because it behooved him to appear in the flesh, that he might render the promise to the parents." Coll. II Tim. i, 10 and Rom. xv, 10.

(6) "As much as is in us, let us strive to keep the fear of God, and to keep his commandments, that we may rejoice in his justifications." *As far as it is in us, let us study the fear of God, and strive to keep his commandments, that we may rejoice in his justifications.* Barnab. Ep., cap. 4, compared with the first Epistle of St. Peter, cap. 1, v. 17. — The same Barnabas: "The Lord judges the world without respect of persons. Everyone according to what he does, shall receive." The same, c. 4, compared with I Peter i, 17, and I Cor. iii, 8.

(7) *For the day is near, in which all things shall perish with the evil one. The Lord is near, and his reward.* Barnabas in Epist. c. 21, compared with the Apocalypse, cap. xxii, v. 12.

(8) "As much as you can, and for your soul you shall cultivate chastity." In place of which, Cotelerius thinks it should be read ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς σου ἀγωνεύσεις (sic), that is, you will contend for your soul: by which is intended the sentiment of Ecclesiasticus cap. IV, v. 33. *Contend for justice for your soul, and even unto death strive for justice, and God will fight for you against your enemies.*

from the author of the Epistle, which is commonly attributed to St. Barnabas the Apostle, is not a cause for wonder in such a brief epistle. Furthermore, although the author of this Epistle, according to the judgment of Vossius and Hody (9), has been accustomed to describe places from the Greek Septuagint version of the Holy Scripture, he has for the most part, however, followed the Hebrew truth. It is worthwhile to bring forward certain examples of this fact. From the LXX translators' version of Isaiah c. XXVIII, v. 16, the author recites this (10): *Behold, I cast into the foundations of Zion a precious stone, chosen, corner, honorable:* Ἰδοὺ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν λίθον πολυτελῆ, ἐκλεκτόν, ἀκρογωνιαῖον, ἔντιμον. However, he repeats the words immediately following from the Hebrew source (11): Καὶ ὃς ἐλπίσει ἐπ' αὐτὸν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. *And he who shall hope in him, shall live forever,* where the LXX has: Καὶ ὁ πιστεύων μὴ καταισχυνθῇ: *And he who believes shall not be put to shame.* Elsewhere, however, from Gen. II, 2, he has this: καὶ συνετέλεσεν (ὁ Θεὸς) ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ, κ. τ. λ. *And (God) finished on the seventh day, etc.*: whereas the LXX has: ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ, *in the sixth day.* Hence St. Jerome in his *Hebrew Traditions*: "For the sixth day, the Hebrew has the seventh day." The learned Grabe (12) has observed many things on this place which are certainly worthy of being read in his own work. Other examples of this kind are to be sought from the Epistle. ^A

§ II. Concerning the Preexistence, Consubstantiality, etc., of the Son of God.

That the Son was begotten of God the Father before the foundations of the world were laid, and that through Him all these things were created, the author of the Epistle which is inscribed to Barnabas, not far from the beginning of the Epistle, according to the ancient Latin translation (for the Greek is missing there), professes concerning our Savior by speaking thus: "And for this the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, being the Lord of the whole earth; to whom God said before the foundation of the world: *Let us make man according to our image and likeness* (13)." And a little later, he calls the sun "the work of the hands of the Son of God." A famous passage is in the same chapter (14): "Then He showed that He is the Son of God. For unless He had come in the flesh, how could men, ^B seeing Him, have been saved, when those who look upon the sun, which shall at some time cease to be, and is the work of His hands, cannot look steadily into its rays?" Finally, in chapter 12, he has this concerning our Savior: Ἔχεις καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα, καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. "You have also in this the glory of Jesus: that in Him are all things, and for Him." For the explanation of this text concerning the creation and governance of all things through Him and in Him, the words of St. Paul to the Colossians are very valid (15): Ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, κ. τ. λ.; and shortly after: Τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, and in verse 17: Τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε.

The true divinity of the Son is declared by this author in his Epistle no less remarkably. For there he calls the Son of God "Lord of the whole earth," and that antecedently (as the schools say) to that economy which He deigned to undertake for the sake of our salvation. He also says the glory of Jesus is so great that through Him and because of Him all things are (16); that is, by Him as the efficient cause, all things come to be, and to Him, as the end, all things are referred: which things certainly cannot be said of a creature without blasphemy. To which you may add an illustrious passage in the same Epistle (17) where he teaches that the Lord, who foreknew all things, therefore said that He would take away the heart of stone from His people, and would implant in them a heart new and of flesh, ὅτι ἔμελλεν ἐν σαρκὶ φανεροῦσθαι, καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικεῖν. Ναὸς γὰρ ἅγιος, ἀδελφοί μου, τῷ Κυρίῳ, τὸ κατοικητήριον ἡμῶν καρδία. That is to say, "because He himself was about to appear in the flesh and to dwell in us. For the holy temple to the Lord, my brothers, is the dwelling-place of our heart." Where, concerning the Lord, who manifested Himself in the flesh or human nature, he speaks clearly, and teaches that He, "the Lord in the hearts of the saints," dwells in them as if in "temples consecrated to God." These words so clearly express the divine majesty and omnipresence of the Son that they do not require our explanation. Also worthy of note are the words of Barnabas ^C: ἥλιον, ἔργον χειρῶν αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχοντα, βλέποντες, οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν εἰς ἀκτίνας αὐτοῦ ἀντοφθαλμῆσαι. Can it happen that anyone could bring forward more forceful words for the divinity and preexistence of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and at the same time unite this noble and sublime idea of the Savior with the notion of our human nature? Furthermore, I suppose this author has looked here to some place in Scripture where the Holy Spirit teaches us that no one on earth can see God without dying immediately after this vision. This being posited, from the cited words of this writer, his orthodox faith regarding this dogma remains so proven that it is no longer permitted for anyone to doubt it. ^D

Chapter 12: “Behold again Jesus not the son of Nave (Greek more accurately, ^A *son of man*), but the Son of God, before he was manifested in the flesh” (18); Barnabas proceeds, loc. cit.: “Since I was about to say that Christ was the son of David, shrinking from and understanding the error of the wicked, David again says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord,’ etc.” By which saying of David, the Savior himself had already insinuated to the Jews the divinity of his person (Matt. xxii, 41). He furthermore demonstrates by another argument that Jesus Christ is the true God and the Son of God, when he says (19): “But when he chose his own apostles, who were to preach his Gospel, he chose men more wicked than every sin, so as to show that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, then he made it manifest that he is the Son of God” (20).

He writes other following things in a later place (21): “What again does Moses say to Jesus the son of Nave (Joshua) when he gave him that name, who was endowed with the gift of prophecy, for this reason alone, that all the people might understand that the Father had manifested all things concerning his Son Jesus to the son of Nave? Therefore, when he imposed that name upon him, when he sent him as a spy of the land, he said: ‘Take a book into thy hands, and write what the Lord says, because in the last days Jesus the Son of God will cut off by the roots the whole house of Amalec.’”

^B Moreover, that Jesus Christ is not only true God but was also true man is openly professed by this author, while he says that Christ the Son of God suffered for us: “If therefore,” he says (22), “the Son of God, who is Lord, who is going to judge the living and the dead, who suffered so that his wound might restore life to us, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered except for our sake, but even fixed to the cross, he was offered vinegar and gall to drink.”

After this author had woven a long catalog of good works and precepts, and had embraced almost all the dogmas of morals in summaries, he finally adds these things concerning eternal life and the resurrection of the flesh (23): “You will know, moreover, who is the good rewarder of the recompense.” Regarding, however, the transgressors of the commandments and those negligent of the pursuit of good works, he says (24): “They shall not attain the reward of justice... It is right, therefore, that we, having been taught the justifications of the Lord, as many as were written before, walk in them. For he who does them shall be heaped with glory in the kingdom of God: but he who chooses other things shall perish together with his works. Therefore the resurrection, therefore the retribution.”

These are the things worthy of note in this Epistle regarding dogma.

III. On baptism, justification, etc. — Nothing, certainly, against Celsus, book 1, § 63, arguing [Origen], who perhaps snatched at our author’s statement, where he said that the apostles were infamous men, publicans, and the most wicked sailors, has this: “What absurdity is there, then, if Jesus, wishing to show to the human race how effective the remedies he applies to the diseases of souls are, chose infamous and most wicked men, and promoted them so that they might be an example of the purest life to those who, through their ministry, were led to the Gospel of Christ.” See Origen, that man so very learned, in whom there was such force of genius, so profound, so sharp, so elegant, as Vincent of Lérins testifies in the Commonitorium, cap. 17, that he surpassed almost everyone by a great and wide margin, that Origen did not deem anything inconsistent with this opinion, [nor] anything to be unworthy of Barnabas (whom he supposed to be the author of it). Nor did St. Jerome [think] otherwise, who objects the same opinion of this author to the Pelagians in Book III against the Pelagians, chapter 2, although through a lapse of memory he attributed it to Ignatius the martyr; and so far is he from even lightly marking it, that he even confirms it most strongly from the Psalmist, Psalm xv, v. 4, thus finally concluding seriously: “If you do not use these testimonies for authority, use them at least for antiquity, as to what all ecclesiastical men have thought.” Next, St. John Chrysostom seems to add force to the testimony of both; and although his words are offered concerning only the apostle Paul, no one, I think, would go against [the fact that they] wonderfully agree with the mind of our author. So therefore he [says in] Hom. 4 on the Epistle to Timothy, v. 2, opp. t. IX, page 569: “If anyone, therefore, were to say that the king wishes to grant pardon to all, they will not believe it as easily, until they shall have seen the most wicked of all having obtained pardon: for no doubt will remain afterwards. This also Paul says, that God, namely, wishing to make men more certain that he forgives them all things, chose him who was prone to sin more than all.”

Nothing more beautiful can be said than what our author here transmits concerning the wondrous power of the divine sacrament of baptism. For he teaches that, when we descend into the water, we are full of sins and filth; but as soon as we emerge, we begin to bear fruit in our hearts through the fear of God and hope in Jesus Christ, which we have by the breathing of the Holy Spirit: “We descend, indeed, into the water full of sins and filth; but we emerge bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.” ^A I have brought forward the Greek text here in its entirety, because, as it seems to me, it carries with it great utility in theological matters.

The author here shows us the excellence of the Christian over the Hebrew, while he teaches that it is not the Hebrews, but Christians alone, who have been introduced by God into the land promised to the seed of Abraham: “Therefore it is we,” he says excellently, “whom he introduced into the good land.” Then, after having explained all the things that in the Old Testament signified through figures the death of the Redeemer, he teaches that these things are manifest to Christians, but to the Jews, because they were hardened and stiff-necked, they are obscure: “To us, indeed, they are manifest, but to the Jews they are obscure, because they did not hear the voice of the Lord.” According to this author, therefore, the cause of the blindness of the Jews was none other than their transgression, and the fact that they had been rebellious to the word of God. Finally, he says that Moses truly received the tablets of the law; but because the Hebrews, on account of their infidelity, were not worthy, they were handed over to Christians, who received them through the hands of the Savior, and on account of the infinite merits of his passion, he says: “Moses indeed received them, but they themselves were not worthy. Learn how we have received them. Moses, being a servant, received them; but to us the Lord himself, whose people of inheritance we are, has handed them over, having suffered for our sake.” These passages both entice one toward piety and instruct the mind. It is impossible that anyone should run through these passages with a serious and attentive mind without at the same time holding in high regard the excellence of our vocation and loving the author of this letter. Let each one of us beware lest he incur the calamity of the Jews and through his own infidelity render himself unworthy of these great benefits, which accompany the religion of Christians.

