PAUL AND THE OF

by

JAMES CARLETON PAGET Cambridge, UK

Introduction: Paul in the Early Church Harnack's view that "the majority of post-Apostolic Christian writ­ ers up until the time of only show minimal traces of Pauline influenced"1 appears, at first sight, to be true. Paul is not explicitly referred to by the writer of the , Hegesippus (pace H.E. 4.22:2), Barnabas, the writers of the and 2 Clement, Papias of Hierapolis (pace Eusebius H.E. 3.39:4), and, perhaps most significantly, . In those texts in which he is explicitly mentioned (1 Clement 5:5-7; 47:1; Ignatius, Eph. 12:2 and Rom. 4:3; and the Epistle of [Phil. 3:2; ll:2f.]), the apostle appears as a significant and holy character, but his letters receive little or no mention and do not appear in any substantial way to have influenced the writers' theologi­ cal opinions.2 Attempts to explain this apparently minimal influence have been numerous. Käsemann argued that once the apostle died his communi­ ties were overcome by a form of enthusiastic Christianity, and with the disappearance of these communities, the inheritance of Paul's theol­ ogy also disappeared. Such an argument is nothing, if not speculative. Barrett,3 representing the position of a large number of scholars, has argued that the use of Paul by heretics and some Gnostics, made church leaders reluctant to cite him. This thesis is less speculative than Käse- mann's for we do know that heretics, most notably Marcion, appealed to Paul in support of their various positions.4 's description

1 Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fiemden Gott (2nd ed.; Leipzig: J. Hinrichs, 1924), p. 12. (The German reads, "Die meisten der nachapostolischen christlichen Schriftsteller bis Irenaus zeigen nur geringe paulinische Einflüsse.") 2 CK. Barrett, Tauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period', NTS 20 (1974), p. 241, notes the significance of the hagiographie portrait of Paul, and argues that the creation of this portrait, which obviously begins with Acts, may well have contributed to the preservation of the Pauline corpus. 3 Barret, 'Pauline', p. 229f. 4 See the rather defensive tone of Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4.41:4 where he states that

© EJ. Brill, Leiden, 1996 Novum Testamentum XXXVIII, 4 360 JAMES CARLETON PAGET of Paul as the apostle of the heretics seems to have been quite appro­ priate (Adv. Marc. 3.5:4). But here it should be noted that heretical 'misuse' of Paul led church leaders to defend him and not to dispense with him. Another related solution to the problem might lie in high­ lighting the possibly opaque quality of the Pauline , in part made worse by the fact that they were no doubt often read in ignorance of the original circumstances to which they had been addressed. As wit­ nesses to this perceived opacity we might point to 2 Peter, where it is stated that there is much that is difficult in Paul's epistles (3:16),5 and the much later fourth century emperor, Julian, who, perhaps reflect­ ing a general opinion, could write of Paul: "For according to circum­ stances he (Paul) keeps changing his views as the polypus changes its colours to match the rocks" (Contra Gal. 106B).6 Early Christians could acknowledge Paul as a heroic figure in their early history, especially in his role as missionary, combatter of heresy, and martyr, but they could not completely comprehend his theology with its tensions and possible contradictions.7 In more recent times, serious attempts have been made to revise the position described above. In this respect the work of A. Lindemann is of significance.8 While admitting that a substantial number of early Christian writers do not mention Paul, he argues nevertheless that (1) Paul was an important influence on the early church. In this respect he emphasises not only Paul's position in the , but the fact that his letters were circulated, and that in, for instance, the writ­ he is going to show how Paul, contrary to what the heretics beheve, in fact is in accord with the preaching of truth ("praedicatorem ventaus") 5 The verse reads "There are some things in them (Paul's letters) which are hard to understand (δυσνόητα), which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruc­ tion, as they do to the other scriptures " The implication here appears to be that pre­ cisely the impenetrability of the epistles leaves them open to heretical distortion 6 προς γαρ τύχας, ώσπερ χρώτα οι πολύποδες προς τάς πέτρας, άλλάττει τα περί Θεοΰ δόγματα 7 See Α von Harnack, Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho (TU 39, Leipzig J Hinnchs, 1913), pp 50-51, who, in addressing the problem of the omis­ sion of the mention of Paul in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho writes "Dann aber bleibt nur eine doppelte Möglichkeit zur Erklärung der auffallenden Tatsache ubng Justin hat entweder die Auseinandersetzung des Paulus mit dem Judentum fur undurchsichtig bzw unzweckmäßig gehalten oder bei dem Widerwillen der Juden gegen den Apostel die Berufung auf seine Person und seine Gedanken als ein Hindernis seiner Aufgabe betrach­ tet " In this quotation Harnack is specifically referring to the problematic nature of Paul's teaching on Judaism (interestingly, the same context m which Julian accuses Paul of inconsistency) But his point can obviously be extended to refer to other areas of Paul's thought 8 Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und du Rezeption der paultnischen Theologie m der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58, Tubingen Mohr, 1979) PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 361 ings of the , Pauline texts are more frequently used than any others,9 (2) the evidence for Christian writings from the early period is very fragmentary, and we should not draw too sweeping con­ clusions from what does remain, and (3) the failure to mention Paul in many works can be explained either by geography, or the Gattung or form of various works. So, for instance, Justin's failure to mention Paul by name, an astounding fact given that Justin knew Marcion's works (I Apol. 26:5; 58:1; see also Dial. 35:5 and 80:4), could be explained by the fact that in his Dialogue, where we would most expect to find mention of Paul, Justin is interested in arguing exclusively from the (see Dial. 10:4; 29:2; 56:16; 65:2).10 To cite from Paul would therefore be harmful to his cause.11 Hence for Lindemann there is no evidence that a reluctance to mention Paul, or cite from his work, has anything to do with his use by heretics, or the apparendy opaque nature of his thought. Other attempts to revise or modify the picture outlined above have also appeared. These have in part attempted to show that the com­ plex problems related to the term 'Pauline' mean that it is less easy for scholars like Harnack to assert that Pauline influence on the early church was minimal.12 What might we mean by this term? And how does our understanding of this term affect the way in which we assess the extent of Pauline influence? If we only understand Paul in terms of the doctrine of his theology of grace, we will no doubt be of the opinion that Paul's influence only begins truly to show itself in the writ­ ings of Augustine. Up to that time his influence was minimal. But if we understand that Paul was appropriated in all sorts of different ways and for all sorts of different reasons, dependent upon the varying contexts in which his writings were used, then our whole understanding of what is Pauline and what is un-Pauline becomes more nuanced and hence

