the academy-the most powerful ally of Christianity, of sound morals and of true science in every department? For him no degree of interest can be too ardent, no devotion too deep, no welcome too hearty, to any and every opportunity he may enjoy of pursuing and mastering the Spiritual Philosophy as a student, and of fostering and perpetuating to latest generations, the institutions in which it is faithfully upheld.

ART. VII.-THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.

EXAMINED PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO ITS ORIGIN AND ITS AUTHOR. * By Dr. K. WIESELER, Prof. of Theology in Greifswald. Translated by Rev. HOWARD KINGSBURY, Newark, Ohio. The Apostolic Fathers, among whom the author of our Epistle is usually reckoned, engross our interest not simply on account of their particular contents, but chiefly because they belong to the end of the first, or the beginning of the second century-to a period, therefore, from which comparatively few written sources are extant that instruct us concerning the condition of Christianity at that time, and its relations to our Biblical Canon. Our Epistle has, therefore, recently, for various reasons, been the subject of a more careful examination, and we must acknowledge our gratitude to Professor Müller, who was peculiarly prepared for such an effort by his writings on Philo of Alexandria, for producing in the Commentary mentioned below a work on the whole so deep and thorough.

The introduction preceding the explanations-after which comes the complete Greek text of our Epistle, as it is established in the Commentary-embraces (§ 1-30) examinations in regard to 1, the category of the Epistle; 2, its object, contents, and divisions; 3, its readers; 4, its author, and the time of its composition; 5, the sources of the text, and,

* With special reference to the recent commentary by J. G. Müller, Explanation of the Epistle of Barnabas. An Appendix to Dr. Wette's Exegetical Handbook of the New Testament, 1869. Translated from the Jahrbüche d. Theologier.

finally, 6, the critical principles observed in establishing the

text.

The author, speaking in § 1 of the category of our Epistle, shows that even in the earliest days a consciousness existed in the church of the difference between it and the canonical writings, with the exception, perhaps, of Clement of Alexandria, who really attributed it to the New Testament Barnabas, whom he characterizes as an Apostle. Having regard to this ancient ecclesiastical distinction, Müller quite properly will not consent to have our Epistle reckoned in any way in the New Testament Canon, and, therefore, he disapproves of the descriptive terms used by Muralt and Hilgenfeld in their edition of the Apostolic Fathers. The same consideration has led him to add to the title the expression that his Commentary is an Appendix to De Wette's Exegetical Handbook of the New Testament; both works, further, being issued by the same publisher. Recently, and before Muller, Hefele and Dressel in particular have done good service in explaining our Epistle. The same may be said with reference to the text of Dressel, who has compared anew several manuscripts, and that of Weizsäcker, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and the author, which last have had particular regard to the Codex Sinaiticus. The affirmation of Hilgenfeld that the last named manuscript was written no earlier than the 6th Century, Müller has thoroughly (p. 25 ff.) refuted. The usual chapters of the Epistle he has retained, and divided into paragraphs, in accordance with which, for brevity's sake, we shall make our citations in what follows.

We agree entirely with Müller in believing that the wellknown Barnabas is not to be thought of as the author of the Epistle, and that it was attributed to him by Clement of Alexandria, on account of its allegorical Alexandrian character; as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the loftier model of ours, was there no longer ascribed to Barnabas, but-and that merely out of regard to its contents--to the Apostle Paul. In this connection the fact is properly made prominent, that our Epistle is not to be reckoned among the spurious compositions, since its author nowhere mentions himself as Barnabas, but simply as a teacher of Christians and of the readers of

the Epistle Cap. 1, §§ 3, 8; Cap. 4, §§ 1, 9. From the adduced passages, particularly from the whole of the first chapter, where he brings to view his personal presence with his readers, as well as from the ninth chapter toward the close, it is at once plain that the author addressed his Epistle to a particular, local congregation, (or at most to a few particular, local congregations). The term "Catholic," which Origen gives to our Epistle, does not prove its universal or even encyclical character, but only that it was read in general or catholic Christendom. It seems to us with others, on account of its Alexandrian character, to be addressed to Alexandrian Christians, finding, as it certainly did find, peculiar sympathy in the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen. Its author was a Gentile Christian, and its readers were mixed Christians, formerly both Jews and Gentiles, as is Müller's opinion. Decisive enough in this respect are the passages adduced by him (p. 13), in accordance with which both author and readers are described as formerly idolaters, Cap. 16, § 7 (cf. § 4 and further on), Cap. 14, § 5; and as proselytes, Cap. 3, § 6, in case they wished to depend on the Jewish law; while the same thing is proved whenever warnings are uttered against particular heathenish vices. Not less indicative of the character of our Epistle is the otherwise interesting passage, Cap. 9, where are the proofs that circumcision is abrogated for Christians, that practice being referred directly to the instruction of a wicked angel,* § 4, inasmuch as it was found among idolaters, particularly the Egyptians. There is little probability that one who was born a Jew would have referred the sacred seal of the covenant to such an origin. Then if Abraham, according to Cap. 9, §§ 7, 8, on introducing circumcision with his "318" servants, whom, according to Gen. xvii. 27, xiv. 14, he circumcised, is supposed to have foretold the Cross of Christ, since the Greek letters in, i.e. Jesus, and 7, i.e. a cross, represent numerically the sum 318; then both author and readers must have spoken Greek, and have had the Greek and not the Hebrew Bible for their basis. The Greeks, especially