The author also most clearly teaches that justification is accomplished through renewal and the true remission of sins, writing thus: “When therefore he reformed us, he accomplished through the remission of sins that we should have another form, namely, a soul similar to that of a child, for he himself formed us.” ^B Behold, therefore, we are formed anew, just as he says again in another prophet: “Behold, says the Lord, I will take away from them”—that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw—“hearts of stone, and I will place in them hearts of flesh; because it was fitting for him to appear in the flesh and to dwell in us; for the holy temple, my brothers, is the habitation of our heart for the Lord.” And elsewhere: “Before we believed in God, the dwelling place of our heart was prone to corruption and weak, like a temple truly built by hands: for it was full of the worship of idols, and it was a house of demons, because it did whatever is contrary to God. But it will be built in the name of the Lord. Attend, so that the temple of the Lord may be built magnificently. How? Learn: by having received the remission of sins, and having placed hope in the name of the Lord, we have become new, created again from the beginning: wherefore in our dwelling place God truly exists; he dwells in us. How? His word of faith, his call of promise, the wisdom of justifications, the commandments of doctrine: he himself prophesies in us; he himself dwells in us; to us who were addicted to death he opens the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; he gives us repentance, and thus has introduced us into the incorruptible temple.”

^C Concerning confession, the author, explaining the moral precepts of life and the life of light, speaks thus after other things: “You will confess your sins, you will not approach your prayer with an evil conscience.”

Discussing the two opposite ways, of light and of darkness, our author says that good and evil angels are given: the former, who are sent by God, lead us through the ways of light; the others, who are ministers of Satan, preside over the way of darkness: “For to the one (the way of light) are appointed the counselors of light, the angels of God; to the other (the way of darkness), however, are the angels of Satan.” This passage should be accepted as an undoubted testimony of the faith regarding the tradition of the guardianship of angels. We shall see below, besides the author of this epistle, that other ancient Fathers of the Church are held who posit this distinction between good and evil angels, having regard to the guardianship which they provide for men.

§ IV. Of the abrogation of the Old Testament and the necessity of Jesus Christ.

than the spirit of bondage, through which bondage the ancient covenant is distinguished from the new, according to the divine Paul saying to the Galatians: *Stand in the liberty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and be not again held in the yoke of bondage* (34); in which place it is certainly evident that the Apostle is speaking of the law of Moses. Our author adds a little further on that Moses broke the stone tablets on which the old law was inscribed, not merely to show the Hebrews that the covenant entered into with God had been dissolved by their idolatry, as Fleury explains this passage (3), but so that the love of Jesus Christ might be impressed upon our hearts: *“And Moses cast the stone tablets from his hands, that the love of Jesus might be impressed upon your hearts* (36).” It is impossible not to recognize in this, and in the text cited above, the difference between the two Testaments, which is laid down in fear and love. Fear concerns the Hebrews; love, the Christians.

Regarding circumcision, the author teaches that it is vain without the circumcision of the heart and faith in the Son of God. He then places before the eyes of the Jews the example of Abraham, who, he says, was the first who “gave circumcision, looking in spirit to the Son, he circumcised, having received the teaching of the three letters (37),” etc. Moreover, he demonstrates that the true circumcision is that by which the ears and heart of man are circumcised, and are thereby rendered docile and obedient; whereas the circumcision of the body is not what God had primarily commanded: “For he says, all the Syrians, Arabs, and Egyptians, the sacrificers of idols, are circumcised; but do they on that account share in the divine covenant, or in the New Testament?”

Taking the occasion from what is recorded in Exodus (38), namely that the Hebrews, fighting against the Amalekites, were victorious when Moses lifted up his hands, but if he let them down ever so little, Amalec prevailed, our author teaches that the Israelites had to learn from this that they could obtain salvation only through hope in Jesus Christ; and that through hope in Him, victory could be won over their enemies. “Why this?” he says, speaking of the history just mentioned (39), *Πρὸς τί;* “That they might know,” he responds immediately, “that they could not be saved, except through hope in Him” (Jesus); and a little ^D further on: “Because,” he says, “if they did not hope in Him, they would always be defeated.” These two passages are of the greatest importance, and from them it is known what the mind of the faithful was in the first age of the Church concerning the necessity of the medicinal grace of the Savior, faith in Him, and His mediation, even before the Incarnation.

Regarding the Sabbath day in the law of Moses, ^A prescribed as holy to God, this author of ours teaches that the Sabbath of the Christians is the eighth day, which is the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ: *“We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead (40);”* which, for the first age of the Church, is certainly worthy of attentive consideration. But he declares further in the same place that there is given another Sabbath, entirely spiritual, which is the beginning of eternal life, just as the Sabbath of the Christians is; that we strive from this Sabbath toward that one, when the Son coming will abolish the time of the wicked, and will judge the ungodly, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars: which Sabbath we ourselves can make holy, according to this author, through good works practiced in the present life. “We will be able... then to render the same day holy, having ourselves first been made holy.”

The author further teaches that in six thousand years all things will be brought to an end; and thus he proves it (41): *“Pay attention, children, to what (Scripture) says: 'He finished (the creation of the world) in six days:' this means that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years; with Him days are equated to a thousand years, as He Himself testifies (in the Psalms), saying: 'Behold, the day of today shall be as a thousand years' (42); therefore, children, in six thousand years all things will be finished.”* This opinion, although to some it may seem singular, nonetheless had many defenders among the Fathers of the Church. Some even maintain that this opinion can be proved from the Scriptures, and that some traces of it exist in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews (43), where on the seventh day and in the Sabbath he designates eternal rest. I, however, deem it best to propose nothing on this question, and to adhere to Jesus Christ and His teaching apostles, having known no one who knows what the Father has placed within His power, and how the final day will come, whose preceding signs ^D for by the name of the nations are understood only the Philistine Syro-Greeks and the Alexandrians. For immediately there precedes in the same place a threat of divine visitation upon Egypt, and upon Idumea, and upon Edom, and upon the sons of Ammon. That a certain circumcision, namely political and profane, was common to the Arabs, Ethiopians, Nubians, and many others, purely for a natural reason, Job Ludolf demonstrates for the Ethiopians; but to the Jews, it was prescribed as a seal of faith regarding the Messiah who was to be born from the seed of Abraham; which our author does not deny at all.

^A they might hold religion in contempt, he proceeds so far with allegory that he appears to teach that God never intended to forbid the Hebrews the use of certain foods; but only to instill a horror of those vices which are signified by those various animals. "Therefore," he says, "the commandment of God is not that they should not eat, but Moses spoke in the spirit (49)." I am of the opinion that this text ought not to be taken so strictly and literally that it cannot be understood in an orthodox sense: for if the mind of this author is rightly weighed, and the end which he sets for himself along with the whole context, it will easily appear that the author wishes to teach only this, namely, that the commandment of God imposed on the Hebrews to abstain from certain foods did not merely bind them so that they might not truly and realistically eat these foods; but rather, that they might also abhor those sins which were signified by those foods; hence, immediately after the text provided, he says that God had thus commanded abstinence from swine’s flesh, as if he had said that men ought not to cleave to those who are like swine (50). And speaking further down, still regarding the distinction of foods commanded in the Law of Moses, he transmits that the Jews received those words of Moses as if he had spoken "simply" of foods (51). This adverb, "simply," unravels every difficulty of the text provided; for it is evident that this author never wished for the Jews to be released from the precept of abstaining realistically from foods forbidden in the law, but solely intended, by means of this abstinence, to withdraw them from the vices signified therein.

ART. II. — Moral Observations.

Let us look now at what this author hands down regarding morals. After the distinction of the two ways, which I mentioned above, he exhibits the notes of each. The more distinguished are the works of light: first, to love our neighbor more than ourselves: "You shall love your neighbor more than your soul (44)." The matter here, as is known to everyone, concerns love toward one’s neighbor, which would even give up its life for his salvation, if the occasion were to present itself; and though this degree of love may be found only in those who are more perfect, it is nevertheless certain from the Scriptures and from ^B tradition that all of Christ’s faithful are in general held to this love, and that they sin when they neglect occasions to fulfill the commandment which naturally flows from the command of love toward God. We are bound to love our neighbor for the sake of God, and we love God Himself in our neighbor; but who will dare to deny that we ought to love God more than ourselves, and to shed our blood for the love of Him?

Secondly, it is necessary to share in all things with one's neighbor, and to retain nothing as one's own: "You shall share in all things with your neighbor, nor shall you call anything your own (45)." This custom flourished among the first believers, as is evident from the Acts of the Apostles (46). Third, to love as the pupil of the eye all those who speak to us the word of God: "You shall love, as the pupil of the eye, everyone who speaks to you the word of the Lord." Fourth, to confess our sins: "You shall confess your sins." Finally, to be careful lest we ever "approach God in prayer with an evil conscience (47)." These are the principal ways of light: "This is," says the author, "the way of light."

^C Among the works of darkness, the more notable are the service of idols, rashness, pride of power, simulation, a double heart, homicide, rapine, deceit, malice, arrogance, witchcraft, magic, avarice, and no fear of God. In this way of darkness are contained likewise the persecutors of the good, the haters of truth, and the lovers of lies: "In which way of darkness are the persecutors of the good, the haters of truth, the lovers of lies (48)." Nay, even all those who love empty things, seek after reward, do not pity the needy, do not labor for the sake of him who is worn out by labor and hardships, are prompt to detraction, turning away from the destitute, afflicting the afflicted, "advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor."

In another place of the same epistle, where some ^D abuse it, they could hold religion in contempt, he proceeds so far with allegory that he appears to teach that God never intended to forbid the Hebrews the use of certain foods; but only to instill a horror of those vices which are signified by those various animals: "Therefore," says he, "God's commandment is not that they should not eat; but Moses spoke in the spirit (49)." I am of the opinion that this text ought not to be taken so strictly and literally that it cannot be understood in an orthodox sense: for if the mind of this author is rightly weighed, and the end which he sets for himself along with the whole context, it will easily appear that the author wishes to teach only this, namely, that the commandment of God imposed on the Hebrews to abstain from certain foods did not merely bind them so that they might not truly and realistically eat these foods; but rather, that they might also abhor those sins which were signified by those foods; hence, immediately after the text provided, he says that God had thus commanded abstinence from swine’s flesh, as if he had said that men ought not to cleave to those who are like swine (50). And speaking further down, still regarding the distinction of foods ordered in the Law of Moses, he transmits that the Jews received those words of Moses as if he had spoken "simply" of foods (51). This adverb, "simply," unravels every difficulty of the text provided; for it is evident that this author never wished for the Jews to be released from the precept of abstaining realistically from foods forbidden in the law, but solely intended, by means of this abstinence, to withdraw them from the vices signified therein.