9 See idem, 'Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers', in ed. William S. Babcock, Paul and the L·gacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern University Methodist Press, 1990), pp. 25-45. 10 Lindemann does in fact argue that Justin did know Paul. See Paulus, pp. 355-362. For confirmation of this view, but arguing that Justin's Old Testament citations at times show knowledge of Paul's Old Testament citations, see O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study of Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (SupNovTest 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987), pp. 92-100. 11 In this context it is worth noting that Justin refers to no exclusively Christian lit­ erary authority in his Dialogue (and indeed his two Apologies), except for the somewhat nebulous απομνημονεύματα των αποστόλων (see / Apol. 66:3 and 67:3; and Dial. 100:4. 101:3; 102:5; 103:6, 8; 104:1; 105:1, 3, 4; 107:1). 12 See ed. William S. Babcock, Paul. 362 JAMES CARLETON PAGET more complex.13 After all, the use made of Paul in the and in the Pastoral Epistles differs, but these are in different ways signs of the legacies of Paul.14 It is certainly right to question the minimalist view of Paul's influence upon the early church, proffered by the likes of Harnack. Paul's letters were preserved,15 and may well have been the first Christian collection "to be valued, circulated, and collected."16 Moreover, these same letters were defended against heretical attack. It is also true that the fragmen­ tary nature of the Christian evidence dating from this early period should caution us against making sweeping generalisations. And there are no doubt innocent reasons why a variety of early Christian writers did not mention Paul in their extant writings.17 Furthermore, we should have a much more nuanced understanding of what we mean by Pauline influence, and in so doing take greater account of the various uses to which Paul and his writings were put. But while these observations should make us wary of exaggerating the minimal influence of Paul, and the apparent reluctance to quote him, we should not go to the other extreme and cease to acknowledge that some of the failures to mention him are surprising. Here I would like in particular to note the omission of any reference to Paul and his writings in the extant works of Justin Martyr. Failure to mention Paul in this Church Father's writings is notable not only because large parts of his argument with Trypho bear directly upon Pauline themes, but also because we know that Justin opposed Marcion. The central posi­ tion that Paul occupied in Marcion's theology makes it strange that

13 See Martmus C de Boer, in ed Babcock, Paul, ρ 45f, and S Κ Stowers m ibid , ρ 70f The latter of these two writers shows how complex a term 'un-Pauhne' is See also the largely unsuccessful attempt of J C Beker, Heirs of Paul. Paul's Legacy in the New Testament and the Church Today (Edinburgh Τ and Τ Clark, 1992), to define what might be a legitimate or an illegitimate development of Pauline theology 14 See Lindemann, 'Apostolic Fathers', who shows how in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers in which Paul is mentioned, he is appealed to as an apostle (1 Clem 5 3, 47 1, Ignatius, Rom 4 3, Polycarp, Phil 9 1), as a writer of letters to churches (1 Clem 47 1, Ignatius, Eph 12 2, Polycarp, Phil 6 2, 11 3), and as a martyr (1 Clem 5 5-7, Ignatius, Eph 12 2, Polycarp, Phil 9 1-2) He goes on to argue that these writers appeal to the legendary Paul, over and above the epistolary Paul See Martmus de Boer's response to this distinction in the essay mentioned above 15 See 1 Clem 47 1, and Polycarp, Phil 3 2 16 See Harry Y Gamble, 'The Pauline Corpus and the Early Christian Book', in ed Babcock, Paul, ρ 271 Gamble argues that Paul's letters were the first Christian docu­ ments to be preserved in codex form 17 In this respect we should note that the first explicit reference to a named gospel appears in Irenaeus PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 363

Justin does not attempt to defend Paul from what must have appeared to Justin as obvious distortion of the apostle's theology.18 It is the aim of this paper, against the backdrop of the wider debate about the reception of Paul and Pauline theology in the early church, to examine the possibility that the writer of Barnabas had access to the writings of Paul, or at least a form of Paulinism, and, if this is the case, to show how he has made use of those writings. In part the exer­ cise will be hermeneutical, an attempt to show how difficult it is to establish the presence of Pauline influence in a text which does not directly refer to Paul. In part it will bear more generally upon the ques­ tion of the origins of Barnabas* own theological perspective, particularly as this relates to his Jewish heritage. Let us begin by outlining what we have alluded to above, namely the methodological problems connected with discerning Pauline influence in an early Christian text. We should note that Barnabas nowhere directly refers to Paul and that this means that the task of detecting Pauline influence becomes more difficult. A number of questions arise. First, we must ask what we mean by Pauline influence. Are we simply look­ ing for a few concepts that we take to be Pauline, or for a general outlook? If we are looking for concepts, what should these be, i.e. what concepts are exclusively Pauline? If we are looking for a general out­ look what does this outlook constitute? Is there a Pauline outlook? Should we rather proceed on the basis of similarities in wording be­ tween a given text and a verse we find in Paul? But even when we do discern a similarity in wording, could this be nothing more than evidence of a piece of Paul which has been mediated by a source/tra­ dition to the author we are examining, rather than evidence of a direct usage of Pauline epistles? Furthermore, we must entertain at least the possibility that while an individual may not himself quote Paul, or even make allusion to Pauline concepts, whatever these might be, and may in fact contradict certain Pauline tenets, again as we understand them, he may himself have reached whatever position he has reached by vir­ tue of reading Paul. Here, of course, we are faced with the complex problem of development within Paulinism. What might a developed Paulinism have looked like, and how might those developing Paulinisms have used Paul?19

18 We should, of course, note that Justin does not refer to the canonical gospels by name, referring instead to the 'memories of the apostles'. See n. 11 above. 19 See Martinus G. de Boer, ibid.; and Beker, Paul. 364 JAMES CARLETON PAGET

Introduction to the Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas was written in in the mid 90s CE.20 It is a response to a crisis of confidence in the Alexandrian Christian community.21 This crisis of confidence was brought about by a conviction, then present amongst the Jews of Alexandria, that the Emperor Nerva's perceived pro-Jewish attitude would bring about a re­ building of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Some Alexandrian Christians, only recendy separated from the Jewish community, felt inclined to return to the Jewish fold. Their 'return' may in part have been inspired by proselytic activity carried out by some Jews.22 Barnabas' response to this crisis is to construct a letter in which he appropriates for Christians the promises of the Jewish scriptures and denounces Jewish understand­ ing of the same scriptures.23 At the same time he exhorts Christians to behave in a way compatible with their privileged position.24 In per-

20 For the most recent endorsements of this position (first suggested by Hilgenfeld in the 1870s), see M.B. Shukster and P. Richardson, 'Barnabas, Nerva and the Yavnean Rabbis', JTS n.s. 33 (1983), pp. 31-55; J.N.B. Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (WUNT 2.64; Tubingen: Mohr, 1994), pp. 6-30; and in much less detail, and without reference to the above, M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytising m the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: OUP, 1994), p. 45. The grounds for such a dating are (1) the fact that Nerva can be identified with the παραφυάδιον or excrescent growth referred to in Barnabas' citation of Dan. 7:7-8 at 4:5 (παραφυάδιον is an addition to the text of Daniel); (2) that Barnabas 16:3-4, which con­ stitutes a commentary on a somewhat garbled citation of Is. 49:17, implies the presence of a hope amongst Jews that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Such a hope is believable during Nerva's principate if we consider the famous coin legend which announces the correction of abuses connected with the collection of the Jewish temple tax ('fisci judaici calumnia sublata'); (3) the fact that Nerva is the only emperor who can be made to fit the two cruces mentioned above. For a sustained argument against this dating, and the endorsement of a Hadrianic date on the grounds that 16:3-4 refers to the building of a pagan temple in Jerusalem after the Bar-Gochba revolt (a similarly old position), see R. Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (Oslo, 1994), p. 19f. 21 An Alexandrian provenance is most recently endorsed by Carleton Paget, Outlook, pp. 30-42. This is the majority opinion, with some other scholars favouring Syria-Palestine or Asia Minor. 22 For this see Barnabas 3:6, and the discussion of the verse by W Horbury, Jewish-Christian Relations m the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr', in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70-135, ed. J.D.G. Dunn (WUNT 1.66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 323-324. 23 See especially 2:9, 10; 8.7; 9:If., 10:12; 12:10; 15:7; 16:If. The view taken by some scholars, and first adopted in any systematic way by H. Windisch, Der Barnabasbnef in Handbuch zum KT Ergänzungsband The Apostolischen Vater III (Tubingen: Mohr, 1920), that the antijewish polemic of the episde is of no significance in determining the context out of which the episde emerged, is not convincing. For a sustained argument against this thesis see Carleton Paget, Outlook, p. 5If. 24 The strongly ethical character of the episde is indicated not only in the substance of the non-literal interpretations of the Jewish ritual laws, but also in the introductory PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 365 forming this task, many of Barnabas' themes preview the themes which would dominate Christian Aduersus Judaeos literature, a genre of litera­ ture which would have a long-lasting presence in Christianity.25 In con­ structing his letter in response to the set of circumstances outlined above, Barnabas, through the combination of a variety of traditions, creates a theology of a distinctive and singular character.26 It is this theology which I will oudine briefly below, before turning to the question of Barnabas' relationship to the Pauline corpus. In Barnabas Christian truth is exclusively previewed in the Old Testa­ ment. The γνώσις about which the author wishes to write pertains to the correct (i.e. Christian) interpretation of the O.T.27 But in his attempt to Christianise the scriptures Barnabas does not appear to take seriously the idea, apparently assumed in early Christian theology, of a twofold stage in God's revelation to his people, divided up into the period of the old covenant when the Jews legitimately observed the Torah, and the period of the new, when, through the coming of Jesus, a new order is brought about which necessarily leads to the abrogation/fulfilment of the previous order, ending the observance of the ritual laws and extending the covenantal privileges to the gentiles. This aspect of Barnabas' theology is indicated in perhaps two ways. First, in chs. 4 and 14 where Barnabas twice states (and this in contradiction of the account in Exod.

