Category: Epistle Of Barnabas - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Conclusions about Barnabas and Didache

12/19/2022

12/19/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Ten: Conclusion." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 165-168.

Muilenburg finds that the overall question is one of a literary relationship between Barnabas and the Didache. The solution, as he sees it, is a recognition that Barnabas preceded the Didache and represents a piece of fervent teaching, while the Didache is a measured compendium of Christian teaching (Muilenburg 1929, 165). Barnabas is taken to be the composition of one author, while the Didache appears to be a composite work (Muilenburg 1929, 166). The materials adapted in both are overwhelmintly Jewish, but have been adjusted in places to have a Christian outlook. They were recognized in their period and after as Christian works (Muilenburg 1929, 167).

More Comparisons of Barnabas and Didache

12/16/2022

12/16/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Nine: Parallels Outside of the Two Ways." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 159-164.

Muilenburg concedes that Barnabas and the Didache do not have many parallel passages outside the Two Ways material, but he does survey some which strike him as important. He views these mostly as moralistic rather than theological statements since, in his opinion, theological statements lose their significance with changing times and conditions (Muilenburg 1929, 159).

In considering similarities of eschatological passages, again, Muilenburg considers it a forgone conclusion that the Didache borrowed its views and themes from Barnabas. He cites numerous conceptual parallels (Muilenburg 1929, 160). Muilenburg does consider whether the Didache may have drawn the concepts from the Old Testament. However, he rejects this idea in favor of a borrowing from Barnabas due to the relative similarity of other passages and the assumption that the Didache has borrowed from Barnabas elsewhere (Muilenburg 1929, 161-162). The more obscure statements are also occasionally expanded in Barnabas.

Comparison of Texts - Barnabas and Didache

12/15/2022

12/15/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Eight: Comarison of the Two Ways Chapters of the Teaching and the Epistle of Barnabas." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 140-158.

Muilenburg here returns to his initial and central question, that of the nature of the literary relationship between Barnabas and the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 140). Because Muilenburg considers the work of Barnabas to be a literary unity, and the Didache a composite work, he concludes that the Two Ways material is original to Barnabas and adopted by the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 141). Though the imagery used in the Didache is often more vivid and original than that used in Barnabas, Muilenburg takes this to show the editorial work of a superior intellect (Muilenburg 1929, 143).

Muilenburg continues with a comparison of various lines from the Two Ways, highlighting possible sources and the editorial revisions made (Muilenburg 1929, 143ff). Muilenburg's opinion, indicated repeatedly, is that the Didache is a later, more literary work than Barnabas, and depends on the earlier work.

Muilenberg's conclusion is that the works are significantly different in nature, though they deal with similar material (Muilenburg 1929, 158). The Didache is a church manual, written with an eye to artful order, while Barnabas is a more enthusiastic and hastily composed exhortatory letter.

Literary Integrity of Barnabas and the Didache

12/14/2022

12/14/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Seven: Literary Integrity." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 109-139.

Muilenburg reviews theories in which Barnabas is seen to have been heavily interpolated (Muilenburg 1929, 109). His view is that it shows literary unity but a greater breadth of ideas than criticis wish to admit. Muilenburg takes an analysis of th,e Two Ways passage to illustrate the literary unity of Barnabas. Attempts to analyze the passage in terms of a series of interpolations prove to create enough logical gaps that Muilenburg does not find them plausible. He illustrates this by discussing the theoretical classification if Windisch (1920) in detail (Muilenburg 1929, 110ff).

A significant unifier, in Muilenburg's estimation, is the use of transition sentences (Muilenburg 1929, 113). They tend to emphasize the importance of γνῶσις, and treat knowing as a recurring theme throughout all 21 chapters. Both the first portion (ch. 1-17) and the second (18-21) are tied together by the theme. "Walking" in the way of righteousness and such knowledge is an essential part of the entirety of the teaching (Muilenburg 1929, 114). Muilenburg illustrates this with numerous sentences pulled from the text. The picture he develops is that of an author who reiterates ideas so as to make internal references to the same topic throughout a work. Muilenburg further notes consistent references to Isaiah and to Ephesians, again, spread throughout the Epistle (Muilenburg 1929, 119, 1212). Muilenburg's analysis is lengthy and detailed.