ART. III. — Observations pertaining to sacred philology.

While the most learned Mazochius pursues at length the deeds of Barnabas, and illustrates them with a marvelous dexterity of wit, he also explains in his customary manner some passages of his epistle; and thus, I consider that I shall be doing something worthwhile if I record in this place his brilliant observations, which will be of great benefit to the study of sacred philology (52). The first observation concerns the sixth chapter of the epistle, which begins thus (53): "Ὅτε οὖν ἐποίησεν ἐντολήν, etc. When therefore he (Christ) made the commandment, what does he say? Who is it that shall judge with me?" And what follows which he recites from Isaiah 50:8, 9. Here it is not unworthy of observation that *ἐντολήν*, the commandment, is called absolutely and by way of excellence the Father's injunction concerning the Incarnation and the whole business of human restoration, which Christ Himself calls *ἐντολὰς τοῦ Πατρός*, the commandments of the Father (John 15:10); and perhaps Barnabas is alluding to that of Psalm 39:8, 9: "Then I said: Behold I come... that I should do thy will: O my God," which will he presently calls the law:

my desire, and thy law in the midst of my heart. ^A Indeed, the pages of both Covenants are full of this divine precept: the only thing new here is that it is absolutely termed a precept. But the ancient interpreter rendered it "the precept of God," so that he might make the unusual mode of expression clearer.

In the same chapter, a little later (51), having recited the testimony of Moses concerning the obtaining of the land flowing with milk and honey, Barnabas immediately adds this: "Learn what the Gnosis (knowledge, or science) says: Hope in him who is about to be manifested to you in the flesh, Jesus." That, by the name of Gnosis (science), the arcane and allegorical meanings of the Old Testament were understood in the apostolic age, no one is ignorant. That is the key of knowledge in which Christ noted that the experts of the law delighted themselves (55). But we note further here that the Gnosis is cited as if it were a book, and from it those words are brought forth: "Hope," etc. This is indeed much more evident ^B from Clement of Alexandria (56), where these words from Barnabas are quoted in such a way that, for the word which is missing here, one may supply: "Learn what the knowledge says: Hope, he says, in him," etc., as above. Where you may note that the word "he says" is brought forth from the mouth of Barnabas, as if citing from the book of Gnosis, or Science. That there were many such books of Science circulating in the past, written by Jews who pursued allegories, there is no doubt. To these, therefore, Barnabas generally refers his readers when he digresses into allegories. We know that even today in the Targumim many passages are referred to the Messiah: which flowed from the same Gnosis.

Note, moreover, in the indicated passage, even if everything is quoted word for word from the Gnosis, that the word Jesus, which is added at the end, proceeded from the hand of Barnabas, not from the author of the Gnosis, who must certainly have been a Jew—otherwise he would hardly be cited by Barnabas to convict the Jews. But a Jew knew the Messiah; he did not know Jesus. Immediately in the same place follows: "For man ^C is enduring, the earth is suffering." It appears here that Barnabas, or whoever the author is, has lent an ear to the philosophers. For that word *paschousa*, suffering, is to be referred to the *technē* (technical term) of the philosophers, by which they said that matter "suffers." "Man," he says, "is of the earth," not indeed as an agent, but as one suffering. He immediately provides the reason for this in these words: "For from the face of the earth the creation (or formation) of Adam came to be." Where a very beautiful locution of the Hellenists occurs. For the Hebrew *mippene* (which the Hellenist Jews perpetually render as *apo prosōpou*, that is, "from the face") designates any cause whatsoever, even a material one, as the philosophers speak. Therefore, "from the face of the earth" is just the same as if one ^D had said "formed from the earth." And Clement reports this same thing in the same place in the very same words in chapter VII (57), just as also in the following chapters, the word *prosechete*, "attend," is repeatedly intercalated, which is peculiar to those who allegorize, to sharpen attention. Chapter IX (58): "But also all the Syrians and Arabs and all the priests of the idols, etc.," which the most illustrious man Cotelier, a doctor of the Sorbonne, thus translated into Latin... "Truly also every Syrian and Arab, and all the priests of idols are circumcised." Which deservedly created a difficulty. But these things are not to be subjected to a severe weighing, but are to be accepted *pacheōs*, somewhat roughly, almost in this manner: any Syrian, any Arab, any priest of idols admits circumcision. Or: Not even the Syrians and Arabs and profane priests shrink from circumcision. For because there were, among the Syrians and Arabs and profane priests, those who in that way showed themselves cleaner, it was permitted to the apostle Barnabas to say that circumcision was indiscriminately practiced by them. Who does not speak similarly in such matters? Moreover, that many of the Arabs were circumcised, just as the Egyptian priests, there is no doubt. And not even of the Syrians is it to be doubted, if it be true what the ancients believed, that the Phoenicians had adopted it. Origen, on Romans 2:25, among other worshipers of circumcision, also numbered the Phoenicians with these words: "If you examine your histories, you will find not only the priests of the Egyptians, but also the Arabs and Egyptians, Phoenicians, and others, whose efforts for the sake of this kind of superstition flourish more nobly."

Chapter XVI: "But also I will tell you concerning the temple, how the miserable wanderers hoped in the building, and not in God himself, who made them, as if it were the house of God (59)." Here there is no doubt that the temple comes under the name *hodos*, "way": for the entire hope of the Jews was placed in the temple, as that famous clamor notes: "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord," and what our author proposed to say about the temple at the beginning, and what he adds shortly after; as if (namely that way) it were the house of God. The ancient interpreter also saw this, who put *aedem* (temple) for *hodon* (way). For he rendered it thus: "They placed their hope in the temple." Cotelier, indeed, suspects that it alludes to certain passages of the Seniors, in which *hodos* seems to be able to be taken in a similar way for the temple. But here both Barnabas, and there the LXX, seem to have written *oudon*, "threshold," using the common pattern by which the part is taken for the whole, and which we use even today when we are said to visit the "thresholds" of the apostles. It must therefore be read *ouden*... in the threshold, that is, placing their hope in the temple. Moreover, if Barnabas had wished to write "way," *hodon*, as it is now read, he would have placed *osan* at the end, not *onta.*

^A Likewise, as I have said, judgment will be passed on the passages of the Septuagint, III Kings VIII, 44, 48, in which *hodon* is now read, although it should be read as *oudon*. "They shall worship the threshold," etc., just as also in II Paralipomenon VI, 34, 38. It is well known that the ancients originally wrote the *o* for the complete diphthong *ou* (as in the coins of the Syracusans for *Symrakousion*, and six hundred others of the same kind), a fact which, as there is no doubt, later caused fraud for copyists. Someone might say that in the passages of the Elders cited in this manner, *hodon* is to be retained, because the Hebrew *derech*, "way," corresponds to it; whereas, on the contrary, *oudos* corresponds to the Hebrew *saph*, which means "threshold." However, it should be known that the Hebrew *derech*, since it comes from the word meaning "to tread," signifies not only "way" but also "pavement," and in the cited passages, it even signifies "threshold," which is trodden upon immediately by those entering. Then, since at Jeremiah XXXV, 4, *phylassontos ten hodon*, "guarding the way," corresponds to *ten oudon*, he says, *ontos* ^B *oudon*, "guarding the threshold" (for the Hebrew is *saph*), let it be my judgment to hold that the same change could have happened in the passages extracted above. Finally, to avoid dallying, if we listen to the grammarians, *hodos*, "way," and *oudos*, "threshold," are one and the same noun. For even in Homer, *oudos* is used for *hodos*, "way." And conversely, Suidas testifies that the word *hodos*, if the first syllable is shortened, signifies *oudos*, that is, "threshold," having cited a passage from Sophocles. You will find similar things in Eustathius and in the Scholiaste on Sophocles regarding his famous passage cited by Suidas and Eustathius. And do not be troubled that these seem old and peculiar to the poets, for in the Septuagint and the Hellenistic Jews, many things occur that are partly archaic and partly peculiar to Alexandria or other unknown dialects." Thus far V. C. Mazochius.

ART. IV. Concerning the diverse editions and versions of the Epistle of St. Barnabas (See the Dissertation of D. Le Nourry, art. XI, and Gallandius, cap. 6, above.)

VIII. (Carolus Josephus HEFELE, *Patrum Apostolicorum Opera*, Tubingen, 1842, in-8; Prolog. p. VII.)

I. Among the fellow workers and associates of St. Paul, Joses Barnabas is prominent, ^C born in Cyprus, a Jew by race and a Levite, who, moved by the fervor of Christian love, sold his field and placed the price at the feet of the apostles (Acts IV, 37). The ancients not unreasonably hand down the tradition that he was admitted to the number of the LXX disciples of Christ (60), and the moderns do not incautiously believe that their narrative approaches the truth. The surname of Barnabas, as testified by Holy Scripture, was imposed upon him by the apostles, and it is evident enough from the version of St. Luke, Acts IV, 36, *huios parakleseos*, that this is the same as [Hebrew script], or "son of inspired consolation" (61). That Joses Barnabas is not to be distinguished from Joseph Barsabbas (Acts I, 23), and that both names denote the same person, is what Ullmann (62) and others in our own times have sought to prove, though lacked the assent of others and were rightly challenged by those most learned men De Wette (63), Olshausen (64), and Winer (65). The sacred books tell us more about the apostolic life and labors of Barnabas:

a) Acts IX, 26, 27. Barnabas was the first to bring Paul, after his conversion, to the apostles, who still feared him, around the year 40. b) Acts XI, 22. Shortly after, Barnabas was sent by the apostles to Antioch to govern this Church. ^D c) Acts XI, 25. He added Paul to himself as an associate in this apostolic office. d) Acts XI, 30. Barnabas and Paul carried the money collected at Antioch to Jerusalem around the year 44. e) Acts XIII and XIV. Both, in the years 45 and 46 after Christ, traveled through Cyprus and Asia Minor preaching the name of the Lord. f) Acts XV, 2 sq. and Gal. II, 4, 9. Barnabas and Paul, having returned from the Antiochenes, were sent to Jerusalem on account of a sedition that had arisen because of the Judaizers, and they participated in the council of the apostles. A.D. 50-52. g) Acts XV, 37 sq. Some time having elapsed, Barnabas and Paul decided to undertake a second apostolic journey, but a dissension having arisen because of Mark, Barnabas departed from Paul and, having taken Mark, sailed to Cyprus. Regarding his subsequent fates, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is completely silent. But... h) I Cor. IX, 5, 6, we are taught that Barnabas, no less than Paul, sought a living by the labor of his hands (according to the Vulgate and some Fathers: that he did not lead a woman about with him). i) Gal. II, 13. At Antioch, Barnabas imitated the simulation of Peter due to fear of the Judaizers. Year 32 or 55. k) That Barnabas was again a fellow worker of St. Paul in the year 57.

that he was sent with him to the Corinthians as a companion, the most learned Gallandius (66) has endeavored to demonstrate from II Cor. VIII, 18 sqq. But that most learned man erred (67).

