The Epistle of Barnabas

by Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas is a Greek epistle containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus where it appears at the end of the New Testament. It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, although some ascribe it to another Apostolic Father of the same name, Barnabas of Alexandria, or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher. A form of the Epistle 850 lines long is noted in the Latin list of canonical works in the 6th century Codex Claromontanus. It is distinct from the Gospel of Barnabas. Enjoy this classic work! Produced by Beloved Publishing

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christianity, Church History, Nonfiction, Christian, Biblical Studies

46 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 131

About the author

Christian convert Saint Barnabas, originally Joses the Levite or Joseph, in floruit in first century AD went as missionary with Paul to Cyprus and Asia Minor.

Barnabas (Βαρναβᾶς) joined the earliest disciples in Jerusalem. Barnabas like almost all disciples at the time came of the specific children of Israel. Named an apostle in Acts 14:14, he undertook journeys together and defended Gentile against a faction, promoting circumcision. They gained many persons in Antioch circa 43-44, traveled together to make more circa 45 to 47, and participated in the council of Jerusalem circa 50. Barnabas successfully evangelized among the "God-fearing" Gentiles, who attended synagogues in various Hellenized cities of Anatolia.

Mention in some epistles corroborate apparent story of Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles. Tertullian in conjecture named and attributed him as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Clement of Alexandria ascribed a highly improbable early Epistle of Barnabas.

Tradition identifies this martyr at Salamis in 61 as the founder of its church. People celebrate the feast day of Saint Barnabas on 11 June.

Some traditions hold Aristobulus of Britannia of the seventy Disciples as the brother of Barnabas.

Reviews

[Old Dog Diogenes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting early church document. I loved the typology sections. I’m always a sucker for typological interpretations. Maybe it’s the fact that it’s basically a platonic way of interpretation where lower physical forms represent higher spiritual truths. Or maybe it’s the fact that it is often employed by New Testament authors interpreting scripture, either way I’ve always found them to hit me the hardest. They are often the key to unlocking immense biblical depths and for me they are often the most impactful. I find myself bummed out by the modern Protestant shying away of interpretative categories like types and allegory in favor of an extremely modern and academic, dry textual criticism and skepticism. It can rob the Bible of its mystical and spiritual depth, and I mean that for myself too. I find myself, simply as a product of the modern world leaning heavily in this direction more often than not.

But what I find so fascinating and refreshing in early church fathers is their eagerness to see Christ in the entire Bible and in their lives and in their biblical interpretation through allegory and typology. Christ permeates every inch of what they say and what they do, of how they interpret the Bible, and I think it reveals some major differences in worldview between the early church fathers and the church today. There was for them a prioritization of the spiritual world and spiritual interpretation before the material world and critical text analysis.

And before anyone pulls out their pitchfork, I don’t mean to say that biblical hermeneutics is bad. On the contrary, I think we are blessed today with the advancement of biblical scholarship to the extent that we can dig so deeply into the text and understand it contextually from so many different angles. But, I suppose it is the problem with any science in general, it serves the purpose of explaining so many things to us about whatever it is we are studying, in this case the text, but cannot explain to us the spiritual meaning, wisdom, or application to be found in the text.

We have our priority set on textual meanings it seems, while the early church had the priority set on spiritual meanings.

Just as they had a blind spot maybe in their exegetical interpretation, I think we have a blind spot in our spiritual interpretation.

The sweet spot is probably somewhere between the two. Maybe in Augustine. .

[Josiah Hasbrouck]

fever dream

[Owlseyes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly a Christian writing, yet I kept wondering why it is not part of the Christian Canon, but instead, considered "apochriphal".