In conclusion, based on internal evidence, Muilenburg concludes that the same author is responsible for chapters 1-17 and 18-20. The portions of chapter 19 which are sometimes thought to be an insertion are drawn from earlier chapters in a way similar to the other portions of the text (Muilenburg 1929, 130).

Muilenburg continues by analyzing the Epistle's 21st chapter to see if there is a divergence from the prior patterns (Muilenburg 1929, 130ff). In fact, again, as he walks through the material line by line, he finds consistency in themes, self-referential statements, and manner of expression.

Muilenburg briefly considers whether the Didache shows integrity in its composition (Muilenburg 1929, 135ff). He finds the same compositional techniques in operation in 1-6 and in 7-16, including methods of abridging sources, simplicity of expression, and overall catecetical purpose (Muilenburg 1929, 136). While the Didache has literary unity, Muilenburg is quick to define that unity. "Literary unity of the Teaching means, briefly, that the compilation is the work of one hand" (Muilenburg 1929, 137). He does conclude that the work is composite in nature. Muilenburg provides samples of internal statements and reviews which point up the careful work of creating literary unity and consistency throughout the work. While Muilenburg does not define a date, he suggests the work comes from the time of Barnabas or earlier (Muilenburg 1929, 139).

Cultural Character of the Writings

12/13/2022

12/13/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Six: Jewish Character." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 98-108.

Muilenburg finds in Barnabas strong statements against the 'old covenant' of the Jews, along with his apparent understanding of the intricacies ofJewish customs, a strong suggestion that the author is a recent convert to Christianity from Judaism (Muilenburg 1929, 98). Some of the cultural markers suggest the author is more familiar with Judaism as practiced in Alexandria than in Palestine (Muilenburg 1929, 99).

The Didache may well be compared to Barnabas as having a particular Jewish character. Muilenburg compares it to "a Talmud, probably the kind of manual or handbook employed by Jewish missionaries among proselytes" (Muilenburg 1929, 102). The Two Ways material is certainly rooted in Old Testament teaching. Muilenburg goes farther, by tracking down likely Jewish parallels for numerous ideas from Didache 7-15 (Muilenburg 1929, 105ff). This signals to me the level of continuity between Judaism and Christianity, where Christianity may be seen as a fulfillment of, rather than a sharp departure from, Judaism.

How Does It Use the Bible?

12/12/2022

12/12/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Five: Employment of Scripture." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 85-97.

Muilenburg considers the Old Testament usage in Barnabas to be "profuse" and similar in nature to the patterns found in Philo of Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 85). He uses it as his authoritative source of proof for arguments. While he mostly uses the wording of the Septuagint, he also feels free to make alterations in wording so as to expose what he considers the true significance. Muilenburg provides several examples of uses of the Old Testament in which Barnabas is faithful to essential ideas but not to specific wording (Muilenburg 1929, 86-87). The type of exegesis used suggests to Muilenburg a familiarity with the Hebrew Old Testament and a rabbinic approach to symbolic and allegorical interpretation (Muilenburg 1929, 88-89). Because of the type of Old Testament usage, and the lack of clearly Gnostic elements despite extensive references to γνῶσις, Muilenburg, with Harnack, takes the text to be dated about 130, and to stem from Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 90).

The Didache also has a large amount of quotation and paraphrase of Scripture. However, unlike Barnabas, the Didache mostly seems drawn from the New Testament (Muilenburg 1929, 91). Muilenberg identifies eight quotations, discussing some of them in detail (Muilenburg 1929, 91ff). A challenge in analysis is the terse style of the Didache, which results in truncated quotations. Mulienburg discusses the variations in language and briefly entertains the possibility of an early date of composition, but then suggests "8:2, 15:3, and 15:4 seem rather to imply a written record" (Muilenburg 1929, 93). He does not explain what makes that implication. Muilenburg notes that Harnack finds as many as 23 places where the Didache uses the New Testament, with 17 of them from Matthew (Muilenburg 1929, 9). Muilenburg considers many passages to show traces of New Testament content, but notto be very clear.