chapter, and in the Two Ways material. For the thesis that the presence of enthusiasts in the community are reason for this ethical emphasis (see 4:9f.; 6:19 and 15:6) see P.F. Beatrice, 'Une citation de l'évangile de Matthieu dans l'épître de Barnabe', in éd. J.M. Sevrin, The New Testament m the Early Church (BETL LXXXVI; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 231-245. His arguments are criticised by Carleton Paget, Outlook, pp. 63-64. 25 For the parallels between Aduersus Judaeos themes and Barnabas see Carleton Paget, Outlook, p. 6 If. These lie principally in a concern to attack literal interpretation of Jewish legal prescriptions, in a concern to show that Christians are the rightful inheritors of the covenantal promises and that Christ and important Christian symbols/rituals (the /baptism) are previewed in the Old Testament. For a discussion of this lit­ erature see H. Schreckenberg, Du christlichen Aduersus Judaeos Texte und ihr literarisches Umfeld (1-11 Jh.) (2nd ed.; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1990). 26 To assert that this theology is Barnabas' own creation is to go against some recent trends in the study of the epistle. In this regard reference ought particularly to be made to the work of H. Windisch, Barnabasbrief; P. Prigent, Us testimonia dans le christianisme primitf: l'épître de Barnabe 1-XVl et ses sources (Études bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1961) (1); R.A. Kraft, The Episde of Barnabas: Its Quotations and Their Sources (unpublished Harvard dissertation, 1961); and K. Wengst, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes (AZK 42; New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), and Schriften des Urchristentums: Didache, Barnabasbrief zweiter Klemensbnef Schriften an Diognet (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­ gesellschaft, 1984), pp. 101-202, all of whom, with different emphases, assert that Barnabas is the inept regurgitator of pre-existent sources. 27 See especially 1:5 and 6:9 366 JAMES CARLETON PAGET

32 and Deut. 9) that the covenant given to the Israelites was lost as a result of their worship of the golden calf, and then given to the Chris­ tians as a result of Christ's coming.28 There seems to be litde sense in which the covenant Jesus brings differs in any way from the cove­ nant which the Jews themselves received—what differs is its interpre­ tations,29 which appears to be mediated to Christians by Christ.30 That interpretation is bound up with the understanding of the Law.31 And here we move onto our second point. Throughout his epistle, Barnabas indicates that the ritual and dietary laws are not abrogated as a result of the coming of Christ, but are simply interpreted as they were always meant to be. Hence the commandments relating to sacrifice, fasting, circumcision, abstention from the eating of certain creatures, and the observation of the sabbath, were never meant to be understood liter­ ally, but always spiritually. As Barnabas writes: "But we have a right­ eous understanding (δικαίως νοήσαντες) and announce the commandments (τας έντολάς) as the Lord wished" (10:12). Perhaps the only point where we might see this view contradicted is 2:6 where Barnabas writes: "These things (that is, sacrifices) he abolished in order that the new law of our lord Jesus Christ, which is without yoke of obligation, might have its oblation made not by man." But here the context in which Barnabas places the verse (next door to anti-cultic citations from the O.T., which are linked to 2:6 by the connective ουν), seems to imply that God's displeasure arose precisely from the time of the inception of these

28 See 4:7: άλλ' εκείνοι οΰτως εις τέλος απώλεσαν αύτην λαβόντος ήδη του Μωϋσέως; 4:8 και συνετρίβη αυτών ή διαθήκη; 14:4; Μωΰσης μέν ελαβεν, αυτοί δε ουκ έγένοντο άξιοι. 29 This is made clear in 4:8 and 14:4 where no attempt is made to differentiate be­ tween the covenant the Christians receive and the covenant the Jews received but failed to accept. 30 In a litde noted, but significant, article, U. Kuhneweg, 'Das neue Gesetz. Zur christlichen Selbstdefinition im 2. Jahrhundert', (StudPat 21 [ed. E.A. Livingstone]; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1989), pp. 129-136, suggests that in Barnabas Christ acts as a mystagogue, leading Christians into the true interpretation of the O.T. ("Christus ist nicht Gesetzgeber, sondern Mystagoge, der die Geheimnisse der Schriftaufschließt"). Direct indications of this in the text are not frequent. In such a discussion we might refer to 2:6, where the Law of our Lord Jesus Christ is mentioned; to 4:8 where Christ is said to seal the covenant in our hearts; to 14:4f. where Christ enables us to enter into a relationship in which an understanding of the covenant seems a consequence; and to Barnabas' interpretation of Christ's death in terms of a redemptive act that allows us to enter into a covenantal relationship. The mystagogical aspect of this can only be assumed if we accept Kuhneweg's thesis that in Barnabas the covenant is almost paral­ lel to . 31 For the connection between covenant and Law see how at 4:7 the covenant of the Lord stands in apposition to the tablets of stone. The same is equally true in 14:2. On this see Wengst, Tradition, pp. 83-84. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 367 sacrifices: abrogation immediately follows on from implementation.32 Barnabas' position is conservative. He does not seek, like many Christians, to belittle the ritual laws of the Jews, but rather to maintain the laws, and simply criticise their Jewish interpretation. When, after interpret­ ing a number of the food laws allegorically, he exclaims: "See how well Moses legislated" (βλέπετε πώς ένομοθέτησεν Μωυσης καλώς) (10:11), he is speaking with conviction. Barnabas believes that there is one revela­ tion and that is the Christian revelation which is no more than the Old Testament interpreted as it always should have been.