It's a very critical piece of writing on the Jews and their practices (namely the "new moons", the "blood of bulls and goats", fasts, and the Sabbath). It quotes Enoch as well: "The final stumbling­ block (or source of danger) approaches, concerning which it is written, as Enoch says, For for this end the Lord has cut short the times and the days, that His Beloved may hasten; and He will come to the inheritance"

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Detta är en svår bok att recensera. Den vandrar ständigt på randen till ren antisemitism - delar av det handlar om behovet av att differentiera den nya religionen, och ett barnsligt behov av att sätta sig upp emot sin föräldratro. Delar handlar om vad som verkar vara en besvikelse och ett förakt mot att ha förslösat det som författaren menar är det sanna symboliska värdet av diverse gammeljudiska offerakter, såsom syndabocken eller omskärelsen. Mycket handlar om författarens beröringsskräck mot det som författaren menar är orent, vilket inkluderar stora delar av allt deltagande i världen. I slutet listar författaren livsreglerna som den kristne bör hålla, och deras antiteser. Dessa listor är i huvudsak goda, och handlar om att inte missbruka andra, och vaka över de drag i den egna personligheten eller vanan som underlättar för olämpliga vanor och handlingar att sätta sig.

Personliga reflektioner följer.

Jag finner denna bok främmande för min tro, men givet Donoso Cortes skrifter, inser jag att den finns inom flodfåran, om än i en annan del. Jag tror inte att författarens förhållningssätt och misstro inte bara mot gnosis utan också mot inspiration och deltagande i världen, är kristligt. Det är för likt förkastandet av frälsarens middagarna med syndarna. Om vi är kallade att leva i kristi efterföljd, eller åtminstone i lärjungarnas, hur kan då ett konsistent avståndstagande från alla som inte är rena nog vara rätt? Framförallt när kristi förklaring var att han kom för de sjuka och inte de friska. Ovanpå det, hur kan en kristen förkasta judendomen, och förklara deras förbund förlorat, när kristus själv påstår att han är där för att uppfylla det, och befästa det? När regnbågen, om man nu skall vara bokstavstrogen, är det eviga beviset på att det gamla förbundet står? Jag förstår författarens behov, i dess tid, av differentiering, men inte heller där verkar påståendena konsistenta: Om mirakler och riter skall tolkas i ljuset av profetior, och Gud är fundamentalt reaktiv, snarare än planerande, hur kan då kristusoffret vara för evigt, utan att riskera en gud som blir korrumperad av den mängd ondska som bereds tillträde till himlen?

Barnabas förefaller mig vara en tänkare med stark längtan efter helighet, men med en exkluderande bild av det heliga, sacer snarare än parousia (vilket jag vet är en udda jämförelse, men det bästa jag kommer på). I någon mån ser jag inte att det åsidosatta som tomhet för gud kan existera på egen hand, i den karaktär av tomt äggskal som Barnabas verkar vilja göra det till. I jämförelse med Teresa av Avila, som hade samma längtan, verkar Barnabas väg förfelad. Men om den verkligen är det, vad får mig att fokusera så mycket på den, bortsett från irritationen över att ha förnekat och begabbat det gamla förbundet?

Eller också övertänker jag situationen helt, och tillskriver Barnabas en helighet bortom moralisk redlighet (vilken syns i hans lista för det goda livet), som då skulle medföra en urvalsförmåga som en engagerad människa (vilket också är tydligt att Barnabas var, givet hans första avsnitt) inte nödvändigtvis hade. Detta är den enklaste lösningen, kanske därför också den bästa.

[Michael F]

An intriguing and very early Christian epistle (somewhere between 70-135 AD) with a lot of creative typological readings of the Old Testament. It was in contention for the New Testament canon, but it’s a good thing it wasn’t included, as it causes some problems with its rather radical idea that the OT ceremonial law was always only symbolic and that the Israelites only applied it literally because they were wicked.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The epistle is divided into two parts: the first part contains all sorts of wild exegesis and allegory to argue for the superiority of the new covenant. The second part, which is significantly shorter, returns to the Didache's teaching of the "Two Ways".

It's interesting to compare this letter's "superiority argument" with that of the letter to the Hebrews, where the latter's argument actually is grounded in careful exegesis of the OT, while the former contains all sorts of strange readings. An example of some wild exegesis:

"Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] saith, “And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.” What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted—Ten by Ι, and Eight by Η. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, “Three Hundred.” He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy."

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is such an interesting read. Barnabas’s letter provides brief insight into the early church and the ethics of the day. The brevity of the work makes it a must read for anyone looking to better understand what the early church was doing with the information they had and how they were seeking interact with the culture at the time.