Muilenburg concludes that the use of biblical texts is very different in the Didache and Barnabas, and that neither author seems to know or directly use the other (Muilenburg 1929, 96-97).

Literary Character of Barnabas and the Didache

12/9/2022

12/9/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Four: Literary Character." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 48-84.

Muilenburg moves his inquiry toward identifying the specific literary character of the Epistle of Barnabas and of the
Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 48). He takes the Epistle to be quite literally a letter addressed to a real Christian community, though perhaps not expressed as warmly and naturally as it would be by some authors (Muilenburg 1929, 49). Barnabas suggests the former Law of God as expressed in the Old Covenant has been replaced by a new law in Jesus (Muilenburg 1929, 53). The writing throughout has a rabbinic tone in its organization and use of argumentation. Muilenburg gives numerous examples of the type of exegesis used in the Epistle, presumably demonstrating that it is similar in method to rabbinic examples (Muilenburg 1929, 55ff). Muilenburg also finds the Epistle of Barnabas to have a characteristically Jewish construction, not incoherent at all. He continues by presenting an outline (Muilenburg 1929, 59). Barnabas is characterized by considerable verbal parallelism and restatement of ideas, another common Jewish literary technique (Muilenburg 1929, 60ff). Muilenburg provides lists of parallelisms in some detail, particularly on pp. 65-66. Though we might expect the Hebraisms to point to a work translated from Hebrew, Muilenburg notes that the passages are almost all drawn from the Septuagint (Muilenburg 1929, 67). After reviewing peculiarity in word choice, Muilenburg sums up the style as clumsy (Muilenburg 1929, 68), zealoous for the distinction between Jewish and Christian thought (Muilenburg 1929, 69), and expressed throughout by odd phraseology (Muilenburg 1929, 70-71).

The Didache finds broad scholarly agreement about its literary character (Muilenburg 1929, 72). It is apparently gathered from a number of sources, compiled for catechesis and use as a church order. Muilenburg provides a detailed outline, referring to sources of material where possible (Muilenburg 1929, 73-77). The text has a clear arrangement throughout, showing a desire for orderliness (Muilenburg 1929, 77). It is brief and memorable, focused on the catechetical goals (Muilenburg 1929, 79). From a linguistic standpoint, Muilenburg finds numerous Hebraisms, and a vocabulary which may suggest the Didache preceded Barnabas (Muilenburg 1929, 80). Where we find parallel passages in Barnabas, however, the Didache makes them more orderly. This suggests Barnabas preceded the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 83).

Evaluation of Textual Integrity

12/8/2022

12/8/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Three: Early Literary History." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 22-47.

External evidence for the dating of both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache is necessary. The Epistle has only two possible internal references which could indicate a date, and they are not clear. The Didache has no internal indicators of a date (Muilenburg 1929, 22). However, Muilenburg is cautious, noting that some parallel wording or ideas do not necessarily signify dependence but may simply point to a similar commitment to like ideas. He goes on to list numerous similarities between the Epistle and other deatable works, but finds the similarities not to make one certain of literary dependence (Muilenburg 1929, 23). Then again, a relationship which does not demonstrate dependence may still be of value. It is a challenging matter to assert the value of a given parallel (Muilenburg 1929, 24). Muilenburg provides numerous examples of similarities. He finds that Clement of Alexandria, probably about 215-216, mentions the Epistle clearly (Muilenburg 1929, 25). Tertullian makes a possible reference, but may be conflating it with Justin Martyr. Psueudo-Cyprian and Hippolytus make possible allusions, but they are not clear references. Origen does seem familiar with the Two Ways (Muilenburg 1929, 26). The fragmentary Latin Didache has several passages in which there seems to be a familiarity with the Epistle, particularly 18. and 18.2 (Muilenburg 1929, 27). We observe, however, that the bulk of these indications of familiarity are relatively late and provide no help in identifying a date of composition.

