The Epistle of Barnabas

The so-called Epistle of Barnabas is an early-second-century Christian text (c. AD 70–135) transmitted under the apostle’s name, once so esteemed that it stands among the books at the end of the great fourth-century Bible Codex Sinaiticus, and quoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria. This file establishes what the document is, its date and reception, and — the central source-critical duty of this collection — the question of its authorship, presented with the positions named and apostolic authorship not asserted.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle)

What the Document Is

The work conventionally titled the Epistle of Barnabas is a Greek Christian treatise in twenty-one chapters, cast in the form of a letter from a teacher to “sons and daughters” whom he wishes to instruct in “perfect knowledge” (Epistle of Barnabas 1.5; trans. Holmes 2007). It is not a personal letter to a named church in the manner of Paul’s epistles but a general doctrinal and ethical tract. Its argument falls into two clearly distinct parts: a long doctrinal section (chapters 1–17) expounding the meaning of the Old Testament against a Jewish reading of it, and a moral section (chapters 18–21) setting out the “Two Ways” of light and darkness — a teaching it shares with the Didache and other early Christian catechesis (Epistle of Barnabas 18–20; Holmes 2007; Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 1994). The document belongs to the corpus modern scholars call the Apostolic Fathers — the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament — alongside 1 Clement, the letters of Ignatius, Polycarp’s Philippians, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas (on this corpus see The Church Fathers).

Date

The Epistle contains internal indications that place it in the late first or early second century. Its discussion of the Temple — read by most scholars as referring to the Temple destroyed in AD 70, with a possible allusion to its rebuilding — and a notoriously obscure passage interpreting Daniel’s vision of the kingdoms (Epistle of Barnabas 4.4–5; 16.1–5) are the chief data used to date it. Proposals cluster within a single broad window: many date it to the reign of Vespasian (c. AD 70s), others to the reign of Hadrian and the period around the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. AD 130–132), and the scholarly consensus is best stated as a range. [Disputed: the *Epistle of Barnabas* is dated by Lightfoot and others to c. AD 70–79 on the basis of the Temple references in ch. 16; by many modern scholars (including those following the reading of the Daniel passage in ch. 4) to c. AD 130–132, in the time of Hadrian; the safest scholarly statement is a range of c. AD 70–135 (Paget 1994; Prostmeier 1999; Holmes 2007)]. What is not disputed is that it is an early-second-century or late-first-century text — a generation or more after the lifetime of the apostle Barnabas, who by the Cypriot tradition had died around AD 57–61.

Reception and Near-Canonical Status

The Epistle was held in high honor in the early centuries, especially in Egypt. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) quotes it repeatedly and attributes it to “Barnabas the apostle,” treating it as authoritative Scripture in his Stromateis and Paedagogus (Clement, Stromateis 2.6–7, 2.15, 5.10; Lightfoot–Harmer 1891). Origen likewise cites it as “the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas” (Contra Celsum 1.63). Most strikingly, the Epistle of Barnabas appears in Codex Sinaiticus — the great fourth-century uncial Bible — where, following the books of the New Testament, it stands together with the Shepherd of Hermas among the writings the scribes of that codex thought worthy of inclusion in a complete Christian Bible (Holmes 2007, introduction; on Sinaiticus, Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament). Its presence there is the clearest single sign of how near to canonical the Epistle once stood in some quarters of the Church. Eusebius, however, already in the fourth century classed it among the “spurious” or “disputed” books (notha), not among those universally received (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25; 6.13–14), and it did not enter the settled canon. The Epistle thus stands as a key witness in the history of the New Testament canon — a text once read in church and bound with Scripture, later set outside it (on the canon, see Holy Scripture).

The Authorship Question

The central duty of this file, and of the whole collection, is to handle the authorship of the Epistle honestly. The document itself is anonymous: nowhere within its twenty-one chapters does the author name himself or claim to be the apostle Barnabas. The attribution to Barnabas is external — first attested in Clement of Alexandria around AD 200 — and the modern scholarly judgment is all but unanimous that the apostle did not write it.

[Disputed: the *Epistle of Barnabas* is attributed to the apostle Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria (*Stromateis* 2.6–7) and Origen (*Contra Celsum* 1.63), and on this ancient attribution the text bears his name; but the document is anonymous, and the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship (Lightfoot, Holmes, Paget, Prostmeier, and the standard editions) holds that the apostle Barnabas did not write it — on grounds of date (a generation or more after his death, c. AD 70–135), of theology (a thoroughgoing allegorical and supersessionist reading of the Law that is hard to attribute to a Levite and companion of Paul), and of the internal silence as to authorship. The work is therefore best described as transmitted *under* the name of Barnabas, not as his composition. A minority of earlier scholars defended the attribution; it is not maintained in current critical scholarship].

The Orthodox handling of this follows the repository methodology: the Epistle is received as an important and venerable early Christian writing, one of the Apostolic Fathers, but it is not asserted to be the work of the holy apostle, and the figure of the apostle Barnabas — vivid and historical in Acts — is held distinct from the anonymous author of the second-century treatise. To confuse the two would be both a historical and a theological error: historical, because the dating and authorship are against it; theological, because the Epistle’s most distinctive teaching, its radical allegory and its claim that Israel never truly had the covenant, sits uneasily with the gospel of the apostle who was himself a Levite and the partner of Paul (the content and method are examined in The Letter and Its Allegory).

Why the Name Stuck

If the apostle did not write it, why was the Epistle attached to his name? Scholars suggest several factors: the work’s evident antiquity and authority called for an apostolic author; Barnabas, a Levite, might have seemed a fitting authority for a treatise expounding the Mosaic Law; and Alexandria, where the Epistle was most honored, had its own traditions linking it to the apostolic age. The attribution may also reflect a genuine early connection — perhaps the work arose in circles that looked to Barnabas — without his being the author (Paget 1994; Prostmeier 1999). Whatever the cause, the name secured the document’s transmission: it survives in full precisely because it was read as “Barnabas,” carried into Sinaiticus and the manuscript tradition under his authority. The history of the Epistle is thus inseparable from the apostle’s name, even as scholarship distinguishes the two — and this distinction, rather than its resolution, is what this collection presents.

References

The Epistle of Barnabas, chapters 1–21. In Holmes, Michael W., ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. (Greek text and translation; introduction on date, authorship, and Sinaiticus.)
Paget, James Carleton. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background. WUNT 2/64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. (The standard recent monograph; date, authorship, and background.)
Prostmeier, Ferdinand R. Der Barnabasbrief. KAV 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. (Critical commentary.)
Lightfoot, J. B., and J. R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan, 1891. (Text, translation, and the early attestation in Clement and Origen.)
Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis 2.6–7, 2.15, 5.10. Trans. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. (Attribution to “Barnabas the apostle.”)
Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History 3.25; 6.13–14. Trans. NPNF II/1. (The Epistle among the disputed/spurious books.)