The Epistle of Barnabas and St. Paul

To what extent can we see Paul lurking behind this Barnabite theology?33 This question can, of course, be approached from a general

32 For the appearance of καταργέω elsewhere in Barnabas see 5 6 (here the term is used to describe the effect of Ghnst's death—it annulls the reality of death), 9 4 (here in relation to circumcision), 15 5 (here in relation to Ghnst's destruction of the wicked time), and 16 2 (here in relation to the temple) On all these occasions (except 5 6) the word can be interpreted as 'annulled' and not as 'abrogated' For an interpretation of the term as 'abrogate' in the Pauline sense of bringing something to an end which once had some legitimate reality, see D R Schwartz, 'On Barnabas and Bar-Kokhba', in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 1 60, Tubingen Mohr, 1992), pp 147-153, and Garleton Paget's refutation in Outlook, ρ 29 33 In the history of the limited research into this subject a number of opinions have been expressed O Pfleiderer, m his study Pauhmsmus Em Beitrag zur Geschichte der urcknst lichen Theologie (2nd ed, Leipzig J Hinnchs, 1890) ρ 393, saw in Barnabas the same gnosticising deutero-Paulinism which he noted in Hebrews, Golossians, Ephesians and the epistles of Ignatius, and described the epistle as a Wendepunkt in the history of Paulinism J Leipoldt, Die Entstehung des neutestamentluhen Kanons Erster Teil Die Entstehung (Leipzig J Hinnchs, 1907), understood the author as a convinced representative of Pauline theology, commenting that more than any of his other interpreters, Barnabas afforded the Chnsuan reader a deeper msight into the thought world of the apostle Meinhold, 'Geschichte und Exegese im BarnabasbneP, %KG 59 (1940), ρ 257, argued that Barnabas' view that the Jewish religion was abrogated and yet within it lay the Vorbilder for Chnstianity, had its roots in the wntings of Paul Barnabas was a radical whose thought-world could be related to that of Paul in the same way as Marcion's In their analysis of the attestation of the New Testament m the Apostolic Fathers, the Oxford Society of Historical Theology [New Testament m the Apostolic Fathers by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology [Oxford OUP, 1905]) stated that Barnabas prob­ ably knew Romans and Ephesians A E Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence (Chicago Chicago University Press, 1941), ρ 207, demed that Barnabas had any knowledge of the Pauline epistles, as did Lindemann, Paulus, ρ 272f, though in a more tentative way (see the same for some more references to secondary literature) A vanant theory, espoused by Wengst, Schriften, ρ 118 n 75, and implicitly, by Ρ Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchnstlichen Uteratur Einleitung m das Neue Testament, du Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vater (New York and Berlin Walter de Gruyter, 1975), pp 606-607, suggests that Barnabas is wntten in obvious contradiction of certain Pauline ideas Here Pauline influence is acknowledged, but negatively 368 JAMES CARLETON PAGET and a specific angle. From a general angle we might compare the out­ look of Barnabas as described above with that of Paul, particularly as Paul's theology relates to the question of the place of Judaism after the Christian revelation. From a specific angle, we might look for echoes of what we understand as Pauline language. In what follows we shall combine these two approaches. A passage in the Pauline corpus which perhaps comes closest to Barnabas, and one identified as such by Pfleiderer, and more recendy by Horbury,34 is 2 Cor. 3:12-16. Here Paul, in a midrashic expansion of Exod. 34:29-30, which describes the splendour of Moses' face on descending from Mount Sinai, argues that the ministry of righteous­ ness, that is, the ministry brought about by Christ, is so much better than the ministry of death, that is, Judaism unreformed by Christ. Paul supports this argument by stressing the fact, not referred to in Exodus, that the splendour of Moses' face was beginning to fade (καταργούμενον) while he was descending from Mt. Sinai. This Pauline gloss is offered in the light of the contrast that he has already drawn between letter and spirit in w. 3 and 6. Then, by way of completing his argument from lesser to greater, Paul continues: "For in comparison with its sur­ passing splendour what was splendid has come to have no splendour at all. For if what faded away (το καταργούμενον) came with splendour, how much more splendid what is permanent must be" (3:10-11). Then in v. 12, in an apparent attempt to compare his apostleship favorably with that of Moses, Paul mentions how Moses addressed the Israelites with his veil on. This was an act of timidity on the part of Moses, for he understood that the splendor of his ministry was destined to extinc­ tion (καταργουμένην). Paul concludes by stating that even now the Israelites read their law with the same veil over their faces, something that is understandable, for only through union with Christ is it removed.35 This passage constitutes a piece of comparative polemic. Judaism, with its adherence to the Law, kills; Christianity (to use an anachro­ nistic term), with its adherence to Christ and the spirit gives life. Judaism, with its law, was a temporary phenomenon; Christianity is a permanent fixture. Jews, who do not embrace Christ, read the Bible with a veil on; Christians understand it fully. The tone here and the division drawn up between the followers of Christ, and those Jews who do not follow Christ, particularly shown in Paul's emphasis upon the Jews' failure to understand their own scriptures (See 3:14: "Their senses [νοήματα] were

34 'Barnabas', 329. 35 See Paul's citation of Exod. 34:24. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 369 hardened [έπωρώθη], and they still are today"), brings the passage close to Barnabas. But even here the underpinning theology is different. Paul notes that the Law was doomed to extinction from its very inception. The assumption of this statement is that the dispensation was at root flawed, that there was something essentially unsatisfactory about the Sinai event. Through Christ a better dispensation has been provided. As we have indicated above, Barnabas could not adhere to such a theory because for him the Law in its original form, contained within the one covenant, was sufficient (as long, at least, as it was 'correctly' inter­ preted). Paul's use of the term καταργέω, so important to this whole section, differs from the usage witnessed in Barnabas. And this is surely the essential respect in which Paul differs from Barnabas, namely in his strong sense of salvation history, of two phases in history, the one before Christ, and the other after Christ. In the second phase, Christ brings the first phase, marked by the Law and the exclusively Jewish cove­ nant, to an end.36 But implicit in such a scheme is the sense that the first phase once had a legitimacy. As E.P. Sanders and others have made clear, Paul is at his most perplexed and confused in trying to explain the nature of the legitimacy of that first phase, and the failure of the majority of Jews to enlist in the second. The question τί ουν ό νόμος (Gal. 3:19), or the paradox that the Jews were the favoured people of God and yet had not, at least in overwhelming numbers, responded positively to the Messiah (Rom. 9:If), deeply troubled Paul, but not Barnabas—his scheme of the one legitimate covenant which the Jews had rejected at the time of Moses, made such considerations irrelevant. Yet can we legitimately think of Barnabas' covenantal theology as a development of Pauline theology? In the surviving pseudo-Pauline epis­ tles, Acts and other texts where Paul is mentioned, we see no develop­ ment in what we might term a 'Barnabite' direction, and this may incline us, however tentatively, to answer this question in the negative. But in this context two things should be noted. First, we should remem­ ber that Marcion believed that he was interpreting Paul in a correct