Muilenburg further evaluates the integrity of Barnabas. Some of the passages which are not present in all the versions are also absent in parallels with Clement of Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 28). The letter is only known in Alexanddria prior to the fourth century and is ascribed by Clement and Origen to Barnabas, the companion of Paul (Muilenburg 1929, 30).

Muilenburg asserts that "The literary relations between the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and the Epistle of Barnabas, on the one hand, and between the Teaching and the Shepherd of Hermas, on the other, constitute one of the most complex problems which extra-canonical Christian literature has bequeathed to us (Muilenburg 1929, 32). There is specific debate about priority between Hermas and the Didache. Muilenburg specifically reviews some of the arguments of Schaff, which he does not always consider sound (Muilenburg 1929, 32ff). Likewise, Muilenburg considers the attempts to demonstrate that Clement ws familiar with the Didache to be "questionable" (Muilenburg 1929, 36). Muilenburg details the alleged parallels between the Didache and works of Clement. He then continues with citations of Eusebius and Athanasius as they identified writings to be accepted or rejected (Muilenburg 1929, 38-39). This does not particularly add to discussion of literary relationships, but it does make it clear the writings were known. One of the challenges, which is not often stated (includin by Muilenburg), but which appears in repetitive use of language, is that the works speak of a way of good and a way of evil. These themes are routinely present in literature, especially of a religious nature, thus confusing the field of inquiry.

Two Ways documents were known in early Christianity. The Didache contained one, but, as Muilenburg observes, was not limited to that. This was apparently recognized by Athanasius, who cited the Two Ways and other parts of the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 42). Yet, for some reason, scholarly attention has focused on the Two Ways material.

Comparing Ancient Manuscript Streams

12/7/2022

12/7/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Two: The Text." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 10-21.

Muilenburg reviews the manuscript evidence available at his time for the Epistle of Barnabas (Muilenburg 1929, 10ff). There are eight Greek manuscripts which seen derived from the same source, based on missing portions. Additionally there is a Latin version, which also contains the chapters missing from the Greek version (Muilenburg 1929, 12). The epistle is also complete in the Codex Sinaiticus, also containing parts of the Old Testament, the entire New Testament, and a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas (Muilenburg 1929, 14). Another witness is the same Jerusalem Codex which contains the Didache. Muilenburg, with the majority of scholars, considers the Latin version to be defective. However, on the whole, he considers the Greek versions sound (Muilenburg 1929, 15-16).

The Didache is preserved for us in only one Greek version (Muilenburg 1929, 17). The text, in Muilenburg's estimation, is comprehensive and sound. A Latin version of 1.1-2.6 has also been discovered. The Latin fragment is not considered an important witness. However, some have considered the selection of that passage as an important insight into catechesis and the center of early catechesis (Muilenburg 1929, 18). Versions of portions are also to be found in the Apostolical Church Order (Muilenburg 1929, 18), and the Apostolical Constitutions (Muilenburg 1929, 19), along with an Arabic version of some portions in the Life of Schnudi. Muilenburg also notes two more recently discovered fragments, one of 64 words from 1.3-1.4 and 2.7-3.2, another on one large sheet containing 10.3-12.2 (Muilenburg 1929, 20). These texts do not significantly clarify any textual questions.

Why Compare the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas?

12/6/2022

12/6/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter One: Introduction: History of the Problem." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 1-9.

Muilenberg observes that, while dating of documents is of primary importance in developing an adequate chronology of Church history, the dates are often elusive. Use of stages of doctrinal development may be of assistance, but developments occur at different rates in different communities (Muilenburg 1929, 1). The same holds true of linguistic characteristics. Muilenburg considers the relationship of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache to be a case in point. The Epistle of Barnabas has been placed as early as 50 and as late as the fourth century (Muilenburg 1929, 2).