[Matt Daq · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really cool book where the author writes about how Jesus is found in a ton of the Old Testament laws, traditions etc.
this writing seems like it could be a part of the Christian canon.
I’m glad I read this.

[T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sound Christian teaching

[Mark Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part of my “Early Christian Writings” read from Maxwell Staniforth. Good read. Interesting and confusing.

[Daniel Lieber · Rating 2 out of 5]

In my opinion, the Epistle of Barnabas is probably more harmful than helpful to a faithful, truth-seeking Christian and I would not recommend it for such readers. Its scriptural exegesis is completely untethered to any objective or consistent hermeneutic which comes across as borderline gnostic at times. It is not only anti-Judaism, but seemingly anti-Jewish culture and life as a whole which seems extreme to me. I think such a view violates the Romans 11 instruction not to be arrogant towards the natural branches (since we as Gentiles were grafted in) and questions the authenticity of OT believers who followed the Mosaic Law. However, the final few pages put forth a commendable encouragement and explanation of Christian ethics which is remarkably similar to that expressed in the Didache. In fact, I think the most interesting observations and takeaways from the Epistle of Barnabas can be gleaned from exploring how it relates to the Didache in both its similarities and differences.

First, it should be noted that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the biblical Barnabas. It was written far too late (likely a few decades after the Didache) and the name was simply claimed by a pseudeographer which was a relatively common practice at the time. Many believe the epistle originates from the area around Alexandria, Egypt. This is because: 1) Alexandria was famous for their use and teaching of allegorical interpretation (as opposed to Antiochene theologians that were more sympathetic to original authorial intent) which the epistle utilizes heavily; 2) Alexandrian theologians such as Clement of Alexandria appeared to have the highest esteem for the Epistle of Barnabas; and 3) the epistle was preserved in the ancient Bible Codex Sinaiticus which is from 4th century Egypt. The polemical tone seems to indicate there was some sort of increasing allure to return to or observe Mosaic rituals that the writing was responding to. Perhaps there was some sort of resurgence in Jewish nationalism associated with regional and Roman politics of the day.

Whatever the case may be, the primary intent of the epistle is to magnify Christ (which is a good thing), but does so by invalidating almost entirely the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament. My main critique is that the epistle interprets the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament to such an extreme extent, that OT readers before Christ could not have had any hope for any degree of true understanding of the OT text without immediate divine revelation. Indeed, God did immediately reveal himself to the prophets so that they might faithfully proclaim, “Thus says the LORD…” However, should we believe that since God only immediately revealed Himself to the prophets and not the prophets’ audience that the divine message of truth and faith fell on deaf ears? Were the prophets the only true believers and the Jews, who heard their human words and obeyed, assumed to be reprobates? If we come to such extreme conclusions, we accuse God of being a liar when Elijah claimed to be the only faithful follower of God left in Israel (1 Kings 19) and God assured him that he had preserved 7,000 believers who had not bowed to Baal.

The Epistle of Barnabas is right to say that the Mosaic Law intended to teach spiritual lessons. We see this explained throughout the New Testament in books like Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. However, the spiritual lessons are taught and apprehended through its actual observance and obedience, not its allegorical reinterpretation and application. Did not Uzzah literally die when he literally touched the Ark of the Covenant that God literally instructed them not to do lest they die in Numbers 4:15? Were not Nadab and Abihu literally consumed when they literally offered unauthorized fire contrary to the literal and clear instructions God provided in Leviticus 16?

The observance of the Mosaic Law was not itself sinful, but oftentimes sinful hearts observed the Law in vain. This is what Paul means in Romans 7:12-13 when he says, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.”

I’ll provide an example of how the Epistle of Barnabas seemingly demonizes and subjectively reinterprets Jewish observance of the Mosaic Law. In reference to the Mosaic dietary restrictions, the Epistle of Barnabas says, “there is no divine command as ‘do not eat’; no Moses spoke in a spiritual sense. Consequently, speaking of ‘swine,’ he meant this: Do not associate with such people as resemble swine, that is, people who forget the Lord when they revel in plenty, but know the Lord very well when they are in want– just as a swine, while feeding, takes no notice of its owner, but grunts when it is hungry and, after receiving food, is silent again.”

