The Epistle of Barnabas on the Jews

The Epistle of Barnabas was not - as the name commonly used for it implies written by the Biblical character from the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas, but rather was attributed to him in the seventeenth century by the first editor of the Epistle: Hugo Menardus. The author of the Epistle is not known to us, but it can be accurately dated to around the late first century to the very early second century A.D.

The Epistle itself has had a tendency to be ignored by Christian scholars precisely because of the unusual theological argument that it makes and we are not sure exactly who wrote it. Or put another way: the Epistle says some very uncomfortable things for Orthodox Christian theology, because it argues for a complete supersession of the Old Testament by the New Testament.

This means in effect that according to the Epistle the Old Testament of the jews - i.e., a literal understanding of it - is now incorrect, because the Messiah has come and all jewish interpretations of the Old Testament canon are null and void because - so the argument runs - they had failed to recognise the Messiah and therefore their interpretations were not - and by maintaining their positions could not be - correct.

The author of the Epistle understands the Old Testament as being allegorical and points out that many of the prohibitions surrounding foodstuffs - as well as the jewish ideas in relation to the Sabbath - can be understood as allegories for real - or believed - observable phenomenon. For example the Torah ruling against the eating of weasels is understood by the author of the Epistle to actually be a prohibition against oral sex due to the common ancient belief that weasels copulate orally.

This sounds absurd to modern readers, but we need to bear in mind the intellectual relativity of what we think we know and that this may very well not be the objective case. For example when someone thinks they have seen a ghost: they don't tend to look for other explanations before assuming it is a ghost sighting. That is because they think they know that ghosts exists - or have heard of them existing - which means that they will interpret what they see within that framework independently of any other potential explanation.

In essence what we are talking about is what we call confirmation bias or put more simply: only seeing evidence that fits into a preconceived view of the world.

Obviously then the Epistle of Barnabas challenges a lot of what Christianity theologically takes for granted: further we can see that the background to the Epistle clearly shows it has a strongly anti-jewish theme and thus is of interest to us.

We should additionally point out that traditional interpretations of the Epistle hinge on what historians term 'structural factors' or put more simply supposedly objective factors which force an often radical change in overt ideology/policy/ideas to defend or impose a fundamental set of ideas and/or as a cynical rational for the gaining and exercise of power.

In this interpretation the Epistle is seen as a cynical attempt to distance the nascent Christian community in the Roman Empire from the jews who were periodically revolting against Roman rule across the Mediterranean seaboard from Judea to Cyrene and Rome itself: in order to avoid the ethnic cleansing and suppression of jews (and the 'Judaisers') that was periodically undertaken by the Roman authorities in response to these outrageous jewish provocations and bloody insurrections.

I disagree with this on the grounds that it assumes - without reason to do so - that the author of the Epistle wrote his work for Roman imperial consumption or at the very least with the notion of it being likely read by Imperial authorities.

This is not the case as the Epistle is explicitly directed at all believing Christians (1) and seeks to argue that the Christian teachings have superseded from the jewish ones: this means that while they are not the same where they come from is not denied. Or put another way: the author of the Epistle is all but stating that Christianity was an off-shoot of Judaism, but did not share Judaism's doctrines and interpreted the Old Testament very differently.

This does not - to my mind - suggest that the author of the Epistle was writing for Imperial authorities or suggest that they had Imperial authorities in mind: I would opine that it suggests more that they were writing about a Christianity in competition with Judaism and Paganism. Hence I would opine what the author of the Epistle is trying to do is rationalise traditional jewish ideas - such as the laws of kashrut - with what Greek and Roman scholars (i.e., the intellectual authorities of their day) believed at the time.

In essence he was trying to drag Christians away from the intellectually problematic assertion that the Bible was correct because it was the Bible (i.e., circular logic) and place Christianity on a solid intellectual footing by arguing for it in the context of the accepted assumptions and facts of the thinkers of his time: as others such as Irenaeus, Augustine and Boethius attempted to do.