*The author, p. 17, errs in saying that the Old Testament law throughout is to be considered as the work of a wicked angel, in opposition to which he himself rightly remarks, Cap. 2, § 6, that the Old Testament sacrifices are to be regarded as introduced by men. (avdрwñoñoiŋtop.)

their philosophers, were familiar earlier than the Jews with the allegorical method of interpreting their writings, particularly the mythological passages; and it was among them that Philo learned it. Heathen also, especially Neoplatonists and Neopythagorists, to say nothing of the Gentile Christians in Alexandria, busied themselves at that time with the Greek Bible. It is particularly appropriate to Alexandrian readers, that, throughout almost the whole of the Epistle, the negative as well as the positive abrogation of Jewish customs in Christianity is shown, and in the twelfth chapter the fact is made prominent that the Messiah is not only the Son of David, but also the Son of God, when it seems there were some (Cap. 4, § 6) who said that the Jewish Covenant is likewise the Christian Covenant; and that, on the other hand, in opposition to the Docetists, the Incarnation of the Son of God is emphasized, and his resurrection as well as that of his followers (Caps. 5, 6, and 7). For these characteristics point, on the one hand, to the presence of Jews, and on the other to a spiritual philosophy, both of which precisely existed in Alexandria. Finally the many variations in the Jewish customs, mentioned in the seventh and eighth chapters, in respect to the sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, and the red heifer, which have generally been regarded as errors, although they can be partially proved by good vouchers, can be easily explained on the supposition that here, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, reference is had to the Temple ritual in Leontopolis. It accords with this, that, according to the scholarly showing of Müller, on Cap. 7, § 8, for instance, the repulsive insulting of the scape-goat on the Day of Atonement was laid to the charge of Alexandrian Jews particularly.

Recently our Epistle has been handled with reference to the question of the Gospels and the Canon of the New Testament. The chief points of the atoning end of Jesus' life are in this connection tolerably fully brought forward-that he drank vinegar and gall on the cross; was mocked by his foes; was pierced; that on a Sunday, which hence is solemnized instead of the Sabbath by the Christians, he rose from the dead, and then ascended to Heaven; from

whence he shall come again in bodily form to judgment and to bless his followers (Caps. 7 and 15). In Cap. 15, § 9, as Müller clearly proves, there is no contradiction with our canonical gospels, as is the case when the evй is construed with the ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς, so that the idea would be expressed that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, and on Sunday, whether the same or a later one, ascended to heaven; in which case the acts of resurrection and ascension, as having happened on the same day, would surely, if only for the sake of clearness, have been joined together by té-naí. Rather should it be explained: Therefore, also, (because namely, God intends to make the beginning* of the eighth day the beginning of another world) we celebrate the eighth day (Sunday) in gladness, upon which also (nai) Jesus rose from the dead (this is the second reason for the Christian celebration of Sunday), and after he had appeared, he ascended into heaven." The last clause respecting the ascension of Jesus is not intended to give a reason for the Christian celebration of Sunday, but to emphasize the fact that after he had appeared alive, he did not again fall a prey to death, but ascended to heaven. By means of this added clause, Christ's resurrection from the dead is meant to be characterized, not as the awakening of other dead persons mentioned in the Bible narrative, who again suffered death, but, as was in keeping with his nature, as a resurrection ending with the ascension; since over the Son of God awaked from the dead according to Paul also (Rom. vi, 9) death hath no more dominion; and in just this sense Paul (Col. i, 18; 1 Cor. xv, 23, cf. Rev. i, 5) calls him πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. The author of our Epistle means to say: We Christians celebrate the eighth day or Sunday in joy (εἰς εὐφροσύνην), because on the one hand it is the beginning of the eighth millennium, or beginning of the new world, is which mortality is swallowed up of life, and on the other hand it is the day

* The overthrow of all things (иaτañavбas ta návrα) is placed here in our Epistle at the close of the millenial reign of Christ or World-Sabbath, as the introduction of the new order of the world, as in Rev. xx; 11, ff. In the same way the author of the 4th Book of Ezra, 7, 30, places it at the close of Messiah's reign of 400 years on earth, and before the beginning of the new world; only that the Messiah in this case succumbs to death with everything else, whereas, according to our author. Christ, as the Living One, consigns all things to death, in order to raise them up anew.