The author makes similar interpretations regarding OT Mosaic commands to not eat eagle, hawk, crow, hare, hyena, weasel, etc. The author says, “Concerning food, then, Moses received three moral precepts and spoke, as I have shown, in a spiritual sense; but the people, carnal-minded as they were, accepted them referring to real food.” So were OT Jews considered carnal people for observing these divine dietary instructions? Are we to believe that the 7,000 God preserved in Elijah’s day and the prophets themselves did not literally observe these dietary restrictions? Would not the people have called out Moses’ hypocrisy in abstaining from the very laws he imposed on them and demanded clearer explanation for his “spiritual convictions?” We have no evidence in the biblical text that the prophets themselves did not observe these laws literally. The epistle throws the baby out with the bathwater by demonizing any literal observance of the Mosaic Law instead of following the New Testament condemnation of vain and hypocritical observance of the Mosaic Law. When God says, “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me” (Isaiah 29:13), that does not mean we should not honor God with our lips.

I particularly took issue with the author's conclusion “how could those people (the Jews) grasp and understand these things? But we (the Christian church) rightly understand and explain the commandments in the sense which the Lord intended. He circumcised our ears and hearts for this very purpose that we might understand things like these.” The implication seems to be that the Jews were not meant to understand the meaning of the Mosaic Law they had been given which again brings into question the salvation of OT believers outside the prophets. It seems to me there is a sort of spiritual racism going on here. It rears its ugly head in other places as well, like when the author references the passages about Jacob and Esau taking the phrase “the older shall serve the younger” to really be speaking of the church inheriting blessing instead of Israel.

However, the author seems certain that they have interpreted the meaning correctly. How can they be so sure? The author has no objective or consistent hermeneutic by which they can have any assurance of a proper interpretation of scripture. One might say they employ an allegorical hermeneutic, but how can this be utilized objectively? What distinguishes right allegory from wrong allegory? The author gives no indication and rather asserts their own conviction claiming to be illumined by God which is very reminiscent of the secret knowledge by which gnostics made their claims. Furthermore, this purely allegorical method is not used consistently by the author and really how can anyone apply it consistently? There must be some ground of fixed and clear meaning to propose anything at all.

For example, the author of the epistle takes the account of six creation days to mean “in six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all things” and enter His 7th day rest (which the author says is the true sabbath) because elsewhere the Bible says “Behold, a day of the Lord is as a thousand years.” The former the author interprets allegorically because the latter they interpret literally! This a blatant inconsistency in interpretation and highlights the importance of seeking authorial intent. If our primary interpretive rule is to seek the intent of the original writer, we have an objective control that distinguishes right vs wrong allegory and allows literal interpretation when warranted by the author's overarching intent. In this way, the hermeneutic of authorial intent can be applied with a degree of objective control and consistency which would lead most readers to understand that the former should be understood more literally and the latter figuratively.

As I said before, I think the interpretation of scripture in this writing is awful and yet, at the end the author provides what I think amounts to very edifying ethical instructions and encouragements. They echo many instructions heard also in the Didache and conclude “May God, who is Lord over the whole world, grant you wisdom, understanding, insight, knowledge, of His just demands, and patient endurance. Be learners in God’s school, studying what the Lord requires of you; and then do it!” What a wonderful encouragement and theologically dense statement! That might be one of the great statements of the Christian life I’ve heard. So how can one deal so badly with interpreting the scriptures and yet have such profound, loving and accurate ethical application?

Here is what I think is going on and some observations that might give us an interesting insight into the early church. As one might expect, Christian teaching was not only shared through writing, but also more commonly it was shared orally. At the end of the Epistle of Barnabas when dealing with Christian ethics, we see many phrases that are near verbatim copies of phrases found in the Didache. Yet, the Didache has much different and more accommodating theology of the Mosaic Law and is thought to probably originate from the Syria-Palestine region given its Jewish flavor and probable intended audience. Would the author of the Epistle of Barnabas quote another document that explicitly undermines their own theology, especially a document from a foreign region that the audience or perhaps even the author themselves might be unfamiliar with? It seems more likely that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache may have both drawn from a common third source. What could that source be? Of course, we can’t know for sure, but I would hypothesize that perhaps it was early orthodox oral tradition that early Christians spread across the world carrying out the Great Commission that had been entrusted to the Apostles.

