I don't necessarily have to accept Early Church Fathers' (ECFs) opinions as absolute truth.
I agree that you do not have to accept the Early Church Fathers' opinions as truth. You were the one who first appealed to the Early Church Fathers as supportive of your position that this epistle was a bad book. You said they hated the book. I asked which ones, then later I only mentioned two Church Fathers who considered this epistle to be canonical and written by the apostle Barnabas who was Paul's companion after you failed to present any church fathers who hated the book. I'm still curious about why you say that they (the Early Church Fathers) hated the book.
Slade wrote:
I quote another who dislikes it and says 2nd C CE. Interesting. The one we use will agree with what we hope most.
No, you misunderstand why I point out the 1st century date. It is not because they agree with what I hope the most. It is because you stated as fact that the book was second century. I think honest scholarship would concede that it is not impossible for the book to have been written in the first century. You speak as if the matter has been settled by scholars as a 2nd century book and impossible to have been written by the Biblical Barnabas. I speak as if the matter is not settled beyond the 70 A.D. to 132 A.D. range.
Slade wrote:
The scholars I've read date it late 1st C through and mid 2nd C. I am the one who says it's impossible to be THE Barnabas for reasons I will list below. This is also why I agree with [certain] scholars who believe the author is a hellenized Gentile, because he lack a certain base understanding necessary to properly interpret the prophets...
Your basis for dismissing the author is basically just because he does not agree with your view of the New Testament's relationship to the Old Testament. Martin Luther used a similar rationale to argue that the book of James should not be considered canonical. What would be more proper is if you had other writings of Barnabas to compare with and then showed gross differences. We don't have that. I think it is dangerous to put so much confidence in your understanding as being right that you dismiss another writing that might possibly present evidence that would change your perspective.
By the way, the chapter and verses you are using are not the modern ones. It would be helpful if you followed that of Holmes (the most modern edition), or perhaps Lightfoot. These are the more standard reference works. Or perhaps you could at least provide a url that uses your system. The Lightfoot version can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html along with several other versions. I have three hard copies of the work here and they all use the same system as Lightfoot, which is another reason I would prefer using that system if it is not too much trouble for you.
Slade wrote:
II.8 speaks of the abolition of the Levitical system based solely on the disobedience of those who took part in the system.
Perhaps you misunderstand. What Barnabas is pointing out is how the breaking of the ten commandments by Moses showed the people unworthy of the covenant because they turned unto idols. The people had indeed lost the covenant, for after Moses broke the commandments, he had to go back to the mountain and get them again. Moses casting the tables out of his hands, and breaking the covenant, is expressed as a typology, showing the covenant of Christ which is of the heart to be that which will truly endure forever.
Slade wrote:
Also the type of dualism he uses is strongly Hellenistic which is a stark departure from the OT and NT mindset.
Paul himself uses this same Hellenistic dualism in Romans 7 and elsewhere. Perhaps your Hebrew bias prevents you from acknowledging it? From my perspective, your pointing this dualism out would tend to support the view that this author was Paul's companion.
Slade wrote:
III.9 speaks of the breaking tablets as the broken covenant. The author seems to have forgotten that 3,000 died as the Levites killed those who sacrificed to the idol (a sure sign that the covenant was still in force), and a second set of tablets came down from the mountain to replace the first (again a sign of the continuation of the covenant), and not all sacrificed to the golden calf (so the premise that Israel lost the covenant because of idolatry is too inclusive).
The author quotes how Yahweh himself expressed the breaking of the covenant to Moses in Exodus 32:7-10.
Exodus 32:7-10
(7) And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
(8) They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(9) And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
(10) Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
I don't see where the author forgot any of what you say here. He is simply pointing out what you seem to have forgotten. :-) When the Israelites broke the covenant, Yahweh was through with them. Moses pleaded for mercy, for a second chance so to speak, and received it.
Slade wrote:
III.16 speaks of God forsaking the Israeli. This is a fat lie.
I don't think it is a lie at all. Maybe if you had lived then and saw how the Romans destroyed the Temple, you would change your tune. Have you read Josephus and the attitude of the Jews during this whole event? They trusted in Yahweh to deliver them at this time. It was unthinkable to them that Yahweh would allow the Romans to detroy the temple. Clearly, God had forsaken them in their stiff-necked attitude toward Yeshua Ha Mashiach.
Slade wrote:
If it's true, the "church" better watch out because it's only a matter of time before it's our turn (unless it's already happened) -- and welcome to the gospel of "keeping your salvation by obedience" -- the yoke no one can handle.
This is exactly the context and point being made by this author. He is warning the church, in a fashion very typical of Paul's writings, that the church had better beware lest they fall into a similar fate as the Israeli.