Further we should note that there is no external evidence to support a 'structural' interpretation of the Epistle of Barnabas other than the time in which it was written, but in doing so it leaves out the vital context that the ideas that the Epistle used had already to be an extent anticipated by Irenaeus who - like the author of the Epistle - sought to place Christianity on a far more solid intellectual footing than the simple commanding of belief for its own sake. (2)

Before moving on to the comments of the Epistle on the jews: we should stress again that the author of the Epistle views Judaism as an irrational superstition - in a vein of thought common among Greek and Roman intellectuals - and as such his criticism of the jews tends to be more implied than explicit.

For example in the second chapter of the Epistle 'The Jewish Sacrifices are now Abolished' the author states that:

'For He has revealed to us by all the prophets that He needs neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor oblations, saying thus, “What is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me, says the Lord? I am full of burnt-offerings, and desire not the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats, not when you come to appear before Me: for who has required these things at your hands? Tread no more My courts, not though you bring with you fine flour. Incense is a vain abomination unto Me, and your new moons and sabbaths I cannot endure.” He has therefore abolished these things, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation. And again He says to them, “Did I command your fathers, when they went out from the land of Egypt, to offer unto Me burnt-offerings and sacrifices? But this rather I commanded them, Let no one of you cherish any evil in his heart against his neighbour, and love not an oath of falsehood.” We ought therefore, being possessed of understanding, to perceive the gracious intention of our Father; for He speaks to us, desirous that we, not going astray like them, should ask how we may approach Him. To us, then, He declares, “A sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit; a smell of sweet savour to the Lord is a heart that glorifies Him that made it.” We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation, lest the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, should hurl us forth from our true life.' (3)

This might at first glance seem rather incomprehensible - especially for the secularly-minded - but we can quickly make sense of by understanding that the train of argument is very similar to that offered by Mathetes who similarly argued that the rituals of the jews were absurd superstitions without logical or intellectual rhyme or reason.

Mathetes says:

'And next, I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, are right; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices acceptable to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect, these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours.' (4)

If we compare the passages we can note the common belief that Judaism and its offshoot cults - as well as all their rites and rituals - are superstitions, which make little intellectual sense. We can note that both passages specifically attack the idea of the burnt offering in Judaism as well as rites conducted around the new moon. (5) Both Mathetes and the author of the Epistle argue quite logically that if Yahweh - as an omnipotent, omnipresent creator god - was who they believed him to be: then Yahweh had little logical reason to require such rituals and that as such they should be abandoned.

The two authors however diverge on the intellectual methodologies they use to argue their case: in so far as Mathetes uses logic and philosophy - with far less scriptural interpretation - to make his case for him, while the author of the Epistle argues this same case on the letter of the Greek Bible. We should not seek to force an artificial separation between the two arguments as both are based on the same fundamental assumption: that Christianity and intellectual reason must be reconciled rather than act contrary to each other.

We should further note that when the author of the Epistle talks of the need for no sacrifices, burnt offerings or oblations. They are saying precisely the same as Mathetes when the latter acerbically points out that:

'But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices acceptable to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect, these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours.' (6)

We can see from this then that both Mathetes and the author of the Epistle are arguing that Judaism is - as Arnold Toynbee would later famously describe it - a 'fossil religion', which doesn't understand why it performs its rituals but does so because it believes that tradition is an end in itself. In essence the practices of Judaism have become a tradition without a purpose.

This then means that Judaism - to use Mathetes' line of argument and thought process - is essentially a form of paganism as it worships a name not an identifiable being.

Further to this both Mathetes and the author of the Epistle make it a point to warn Christians that the jews are their greatest enemy, because as the latter puts it:

'We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation, lest the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, should hurl us forth from our true life.'

Or to simplify this in terms of what I argued above: Christians should be careful of not falling into - as the Romans frequently termed it - 'jewish ways' and 'going astray' by practising the superstitious rituals and rites of the jews. By 'going astray' they would be placing the salvation of their immortal soul in peril by going contrary to the dictates of the Old Testament as interpreted on the basis of the New Testament.