I) In the year 62, Mark, the cousin of Barnabas and his companion on his journey, was again in the company of Paul (cf. Coloss. IV, 10); from which it follows that we may consider Barnabas to have been already dead by that year. The same can be concluded from I Petr. V, 15, and II Tim. III, 11; and no less so does Alexander, a Cypriot monk (6th or 9th century), a panegyrist of Barnabas, assign the time of his martyrdom to the years 53-57 (68). These are the facts that we have ascertained regarding the life and fate of Barnabas. You will find many other narratives—and indeed, purely fabulous ones—collected in my aforementioned little book, on pp. 11-15 and 31-47.

II. An Epistle is attributed to our Barnabas, written in the Greek language, the authenticity of which is still *sub judice*. It has been defended by Ludovicus Elias Dupin (69), Nicolaus Nourry (70), Gallandius (71), and in our own times by Henke (72), Rördam (73), and Franke (74); the authenticity of the Epistle has been impugned by Hugo Menard (75), Tentzel (76), Natalis Alexander (77), Remi Ceillier (78), Ittigius (79), Mosheim (80), Lumper (81), Hug (82), Ullmann (83), Neander (84), Mynster (85), and Winer (86). I myself, in the third chapter of my book, pages 147-195, have attempted to maintain this opinion at some length; I shall now discuss it briefly. ^B

a) The most ancient witness to its authenticity is Clement of Alexandria, who quotes the Epistle of Barnabas seven times and attributes it to the apostle Barnabas four times. (See above, among the testimonies of the ancients.)

b) Origen has followed his teacher. In *Lib. I contr. Cels.*, n. 63, t. I, p. 378 ed. BB, he writes: "It is written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas that Jesus chose his own apostles, who were more lawless than all wickedness." Chap. 5. In *De princ.* III, c. 2, n. 4, t. I, p. 140: "Barnabas also declares the same in his Epistle, when he says that there are two ways, one of light and the other of darkness, over which he says certain angels preside: the angels of God over the way of light, but the angels of Satan over the way of darkness." Chap. 18.

Origen also seems to have considered the Epistle as having its place in the sacred Scriptures, as he says in his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, 24, t. IV, p. 473: "There are, moreover, as we find in many places of Scripture, certain angels who are supporters and helpers of either side, or at least of both." But it escapes no one that both Clement and Origen frequently treated apocryphal and spurious books as genuine, and therefore not full weight should be given to their testimony for the authenticity of our Epistle. Hug well adds that Clement does not discuss our epistle with the same reverence that he accords to truly apostolic writings.

c) Many wrongly believe that Eusebius and Jerome denied the authenticity of our Epistle. We indeed read in his *Ecclesiastical History*, III, 25: ^B "Among the spurious writings let be placed also the writing of the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Revelation of Peter, and in addition to these the Epistle in circulation of Barnabas."

But Eusebius, in counting our epistle among the *notha* (spurious), used this word improperly; in truth, he was not speaking of adulterated books, but of the *antilegomena*, that is, doubtful books that were rejected by some, as he himself testifies a little later, saying, "They would belong among the *antilegomena* (i.e., Acts of Paul, Shepherd, etc., and the Epistle of Barnabas)." No less does Eusebius in the sixth book of his History, c. 14, ascribe our epistle to the *antilegomena*, teaching that Clement of Alexandria had expounded all the books of Sacred Scripture in his *Hypotyposes*, not passing over even the *antilegomena* books, "not leaving out the *antilegomena*: I speak of Jude, and the remaining Catholic epistles, and the Epistle of Barnabas, and what is called the Revelation of Peter." Therefore, Eusebius brought into doubt the authority of the Epistle, not its authenticity.

Almost the same must be said of Jerome, when he writes: "Barnabas the Cypriot, who is also called Joseph the Levite, ordained with Paul as apostle to the Gentiles, composed one epistle pertinent to the edification of the Church, which is read among the apocryphal scriptures (87)." Upon this passage, Pearson (88) shrewdly observes that Jerome reports that the Epistle of Barnabas was not supposititious or spurious; he asserts that it "pertained to the edification of the Church," and therefore he did not think it heretical;

yet he teaches that it was read among the apocryphal Scriptures and implies it was not repudiated by the Church. Now those books are called apocryphal which are indeed authentic, yet removed from canonical authority and not placed in the canon of the sacred Scriptures; as well as those which are not of those to whom their titles claim them to be (pseudepigrapha). It is clear that Jerome called the Epistle of Barnabas apocryphal in the former sense, since he indeed ascribes it to Barnabas, and nevertheless contends that it was read among the apocryphal Scriptures. Therefore, no one will deny that the testimonies of ancient writers favor the authenticity of the Epistle. Nevertheless, moved by not insignificant arguments, we judge it should be adjudicated against being the work of the apostolic man. ^A

1. If our Epistle had been considered authentic by the ancients, it would certainly be read among the canonical books; just as Augustine says concerning the apocryphal books of Andrew and John: If they were theirs, they would have been received by the Church. ^B

2. That our Epistle was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is easily conjectured from chapter 16. But above at index I we saw that Barnabas, without doubt, was no longer among the living at that time. ^C

3. In chapter 5 the apostles are called "lawless beyond all sin." I can hardly believe Barnabas, a companion of the apostles, said such things. Moreover, this hyperbole suggests a rhetorician of the second century much more. ^D

4. The things which are brought forward in chapter 10 regarding hares, hyenas, etc., smack more of a trifling allegorizer than of the apostles. ^D

5. Barnabas, who had traveled through the provinces of Asia Minor and had lived for many years in Antioch in Syria, ought to have known well that it is false what is asserted in chapter 9, that all idol priests and all Syrians were circumcised. ^C

6. The countless trifling allegories, especially in chapters 5 through 11, cannot have been written by him who, because of his fervor of eloquence, was called by the apostles Barnabas. ^C

7. Regarding the sacred rites of the Jews, certain false things are read in our epistle (c. 7 and 8), which cannot have as their author the Levite Barnabas, who had lived for a long time in Jerusalem. ^C

8. Our Epistle disputes unjustly against Judaism, pronounces the circumcision of the flesh to be superstitious (c. 9), vituperates the Sabbath (c. 15), contends that the laws of Moses should not have been understood by the Jews according to the letter (c. 10), and teaches that the economy of the Old Testament was abolished, not finally by the Gospel, but already on that very day on which Moses dashed the tables of the law from his hands, and that the Jews then lost the testament forever (c. 4 and 14). You would not expect all this from Barnabas, who was sent to Antioch to compose the faithful from the Gentiles and from the Jews; but such things smack of the second century, and [we find] a similar one in the Epistle to Diognetus. ^A

III. Indeed, I may think that our Epistle was written in the first years of the second century, [between] 107-120. It is sufficiently clear from chapter 16 that it was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. For it is written there: "For because they were at war, it (the temple) was destroyed by the enemy" now, etc. Those who distinguish otherwise than we do, and join "now" to the noun "enemy," contend that these letters were given immediately after the year 70 A.D. ^B

2. In the first years of the second century, those who were calling the Church into danger were being attacked in the same fervent manner by St. Ignatius of Antioch and by the author of the Epistle to Diognetus. ^B

3. Before the second century Christians ceased to celebrate the Sabbath; our Epistle teaches that this had already happened (c. 15). ^B

4. The author of our Epistle speaks against those heretics, the Judaizers and the Docetae, whom St. Ignatius vituperates. As he did, so also did our author endeavor to preach the incarnation of Christ against the Docetae (c. 5 and 6). ^B

5. Many theological matters of our Epistle, especially regarding typology, are very similar to the teaching of St. Justin and Tertullian, i.e., writers of the second century. ^B

6. In all ancient codices, the Epistle of Barnabas is placed after the Epistle of Polycarp, perhaps because it was thought to be more recent; it was certainly not thought to be much older. ^C

7. That our Epistle was written not long after the year 120: ^C a) is evident from chapter 16, where the destruction of Jerusalem is discussed in such a way that it is manifest that Aelia Capitolina had not yet been built by Hadrian. ^C b) After the year 137, when the second Jewish war was finished, no danger from Judaizers could any longer exist. Finally. ^C c) Celsus, around the years 150-160, seems to have drawn his railing against the apostles from our Epistle, chapter 5 ("lawless beyond all sin"). ^C

IV. To which readers the Epistle was destined is nowhere expressed in clear words, as the fuller form of the salutation is missing. Origen calls our Epistle catholic, but it is evident from the first chapter and the end of the ninth that these letters were given to certain faithful who were joined to the author by a tighter bond. The subject matter of the first part of the epistle and the method of the entire demonstration make us certain that the author addressed the faithful from the Jews, without doubt Hellenists, while the danger from the Judaizers was imminent. That Daniel Schenkel of Basel, who put forward more certain claims about the readers, did so rashly, we have demonstrated elsewhere. ^D

^A V. The same learned man, Daniel Schenkel (93), in order to settle the controversy concerning the authenticity of the Epistle, attempted to prove that the Epistle of Barnabas is indeed genuine, but not whole; and that all those parts of it which displease learned men drew their origin from a certain therapist who had followed the rites of the Christians, and who had dared to augment the letters of the apostolic man with his own mystical wisdom. We, on the contrary, have elsewhere exerted ourselves to defend the integrity of the Epistle (94). I shall now conclude the matter in a few words regarding that second or parenetic part of the Epistle, ch. 18–21, which was already called into doubt by many before Schenkel, inasmuch as it does not exist in the old Latin version.

a) It was already read, praised, and cited by those most ancient writers who first made mention of the Epistle, Clement and Origen. β) The same exists in all the Greek codices that we possess. γ) This second part was numbered no less in the stichometries of the ancients. δ) They also append the second, parenetic part to the didactic part of Saint Paul's Epistles. ε) In the second part, two ways are discussed, of which mention had already been made in the first part, ch. 4 and 6. ζ) We easily perceive that the diversity of style arose from the different character of each part. 2. The first part of the Epistle is also whole and must be considered free from interpolations. a) For the individual chapters are parts of a single argument, and they have this purpose: to demonstrate that Judaism has been abolished and has yielded to the new economy of salvation, which it was the function of Judaism to typify from the very beginning. β) It is false that Schenkel contends that chapter six is related not to the seventh, but only to the thirteenth, in the sequence of discourse. For those chapters which Schenkel thinks should be deleted, ch. 7–12 inclusive, contain nothing else but the continuation of the preceding demonstration: that the new economy was to be prefigured by the types of Judaism. γ) Two other chapters, 15 and 16, which displease Schenkel, are by no means to be rejected, inasmuch as they pertain necessarily to the demonstration. For if the abolition of Judaism had to be demonstrated, words also had to be said about the abrogation of the Sabbath (c. 15) and of the temple (c. 16). δ) The chapters that displease Schenkel do not argue differently against the Old Testament than do those which ^B are reputed to be genuine. Everywhere the same fervor against Judaism meets us. a) Schenkel wrongly affirms that things contrary to the New Testament also are taught in various chapters. ζ) Indeed, Clement of Alexandria, who first mentions our Epistle, read and praised those disputed chapters, and there exists nowhere even the least testimony of interpolation.