Barnabas 4:11-14 (your reference system is 3:12-17)
------------------------------------------------------
For the Scripture says, "Woe to those who are wise in their own opinion, and clever in their own eyes." Let us become spiritual; let us become a perfect temple for God. To the best of our ability, let us cultivate the fear of God and strive to keep his commandments, that we may rejoice in his ordinances. The Lord will judge the world without partiality. Each person will receive according to what he has done: if he is good, his righteousness will precede him; if he is evil, the wages of doing evil will go before him. Let us never fall asleep in our sins, as if being "called" was an excuse to rest, lest the evil ruler gain power over us and thrust us out of the kingdom of the Lord. Moreover, consider this as well, my brothers: when you see that after such extraordinary signs and wonders were done in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us be on guard lest we should be found to be, as it is written, "many called, but few chosen."
------------------------------------------------------
Please note how he speaks of the Romans being the "evil ruler." This sounds like Jewish heritage to me.
Slade wrote:
III.17 -- note how the words of Yeshua are stated as "as it is written." Is the gospel of Matthew written already? When do you think it was penned?
He does not attribute these words to Yeshua. It is possible that he is quoting a source that Yeshua also had access to but which we do not. It also is possible that he was quoting Matthew's gospel. I understand Matthew to have been written about 37 A.D.
Slade wrote:
How does that compare to your estimation of the penning of the Epistle of Barnabas?
It corresponds well. Clement's epistle to the Corinthians is pretty much agreed upon to be about 95-97 A.D., and his letter much more directly quotes Yeshua and directly references apostles like Peter and Paul. Such is slightly suggestive that this epistle of Barnabas, relying less upon these NT writings, might be an ealier epistle. Note also that this author Barnabas quotes many unknown sources, and like Jude, he also quotes Enoch. He appears to be well read and educated in the writings of the Hebrews.
Slade wrote:
I don't want to waste too much time reading Barnabas again in order to find more references.
Well, what you have written up to this point does help me understand your mindset. Apparently, you argue against apostolic authorship because this author has a different view of Torah than you do.
Slade wrote:
Speaking of lightfoot, do you have his four-volume set comparing the NT with Talmud?
Yes, I have John Lightfoot's commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. It is a very interesting work. However, this would be a different Lightfoot from the translator of the Apostolic Fathers. John Lightfoot is 17th century, whereas J.B. Lightfoot is 19th century.
Slade wrote:
If it was written to make us believe that the Barnabas from the book of Acts wrote the book, it's premise is a lie.
It was not written with that premise. Nowhere in the book does the author pretend to be such. That is why there is controversy over whether it was the Biblical Barnabas or not.
Slade wrote:
A man of that caliber would not write in such a "us the Christians" vs. "them the Jews" way;
How do you know? The Scriptures repeatedly show Paul leaning toward that way, shaking his feet off against the Jews several times, and even saying that he would stop approaching the Jews and only go to the Gentiles. For example:
Acts 13:46-49
(46) Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
(47) For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
(48) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
(49) And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Acts 18:5-7
(5) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
(6) And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
(7) And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.
Acts 28:24-29
(24) And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
(25) And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
(26) Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
(27) For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
(28) Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
(29) And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Slade wrote:
the Barnabas in the NT didn't even have a Greek-ified name, so what does THAT tell you (rhetorical question)?
I'm not sure of your point here. My Greek Bible shows Barnabas with a "Greek-ified" name in the NT.
Slade wrote:
Therefore I, slade, think it's impossible for the REAL Barnabas to have written it.
I think "impossible" is still overstating your case. I think it is possible that this author was the Biblical Barnabas, but it is more likely that the author was another Barnabas living within decades of the Biblical one.
Slade wrote:
He quotes the OT frequently. He also quotes the NT profusely.
I think that this is a gross overstatement in regards to the NT. I don't have the firm statistics in front of me, but they would be more like some 80 quotes from the OT, and maybe 1 or 2 quotes from the NT, with only one seeming to be a direct quote and even of that we are not sure.
Slade wrote:
He is not only an antagonist of Judaism, but of the Torah.
An antagonist of Torah does not quote it profusely as a source of salvation and as the way of the Lord. An antagonist of Torah does not use Torah to establish his arguments. If you want to see a true antagonist of Torah, go down to Ybor city near you one Friday night and stand on a street corner and preach Torah. I have done this many times. If you do it the right way and draw a crowd, you will get some true antagonists of Torah. Someone like this author we are talking about will not be in that crowd of antagonists. :-)
Slade wrote:
He [Barnabas] would make a Rabbi puke.
Lightfoot and Harmer obviously disagree with you.
Slade wrote:
And he makes this [slade] proto-Rabbi puke.
I think we all got that picture by now. :-)
Slade wrote:
Please show me Messianics who dismiss Paul as non-canonical. URLs would be handy.
I was not meaning to start another thread here. I have discussed with many Messianics and Nazarenes like this over the years and had assumed that you had come across them yourself. They view Paul as "anti-Torah" which I think is based upon a cursory reading of Paul and a misunderstanding of him. Your stance toward Barnabas reminds me of these other individuals who I have discussed with in the past.
I recognize that most Messianics do embrace Paul's writings as Scripture, so this really is not deserving of another thread (IMO).
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