Here is a sampling of shared phrases between the two documents that I suspect could have been popular sayings shared orally amongst the early church:

“Do not withdraw your hand from your son or your daughter; but from their youth teach them the fear of God.”

“Accept as blessings the casualties that befall you, assured that nothing happens without God.”

“He surely did not come to call with an eye to rank or station in life; no, He comes to those whom the Spirit has prepared.”

“Seek daily the companionship of the Saints.”

“Do not hesitate to give, and do not give in a grumbling mood.”

“Hold fast to the traditions, neither adding nor subtracting anything.”

“Do not be hasty of tongue, for the tongue is a deadly snare.”

This list of near verbatim shared phrases found in both documents is not exhaustive, but they are a sampling of my favorites.
The Bart Ehrmans of the world have suggested that there were many “versions” of Christianity in the early church age and one simply won out in a political struggle against the others. In these documents, I find a powerful and encouraging rebuttal because in the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas we find varying theologies from different regions that both share essentially identical common ethical convictions. How does that happen? There must have been a common source or an original orthodoxy and would that not have been the early church founded by the Apostles themselves? Test the common truths with the Apostolic scriptures and you will find they harmonize perfectly.

I think modern Christians can find encouragement here regarding the authentic origins of their faith and also find relevant application to today’s theological landscape. Yes, we live in a world with many competing truth claims and denominations that unite today only to divide tomorrow and vice versa. Is there any hope of finding real, objective Christianity? Take heart Christian, the truth does exist and God has spoken through His Apostles and Prophets. Consult them above all else as all faithful saints have sought to do across the generations, consider the meditations of your Christian brothers with humility and grace knowing that we all bear wisdom and folly on this side of glory, and on your most discouraging days remember our trials keep us humble and God’s grace is sufficient for His power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

[Liam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not written by the Scriptural Barnabas. This was an extremely allegorical look at the meaning of the Old Testament for followers of Christ. The allegory was way too heavy for my taste.

[Michael Jeffries · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting theological conclusions at times, but excellent practical orthopraxy in the last sections.

[Asher D Barnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m a sucker for typology, but what in the world was that Tau argument. I’m not going to say that God couldn’t have given Abraham hints of Ancient Greek thousands of years before it was spoken, but basing an argument from a Hebrew text on the Greek alphabet is dubious at best… and then to say “no man hath ever
learnt from me a more genuine word; but I know that ye are worthy.” Like that’s the most important thing to learn from you?

Other than that wild argument that took me for a whole ride, it’s a great letter. The early church documents fascinate me.

[Lino Matteo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Epistle of Barnabas: Review and Thoughts