It is important to stress here that the author of the Epistle does not assign the jews or Judaism a passive role in this spiritual warfare against the Christians, but rather they explicitly argue - as Martin Luther was later to do - that the jews are proverbial children of the devil (as they are the 'deceivers' sent by the 'wicked one'), and that - per their role of 'deceivers' - the jews actively try to spread false teachings about Jesus and also lure Christians into 'jewish ways' so that their souls will fall into the hands of the 'wicked one' (i.e., Satan). (7)

Indeed the Epistle stresses the connection between the jews and Satan when it states that:

'It therefore behoves us, who inquire much concerning events at hand, to search diligently into those things which are able to save us. Let us then utterly flee from all the works of iniquity, lest these should take hold of us; and let us hate the error of the present time, that we may set our love on the world to come: let us not give loose reins to our soul, that it should have power to run with sinners and the wicked, lest we become like them.' (8)

In addition to:

'We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole past time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becoming the sons of God. That the Black One may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness. Do not, by retiring apart, live a solitary life, as if you were already fully justified; but coming together in one place, make common inquiry concerning what tends to your general welfare.' (9)

And further:

'Let us be spiritually-minded: let us be a perfect temple to God. As much as in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep His commandments, that we may rejoice in His ordinances. The Lord will judge the world without respect of persons. Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called of God, we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when you reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus at length abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found fulfilling that saying, as it is written, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”' (10)

Again these passages might seem somewhat obscure upon first reading them, but we can quickly demonstrate the anti-jewish sentiments underlying them by understanding that the 'works of iniquity', 'sources of danger' and 'the works of the way of wickedness' (through which 'the Black One' 'may find entrance') (11) that the Christians are to 'flee from' and 'utterly hate' is a quite deliberate reference on the part of the author of the Epistle to jews and Judaism.

We saw previously - in the references made by the author of the Epistle - that the jews were regarded by the author to be the proverbial children of the devil and active participants in the devil's attempts to lure Christians away from the precepts of Christianity and into the idolatry of Judaism.

Thus we can see that the references that once again the author of the Epistle is referring to the jews as the active agents of the devil who seek to lure Christians into 'jewish ways' so that when Christians die ('resting at our ease') they are judged as having 'fallen asleep in sin' and thus the devil gains their souls as his playthings in hell ('the wicked prince' who has 'acquired power' over the Christian faithful 'thrusting them away from the kingdom of the Lord').

The author of the Epistle is accordingly (and understandably) very concerned with the possibility of Christians falling into the devilish trap of the superstitious practices of Judaism (and thus admitting 'the Black One' into their hearts) and worshipping the form of Yahweh rather than the divine essence (i.e., true belief as opposed to external religious pomp and ceremony).

Thus they exhort their fellow Christians to 'keep to the Commandments' - meaning keep to the interpretation of the Old Testament via the medium of the New Testament in addition to the intellectual knowns of the era - as well as to avoid the solitary intellectual life and attend communal gatherings regularly. The logic behind this prescription of an active Christian communal life is very simply that when we are left to our own intellectual devices we are much easier to sway to one viewpoint or another and can be picked off by skilled intellectual adversaries.

By exhorting Christians to actively attend communal gatherings the author of the Epistle hopes to prevent his flock being picked off piecemeal by jewish adversaries and that by bringing the community together they will have the ability to share doubts or misgivings they having: enabling the rest of the community to answer these objections and heading their jewish opponents off at the pass.

In essence then we can see that the author of the Epistle genuinely cares about the souls he is trying to save from the fires of hell due to the activities of the jewish 'deceivers' who are trying to lure Christians into the eternal fires of hell. The right path the author of the Epistle calls 'the way of light' (12) while the wrong path is that of the 'way of darkness', (13) which is occupied by 'the wretched Jews wandering in error.' (14)

Whatever we may personally feel about the theological sentiments the author of the Epistle is expressing: there can be no mistaking that his message to his flock is that the jews are the proverbial children of the devil and that heeding them will only lead to the listener falling into Satan's clutches.

We should further point out that the author of Epistle expected the anti-Christ to arrive shortly and that as such the jewish 'deceivers' were to them essentially the vanguard of the forces of darkness that would herald the anti-Christ's arrival leading to the prophesied battle between the forces of light and darkness. This belief evidently spurred the author of the Epistle on and inspired him with the courage to denounce the jews as the 'deceivers of mankind' and the proverbial 'spawn of the devil'.