36 One of the most notable features of Paul's discussion of the Jewish law is its chris- tocentric character. The appearance of the Messiah is intimately linked to the change in the status and position of the Law. "Christ", as Paul rather elusively puts it, "is the end of the law" (Rom. 10:4) (We might see some exceptions to such a position in Rom. 2:25-29 and Phil. 3:3.) Barnabas' theology does not allow for such a christocentric empha­ sis, at least as far as his discussion of the Law goes (though through Christ under­ standing of the Law is made possible). Interpretations of legal prescriptions are conducted quite independently of any reference to Christ, although 2:6 has more of a christocen­ tric ring to it. 370 JAMES CARLETON PAGET way, and even though this involved him in distortions of the Pauline corpus, a large minority found his interpretation of the apostle's the­ ology convincing. Pauline theology could develop in a variety of direc­ tions. Secondly, some scholars have implied that Barnabas is in fact a reaction against Paul and his understanding of the Christian covenant.37 In this thesis Pauline influence is acknowledged, but negatively. To this argument we will now turn. (1) At 2:6, a passage to which we have already referred, Barnabas writes that God has abrogated sacrifice in order that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without yoke of necessity, might have its oblation not made by man.38 In the history of the interpretation of Barnabas, this verse has caused exegetes some difficulty, for it appears to assume, contrary to what we might infer from the rest of the let­ ter, that Christ abrogates an old law and brings with him a new law that in some way is different from the law which previously existed. Scholars have usually extricated themselves from the difficulty by arguing that the new law is simply the old law interpreted correctly.39 Within the context of Barnabas this seems a reasonable enough interpretation, but still does not account for some of the peculiarities of the verse, not least the implication that the old law was a 'yoke of necessity.' Elsewhere I have argued that Barnabas is appropriating a source, which claimed something different from what he is in fact claiming. Is there any rea­ son for thinking that this source was influenced by Paul? There are a number of points in favour of such a thesis: the reference to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ has its parallels in Paul's reference to the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor 9:21); the verb καταργέω appears in a num­ ber of places in Pauline literature to refer to the abolition of certain Jewish prescriptions (Rom. 3:31; 2 Cor. 3:7; 11, 13; Eph. 2:15); and Paul also refers to the yoke of the law (Gal. 5:1). The strength of the argument for a Pauline influence may be said to lie in its cumulative character, the weaknesses in the fact that nowhere in literature attrib­ uted to the apostle do we find a verse similar to Barnabas 2:6, and that it is quite possible that the verse could have had its origins in a

37 See Wengst, Schriften, p. 118 n. 75. Having argued that Barnabas is in some sense related to the Paulinism of the Pastorals (for the substance of this argument see below), he goes on to argue that Barnabas is opposed to some aspects of Pauline theology. The fact that Wengst sees Barnabas as opposed to a two covenants view (as does Vielhauer) leads me to the conclusion that he sees the author of the epistle as opposing Paul. 38 The text reads: ταΰτα ουν κατήργησεν, 'ίνα ό καινός νόμος του κυρίου ημών Ίησοΰ Χριστού άνευ ζυγού ανάγκης ών, μη άνθρωποίητον εχη την προσφοράν. 39 See Wengst, Tradition, p. 72. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 371

Jewish-Christian source in which it was claimed that Christ abolished the temple cultus.40 Such a suggestion appears attractive in that it may serve to explain why the law which is abolished is referred to as a "law of necessity." In Ps. Clem. Ree. 1.37:1, where Christ is said to abolish the temple cultus, that cultus is seen as an addition to God's dispen­ sation to the Jews necessitated by the need to rechannel the idolatrous tendencies of the Jews witnessed in their worship of the golden calf.41 In this understanding of the original context of 2:6, Barnabas has modi­ fied a previously existent Jewish-Christian source, which apparently had no connection with Paul. The importance of this observation will be­ come apparent later on. (2) At 4:6b Barnabas seems to cite the words of some of those in the community he is addressing. At this point in the epistle the text is cor­ rupt, but it is probable that the third century translation witnes­ ses to the original reading.42 A translation might read: "And do not be like those, who, heaping up sins, declare the covenant to be both theirs and ours (testamentum illorum et nostrum est)." What does this some­ what cryptic statement mean? Wengst has argued that the words con­ stitute a caricature of the view of the two covenants espoused by Paul, and outlined above. But this seems to me to be highly unlikely. In the context of a letter where Jewish praxis is opposed, an interpretation of the phrase in terms of a circumlocution for: "We should observe the law of the covenant as the Jews do", seems more likely. This becomes probable when we note that in the epistle there appears to be a very close relationship between Law and covenant. So at 4:7 where we read: "Moses took the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written by

40 See Ev. Ebion frg. 6 (Holl, Ancoratus und Pananon 1 GCS, Leipzig, 1915): ήλθον καταλΰσαι τας θυσίας καΐ έαν μη παύσησθε του θυειν, ου παύσεται αφ' υμών ή όργη. 41 This view, namely that the Law (at least those distinctively Jewish aspects of it) was imposed upon the Jews to control tendencies manifested in the incident of the golden calf is also found in the Didascalia Apostolorum (R.H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: The Synac Version Translated and Accompanied by the Verona Fragments with an Introduction, [Oxford: OUP 1929], pp. 216-233 and 238-240), Justin Martyr [Dial. 19:5f.; 20:4; 22:lf.; 27:2; 43:1; 44:2; 46:5f.; 67:4, 10), and Irenaeus [Ado. Haer. 4.15:1), though in none of these texts is the Temple mentioned. In the Didascalia it is interestingly stated that these laws are imposed as "heavy burdens and a hard yoke", and that they were necessary impo­ sitions (Connolly, ρ 222), language that comes close to what we find in Barnabas 2:6 For a discussion of this argument, particularly as it appears m the Didascalia, see W.C. van Unnik, 'The Significance of the Mosaic Law for the Church of Christ according to the Synac Didascalia, in Sparsa Collecta. The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unna, Part 3, Patristica Gnostica Uturgica, ed. J. Reiling, G. Mussies, P.W. van der Horst, and L.W. Nijendijk (SupNovTest XXXI; Leiden: Brill 1983), pp. 7-39. 42 For a discussion of the text see R.A. Kraft, Épître de Barnabe, SC 172, p. 97; and Carleton Paget, Outlook, pp. 113-114. 372 JAMES CARLETON PAGET the finger of the hand of the Lord", Barnabas appears to make the covenant synonymous with the tables of the Law. Two further points need to be made. First, the passage could be taken literally to mean that there were some in the community to which Barnabas was writing who did in fact identify the Jewish and Christian covenant as the same thing, however that might have manifested itself. Secondly, even if Wengst's reading is correct, many Christians, quite independent of Paul, or a knowledge of the Pauline epistles, may have thought in such a way. To interpret 4:6b, whatever its meaning, as the protestation of followers of Paul with whom Barnabas is in dispute, is unconvincing.43 (3) In ch. 9 Barnabas turns his attention to the subject of circumci­ sion. Vv. 1-3 consist of a series of short quotations from the Old Testament, possibly originating in a collection of testimonies, which are used to show that true circumcision is circumcision of hearing. Barnabas then states that the command to circumcise oneself literally was given by an evil angel, perhaps here adapting a form of the false pericope argument, present in Ps. Clem. Ree. (2:38-40), in which passages in the Old Testament, thought to be in some way unworthy of God, were regarded as additions inspired by evil agencies.44 Then, in verse 6, after expounding what true circumcision is, Barnabas writes: "But you will say, surely the people has received circumcision as a seal (σφραγίδα)? Yes, but every Syrian, and Arab, and all the priests of the idols have been circumcised. Are all of these within their covenant?" Here, it is claimed, Barnabas is opposing a Pauline understanding of circumcision. The basic strength of this argument lies in the fact that Barnabas appears to deny that circumcision has a function even as a σφραγίς or seal in God's scheme of salvation, which Paul, in Rom. 4:11, clearly affirms. In this interpretation of the verse the interlocutor's question ("But surely the people has received circumcision as a seal?"), does not imply the need for Christians to be circumcised, but rather is an assertion that circumcision did once have a legitimate function in salvation history. In this instance the case for direct opposition to Paul is stronger than