VI. On the doctrine of Barnabas, cf. my booklet: *Das Sendschreiben d. A. Barnabas, etc.*, p. 242–262. Franke, in *Rudelbach et Guerike Zeitschrift für luth. Theol.*, etc., 1840, Fasc. 11, and van Gilse, Heyns, and Junius, in three dissertations on the moral theology of the apostolic Fathers, decorated with a prize by the University of Leiden in 1833, have argued about the same matter.

VII. After Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople († 828), and the author of a certain ancient Stichometry published by Cotelier, no one seems to have had knowledge of our Epistle until the 17th century. James Sirmond, S.J., first discovered it again, bound with the epistle of Polycarp, in the Turrian codex. Shortly after, the same Epistle was found in three other codices: of the Vatican Library, of Cardinal Colonna, and of Andreas Schott, S.J. Hugo Menard, from the congregation of St. Maur, had found an ancient Latin version of the Epistle in the Corbie codex before the 9th century. Claudius Salmasius delivered a transcript of the Schott codex and of that ancient Latin version to Isaac Vossius, and Vossius to Ussher. This being done, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, put the Epistle of Barnabas to the press at Oxford in 1643. But a huge fire, which devastated no small part of the city of Oxford, also consumed all the copies.

At nearly the time Ussher was preparing his edition, Hugo Menard, a Benedictine monk, was planning to publish the Epistle itself at Paris. Upon his death in 1644, Lucas Dacherius, of the same congregation, brought Menard's edition to light in 1645, having added the Corbie version to the Turrian text. Isaac Vossius edited a more emended Epistle of Barnabas at Amsterdam in 1646, having used many other codices: the Florentine, the Vatican, and the Roman codex of the Theatines. Many editions then followed, especially those of Cotelier, Russell, and Galland, ^D which latter we have taken as our primary guide, not having followed it like a sycophant.

VIII. Finally, it must be noted that in all Greek codices, chapters 1–4 inclusive and half of the fifth are missing.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF SAINT BARNABAS THE APOSTLE

Greetings, sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ who has loved us, in peace. Knowing that the abundance of the great and noble equity of God dwells within you, I am exceedingly rejoiced by your blessed and glorious spirits, for you have so received the grace implanted by nature. For this reason I congratulate myself greatly, hoping to be saved, because I truly see in you the Spirit poured forth from the noble fountain of God. Since I am persuaded of this, and know more fully that while I speak to you, many good things have followed for me in the way of the Lord’s equity, therefore, brethren, I also consider it worth more than my own soul to love you, because the greatness of faith and love dwells in you, with the hope of His life. Thinking, therefore, that this would (as if it were a care to me, that I might share with you from that which I have received) be a reward for me to serve such spirits in this way, I have hastened…

^A to write to you, that you might rejoice.

There are, therefore, three constitutions of the Lord: the hope of life, the beginning, and the consummation. For the Lord revealed through the prophets those things that are past, and gave us the beginnings of those things that are to come to know. Since, therefore, He has spoken, it is fitting ^B to approach His altar more reverently and more loftily. I, however, not as a teacher, but as one of you, will demonstrate a few things, through which you may be the more joyful in many respects.

II. The Jewish sacrifices have been abolished.

Since, therefore, the days are most evil, and the adversary has the power of this age, we ought to be attentive and inquire into the ordinances of the Lord. The helpers of our faith, therefore, are fear and endurance; but those things that fight alongside us are patience and continence. When these remain pure in the sight of the Lord, wisdom ^C and understanding rejoice with them.

For He has revealed to us through all the prophets that He does not desire our sacrifices, nor victims, nor offerings, saying thus: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me, says the Lord? I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of lambs; and I desire not the blood of goats and bulls; nor if you come to be seen by me. For who has required these things from your hands? You shall no more tread my court. If you bring me fine flour, it is vain: incense, it is an abomination to me. Your new moons and your great day I cannot endure; your fasts and holidays ^D and festivals my soul hates." 1 These things, therefore, He has made empty, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human offering.

The Lord says again to them: "Did I command your fathers, when they went out from the land of Egypt, that they should offer me sacrifices and victims? But this I commanded them, saying: Let none of you harbor malice in his heart against his neighbor; and you shall not love a false oath." 3 We ought, therefore, to understand, since we are not without understanding, the counsel of the kindness of our Father: for He speaks to us, wishing us, as erring ones, to seek how we may approach Him; for He says to us: "A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart; and a humble spirit God does not despise." 4

We must, therefore, brethren, inquire more certainly concerning our salvation, lest at any time he should have an entrance into us, and cast us out from our life.

III. The fasts of the Jews are neither true nor acceptable to God.

He says, therefore, again of these things to them: "Why do you fast to me, so that today your voice is heard in crying? Not such a fast have I chosen, says the Lord, that a man should humble his soul without cause. Nor if you should bow down

your neck like a circle, and wrap yourself in sackcloth, and spread ashes underneath: not even so will you celebrate an acceptable fast. ^A But to us He speaks thus: When you have fasted, unroll every knot of injustice, and delete every unjust assignment, resolve the suffocation of heavy commercial contracts, send away the bruised in remission, and dissipate every malicious bond. Break your bread to the hungry, and bring the homeless into your house: when you see the naked, clothe him; and do not despise those of your own seed. Then your early light shall break forth, and your garments shall quickly spring up, and justice shall go before you, and the glory of God shall encompass you. ^B Then you shall cry out, and God will hear you; while you are still speaking, He will say: Behold, I am present; if you remove from yourself the knot and the persuasion of evils, and the word of murmuring; and if you give bread to the hungry from your soul. In this, therefore, brothers, the merciful God is provident, because He knew that the people whom He prepared for His Beloved would believe in simplicity; and He showed beforehand to us all, that we might not rush in as proselytes to their law.

IV. Antichrist is at the doors, therefore let us flee the errors of the Judaizers and the works of an evil way.

It is necessary, therefore, for us to write much about those things that are imminent, which can heal us. ^C Let us flee, therefore, from every work of iniquity, and let us hate the error of this present time, that we may be loved for the future. Let us not give space to our soul, so that it might have power to run together with the most wicked and with sinners, lest we ever become like them. For the completed temptation, as it is written, as Daniel says, has approached. For on account of this the Lord has cut short the times and days, that His Beloved may hasten to His inheritance. The prophet says thus: Ten kingdoms shall reign on the earth, and a little one shall rise up behind, who shall lay low three in one. ^D Concerning the kingdoms likewise. Concerning this same thing Daniel says again: And I saw the fourth beast, wicked and strong, and more savage than the other beasts of the sea: and ten horns appeared to it: and another little horn rose up in the middle of them; and it cast down three of the greater horns. Therefore, we ought to understand. Furthermore, I also ask this of you, as one of your own, loving all of you more than my own soul, that you pay attention to yourselves and do not become like those who pile up their sins and say: That the testament is theirs, and not ours. Ours it is, however, because they lost forever that which Moses received. For He says...

"And Moses was on the mountain fasting forty days and forty nights: and he received the testament from the Lord, stones tablets written with the finger of God." But turning to idols, they lost it: for the Lord says to Moses: "Moses, go down quickly, for thy people, whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have transgressed the law." And Moses cast the stone tablets out of his hands, and their testament was broken; so that the love of Jesus might be sealed in your hearts, for the hope of his faith. Therefore, let us attend in these last days. For all the time of our life and faith will profit us nothing, unless we have hatred of iniquity and future temptations; as the Son of God says: "Let us resist all iniquity, and let us hate it." Therefore consider the works of the evil way. You must not withdraw yourselves as if you were already justified; but coming together into one place, inquire what is convenient and profitable for the beloved in common. For the Scripture says: "Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." Let us be spiritual, let us be a temple perfect to God; as much as is in us, let us meditate on the fear of God, and let us keep his commandments.

The Lord judges the world without acceptance of persons. Each one receives according to his deeds: if he is good, his goodness goes before him; if he is wicked, the reward of his wickedness follows him. Take heed, lest at any time, when we are at rest, having been called, we fall asleep in our sins; and the wicked one, receiving power over us, stir us up and exclude us from the kingdom of the Lord. Furthermore, understand this also, that when you see such great signs and wonders among the people of the Jews, and that the Lord abandons them in this way. Let us therefore watch, lest, as the Scripture says, many being called, we be found few elected.

V. The new covenant, founded by the passion of Christ, is to us for salvation, to the Jews for destruction. For this reason, the Lord endured to give up his body to extermination, that we might be sanctified by the remission of sins, which is by the sprinkling of his blood. For it is written concerning him, some things to the people of the Jews, and some to us. But it speaks thus: "He was wounded for our iniquities, and he was troubled for our sins; by his blood we are healed. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and as a lamb before his shearer, so he opened not his mouth." We ought therefore to give exceeding thanks to the Lord, because he has shown us past things, and made us wise; and concerning future things, we are not without understanding. But he says: "Not unjustly are nets spread for birds." This he says, because the man who has the way of truth, and knowledge, and himself, will justly perish.

And for this sake the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, although He is the Lord of the whole world; to whom God said on the day ^A before the foundation of the world: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1, 26). How then did He endure to suffer this from men? Learn. The prophets, having the gift from Him, prophesied concerning Him. But He, that He might make death of no effect and show the resurrection from the dead, because it was necessary for Him to appear in the flesh, endured, that He might render the promise to the parents and prepare ^B for Himself the new people, while He dwelt on earth, to show that He Himself, having accomplished the resurrection, will judge. At the same time, teaching Israel, and doing such great wonders and signs, He preached and loved him exceedingly. When, however, He chose His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, who were sinners beyond all sin, that He might show that He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matth. 9, 13), then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could we men, looking at Him, have been saved? Since those who look at the sun, which will one day cease to exist and is the work of His hands, are not able to look directly into its rays. Therefore the Son of God came into the flesh for this purpose, that He might bring to a head the sum of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets to death. For this reason therefore He endured.

*There follows an ancient interpretation.*

... preparing the people . . . the resurrection having taken place, on earth ... judged them . . . leading to life the people of the Jews, and doing great wonders and signs, they did not believe nor love Him. Then He chose His own apostles, who were beginning to preach His Gospel, who were sinners beyond all sin; that He might show that He came not to call the righteous, but sinners . . . . Then He showed Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men be saved? . . . since, looking at the sun . . . which is the work of the hand of God, they cannot look at its rays for long. Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh, that He might define the consummation of the sins for them who persecuted His prophets to death. . . . Isaiah says: "By His bodily stripes we are all healed." And another prophet: "Smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered." But He willed to suffer thus. . . . For he says who prophesies concerning Him:

^A "Spare my soul from the sword; fasten my flesh with nails, for the assemblies of the wicked have risen up against me." And again he says: "Behold, I have set my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to buffets, and I have set my face as a solid rock." ^B

VI. Christi passio et novum fœdus jam et prophetis annuntiatur.

VI. The Passion of Christ and the New Covenant are already announced by the prophets.

When, therefore, He has fulfilled the commandment, what does He say? "Who is he that judges me? Let him stand against me. Or who is he that contends with me? Let him approach the servant of the Lord. Woe to you, for you shall all wax old as a garment, and the moth shall devour you." And again the prophet says: "Since as a strong stone He was set for crushing, behold, I cast into the foundations of Zion a stone precious, elect, corner, honorable." Then what does He say? "And he who shall hope in Him shall live for ever." Is our hope then in a stone? Far be it! But because the Lord set His flesh in strength. ^C For He says: "And He set me as a solid rock." And the prophet says again: "The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner." And again he says: "This is the day, the great and glorious one, which the Lord hath made."