The Epistle was attributed to Barnabas, the companion of Paul the Apostle, by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) and Origen (c. 184 – c. 253).
I am not a biblical scholar. Why this book was considered but decided to not be included in the “official bible” is beyond me. However it is readable thanks to the translation work of J.B.Lightfoot, it is public domain, and reading, in the right mind frame, is a search for pleasure and wisdom. So let’s go.
As I have inscribed some of my notes and comments with an > I have decided to reformat for blog purposes but include a link for those that want to read as my source. Edits are mine for ease of blogging and commenting.
Barnabas was a colleague, companion and rival to Saul who became Paul. He was thought, was credited, and it disputed to have written or helped write other biblical and other canonical works of that era.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ~ Translated by J.B. Lightfoot, comments and formatting by Lino Matteo
Some sections of note:
• Barnabas 5:5: There is yet this also, my brethren; if the Lord endured to suffer for our souls, though He was Lord of the whole world, unto whom God said from the foundation of the world, Let us make man after our image and likeness, how then did He endure to suffer at the hand of men?
Making people in our image and likeness – note the plural. So we are like god, in some limited way. I think it is via the granting of free will, which in turns takes away foregone conclusions, as choices have consequences.
• Barnabas 18:1: There are two ways of teaching and of power, the one of light and the other of darkness; and there is a great difference between the two ways. For on the one are stationed the light giving angels of God, on the other the angels of Satan.
Has it ever been stated so bluntly? Also shows a duality with the Kingdom in which we are living. Follows up at 18:2 with “Lord from all eternity and unto all eternity,” humans with limited capacity are grasping to understand eternity, in either direction.
Ken Follett in The Evening and the Morning, writes about a monk that explains that scribing the gospel of Mark not only creates a new book but brings the scribe to a closer and more meaningful understanding of the book. Felt that my editing of this Epistle has done something similar, if not quite as profound for me.
He also conveys the importance of getting along: You shall not bear a grudge against thy brother (19:4). Imagine that this goes for all siblings. But how about all people? Well he answers that in 19.5, “Thou shall love your neighbour more than your own soul.”
Now he also instructs against infanticide and abortion, but let us examine it more closely: “You shall not murder a child by abortion, nor again shall thou kill it when it is born.” The messages are quite clear but let us keep in mind what the prior instruction was: “Thou shall love your neighbour more than your own soul.” So do not be pro-life if you are not pro all their life. This is an important message!
He follows it up in 19:6 with a message that is humble, righteous and minimalistic. Truly a message for our times and in 19:8 he talks about sharing in the physical world as we prepare for the next world. Even if you do not believe in the next world you can accept the logic of the message.

Lino Matteo ©™
October 26, 2020



Epistle of Barnabas: Review and Thoughts - My blog post
https://linomatteo.wordpress.com/2020...

[Peter Yang · Rating 4 out of 5]

I became interested in this apocryphal epistle after listening to Bart Erhman mention it in one of his lectures on Jesus and the Law, taken from a historical viewpoint. Overall, I would agree with the Church Fathers that this epistle did not deserve to be part of the canon. It reads more like an essay about the Bible rather than being a part of the Bible. For example, there are so many citations that Barnabas makes to other OT and NT verses that I'm wondering if I'm reading the essay of a student in seminary. There also aren't really many good teachings - the teachings are either 1) common stuff we've all heard before such as helping the poor or 2) absolutely heretical stuff that would be a red flag to any attentive reader. In terms of the red flag stuff: a very aggressive and unfavourable attitude toward the Jews, believing literally in the 6,000-year hypothesis of the earth ("a day is a thousand years to the Lord and God made the world in 6 days"), and basically trying to overwrite Judaic law as everything being merely "symbolic" and "metaphorical." For example, the Jewish law says not to eat pork, but Barnabas argues what this really means is "don't act like a pig who whines when it is hungry and is silent when fed." So I'm glad this epsitle didn't make it into the New Testament canon. It was an interesting read nonetheless though.

[Chandler Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very helpful work from the early church on Christian (Christological) interpretation of the Old Testament. Those interested in the history of biblical interpretation will find this to be a helpful starting point. As the translator notes in the introduction, various parts of this work are likely corrupted, and there are times when the author of the epistle cites Scriptural seemingly from memory or oral tradition, but his citations or quotations can be spurious. This does bring down the value of the interpretive work at times.

The most intriguing insights are the author’s comments about the spiritual interpretation of circumcision. The physical command is abolished, but now our ears have been circumcised to hear the message of salvation. The author also believes that Moses deliver the food laws in a spiritual manner about avoiding sin and wicked people, but that Israelites did not understand the spiritual nature of these commands and instead interpreted them literally. I’m not sure I’m convinced by this reading of the Law but I still found it thought-provoking.

[Allen Abbott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alright, under other circumstances, I would have given this a two star rating because of its virulently supersessionist theology ("Take heed to yourselves and be not like some, heaping up your sins and saying that the covenant is both theirs and ours. It is ours: but in this way did they finally lose it, after Moses had already received it..." [4:6–7]), but, interestingly, The Epistle of Barnabas contains several (purported) teachings of Jesus found nowhere in the New Testament or any extant noncanonical work. For example, it claims the following as direct teachings "of the Lord" (Jesus?): "'Behold I make the last things as the first.'" (4:10) (is this merely paraphrasing Jesus's teaching that "The first shall be last?" No one knows...), and "'The one who wants to glorify me must hold fast to what I have said. He must rejoice when he sees suffering coming upon him, knowing that I myself suffered first on his behalf.'" (5:6) Because it's always interesting to come across these noncanonical teachings of Jesus in early Christian texts, I decided to give it 3 stars instead.