43 Wengst is certainly right to argue that Paul would have objected to Barnabas* con­ tention that there was only one covenant which the Jews themselves lost when they worshipped the golden calf (see Rom. 9:4; 11 : IF.). But he has not shown that it is specifically Paul's opinion that Barnabas is opposing. 44 For a detailed discussion of this verse see J.N.B. Garleton Paget, 'Barnabas 9:4: A Peculiar Verse on Circumcision', VC 45 (1991), pp. 242-254. It should be noted that the parallel with the so-called false pericope argument is not precise: Barnabas does not claim that the circumcision commandment is an addition to a previously unsullied text, but rather that its Jewish (and false) interpretation was inspired by an evil agency. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 373 that at 4:6b,45 for we at least possess echoes of supposedly Pauline lan­ guage (the reference to circumcision as a σφραγίς, a term never used to describe circumcision in the Bible).46 But it is by no means conclu­ sive. First, Barnabas' interest in circumcision lies in arguing against its implementation, not against a particular Christian interpretation of the rite. Secondly, the description of circumcision as a σφραγίς, while not biblical, was probably in origin a Jewish description.47 This observation makes it likely that the person whom Barnabas apparently quotes here was arguing that people should circumcise themselves in order to attain the seal (σφραγίς) of God's covenant,48 and not over the technical point of whether physical circumcision had once had a legitimate place in God's plan of salvation. (4) 13:7 This verse appears in a discussion about the identity of the people of God. Barnabas has just affirmed, by reference to the stories of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25) and Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 48), that the Christians, and not the Jews, are the rightful heirs of the cove­ nant. He then proceeds to his third argument, which involves noting that Abraham is father of the Gentiles. It is in this third argument that the parallels with Paul are at their strongest. Barnabas quotes in a rather loose form Gen. 17:4, 5, emphasising over against the biblical account, that Abraham will be a father of all those gentiles who believe, yet are not circumcised (εθνών των πιστευόντων δι* άκροβυστίας). This is to be distinguished from Gen. 17:4, where Abraham is πατήρ πλήθους εθνών, where it is assumed that those gentiles of whom he is the father will in fact be circumcised. This corresponds (though not exactly)49 to Paul's

45 See Windisch, Barnabasbrief, ρ 354, who is quite certain that Barnabas has Rom 4 11 in mind, but does not go on to tank about opposition to Paul 46 Seal is mentioned elsewhere m the Pauline corpus at 1 Cor 9 2 and 2 Tim 2 19, but not with reference to circumcision 47 J D G Dunn agrees with this judgment and cites some Rabbinic evidence (as set out in H L Strack and Ρ Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 4 1 [Munich G H Beck, 1928] 32-33, and in TDNT VII [ET Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1971], ρ 947, see especially j Ber 93 Ex R 19 Tg Cant 3 8) Noting the lateness of these parallels Dunn also refers the reader to Τ Job 5 2, where a sealing in the context of Job's change of name and rejection of idolatry is described Dunn states that this may well be modeled on a similar sequence of events associated with Abraham Interestingly, Dunn refers in the same context to Barnabas 9 6, and clearly believes it to be mdependent of this passage in Romans [Word Biblical Commmentary, vol 38, Romans 1 8 [Dallas Word Publications, 1988], ρ 209) 48 This is made clear by Barnabas' question "Are these (the circumcised Arabs and Syrians) then members of their covenant'*" See also Diognetus 4 2 where circumcision is described as "μαρτυριον εκλογής (a witness to election) " 49 Paul omits to mention the gentiles as εθνών, and does not have τφ θεφ as the subject of what people believe Barnabas' mention of τφ θεφ may m part be affected by 374 JAMES CARLETON PAGET words at Rom. 4:11. That Rom. 4 forms the background for this part of Barnabas' argument is further supported by the observation that Barnabas cites, again freely, Gen. 15:6, a verse which plays a significant role in Paul's argument in Rom. 4 (see Rom. 4:3). But Barnabas' cita­ tion of the verse is looser and does not mention the verb λογίζομαι, which proves such an important element in Paul's overall argument.50 A final observation that might indicate a Pauline background for Barnabas 13 is the use of δικαιοσύνη in an apparently Pauline sense, a usage which is witnessed nowhere else in the epistle. But how is all this relevant to the question of Barnabas' supposed opposition to Paul? If Barnabas is conversant with Paul's argument, he appears to have omitted the second half of it (Rom. 4:12), which, in an admittedly circumscribed form, speaks of the blessing of the circum­ cised. This omission is understandable because Barnabas' tradition, or he himself, seemed to conceive only of the election of one people, namely the Gentiles, and not of two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles. This seems to stand in tension with the description of the Jews as the former people at v. 1, which assumes that Gentile election follows on from legitimate Jewish election. The implication of this might be that Barnabas has attempted to change a testimony source which argued for a schema of two peoples into one that argued for only one. Such a source may, in its original form, have been influenced by a mediated form of Paulinism, as indicated by the Pauline echoes at 13:7. But the extent to which Barnabas is consciously opposing Paul by an apparent modification of a Pauline source is not at all clear (we should note that the verbal echoes of Paul are by no means exact). Direct use of a Pauline text cannot be proven here, though we should probably concede that the source Barnabas has used might have been influenced by knowl­ edge of Pauline writings.51 There are two other places in the epistle, unrelated to questions of law or covenant, where opposition to Paul has been conjectured. (1) At 4:9b-13 Barnabas exhorts his readers to avoid behaviour that might allow the entry of the wicked one. He continues: "Let us flee from all vanity, let us utterly hate the deeds of wickedness. Do not by retiring apart live alone as if you were already made righteous (ως ήδη the citation from Gen. 15:6 (of which he seems to show some knowledge) where it is written that έπίστευσεν δε 'Αβραάμ τφ Θεφ. 50 He prefers to use τίθημι (ετέθη εις δικαιοσύνην). 51 See lindemann, Paulus, p. 279: "Der Verfasser des Barn, hat das Abraham Beispiel also offensichtlich einer christlichen Tradition entnommen, die zumindest von Paulus beeinflußt war." PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 375

δεδικαιωμένοι), but come together and seek out the common good." Barnabas then goes on to demand that Christians be spiritual, be a tem­ ple consecrated to God, striving to keep his commandments in order that Christians might rejoice in his ordinances. Here we appear to be in the presence of over-enthusiastic Christians who live separately from the community. The most interesting words for our purposes are those that describe the individuals Barnabas is apparently opposing as behav­ ing "as if already made righteous (ώς ήδη δεδικαιωμένοι)". Could these people be Paulinists, and Barnabas' criticism of them be an implied criticism of Paul?52 This seems very doubtful. As we noted above, Barna­ bas' response to these individuals is to appeal to their status as temples of God. Such an argument appears similar to one adopted by Paul in 1 Cor. 3 and 4, where in an admittedly different context and in different language, Paul states that Christians are temples dedicated to God, and goes on in 4:8 to rebuke those who deem themselves already satisfied (ήδη κεκορεσμένοι), and believe they have already become rich (ήδη έπλουτήσατε). Indeed, could it be the case that Barnabas, far from opposing a Pauline position in this instance, is in fact, either directly or indirectly, drawing from a Pauline source which itself rebuked those who distorted Pauline theology for their enthusiastic purposes? This remains nothing more than a suggestion.53 (2) 5:9 In this passage Barnabas states that Jesus chose as his disciples those who sinned beyond all others (υπέρ πασαν άμαρτίαν άνομωτέρους). Lindemann54 has argued that such a harsh reference could not pos­ sibly be to Jesus' earthly disciples,55 but rather must be to Paul, for it is only Paul's sinful past that is described in such strong terms (1 Cor. 15:8f.; Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). In Lindemann's opinion, while such a reference need not indicate opposition to Paul or Pauline theology,