^A I write to you more simply, that you may understand; I am the offscouring of your love. ^B What then does the prophet say again? "The synagogue of evildoers surrounded me; they encircled me like bees around a honeycomb," and "Upon my garment they cast lots." Since, therefore, he was to be manifested in the flesh and to suffer, his passion was foreordained. For the prophet says against Israel: "Woe to their soul, because they have devised a wicked plan against themselves, saying: Let us bind the just man, because he is troublesome to us." And Moses also says to them: "Behold, thus saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord swore to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit it—a land flowing with milk and honey." Learn what the knowledge is: "Hope," he says, "in Jesus, who is to be manifested to you in the flesh." For man is earth that suffers; for from the face of the earth the formation of Adam took place. What then does he say: "Into the good land, flowing with milk and honey [entail]"? Blessed be our Lord, who has placed in us wisdom and understanding of His hidden things. For the prophet says: "Who shall understand the parable of the Lord, except the wise ^C and understanding, and he who loves his Lord?"

Ancient Interpretation

...among them: "Let us ambush the just man, because he is unpleasing to us." And Moses also says to them: "Thus saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and be masters of that land, which produces milk and honey." Learn what the knowledge should say: "Believe," he says, "in him who will appear in the flesh, Jesus. For man is suffering earth... since from earth is the formation of Adam." What then does he say: "Into the good land, flowing with milk and honey? And blessed be the Lord..., because He placed wisdom and sense in us regarding His hidden things." And the Lord says through the prophets: "Who shall understand the parable of the Lord ^D except the wise... and he who loves his Lord?" Since, therefore, having known us for the remission of sins, He made us have the form of another, as if we were children, so that He might fashion us by the Spirit. For we, as the Scripture says... : "Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him rule over the beasts of the earth, and the birds of the sky, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord, seeing our good form, said: "Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth." ... I will show you again how he says to you [(13)] regarding the second form...

^A which he made in the last days. The Lord says: "Behold, I will make the last things as the first." [(19)] For this cause the prophet preached: "Enter into the land flowing with milk and honey, and have dominion over it." [(20)] Behold, therefore, we have been formed anew, just as he says again in another prophet: "Behold," says the Lord, "I will take away from them"—that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw—"the hearts of stone, and I will put in them hearts of flesh"; because he was about to appear in the flesh, and to dwell in us. For the temple of our heart, my brothers, is a holy home to the Lord. ^B For the Lord says again: [(21)] "And in what shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified?" He says: "I will confess to you in the church, in the midst of my brothers, and I will sing between the church of the saints." Therefore, we are they whom he has brought into the good land. What then is the milk and honey? Because the infant is first made alive by honey, then by milk; so also we, made alive by the faith of the promise and by the word, shall live possessing the land. But he preached beforehand in the last days. The Lord says: "Behold, I make [(23)] the last things as the first." For this reason the prophet preached: "Enter into the land, which produces milk and honey, and have dominion of it..." because he himself was beginning [(24)] to appear, and to dwell in us: for the temple of the Lord, ... is the dwelling of our heart. He says, therefore, again: "And how shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified?" He says: "I will confess in the church ... of my brothers, and I will sing to you in the Church of the saints." We, therefore, are they whom he brought into the good land. What then is milk and honey? Because from the beginning an infant is enlivened by honey and ... milk; just as we are enlivened by the faith of the promise, while we are nourished by the word [(25)], having dominion over the earth. ... Who is it that can now be over the beasts, or over the birds, or over the fish? You ought to understand, that to have superiority [(26)] is of power, so that one who commands may be lord [(27)].

^A Since this does not happen now, he has indeed promised it to us. When will it be? When we ourselves shall have become perfect, so as to be heirs of the covenant of the Lord.

VII. Fasting and the Goat — a Type of Christ

Understand therefore, children of delight and gladness, that the good Lord has shown us all things beforehand, that we might know to whom we ought in all things to give thanks and offer praise. ^B If, therefore, the Son of God, being the Lord and about to judge the living and the dead, suffered that his wound might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered except for our sake. But also, when crucified, he was given vinegar and gall to drink. Hear ye how the priests of the people ^C gave indications concerning this. Because there was a written commandment of his, that whoever does not fast shall perish by death, the Lord commanded, since he himself was also about to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins, so that the type which occurred in the case of Isaac, who was offered upon the altar, might be fulfilled. What, then, does he say in the prophet? "And let them eat of the goat which is offered at the fast for all sins." Attend carefully: "And let the priests alone, all of them—and only them—eat the entrails unwashed with vinegar." To what end? Since, he says, you are to give me gall with vinegar to drink for the sins of my new people, when I am about to offer my flesh; do you eat alone, while the people fast and lament in sackcloth and ashes, that he might show that he must suffer at their hands.

^A How then did he command? Attend. Take two good and similar goats, and offer them; and let the priest take the one as a burnt offering. And what shall they do with the other? "The one," he says, "is cursed." Attend how the type of Jesus is made manifest. And do you all spit upon it, and pierce it, and put the scarlet wool around its head; and thus let it be cast into the desert. And when it comes to pass so, he who leads the goat into the desert removes the wool, and places it upon the shrub which is called 'rachi,' whose buds we are accustomed to eat when we find them in the country; for the fruits of this thorn-bush alone are sweet. What, therefore, does this mean? Attend: the one upon the altar, and the other ^B cursed, and why is the cursed one crowned? Because they will see him on that day having the scarlet robe around his body, and will say: "Is not this he whom we once crucified, after having treated him with contempt, having pierced him, and having mocked him? Truly this was he who then said that he was the Son of God." For how is he similar? To this end [he commanded] the goats to be similar, good, and equal; that, when they see him then coming, they may be struck with amazement at the similarity of the goat. Therefore, [behold] the type of Jesus who was about to suffer. But why is the wool in the midst of the thorns? [alt-version omitted]

^A Since it is a formidable thorn, it must suffer much before it can, being afflicted, possess that which it desires. Thus, he says, those who wish to see me and lay hold of my kingdom must, through being afflicted and suffering, receive me.

VIII. The Red Heifer — A Type of Christ

What do you think the figure signifies, that it is commanded to Israel that men of consummate wickedness should offer a heifer, and having slain it, burn it; and then that boys should take the ashes and put them into vessels ^B and bind the scarlet wool with hyssop upon a stick; and thus the boys should sprinkle the people individually, so that they may be purified from their sins? Behold how simply the [Lord] speaks to us. This heifer is Jesus; the wicked men who offer it are they who delivered the Lord over to death. But now they are no longer wicked men, nor are they any longer considered sinners. The boys who sprinkle are those who have brought us the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and the purification of the heart, to whom he gave power to preach the Gospel; and there were twelve, for a testimony ^C to the tribes, since there were twelve tribes in Israel, in order to preach. But why are there three boys who sprinkle? For a testimony to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, because these were great before God. And why is the wool upon the wood (the stick)? Because Jesus holds his dominion upon the wood; for those who hope in him will live forever. And why are the wool and the hyssop together? Because in his kingdom there will be days evil and filthy, in which we will be saved.

Old Interpretation

^D [Whoever] wishes to take the scarlet wool, it behooves him to suffer much because of the wickedness of the thorn, and being constrained, thus to gain dominion over it. Thus, he says, those who wish to see me and attain my kingdom must, being compressed and having suffered much, receive me.

VIII. What do you think the figure is, because it is commanded to the people of the Jews that men, in whom sins are consummate, should offer a heifer; and that they, having slain it, should burn it; and that boys should then take the ashes, and put them in earthen vessels, and hang the scarlet wool and hyssop on a stick, and thus the boys should sprinkle around the individual crowds of the people, so that they might be sanctified from sins? See then how he speaks to us in a similitude. The heifer was Jesus; those who offered it were sinful men, they who offered him as a victim. The boys who sprinkled were they who announced to us the forgiveness of sins and the purity of our heart, to whom he gave the power of the Gospel; they are twelve, for a testimony to the tribes; because there are twelve tribes of the Jews. Why, therefore, is the wool also on the wood? Because he who will have believed in him shall live forever. Why together in one are the wool and the hyssop? Because in his kingdom the days will be most wicked and filthy, in which we shall not be healed. And because of this, while things are thus done; to us, they are luminous, but to them dark, who have not heard the voice of the Lord. Num. xix, seq.

IX. On the circumcision of the ear and of the heart, and on the typical circumcision of Abraham.

^A Furthermore, Scripture speaks of our ears, how the Lord has circumcised them and our heart. The Lord says through the Prophet: "In the hearing of the ear they obeyed me." And again He says: "They who are far off shall hear with their hearing; what I have done, they shall know." And: "Be circumcised," says the Lord, "in your hearts." And again He says: "Hear, O Israel, for these things says the Lord your God." And again the Spirit of the Lord prophesies: "Who is it that desires to live for eternity? Let him hear with his hearing the voice of my Son." And again He says: "Hear, O heaven, and let the earth give ear, for God has spoken." These things are for a testimony. And again He says: "Hear the word of the Lord, you princes ^B of this people." And further: "Hear, O children, the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Therefore, He has circumcised our hearing, so that upon hearing the word, we might believe; for the circumcision in which they trusted has been abolished. For He commanded that circumcision should not be of the flesh; but they transgressed, because an evil angel deceived them. He says to them: "These things says the Lord your God—here I find [a new] commandment: do not sow upon thorns; be circumcised to your Lord." And what does He say? "Be circumcised in the hardness of your heart, and do not harden your neck." And again: "Behold, says ^C the Lord, all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but this people is uncircumcised in heart."

But you will say: "And yet the people are circumcised for a seal." But so are all the Syrians, and the Arabs, and all the priests of the idols. Do they then also belong to His covenant? Indeed, even the Egyptians are in circumcision. Learn therefore, children, concerning all things abundantly, that Abraham, who first gave circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, circumcised, having received the doctrine of the three letters. For the Scripture says: "And Abraham circumcised from his house eighteen and three hundred men." What then was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn first the eighteen, then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are ten and eight. You have Jesus. And because the cross was to have grace in the letter T, he says also the three hundred. He signifies, therefore, Jesus in the two letters, and the cross in the one. He who has placed the implanted gift of His teaching in us knows this. No one has learned a more genuine word from me; but I know that you are worthy.

