DAVE SAID -- That's right. We agreed that "hate" was too strong of a word. I guess then I should have said that I am still curious about why you [Slade] think that the Early Church Fathers considered the book to be spurious. Maybe you can just list a few who described it as such.
SLADE -- You're the one who claimed Early Church Fathers (ECFs) considered the book spurious. I agree that this term was better than hated (although I must admit joy to being repeatedly spanked for the same sin... thank you sir, may I have another!?). Since the book is not part of the canon of NT canon, where shall I begin? Eventually all those who really mattered agreed that it is spurious AT BEST. But since you want me to list some, how about Cotelerius, Eusebius, and Manardus? In fact, here's a 'scholarly' quote: "When it is remembered that no one ascribes the Epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the 'spurious' writings, which, however much known and read in the Church, were never regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the Apostle." SLADE -- Interestingly, I was one who thought Barnabas and the Epistle to the Laodiceans should have been included in Scripture. Nine years ago, I changed my mind. It use of Gnostic terminology and it adherence to the same as well as it's rejection of the Law have lessened its apparent importance in my eyes. The writings of Paul can be viewed as either supporting the Law in the Christian Community or it can be used to disband with the Law in the Christian Community -- all depending upon the mindset and any preconceived notion one carries with him/her to the page. Barnabas cannot be interpreted except to disband with the Law in the Christian Community. (I still like Laodicea but it provides nothing new to the NT.) DAVE -- 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 -- Again, it's all in how you interpret the data. I think the terminology used within the book indicate it's written by a Gentile with a later date. You prefer an earlier date. In the end, who cares? The point is that the ECFs considered it spurious, and I believe one of the reasons is that it's authorship is in doubt. What's interesting is the source you quoted (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) states the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written between 70 and 200 CE. How can this be when they exist in the DSS? Are you sure your academic sources aren't on peyote? DAVE -- 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. SLADE -- Exactly. This is the same process the ECFs used to determine if books needed to be included in a canon or to dismiss them. Anything less would be dishonest. Thankfully, this [creation of the canon] occurred before Gnosticism and antinomianism was too rampant, otherwise the canon would be very different than it is now. The ECFs also used another method... the smelled the text (if you allow me to use figurative language). If the text didn't smell of the Spirit, it was rejected. Barnabas = case and point. It is not in the canon. SLADE -- 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. SLADE -- As I stated above, thank GOD the canon was developed before Gnosticism and antinomianism was too rampant. Luther is a pimple on the butt of Christian History. He would have been better off remaining in Catholicism. We might have been better off with Ulrich Zwingli or Thomas Muntzer. DAVE -- 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 -- The point I was making that you misunderstand is that we ALL are unworthy of the covenant. The author puts a yoke too heavy to carry upon the backs of the newly frees Hebrew slaves. Your typology argument is unnecessary since Moses sated from the beginning that the covenant is one of the heart and that WHY it will endure forever. DAVE -- 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 -- The use of Hellenized, dualistic, and/or Gnostic terms does not in itself condone Hellenism, dualism, or gnosticism. After all, we use terms like hermeneutics, but we don't worship Hermes (too bad Judy fell for that one). DAVE -- The author quotes how Yahweh himself expressed the breaking of the covenant to Moses in Exodus 32:7-10............ 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 -- Oh, contraire mofraire (I know I misspelled the French here, but I do not know French). The covenant was very much ALIVE. God was threatening to do a lot of trimming on the tree, leaving a single leaf in tact -- Moses. God was never through with them... we need to remember the nature of the suzerain covenant. DAVE -- 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 Yhwh to deliver them at this time. It was unthinkable to them that Yhwh would allow the Romans to detroy the temple. Clearly, God had forsaken them in their stiff-necked attitude toward Yeshua Ha Mashiach. SLADE -- This is the biggest piece of garbage you have ever written. God has never forsaken His people. Let me ask you a question that I do not want the answer to... What was in your heart when you wrote that last sentence? What emotion were you feeling at the time? Evaluate the source of that feeling (if one even existed). SLADE CONTINUES -- The children of Israel lost their Temple because sin abounds in this world. We live in a terrible world and this world hates those who belong to God. You belong to God, as do I and the Israeli people. We are all hated, and the world wants to destroy us. By destroying their Temple and razing Jerusalem, the Romans were PROVING to the world that the covenant is real and that it [the world] hates the covenant people. You have taken the data of history and have used it harmfully. I have used the same data and proved the continuance of the covenant. DAVE -- 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 -- Good. I also agree with the idea that the gospels (all the NT in fact) were penned before 70 CE. However, you also do not address the issue that Barnabas quoted Yeshua and used the phrase "as it is written." This terminology is used ONLY for Scripture. What's even more entertaining is the author of Barnabas had something that quoted Yeshua and the author also considered it Scripture. DAVE -- 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 -- I argue against apostolic authorship because this author has a different view of Torah than Scripture. DAVE -- 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. SLADE -- That's the problem with having little or no historical and cultural background behind the text. Otherwise you would know that it's problems with Hillel vs. Shammai, Pharisee vs. Sadducee, and legalist vs. suzerain covenentalists (for lack of a better instantaneous term to use). DAVE -- I'm not sure of your point here. My Greek Bible shows Barnabas with a "Greek-ified" name in the NT. SLADE -- I'm sure the Greek-ified name of Barnabas has nothing to do with a transliteration from Aramaic to Greek... is that what you're suggesting? The man's name was probably Bar Nabba which in Aramaic either means "son of exhortation" or "Son of a prophet." A Greek-ified name would be like Jason, Theophilos, Nicodemus (whose real name is Nakdimon or Buni -- but that's another conversation), etc. DAVE -- 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: Some of the book's NT Quotes/paraphrases/allusions: II Cor 12.7, James 1.8, Eph 6.9, Rom 8.29-30, Matt 5.42, Luke 6.30, Matt 22.4, Matt 9.13, I Cor 3.16-17, Acts 14.22, Heb 9.13, Rom 11.36, Rom 4.3, Luke 4.18 DAVE -- 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 -- I have spent far too much time on this post and I think it's time I end it. I will answer other posts once I finish cleaning the house and return to my homework. ---------- "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.
