But I’ve never, until now, read through these books. I’ve
been carrying them around for a couple of years. I’ve
consulted them and checked in them for information, but I’ve never really read
and studied them. I’m changing that
now. I’ve decided that I will read all
10 volumes.
I have just finished reading The Epistle of Barnabas
in volume one. This epistle should not
be confused with either The Gospel of Barnabas or
The Acts of Barnabas and the “Barnabas” of this anonymous epistle
should not be confused with Saint Barnabas – the companion of Paul in the book
of The Acts of the Apostles. He
is sometimes identified as “Barnabas of Alexandria” (but this, too, is a
guess.)
It is suggested that this Barnabas is from the Egyptian city
of Alexandria for two reasons: 1) he utilizes the system of allegorical
interpretation that was popular in Alexandria
and 2) the earliest references to it in other works are found in writers from Alexandria .
It’s often difficult to pinpoint a date for ancient texts
but The Epistle of Barnabas provides a couple of clues that allow us to
locate it in history with some degree of accuracy. In his discussion about the Temple
in Jerusalem
“Barnabas” writes: “For through their [the
Jew] going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now they,
as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it.” [i]
The city of Jerusalem and the Temple contained within it was destroyed by the
Romans in the year 70 C.E., and until the failed revolt of the Jewish rebel
Simon bar Kokhba in 132 C.E. the Jewish people held out hope of rebuilding the
temple. Using those dates we can bracket The Epistle of Barnabas somewhere
between 70 and 131 C.E. Further, John
Dominick Crossan suggests that the epistle’s lack of quotations from New
Testament books argues for an earlier date of composition – perhaps even in the
first century.[ii]
I struggled to read The Epistle of Barnabas, for a
couple of reasons. First, his writing
style is confused; he drifts from topic to topic – sometimes without completing
his arguments. I thought at first that I
was struggling with the archaic qualities of the translation – with the
thee’s and thou’s – but I didn’t have this difficulty with the other
works I’ve read so far. I discovered
online that I’m not the only one to have difficulty with Barnabas’ writing.
“From a literary point of view the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and incorrectness. The author's logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arise the numerous digressions.” [iii]
“From a literary point of view the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and incorrectness. The author's logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arise the numerous digressions.” [iii]
But even more than that, I struggled against his
interpretation of the Old Testament.
The Epistle of Barnabas is written to recent converts
to Christianity – known personally by “Barnabas” – who have come under the
influence of Jews (or Jewish Christians) who have been telling them that the
Mosaic covenant and the rituals and laws of the Jews are still in effect for
Christians. To which Barnabas replies
(and here I’m paraphrasing) “The Jewish covenant can’t be still in effect –
because they never received it.”
In his own words:
“I further beg of you , as being one of you, and loving
you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed now
to yourselves, and not to be like some, adding largely to your sins, and
saying, ‘The covenant is both theirs and ours.’
But they finally lost it, after Moses had received it. For Scripture
saith, ‘And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and
received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of
the hand of the Lord;’ but turning away to idols, they lost it. For the Lord speaks to thus to Moses: ‘Moses
go down quickly; for the people whom thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt
Nearly every part of the Judaic law and tradition is allegorically
reinterpreted by Barnabas – away from the Jews and given to the
Christians.
He explains to his readers that the Jewish mark of
circumcision was based on a delusion foisted upon them by an evil angel and that the 318 servants that Abraham circumcised in his house was actually a reference to Jesus. Since Greek letters also served for numerals (like Roman numerals), 318 could be read as IHT - and this is, obviously, the first two letters of Jesus' name in Greek (IH) and his cross (T)! [v]
The kosher dietary laws weren’t actually about meats to
avoid but were really about types of people to avoid. When Moses gave them the law that said “don’t
eat swine” what he really meant was “Thou shalt not join thyself to men who
resemble swine. For when they live in pleasure, they forget their Lord, but
when they come to want, they acknowledge the Lord. And [in like manner] the
swine, when it has eaten, does not recognize its master; but when hungry it
cries out, and on receiving food is quiet again.” The prohibition against eating rabbit
actually means that we shouldn’t associate with promiscuous people- who breed
like rabbits… The prohibition against eating weasel was really against
associating with people who practice oral sex. “Thou shalt not be like to
those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth, on account of
their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity
with the mouth. For this animal
conceives by the mouth.” [vi]
Barnabas of Alexandria, like the apostle Paul,
uses the allegorical approach to interpreting the Jewish bible in order to find
the basis for Christianity [vii]. But this Barnabas
does not understand the Apostle Paul at all.
Where Paul found the Gentiles being added to and included with the Jews
in order to make up the full people of God, Barnabas found the Christians
completely replacing the Jews.
It’s strange to realize how quickly the fledgling Christian
community disassociated itself from its Jewish roots. There were, of course, numerous reasons for
this movement – the increasing number of Gentile converts who had little or no
understanding of Judaism, the hostility of traditional Jews to Jewish followers
of the Way (Jewish Christians), the desire of Christians to politically
disassociate themselves from the Jews who’d attempted an ill-fated rebellion
against the Roman Empire, etc, and etc…
But still it’s strange.
We will never – Never- understand what Jesus taught if we do not understand his Jewishness. Christianity and the Church have not “replaced”Israel
as the chosen people of God. Nor are
there two separate peoples of God with distinct and separate covenant
relationships with God. There is one
God, one Savior, one faith for Jew and Gentile alike.
We will never – Never- understand what Jesus taught if we do not understand his Jewishness. Christianity and the Church have not “replaced”
And here’s a lesson:
It’s not a good idea to put the “Early Church Fathers” on some sort of
theological pedestal. Some of them were
idiots. Some of them were crack-pots.
Some of them were bitter old men nursing grudges against perceived
enemies.
[i] The
Epistle of Barnabas Chap. XVI
[ii] John Dominic Crossan The Cross that Spoke:
The Origins of the Passion Narrative
[iv] The
Epistle of Barnabas Chap. IV
[v] Chap. IX
[vi] Chap.
X This strange note about the weasel is
based on the erroneous idea that weasels copulate via the mouth
[vii] See
Galatians 4: 21 - 31
No comments:
Post a Comment