X. Mandates concerning foods, wrongly understood by the Jews, are opened to the Christians.

Why then did Moses say: "You shall not eat the swine, nor the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish that does not have a scale upon itself"? He comprehended three dogmas in his understanding. Moreover, the Lord says to them in Deuteronomy: "And I will set my righteous ordinances for this people." Are these, therefore, not a command of God, that they should not eat? But Moses spoke in a figure. Therefore, concerning the swine, he said this: You shall not be joined to men who are like swine, who, when they are luxuriating, forget their Lord; but when they are in want, they acknowledge the Lord; just as the swine, when it eats, does not know its master, but when it is hungry, it cries out, and when it has received again, it is silent. You shall not eat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the raven. He says this: You shall not join yourself to, nor be like, such men who do not know how to procure food for themselves through labor and sweat, but plunder what is another's through their iniquity, and observe, as if walking in simplicity, whom they may despoil. Just as these birds alone do not acquire food for themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may devour the flesh of others.

they being pestilential in their wickedness. ^B And you shall not eat, he says, the lamprey, nor the octopus, nor the cuttlefish. You shall not, he says, be made like and cleave to such people as these, who to the end are ungodly and condemned to death, just as these small fishes alone are cursed and swim in the deep, not swimming like the rest, but living on the ground, which is in the depths of the sea. Moreover, you shall not eat the hare, he says. For what purpose? You shall not become a corrupter of children, nor shall you be made like to such people; for the hare every year increases its places of evacuation. For as many years as it lives, so many holes it has. Moreover, you shall not eat the hyena. You shall not, he says, become an adulterer, nor a corrupter, nor shall you be made like to such people. For what purpose? Because this animal changes its nature from one year to the next, and sometimes becomes male, sometimes female. Moreover, he rightly abhorred the weasel. For you shall not, he says, be made like to such people, of whom we hear that they perform iniquity with their mouth through uncleanness, nor shall you cleave to the unclean, who commit iniquity with their mouth.

For that animal conceives by its mouth. Moses, then, spoke three decrees regarding food in the Spirit; but they, according to the lust of the flesh, accepted them as if he were speaking literally about food. However, David grasped the spiritual meaning of these three commandments, and says likewise ^B: *Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly*, as those fish walk in darkness into the depths; *and has not stood in the way of sinners*, as those who seem to fear the Lord sin like the swine; *and has not sat in the seat of the pestilent*, as the birds that sit for plunder. You now have the full knowledge of the spiritual sense. But Moses [further] said: *You shall eat anything that is cloven-hoofed and ruminates*. What does he say? [He means] one who, having received food, remembers Him who feeds him and, having been satisfied by Him [the nourisher], appears to rejoice. Rightly did [Moses] speak, looking to the commandment. What, then, does he say? That we must cleave to those who fear the Lord, who meditate in their heart upon the commandment they have received, who speak and keep the ordinances of the Lord, who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who ruminate on the Word of the Lord. But what does the cloven-hoofed mean? That the righteous man walks in this world, and awaits the holy age. See how beautifully Moses legislated! But how could they understand or perceive these things? We, however, rightly understanding the commandments, speak as the Lord desired. Therefore [indeed] He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might perceive these things.

XI. God has already foreshadowed baptism and the cross in the Old Testament.

Let us look, then, whether the Lord took care to foreshadow regarding the water and the cross. Regarding the water, it is written:

^A concerning Israel, how they would not accept the baptism which brings remission of sins, but would build for themselves. The prophet says, therefore: "Be astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because this people has done two great and evil things: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns. Is the rock of my holy mountain, Sion, a desolate rock? 22 For you shall be as the fledgling of a bird, flying away when the nest is taken." 23 And again the prophet says: 24 "I will go before you, and I will level the mountains, and I will break in pieces the gates of bronze, and I will cut asunder the iron bars, and I will give you treasures that are dark, hidden, invisible; so that they may know 25 that I am the Lord God." And, "He shall dwell in a high cave of a strong rock." 26 What then does he say regarding the Son? "His water is faithful; you shall see the king in his glory, and your soul shall meditate on the fear of the Lord." 27 And again in another prophet he says: "And he who does these things shall be as a tree planted by the streams of waters, which shall yield its fruit in its season; and its leaf shall not fall off, and whatsoever he does shall prosper. 28 Not so are the ungodly, not so, but rather like the chaff 29 which the wind scatters from the face of the earth. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the council of the just, because the Lord knows the way of the just and the way of the ungodly shall perish." ^B Observe how he refers to the water and the cross in the same place.

For this is what he says: "Blessed are those who, having hoped in the cross, have descended into the water," since he says (35) that he will render the reward in its time; then, he says, I will repay. But now he says: ^C "Their leaves shall not fall." By this he means that every word which shall proceed from you through your mouth, in faith and love, shall be for conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says: "And the land of Jacob was praised above every land." By this he means the vessel of his Spirit, which he glorifies (38). Then what does he say? "And there was a river flowing from the right, and beautiful trees grew up from it; and whoever eats of them shall live forever (39)." He says this because we descend into the water full of sins and filth, but we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit. And whoever eats of these shall live forever. This means, he says, that whoever hears these things being said and believes, shall live forever.

XII. The Cross of Christ frequently announced in the Old Testament. — Joshua as a type of Christ.

Likewise, in another place, the prophet speaks concerning the cross and asks: "When will these things be accomplished (40)?" And the Lord says (41): "When the wood shall be inclined and rise again, and when blood shall drip from the wood." You have the cross again, and him who is to be crucified. ^D

Old Translation

...its leaves shall not fall, but whatsoever he does shall prosper. Not so the ungodly, not so, but as the dust which the wind has cast away (42) from the face of the earth. Therefore the ungodly shall not rise again (43) in judgment, nor sinners in the council of the just; because God knows the way of the just, and the way of the ungodly shall perish. You must understand how he established the water and the cross in one place (44). He says this, therefore: Blessed are they who have hoped in the water and in the cross. . . . Mercedem . . . in its time; . . . then, he says, I will repay. But now, he who says (45): "His leaves shall not fall." This is because every word which shall proceed through your mouth . . . shall be for hope and resurrection to many. And again another Prophet says: It shall be (46). . . . Jacob laudable above every land. The land is the vessel of his Spirit . . . he glorifies. Then what does it say? And there was a river flowing from the right; and beautiful trees were rising from it; and whoever shall eat of them shall live forever. This is because we descend into the water full of sins and filth, and we rise up full of fruits, having in our hearts fear and hope in the Lord. . . . Therefore he says: And he who shall have eaten . . . shall live forever. . . .

XII. Similarly he signifies the cross, in another prophet saying: And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord said: When the wood shall have been inclined and shall have risen again, and when blood shall have dripped from the wood. You have again about the cross, and about him who begins to be crucified. He says, moreover, again in Moses, when the people of the Jews were fighting

^A against the foreigners (47). And in order that He might remind those who were fighting that they were delivered to death because of their sins, the Spirit says to the heart of Moses that he should make a type of the cross, and of Him who was to suffer: that, unless they should hope on Him, they shall be fought against forever (48). Moses therefore places ^B one weapon upon another in the midst of the pile (49) and, standing higher than all, he stretched out his hands (50), and thus Israel was again victorious. Then, when he lowered them again, they were again being put to death. Why? That they might know that they cannot be saved unless they should hope on Him (51). And in another prophet He says: "All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient people, and one that contradicts my righteous way" (52). And again Moses makes a type of Jesus, that it is necessary for Him to suffer, and that He Himself shall make alive (53) Him whom they shall think they have destroyed, at the sign (54) of Israel falling. For He made every serpent to bite them, and they were dying, because the transgression came about through the serpent in Eve; that He might convict them, that because of their transgression they would be delivered into the affliction of death. Yea, and finally Moses himself, having commanded: "There shall not be for you either a carved or a cast image as your god," makes one, that he might show a type of Jesus. Moses therefore makes a brazen serpent, and places it on a beam (55), and by a proclamation calls the people. Having therefore come together, they besought Moses to offer supplication in their behalf for their healing. But Moses said to them: "When," he says, "any one of you is bitten, let him come to the serpent that is on the ^C

[A 763] wood, and let him trust and hope that though it be dead, it can give life. And straightway he shall be saved." And thus they used to do. You have also in this the glory of Jesus, that in Him are all things, and for Him. [B 764] What says Moses again to Joshua, the son of Nave, when he gave him, a prophet, this name—that only all the people might hear that the Father reveals everything concerning His Son Jesus to the son of Nave? And having given him this name, when he sent him to spy out the land, he said: "Take a book into your hands, and write what the Lord says: that the Son of God will cut off by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days." Behold again: Jesus is not the son of man, but the Son of God, made manifest in a figure and in the flesh. Since, therefore, they were to say that Christ is the son of David, fearing and understanding the error of the wicked, he says: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." And Isaiah further speaks thus: "The Lord said to Christ my Lord, whose right hand I have taken hold of, that the nations should obey before him, and I will shatter the strength of kings." Behold how David calls Him Lord and Son of God.

Old Interpretation

XIII. It has already been announced in the Old Testament that Christians, not Jews, are the heirs of the divine covenant.

^A But let us see whether this people is the heir, or the former one, and whether the covenant belongs to us or to them. Listen now to what the Scripture says concerning the people: "Isaac prayed for Rebecca his wife, because she was sterile; and she conceived." Afterwards, Rebecca went forth to inquire of the Lord, and the Lord said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples in your belly; and one people shall surpass another, and the greater shall serve the minor." You ought to understand who Isaac is, who Rebecca is, and concerning whom He has shown that this people is the greater, and not that one. And in another prophecy, Jacob speaks more clearly to his son Joseph, saying: "Behold, the Lord has not deprived me of your face; bring my sons to me, that I may bless them."

And he brought [Manasseh and] Ephraim, ^B wishing that Manasseh should be blessed, because he was the elder; for Joseph had brought him to the right hand of his father Jacob. But Jacob saw in the spirit the figure of the people who was to come. And what does the Scripture narrate? And Jacob changed his hands, and [the right] he placed upon the head of Ephraim, the second and younger, and blessed him. And Joseph said to Jacob: "Transfer your right hand over the head of Manasseh, for he is my firstborn son." And Jacob said to Joseph: "I know, child, I know; but the greater shall serve the minor, and this one also shall be blessed." ^C Behold, concerning whom He has determined that this is the first people and the heir of the covenant. If, therefore, it is still remembered through Abraham, we have reached the perfection of our knowledge. What then does He say to Abraham? "Because you believed, it was reckoned to you for righteousness; behold, I have established you..."

Old Interpretation.

...Again David says: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies under your feet." And again Isaiah says: "Thus says the Lord to my Christ, to my Lord, whose right hand I have held: the nations shall hear him, and I will shatter the strength of kings." See how the prophets call him Lord, and not only the Son.

