which affected it were admitted in remote places, or in the failure of knowledge, or under the pressure of times of intellectual excitement,' and that they have disappeared before full information and calm judgment.'1

1 See Mr. Bullock's article in Smith's Dictionary.

CHAP.

VI.

340

CHAPTER VII.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.

DOCETIC DEVELOPMENT OF GNOSTICISM.

The

VII.

Author.

'This is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.'-1 John iv. 3.

The

CHAP. THE Epistle attributed to Barnabas has probably been written towards the end of the first century. destruction of Jerusalem is referred to as an event which had lately taken place. Although you have seen so great signs and wonders done among the people of the Jews, yet this notwithstanding the Lord hath forsaken them." On the other hand it has been remarked,2 that if the writer had composed this Epistle as late as in the time of Hadrian (119), when referring to the destruction of the temple by the Romans, he could hardly have failed to point out the Elia Capitolina' as a striking proof of God's wrath against the Jews. Again, the omission of every allusion to persecutions of the Christians, as far as an indirect proof goes, would seem to refer to the time immediately preceding or directly following upon the reign of Domitian (87-96). For Eusebius informs us, that before the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), the Christians had been persecuted only under Nero and under Domitian.

This Epistle was certainly written after the Epistle to 1iii. 16. We have accepted the classical though faulty translation of Archbishop Wake contained in 'The Apocryphal New Testament, London, 1820.' * Hilgenfeld, 'Die Apost. Väter.' 3 H. E iv. 26.

If the

the Hebrews, and before the Gospel after John. apocalypse was written at the time when this Epistle was composed, which is more than probable, the writer of the latter shows that he did not share, or did not wish to enlarge upon, the apocalyptic views about Antichrist.

Respecting the authorship of this Epistle, all that can be said with certainty is that Barnabas, the Levite of Cyprus, cannot have written the same. It is true, that the Clementine homilies 1 speak of Barnabas as having preached in Alexandria, and that according to Eusebius, John Marcus, the cousin and companion of Barnabas, was the founder of the Alexandrian church. But it is quite impossible that a man like Barnabas, to whom in Scripture the title and dignity of an Apostle is given," could have spoken in so very disrespectful terms about the twelve Apostles, whilst never mentioning Paul. Again, Barnabas, who had been at Antioch, could not have written that all Syrians were circumcised. The unknown writer seems

to have belonged to the Alexandrian church, and he certainly addresses Gentile-Christians. Clement of Alexandria and Origen repeatedly quote it, and they regard the same as the work of Barnabas, whilst Origen calls it a 'Catholic Epistle.' Although Tertullian attributes the same to Barnabas, yet neither by the Church of Rome nor by that of Africa was it considered as of canonical authority. It formed part of the Athanasian canon, and its complete Greek text has been transmitted to us by the lately-discovered Sinaitic gospel-manuscript of the 4th century.

The writer states, that he is a teacher;'" he addresses some whom he calls his sons and daughters,' and in whom he has 'perceived abundance of knowledge of the great and excellent laws of God,' a spirit having been infused into them from the pure fountain of God,'5 who has put the engrafted gift of his doctrine within us.'

2 Acts xiv. 4, 14.

1 i. 9.
4 i. 1, 2.

5 i. 3.

3 i. 10, 4; viii. 14.
viii. 14.

'6

CHAP.

VII.

CHAP.
VII.

The two
Covenants.

not as a teacher' but as more than ordinary good

Yet he wishes to address them
one of themselves;1 having had
success in the way of the law of the Lord, which is in
Christ,' he will take care to communicate a part of that
which he has received,' so that together with their 'faith,'
their knowledge also may be perfect.' 3

Like his forerunner and probable contemporary Apollos, the writer develops the great Paulinic doctrine of righteousness without the deeds of the law, and only by faith in the power of the Divine Spirit in man. He does not regard righteousness as a condition, but as a consequence of grace, and he shows that the Gentiles were always intended to become the first people and heirs of the covenant,' that is of that original covenant of faith made with Abraham, and which, as Paul had taught, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.' He refers to the two nations which should descend from Rebecca's twin children; then speaking of Ephraim and Manasseh, he says that Jacob 'by the spirit foresaw the figure of the people that was to come,' and therefore refused to put his hand on Manasseh the first-born, inasmuch as the greater should serve the lesser. This is what God had in view already when he told Abraham that he had made him a father of the nations which without circumcision believe in the Lord.' And though Moses did receive of the Lord (through the mediation of angels) 'two tables written with the finger of the Lord's hand in the Spirit,' 6 yet because Israel turned aside in the wilderness from the ways which God had commanded them, 'Moses cast the two tables out of his hands, and their covenant was broken, that the love of Jesus might be sealed in your hearts unto the hope of his faith."7 They were not worthy;' therefore the Lord himself has given them (the tables) unto us, that we might be the people of his inheritance, having suffered for us.

6

He was

4 xii. 8.

6

therefore made manifest, that they should fill up the
measure of their sins, and that we being made heirs by
him, should receive the covenant of the Lord Jesus.'1
The writer then points out, that according to the pro-
phecies of Isaiah, the servant and elect of God whom he
would uphold, and on whom the Spirit of the Lord would
rest, was promised to be given for a covenant of the
people, for a light of the Gentiles.'2 Now in his opinion,
Christ came only as 'a light to lighten the Gentiles,' and
not likewise as the glory' of God's people Israel; for
the Jews had the offer of a covenant, but refused and
therefore never possessed it. To the Gentiles only Christ's
coming was a blessing; to the Jews it was a curse. He
writes to the Gentile congregation which he addresses as
standing on the same foundation of hope, that Christ was
for that very end prepared, that by his own appearing
he might redeem our hearts, already devoured by death,
and delivered over to the irregularity of error, from dark-
and establish a covenant with us by his word,
to prepare unto himself a holy people.' According to
this 'gnosis,' or more perfect knowledge, not as first
openly revealed by Paul, but as further developed by the
'teachers' or 'doceta' of Alexandria, salvation is not
'for the Jews first;' that which is done away is not 'glo-
rious; there was no 'first Testament,' and Christ is not
'the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of
death, for the redemption of the transgressions (that were)
under the first Testament, they which were called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance.'5 No, those
(who were) heretofore,' those who called themselves the
people of God, 'have for ever lost what Moses received.'
Therefore he beseeches the members of the Church which
he addresses: Look well to yourselves, and be not like
to those who add sin to sin, and say that their covenant is
ours also; nay, but it is ours only.' What is called the
2 Is. xlii. 6, 7; comp. xlix. 6; lxi. 1, 2.
4 2 Cor. iii. 7.
5 Hebr. ix. 15.

ness;

1 xii. 15-17. 3 xii. 18-20.

6 iii. 7.

CHAP.

VII.