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache have considerable material in common but also have significant doctrinal and literary differences (Muilenburg 1929, 3). In particular, Muilenburg notes the Two Ways material was alternatively considered inspired by the Sermon on the Mount or to have inspired it (Muilenburg 1929, 3-5). It is significant to Muilenburg that outside of the Two Ways material there are not significant parallels (Muilenburg 1929, 7). The question of actual dependence of one whole text on the other remains elusive, though the Two Ways material may be largely similar.

Muilenburg's work deals almost exclusively with literary relationships rather than doctrinal relationships (Muilenburg 1929, 8). He appears interested by the Talmudic nature of Barnabas. The rabbinic character of the early Christian writings informs his analysis at many points.

Finding Relationships among Ancient Documents

5/15/2020

5/15/20

Connolly, R.H. “The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas.” Journal of Theological Studies 33:3 (1932), 237-253.

Connolly notes that most Didache scholarship has been based on conjectures which consider dating in comparison with development of churchly authority structures and growing clarity of articulation of the Eucharist. These studies have normally placed the text “very early in the second century, or even well within the first” (Connolly 1932, 237). However, Robinson’s lectures, published as Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (1920) began to treat the issue of dating through literary criticism, in a method similar to that used in considering the synoptic problem.

Robinson particularly concentrated on the Two Ways portion of the Didache, as that is the area of greatest overlap with both Barnabas and Hermas (Connolly 1932, 237). Robinson’s conclusion was that Barnabas was the source of the Two Ways narrative, that Hermas used it as a source, and that the author of the Didache used both
(Connolly 1932, 238).

Connolly sets out to apply Robinson’s methods in detail to the second part of the Two Ways, the Way of Death (Connolly 1932, 238). To make matters more straightforward, he compares only the Didache and theEpistle to Barnabas, rather than working with a three way comparison.

Connolly’s comparison begins with a rendering of Barnabas 20:1 and Didache 5:1 in parallel columns, with the elements of the Way of Death cross-referenced for easy comparison (Connolly 1932, 239). Connolly then observes the significant distinctions between the two lists (Connolly 1932, 240). The one in Barnabas has no hint of organization, while that in the Didache has some level of classification, particularly between acts (all plural) and the mantal states (all singular). Connolly observes that the Didachist lists sins in the same order as Matthew 15:19 (also plural) (Connolly 1932, 241).

Connolly continues then by considering each of the elements of the list of sins found in Didache but not in Barnabas (Connolly 1932, 242). He draws detailed comparisons of those two works to mentions of the same sins in the canonical Scriptures, regularly understanding the Didachist to have taken the languagefrom the Scripture.

When he considers the overall content of the list of sins, Connolly points out that Barnabas has relatively little internal self-reference, but that the Didache does. Precepts brought up in one place are almost always referenced later, in the same terms and the same order (Connolly 1932, 244). He observes, then, with Harnack, that if Barnabas borrowed from the Didache, he seems to have systematically stripped it of much of its order and all of its genuine Gospel (Connolly 1932, 245).

Harnack’s view of the matter was that both Barnabas and the Didache took the Two Ways material from an older, Jewish source. Connolly proceeds to test that theory (Connolly 1932, 246). For this test, rather than looking for differences, Connolly looks for similarities which would not be likely accidents. He provides the text of Barnabas 20:2 and notes the differences found in Didache 5:2. The differences arefew and normally insignificant. What is striking to Connally is that “they have this long and amorphous list of evil persons in exactly the same order” (Connolly 1932, 247). Connally considers this as evidence that the two documents are in a direct relationship to one another. The earlier evidence persuades Connolly that Barnabas existed first and that the Didachist elaborated and re-organized some of the material (Connolly 1932, 247).

Connolly next traces a number of other statements from various locations in Barnabas which are supported by similar statements in the Didache (Connolly 1932, 248-252). With discursive remarks inserted in the list Connolly notes catch phrases used by both texts, as well as similarities in the context surrounding the different statements.

Connolly concludes that there is adequate evidence, even merely from Barnabas 20:2, that the Didache is dependent on Barnabas (Connolly 1932, 252). He also thinks, but has not explored in detail, the parallel texts show origin in Barnabas and editorial development in Didache.