[Keith Sobus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of The Epistle of Barnabas teaches or observes examples of typology in the OT and provides spiritual and allegorical interpretations of Old Testament texts. The epistle also identifies some places where God explicitly rebukes Israelites for idolatry, covenant breaking, and having only circumcised their flesh (and not their hearts).

Some of the allegorical interpretations seem to be a "stretch" while others seem quite reasonable or at the very least edifying for Christian meditation and consideration. Some will be familiar to many Christians who have heard of typology before whereas a handful may be new and profound. It is a fascinating read but a familiarity with scripture is a must for understanding and interpreting some of the finer points, the author does not go to lengths to explain things which he assumes his audience already knows.

[John Rossitto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Early writings of the church

For those unfamiliar with this epistle, scholars say it was held very high in the early church and was in line to be part of theNew Testament but didn’t make the cut. In reading it, the content isn’t as straight forward as other New Testament books but offers insight as to how early church fathers thought and attempted to use the Old Testament and the words of Jesus in their exhortation. Short read and well worth the time. Not to be confused with THe Gospel of Barnabus which is a Muslim text summarizing the gospels and the life of Jesus with a Muslim slant.

[Brian Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolute must read. This has all the juicy stuff i been looking for-- midrash ( is biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities) Gematria.
I really like Barnabas interpretation/explanation of the Law of Moses. He reveals some Easter Eggs pointing to Christ found in the Old Testament.
I've been told on good authority that this book didn't make the cut because it was originally a sermon from the saint, but someone wrote it down as an epistle and it made the council a bit unsure of it. Seems pretty orthodox to me. Loved it.

[Mr A I Ewalefoh · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Ancient Epistle of Barnabas

The Ancient Epistle of Barnabas is a must read. I urge every Christian to purchase and read this book. It’s so revelatory and very insightful. Awesomely written. One of the keys to surviving these end times is understanding of ancient prophecies given in scripture and how they are being fulfilled in our time. Lots of Christians and church leaders are unaware and ignorant of these truths. I strongly recommend this book.

[Adam Lees · Rating 2 out of 5]

Critics of Christianity like to point out that there were other early Christian writings which didn't make it into the Bible. The implication is that these books are perfectly sensible, have the same claim to apostolic authority, but were excluded for worldly and political reasons.

I invite these people to read the Epistle of Barnabas. Especially the section interpreting the Mosaic dietary laws.

[DEBORAH Davila · Rating 5 out of 5]

In agreement with the scriptures

It fits right in with the other epistles from Paul and John. The only thing that is confusing at times is that the writer assumes that the reader has knowledge of Jewish sacred writings and speaks/understands Hebrew. He refers to things that he does not explain.

[Aaron Schuschu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Used to be considered canon and then wasn’t (in contrast to how Gnostic gospels were never actually considered by the main church but circulated amongst Gnostics). It outlawed incense and abortion. The cool part was when it talked about how God saw time. Funny how I stumble on scriptural backing for my “weird ideas”.

[Alexander Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some good stuff on the importance of Christ’s atonement, Christian community, and morality. Main theme: against those who try to preach Judaism instead of the new covenant. Some good use of OT prophecies mixed with a fair bit of symbolic nonsense pulled out of the prophets.

[Max Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Church history is something that I can almost always recommend, and the Epistle of Barnabas is no exception to the rule. If you want to understand very early church writings outside of the Bible, this is a great book to read; especially if you are looking for something short.

[Marcus Goncalves · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shows the theology of the early Church. It is not clear, however, if this Barnabas was indeed the one mentioned in the Bible, Paul’s great partner.

[Jeremy · Rating 2 out of 5]

First time working through this, though have encountered some of the text earlier this year while TAing a Hermeneutics course for Missio Seminary. I like some kinds of allegorical interpretation, but lots of what this guy does here is stretching it ...

[Alex Kearney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some strange things and some wonderful things.