XIII. Let us inquire, therefore, if this people receives the inheritance, and the covenant is in them, or in us. Hear concerning this; it is written: "Isaac prayed for Rebecca his wife, because she was sterile. And... Rebecca asked of the Lord what she was carrying; and the Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb and two peoples shall be born from your womb;... and the greater shall serve the minor." Understand who is Isaac, and who is Rebecca: and... which people is minor, or major. Again... Jacob says to Joseph his son:... "Behold, the Lord has not deprived me of your offspring: bring to me your sons; and I will bless them." And he brought [Manasseh and] Ephraim. And wishing Manasseh to be blessed because he was the greater, he placed him at the right hand of his father Jacob. But Jacob saw in the spirit the figure of the people who was afterwards to be: and... he turned his hands, and transferred his right hand over the head of Ephraim the minor; and he blessed him. And he said to Joseph his father: "Transfer your right hand over the head of Manasseh, for he is my firstborn son." And Jacob said: "I know, child, I know: but the greater shall serve the minor; but this one also shall be blessed." See whom He willed to be the first... heir of the covenant. Thus, therefore, and through Abraham it is commemorated, we have the consummation of our knowledge. What then does He say to Abraham, when he alone had believed, and had been placed in righteousness? "Behold, I have set you, Abraham, as the father of nations, who believe in the Lord without circumcision."

XIV. The testament which Moses received and broke, the Lord gave to us.

But let us inquire whether the [Lord] gave the testament which He swore to the fathers that He would give to the people. He gave it indeed; but they were not worthy to receive it because of their sins. ^A For the prophet says: "And Moses was fasting on Mount Sinai, to receive the testament of the Lord for the people, forty days and forty nights." And he received from the Lord two tables written with the finger of the hand of the Lord in the Spirit; and having received them, Moses brought them down to give to the people. And the Lord said to Moses: "Moses, Moses, go down quickly, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted iniquitously." And Moses understood that they had again made molten images, and he cast the tables from his hands, and the tables of the testament of the Lord were broken. Moses indeed received it, but they were not worthy.

How we received it, learn. Moses, when he was a servant ^B, received it, but the Lord Himself gave it to us, [that we might be] a people of inheritance, having suffered for our sakes. And He was manifested, that those [the Jews] might be perfected in their sins, and that we, through Him, inheriting the testament of the Lord Jesus, might receive Him, who was prepared for this, that by His appearing, He might redeem from darkness our hearts already consumed by death and delivered over to the iniquity of error, and might establish in us a testament by the word. For it is written how the Father commanded Him, having redeemed us from darkness, to prepare for Himself a holy people. The prophet says: "I have set you for a light to the nations, that you may be for salvation unto the end of the earth."

XV. The Sabbath of the Jews is not the true one; the Sabbath acceptable to God.

Furthermore, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Ten Words, in which the Lord spoke to Moses face to face upon Mount Sinai: "And hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and a clean heart." And in another place He says: "If my sons observe the Sabbaths, then I will put my mercy upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation: "And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He finished on the seventh day, and He rested in it, and hallow it." Pay attention, my children, to what "He finished in six days" means. It means this: that the Lord God will finish all things in six thousand years; for with Him,

Old interpretation.

See then: surely then, he who is resting beautifully hallows it, when we shall be able ourselves to do what is righteous, having received the promise, when iniquity is no longer, and all things have been made new by the Lord. Then we shall be able to hallow it, having ourselves been hallowed first. Finally, he says to them: "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." See how he speaks: the present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that which I have made, in which, having brought all things to rest, I shall make the beginning of an eighth day, which is the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for gladness, ^B in which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having appeared, ascended into heaven.

XVI. Not a temple of the Jews, but a spiritual temple of Christians has pleased God.

I will also speak to you about the temple, how those who go astray have placed their hope in the building as if it were the Lord, ^C and not in God himself who made them: as if they were heathens, they have guarded it in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, making the temple empty: "Who has measured the heaven with a span, or who has held all the earth in his fist? Is it not I?" says the Lord. "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, or what shall be the place of my rest?" You know that their hope is vain. And again, he says: "Behold, they who pulled down this temple, they themselves shall build it up."

^A It happens. For, as a result of their making war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now the very servants of those enemies shall build it up. Again, it was declared that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be handed over. For the Scripture says: "And it shall be at the last days, that the Lord shall deliver the sheep of the pasture, and the fold, and their tower to destruction." And it happened just as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, therefore, if there is a temple ^B of God. There is: where he himself says he is making and preparing it. For it is written: "And it shall be, when the week is completed, a magnificent temple of God will be built in the name of the Lord." I find, therefore, that there is a temple. Learn, then, how it will be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the dwelling-place of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands; for it was full of idolatry, and it was a house of demons, because we did whatever was contrary to God. But it shall be ^C built, attend, in the name of the Lord, so that the temple of the Lord may be built magnificently. How? Learn. Having received the remission of sins, and having set our hope on the name of the Lord, we became new, created again from the beginning. Therefore in us, [alt-version omitted]

^A in our dwelling-place, God truly dwells within us. How? The word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of his statutes, the commandments of his doctrine, he himself prophesying in us, he himself dwelling in us; to us who were enslaved to death he opens the doors of the temple—that is, the mouth—giving us repentance, and thus he has introduced us into the incorruptible temple. ^B He who desires to be saved looks not to the man, but to him who dwells and speaks in him; being amazed at the fact that he has never heard him utter such words from his mouth, nor has he himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

XVII. Epilogue of the first part.

As much as was possible and in simplicity to show to you, my soul hopes that by my desire I have omitted nothing of those things which pertain to your salvation, ^B and which are present. For if I should write to you concerning future things, you would not understand, because they are placed in parables. And these things are indeed in this manner.

Old translation.

God dwells. How? The word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of justice, the commandments of his testament; he himself prophesying in us, and dwelling in us. Because when we were under the servitude of death, he opened the door of our temple, which is the mouth of wisdom, ^C he made of us an incorruptible house. For he who desires to be set free does not live looking at the man, but at him who dwells in him. He marvels that he has never heard him speaking such words, nor has he himself desired to hear them. This is spiritually built.

XVII. As much as was possible in simplicity of demonstration to us, I have omitted nothing. For if I should write to you concerning things present and future, you would not understand, in what manner many things are set in parables. But these things are so. You have meanwhile concerning the majesty of Christ, how all things were made in him and through him; to whom be honor, power, and glory, now and unto ages of ages.

SECOND PART OF THE EPISTLE.

XXIII. About two ways.

Let us move on also to a different knowledge and doctrine. There are two ways of doctrine and authority, one of light, and the other of darkness. But there is a great difference between the two ways.

^A For upon the one are set the light-bringing angels of God, but upon the other the angels of Satan. And the one is Lord from everlasting to everlasting, but the other is the prince of the time of iniquity.

XIX. Of the Way of Light

The way of light, then, is this: If anyone wishes to travel to the appointed place, let him be diligent in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which has been given to us for walking in this way is of this sort: Thou shalt love Him who created thee; thou shalt glorify Him who redeemed thee from death. Thou shalt be simple in heart and rich in spirit. Thou shalt not cleave to those who walk in the way of death. Thou shalt hate to perform that which is not pleasing to God; thou shalt hate all hypocrisy. Thou shalt not abandon the commandments of the Lord. ^B Thou shalt not exalt thyself, but shalt be humble. Thou shalt not take glory to thyself. Thou shalt not devise a wicked counsel against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not give over-boldness to thy soul. Thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys. God's word shall not depart from thee in the impurity of any. Thou shalt not show respect of persons in reproving anyone for a transgression. Thou shalt be meek, thou shalt be quiet. Thou shalt be trembling at the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt not bear a grudge against thy brother. Thou shalt not be of two minds, whether it ^C will be or not. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own soul. Thou shalt not slay a child in the womb, nor shalt thou kill it after it is born. Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord. Thou shalt not be found desiring the things of thy neighbor, nor shalt thou be greedy. Neither shalt thou cleave from thy soul with the proud, but thou shalt be accounted with the just and the lowly. The things which happen to thee, accept as good, ^D since nothing occurs without God. Thou shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for a double tongue is a snare of death. Thou shalt be subject to the Lord, and to masters as unto a type of God, in shame and fear. Thou shalt not command in thy bitterness thy slave or thy maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest perchance thou shouldst not fear the God who is over both; for He came not to call according to appearance, but to those unto whom the Spirit has prepared. Thou shalt share in all things with thy neighbor and shalt not say that things are thy own; for if you are participants in those things which are incorruptible, how much more in those things which are corruptible? Thou shalt not be hasty with thy tongue, for the mouth is a snare of death. As much as thou art able, for the sake of thy soul

be thou pure. "Noli porrigere manus tuas ad accipiendum, ad dandum vero contrahere" (Eccli. iv, 31). Thou shalt love, as the apple of thine eye, everyone that speaketh unto thee the word of the Lord. Thou shalt remember him by day and by night, and thou shalt meditate upon the day of judgment. And thou shalt seek out every day the persons of the saints, either by laboring in speech and going to exhort them, and meditating how to save a soul by the word, ^B or by thy hands thou shalt labor for the redemption of thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor, when giving, shalt thou murmur. Give to every one that asketh thee, and thou shalt know who is the good recompenser of the reward. Thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding to it nor taking away. Thou shalt utterly hate the wicked one. Thou shalt judge righteously. Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify those that contend by bringing them together. Thou shalt confess thy sins. Thou shalt not come to thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light.

XX. On the way of darkness.

The way of darkness, however, is crooked and full of cursing. For it is the way of eternal death with punishment, ^C in which are the things that destroy the soul: idolatry, rashness, haughtiness of power, hypocrisy, duplicity, adultery, murder, rapine, pride, transgression, deceit, malice, arrogance, sorcery, magic, covetousness, lack of the fear of God. Persecutors of the good, haters of the truth, lovers of lies, not knowing the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to what is good, nor to righteous judgment, giving no heed to the widow and orphan, keeping watch not for the fear of God but for wickedness, from whom meekness and patience are far and remote, loving vanity, pursuing reward, having no pity on the poor, not laboring for him who is oppressed by labor and misery, ready to slander, not knowing their Creator, murderers of children, corrupters of the image of God, turning away from the needy, oppressing the afflicted, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, in all things sinners.

XXI. Concluding admonition.

It is therefore right, having learned the commandments of the Lord, as many as have been written before, to walk in them. For he who does these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; he who chooses the alternative shall perish with his works. For this cause there is a resurrection, for this cause a retribution. I beseech those who are in high positions, if ye receive any

^A counsel of good will: have with you those to whom ye have done well; do not abandon them. For the day is near, in which all things will perish together with the wicked one. The Lord is near and his reward. Again and again I beseech you: be good legislators to yourselves, remain faithful councilors to yourselves, remove from yourselves all hypocrisy. May God, who rules over the whole world, give you wisdom, understanding, intelligence, and knowledge of his righteous ordinances, with perseverance. And become taught of God, seeking out what the Lord requires of you, and do it, that ye may be saved in the day of judgment. And if there is in you any remembrance of good, remember me, meditating on these things, that both your desire and your vigilance may lead to some good. I beseech you, asking for grace. While ye are still in the vessel, do not fail in any of these things, but seek these things unceasingly, and fulfill every commandment, for these things are worthy. Therefore I have given ^B more earnest thought to writing, as far as I was able, to gladden you. Be saved, children of love and peace. The Lord of glory and of all grace be with your spirit. Amen.

DICTUM OF ST. BARNABAS THE APOSTLE.

Barnabas the apostle said: In evil contests, he who wins is more miserable, for he departs having more of sin.