I do not think it unreasonable to further assert that the author of the Epistle very likely believed the long-standing Christian theological tradition that the anti-Christ would have a jewish mother and that as such the jews were the future willing agents of the anti-Christ as well as the current 'deceivers' of Christians.

This is discussed in implication by the author of the Epistle when they state:

'Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached the truth to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, He did so from among those who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came “not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him? Since looking upon the sun which is to cease to exist, and is the work of His hands, their eyes are not able to bear his rays. The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted His prophets to the death.' (15)

In the above passage we can see that the jews are viewed by the author of the Epistle as being those who had such manifest evil in them that they were unable to recognise their long-awaited Messiah when he was among them. Further we can see the clear assertion that Jesus had been sent to earth by Yahweh to make the jews - who were in great need of spiritual, moral and intellectual correction - realise the scale of their numerous mistakes and give them one last chance of forgiveness for the 'sum of their sins'. (16)

In summary the author of the Epistle is saying that the jews were given one last chance and have failed to reform themselves: hence when they die it is implied that they will all go to hell to become the devil's playthings and that further they will; as previously stated, be the willing servants of the devil's avatar on earth: the anti-Christ.

The author of the Epistle makes his attack on the 'chosen' nature of the jews even more explicit when he points out that: 'every Syrian and Arab and all the priests of idols' are circumcised. So they rhetorically wonder: 'are these then also within the bond of His covenant?'

We can easily see the intellectual and rhetorical effectiveness of this argument precisely because it - in one deadly blow - shatters the whole notion of the act of circumcision being a unique sign of the covenant of Israel with an omnipotent, omnipresent creator god named Yahweh.

After all - as in the modern context - is every circumcised male on earth a jew?

Obviously not and thus lies the logical problem with the covenant of circumcision in that it signifies nothing if non-jews can do it as well.

The author of the Epistle finishes off his brutal attack on the jews as the 'deceivers', 'children of the devil' and active agents of the anti-Christ by listing what he regarded as their characteristics as the major representatives of the 'way of darkness':

'But the way of darkness is crooked, and full of cursing; for it is the way of eternal death with punishment, in which way are the things that destroy the soul, viz., idolatry, over-confidence, the arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, adultery, murder, rapine, haughtiness, transgression, deceit, malice, self-sufficiency, poisoning, magic, avarice, want of the fear of God. In this way, too, are those who persecute the good, those who hate truth, those who love falsehood, those who know not the reward of righteousness, those who cleave not to that which is good, those who attend not with just judgement to the widow and orphan, those who watch not to the fear of God, but incline to wickedness, from whom meekness and patience are far off; persons who love vanity, follow after a reward, pity not the needy, labour not in aid of him who is overcome with toil; who are prone to evil-speaking, who know not Him that made them, who are murderers of children, destroyers of the workmanship of God; who turn away him that is in want, who oppress the afflicted, who are advocates of the rich, who are unjust judges of the poor, and who are in every respect transgressors.' (17)

It thus hardly needs to be repeated that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas saw the jews as the sum of evils in the world and the spawn of Satan.

References

(1) Ep. Barn. 1; i.e.. 'All hail, you sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us in peace.' This would necessarily include both jewish and non-jewish Christians.

(2) I will argue my ideas on the interpretation of Barnabas in another article, but I think it important to stress that a structural interpretation isn't an evidentially solid one and seems to rely more on a need to be rid of a problematic early Church document than a well-thought and considered case.

(3) Ep. Barn. 2

(4) Mathetes 3

(5) Sabbaths are described in much the same way as by Mathetes 3 in Ep. Barn. 3; 15, while the issue of the laws of Kashrut are treated similarly in Mathetes 4 as in Ep. Barn. 8; 10 as well as circumcision in Mathetes 3 as in Ep. Barn. 9.

(6) Mathetes 3

(7) Explicitly identified in Ep. Barn. 1

(8) Ibid. 4

(9) Ibid.

(10) Ibid.

(11) Also see Ibid. 18

(12) Ibid. 19

(13) Ibid. 20

(14) Ibid. 16

(15) Ibid. 5

(16) Also see Ibid. 12

(17) Ibid. 20