52 Wengst, Schriften, p. 118, n. 75, cites Rom. 5:1 and Tit. 5:7 as passages from the Pauline corpus which these opponents might have been citing. 53 In certain respects this particular instance of apparent opposition to Paul is simi­ lar to the famous passage in James 2:14-26. Here James objects to the view that we are saved by our faith and not by our works. One interpretation of this passage is to see it as an objection to an obvious distortion of Paul's teaching (something similar to what we might have evidence of in Barnabas). But as A. Chester (following others) has shown, this view will not hold because James seems so starkly different from Paul (The Theology of the táters of James, Peter, and Jude [Cambridge: CUP, 1994], p. 46f.). He pre­ fers to see James as attacking Paul, even if this attack may only pertain to a report of Paul's teaching which James himself has received. But what we should note about this passage is that in its attack upon faith, and its endorsement of works, it appears to be more obviously opposed to Paul than the passage from Barnabas. 54 Paulus, p. 276. 55 Some scholars had suggested a reference to Matt. 9:9-13. 376 JAMES CARLETON PAGET it could be seen as a warning not to accord the apostle too high a status. But this tentative suggestion does not pass muster. The reference seems most naturally to be to Jesus' earthly disciples {Barnabas is after all discussing the incarnation), and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a tradition grew up, perhaps in part based upon the fact that the disciples in origin had been sinners.56 In this respect it is interesting to note that , who quotes this passage from Barnabas at c. Ceh. 1:63, nowhere disputes the substance of its claim (indeed he exploits it for hortatory reasons), and goes on, in the same passage to deal sepa­ rately with the sinfulness of Paul. We should conclude this part of our paper by referring to K. Wengst's thesis (following a suggestion of Stegemann) that Barnabas is connected to the type of Paulinism associated with the Pastorals, and the Christian­ ity of Asia Minor.57 This thesis is germane to any view that Barnabas is opposed to Paul for, by linking the epistle to a branch of Paulinism, it makes its apparently non-Pauline positions appear as correction of or opposition to the apostle, though it could equally be supportive of the argument that Barnabas is a development of Paulinism. In support of his thesis, Wengst points to the fact that both Barnabas and the Pastorals show a knowledge of the relationship of faith to justification {Barnabas 13:7 and 2 Tim. 4:7f.), but nowhere follow it up; that they both use δικαιοσύνη in terms of moral righteousness ('Reeht- schaffenheit5) {Barnabas 1:4, 6; 4:12, 5:1; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 3:16), that they both replace the Pauline soteriological concepts of δικαιόω and δικαιοσύνη with σώζειν and σωτηρία {Barnabas 1:3; 2:10; 4:1; Tim. 1:15; 2:4, 15; 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2:10; 3:15); that they define πίστις in terms of 'Gläubigkeit' {Barnabas 1:4, 5; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 5:8); that they both speak of baptism in terms of renewal {Barnabas 6:11, 14; Tit. 3:5); that they see the work of Christ as bound up with the atone­ ment {Barnabas 5: If.; 7:2; 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14); that they empha­ sise hope (1:4, 6; 4:8; 11:11; 1 Tim. 1:16; Tit. 1:2) and judgment {Barnabas 4:12; 5:2; 7:2; 15:5; 21:6; 1 Tim. 5:24; 2 Tim. 4:1). But Wengst's thesis is not convincing, in part because very few of the paral­ lels drawn above need be seen in terms of a specifically Pauline tradi­ tion, and in part because Barnabas' apparently mediated Paulinism is in so many respects very different from what we find in the Pastorals (in this regard we might point to the exegetical traditions witnessed to

56 See E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 200-211. 57 Sckdfkn, pp. 117-118. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 377 in the respective writings, and the nature of the organization of the com­ munities),58 and seems in fact to be closer to a document like Hebrews.

The non-Pauline Background of Barnabas

It seems, therefore, that we can find no conclusive evidence that Barnabas had read any of Paul's extant letters, or that he was con­ sciously developing or correcting a Pauline position. At times there may be distant echoes of Pauline texts (one thinks in this respect particu­ larly of 13:7), but these do not indicate any intimacy with the Pauline corpus. Barnabas' overriding theology, with its singular interpretation of the Jewish law and covenant, need not be explained by reference to Paul. But if that is the case, if Barnabas' covenantal theology with its sin­ gular interpretation of the Jewish law, cannot be interpreted as in some sense an extension of Paul's covenantal theology, or a reaction to it, then how are we to explain it? What are its origins? This is a com­ plex question which I have attempted to answer at length elsewhere. Here I will attempt to sketch out an answer which places particular significance on the Jewish character of Barnabas. It has long been noted by scholars that Barnabas consists of material of a strongly Jewish character.59 In support of this thesis attention is often drawn to the Two Ways material,60 an interest in themes associated with Jewish ,61 and a future expectation shared with Jews.62 Barnabas also appears to appropriate symbols very much associated

58 The Pastorals witness to a highly developed hierarchy, Barnabas to very little hier­ archy at all (though see 21 2 and the reference to τους υπερέχοντας) 59 Recent advocates of this position are R A Kraft, who in his regrettably unpub­ lished dissertation (see above), states "Although our picture of Judaism before it became normative is not entirely clear, there is no necessary contradiction between it and the traditions used by Ps Barn " (Epistle, ρ 283), and W Horbury, 'Barnabas', ρ 345, who, independently of Kraft, terms Barnabas a "sub-section of Jewish literature" For his discus­ sion of Barnabas' dependence on Jewish culture and opimon see ibid, pp 332-334 60 In Barnabas, in contrast to the Didache, the account of the Two Ways is less obviously set within a Christian context, and certainly seems to be much less reliant upon gospel material than the latter 61 It has been argued that on two occasions Barnabas quotes Jewish apocalypses (see 119 and 12 1) In common with Jewish apocalypses, Barnabas expects the fall of the Roman empire to be accompanied by the reign of the saints when the Messiah returns (see 4 3-5 and the interpretation of Dan 7, and 15 6) Compare 11-12 and Sib Or 5 403-433 62 See in this respect the expectation that the Son of God will cut off Amalek (Barnabas 12 9), and the hope m the arrival of a thousand year messianic kingdom, which ap­ pears to be envisaged at Barnabas 15 7-8 378 JAMES CARLETON PAGET

with Jewish hope for the future, such as the land,63 and the temple.64 Barnabas appears to have knowledge of extra-biblical Jewish traditions connected with the Day of Atonement,65 and of certain Jewish-Hellenistic traditions.66 Particular attention should also be drawn to Barnabas' strong interest in the covenant and the law of Moses. Anyone who can declare. "See how well Moses legislated", is clearly very respectful of a central pillar of Judaism. Indeed the very fact that Barnabas can refer to the Jews as 'them'67 indicates that we may be in the presence of a writer who is in very close contact with the Jewish community. To describe Barnabas as a Jewish-Christian text is not to imply that it is the work of an identifiable sect, but rather to assert its Jewish character.68 Some might find Barnabas' dismissal of a literal interpretation of the Jewish law incompatible with such a description. If one thing marked out Jewish-Christians from other Christians it was their observance of some Jewish ritual prescriptions. But here I would allude to something referred to earlier in this essay, namely the radically conservative attitude of Barnabas to the Jewish law. This law is perfect as originally conceived— it has simply been misunderstood by those who were its original inter­ preters. This view, if we consider its conservatism, can in my opinion be understood as Jewish-Christian, even though it possesses a notable anti-Jewish aspect. It is also important to note that Barnabas' interpre­ tation of the law has its parallel in an admittedly unrepresentative group within Judaism, famously referred to by in de Mig. Ab. 89f. Holding that the Law should be understood in an exclusively allegorical sense, they refused to implement any of its instructions literally. It would be quite wrong to hold Barnabas to emanate from such a circle—not only are some of his interpretations of the Jewish law non-allegorical, but also the intellectual milieu from which Barnabas emanates seems less

63 See 16:8-19. 64 See the whole of ch. 16, and the citation at 16:6 of what appears to be a Jewish oracle about the restoration of the temple (γέγραπται γαρ· Και εσται της εβδομάδος συν­ τελούμενης οίκοδομηθήσεται ναός Θεοΰ ένδόξως επί τφ ονόματι κυρίου). 63 See especially chs. 7 and 8, where parallels between Mishnaic material (m. Toma and m. Menahoth respectively) have been postulated. 66 For the best discussion of this aspect of Barnabas see J.P. Martin, 'L'interpretazione allegorica nella lettera di Barnaba e nel giudaismo Alessandrino', StStR 6 (1982), pp. 173-183. Special attention should be drawn to ch. 10 and the allegorical interpretation of the Jewish food laws. 67 See 2:7, 9; 3;1, 6; 4:6b; 5:11; 8:7; 10:2, 9, 12; 14:1, 4, 5; 15:8. 68 For a recent discussion of Jewish-Christianity, see Burton L. Visotzky, 'Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish-Christianities in Rabbinic Literature', AJS Review XIV (1989), pp. 47-70. In this article, however, Visotzky is more interested in discussing Jewish-Christian groups and their diversity, rather than the term 'Jewish-Christian'. PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 379 sophisticated than the group to which Philo refers. But the very fact of the existence of a group of Jews who could interpret the Torah in such a way (and for whom we have evidence in Alexandria) should make us wary of overplaying the apparently non-Jewish character of Barnabas' attitude to the Torah. His interpretation of the Torah can be seen within the context of a debate about its interpretation witnessed to in the Alexandrian Jewish community.69 This point becomes more telling when we note that Barnabas' arguments against a literal inter­ pretation of the Law are based almost exclusively upon pieces of biblical exegesis, and hardly ever have their origins in a particular christological observation. Such an interpretation of the Law did not involve its rejection. But can we pin-point a Christian tradition out of which this Jewish- Christian epistle emerged? Here I shall restrict myself to some tenta­ tive and brief remarks. For some time scholars have wanted to posit a relationship between Barnabas and the Hellenists, first referred to by Luke in Acts 6 and 7. This has been argued most recently, though in skeletal form, by H. Räisänen, who has suggestively claimed that the Hellenists provide a bridge between Jesus and Barnabas.70 Räisänen bases his argument on the thesis that the Hellenists were the first Christians to argue that Gentiles entering the Messianic community need not be circumcised. Their argument was in part based upon eschatological conviction, but in part upon a spiritualised interpretation of the Law, popular in the Diaspora, and witnessed to in the passage from Philo to which we have already referred {de Mig. Ab. 89-94). Räisänen, who sees some of these 'Hellenistic' arguments preserved in the Pauline cor­ pus,71 is right to argue that Paul was not the first to argue against the implementation of circumcision, but he is at best speculative in posit­ ing a relationship between the Hellenists and the thorough-going alle- gorists, mentioned by Philo. We know very little about what the Hellenists said about the Law. But it is not unreasonable to claim that they were the first to argue against the adoption by Gentiles of Jewish practices, and that these arguments were different from those employed by Paul. Interestingly, Räisänen makes nothing of the relationship sometimes claimed to exist between Barnabas and Stephen' speech (Acts 7:2-53).72

69 This observation is at its strongest when we examine ch. 10. 70 See c"The Hellenists": A Bridge between Jesus and Paul?', in Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays (JSNTSupSer 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 202. 71 See Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3. 72 This was most vigorously argued by L.W. Barnard, 'St. Stephen and Early Alexan­ drian Christianity', NTS 7 (1960), pp. 31-45. 380 JAMES CARLETON PAGET

Here particular emphasis is placed upon the anti-cultic posture of Stephen,73 and his polemical use of the Golden calf incident (Acts 7:39f.). While I would not wish to argue for a precise conjunction of Barnabas and Stephen's speech on these matters,74 the latter may provide us with a possible route to the former. In this respect it is interesting to note the parallels between Stephen's speech and that part of the Ps. Clem. Ree. (33-71) sometimes called The Ascents of James.15 We have already argued that the anti-cultic posture of Barnabas may not be unrelated to the tradition associated with this text. A possible relationship between Barnabas and the Hellenists must remain speculative, and it cannot account for all the material in the letter. But it does provide us with another route by which to reach this strange text, a route that may also go through the .76 This paper began with some comments on Paul's place in the earli­ est non-canonical writings of the Christians. It outlined a shift of opin­ ion in the scholarly discussion of the subject away from the view that Paul had very little discernible influence (at least on so-called orthodox writings), to placing him in a more obviously central position. We noted that this shift was brought about in part by the adoption of a more nuanced understanding of what we might mean by 'Pauline' and the use of Paul. Against this background we examined the question of

73 See in this regard 7 46-50, and its interpretation by M Simon, 'St Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple', JEH 3 (1951), pp 127-142 74 The extent to which Stephen sees the building of the temple as a complete error has been disputed For a counter argument to Simon, 'St Stephen', see G Ν Stanton, 'Stephen in Lucan Perspective' in Studia Biblica 1978 vol III, Papers on Paul and other New Testament Authors, ed E A Livingstone (JSNTSupSer 3, Sheffield JSOT Press, 1980), pp 345-360 His arguments are discussed and criticised by Carleton Paget, Outlook, pp 203-204 It is very difficult on any reading to see Stephen's interpretation of the golden calf incident as quite as drastic as that of Barnabas The Jews are castigated for their idolatrous behaviour, but it is nowhere claimed that they lost their covenantal status 75 For these parallels see R E Van Voorst, The Ascents of James History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community (SBLDS 112, Atlanta Scholars Press, 1989), ρ 115f These parallels he in a strong interest in Moses, in the description of Jesus as a prophet like Moses, in a condemnation of sacrifice, but an endorsement of other Jewish rituals, con­ demnation of the incident of the golden calf, and an interest in the tabernacle 76 For a recent endorsement of the old thesis that there is some sort of a relation­ ship between the Hellenists and the Episde to the Hebrews, see L D Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65, Cambridge CUP 1990), pp 89-105 While the overall oudook of Barnabas and Hebrews is different, they share a concern for many of the same themes an anti-cultic posture, a concern with seeing Jesus' sacrificial death in terms of the Day of Atonement, a striking concern for the covenant and the land For a longer discussion of the relationship Barnabas/Hebrews, see Carleton Paget, Outlook, pp 214-225 PAUL AND THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 381

Pauline influence upon Barnabas, a text which itself nowhere explicitly mentions Paul, but concerned itself with what might be considered Pauline themes. We showed how difficult it was to establish a Pauline influence, either positively {Barnabas can be seen as a development of Paul's theology), or negatively {Barnabas reacts against Paul). We con­ cluded by arguing that it was better to explain the origins of Barnabas' own theology by reference to a Jewish-Christian milieu. If we are right, then Barnabas provides us with evidence (and perhaps very early evi­ dence) of the way in which some Christians, apparently not influenced by Paul, sought to appropriate the Jewish covenant for themselves and in so doing, argued against the literal implementation of some Jewish prescriptions. Whether, as Räisänen has suggested, Barnabas is directly related to the Hellenists, first mentioned by Luke in Acts 6 and 7, remains a question. We know too little about the various directions in which the theology connected with this group developed to make any very definite comments. Barnabas' precise theological provenance must remain a mystery. But it seems perfectly reasonable to think of this as a Jewish-Christian provenance which developed separately from any of the various offshoots of Paulinism, however these may have mani­ fested themselves. ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.