Defending the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Argument Five Antilegomena Part 3 Epistle of Barnabas

Hello, this is Anayah, and I am making this video in order to demonstrate why I believe the Epistle of Barnabas should be considered Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas is doubted by many for several reasons. First of all, it quotes apocryphal books. This argument means nothing when we realize that the apocryphal books are Scriptural. Further, the New Testament quotes apocryphal books, especially the Epistle of Jude. Thus, to reject the Epistle of Barnabas on the grounds that it quotes apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books would mean you would have to reject the Episle of Jude as well, which quotes clearly quotes from the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch. Many argue that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Apostle Barnabas because of its late date, however, the way they date this epistle is very weak. They date it almost exclusively on the fact that it quotes the apocryphal 2 Esdras as Scripture. And skeptics believe without good evidence at all, that 2 Esdras was written near the end of the 1st century CE. So, that would mean that if thats true, then the Epistle of Barnabas which quotes 2 Esdras, could not have been written earlier than the second century. But there is a huge and significant problem with this idea. First of all, the belief that 2 Esdras is dated so late is based on the idea that it could not have possibly been authentic prophecy. Thus, if 2 Esdras prophesies about an event, skeptics will say it must have been written after the event happened. However, if you believe in the gift of prophecy, as all believers do, then you should realize that this is a really poor argument. What is really going on here is an bias against apocryphal books and against Judaism and Christianity in general. Skeptics have yet to demonstrate how the Epistle of Barnabas could have been fooled by 2 Esdras. If it had just been recently created, the author would not have so quickly quoted the book, for he would have known that no one regarded 2 Esdras as the actual words of Esdras, thereby discrediting the entire book, and that would have not suited the purposes at all of the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. There is evidence that the Epistle of Barnabas could not have been written after the year 132 CE due to the content of the Epistle describing events that happened after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and before the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132 CE. The Epistle of Barnabas was included in the Codex Sinaiticus Bible, an early and major authority for the manuscripts of the New Testament even according to Protestants. The Codex Hierosolymitanus, a much later version of the Bible, included the Epistle of Barnabas among many other books not currently in the Protestant New Testament. The Church Fathers, Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria both considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be Scripture. By those who consider it Scripture, and those that reject the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Barnabas could not have been written any earlier than 70 CE. This makes Clement of Alexandria a valuable witness to the Epistle of Barnabas, for he is only distanced by about 100 years. Further evidence that the apostle Barnabas wrote the Epistle of Barnabas is that there are many clear and direct parallels with the Epistle of Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both authors talk about similar things, and both have advocate a shift in the perspective on Jewish beliefs, customs, and traditions. A final argument that claims that the Epistle of Barnabas is not Scripture is that the Epistle of Barnabas is extremely anti-jewish. At first glance, most would be convinced Barnabas is anti-jewish. However, this is mainly on the bias of the translators, and, as such, if you look at without the bias of the translators, you will see that the Epistle of Barnabas is not anti-jewish at all. In fact, it is one of the most jewish books of Scripture in the entire New Testament. Barnabas is not claiming that jews are wrong to observe the Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath, abstaining from unclean meats, and circumcision. Rather, Barnabas is stressing that if these things are done outside of the spiritual meaning of them, they lose all of their meaning. Circumcision of the flesh means nothing if your heart is not circumcised. Likewise, the prohibition of unclean meats becomes an empty ritual when the prohibition is void of spiritual discipline and understanding. And the Sabbath was constantly being corrupted by some Jews who did not understand the meaning and purpose of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not supposed to be a burden for the people. It was supposed to be a delight, and joy, but they lost the meaning of it when they removed the spiritual aspects of the Law and replaced and made supreme the physical aspects of the rituals. As the arguments disappear one by one, it is clear then the Barnabas was the author of this Epistle.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• apocrypha
• apocryphal
• pseudepigraphal
• pseudepigrapha
• canon
• scripture
• scriptures
• bible
• church
• father
• protestant
• catholic
• roman
• orthodox
• nazarene
• judaism
• israelites
• antilegomena
• disputed
• new
• testament
• old
• epistle
• of
• barnabas
• second
• esdras
• ezra

[AgApE010]

"Barnabas" misquotes Scripture repeatedly in that work. He attributes a passage from Daniel to Enoch. He quotes things as Scripture out of ignorance that are nowhere found in the Scriptures. Whoever he was, he doesn't seem to be the Biblical Barnabas and certainly was not inspired by the Spirit.

[carlsonap16]

@AgApE010 furthermore not all manuscripts say "Enoch" there but some say "daniel". you are to quick to reject God's word. the bible also has many manuscripts differences, so how come you ignored the manuscript differences of the Epistle of Barnabas?

[AgApE010]

@carlsonap16

I'm not quick to reject God's word. You're begging the question by assuming it IS God's word. But this is precisely what you're supposed to prove first.

There are still many places where "Barnabas" thinks he's quoting Scripture from words that are not found anywhere in Scripture. Other places he quotes Scripture so inaccurately that it takes effort to see from where he is trying quote. It simply does not seem to be the work of a man inspired by God.

[carlsonap16]

@AgApE010 you are begging the question by assuming its not

[AgApE010]

@carlsonap16

You don't seem to know what it means to beg the question. Don't make hasty replies.

And no, the canonical books do not erroneously quote the OT. "Barnabas" makes wild, free quotes attributing them to Scripture. You've yet to answer this problem, sir.

[carlsonap16]

@AgApE010 no i do know what it means; and i used it in the same way you did.

i was referring to the NT canonical books. context is everything. dont misinterpret my statements.

Barnabas does not make free quotes of Scripture. you just have the wrong Scriptures. Barnabas' canon is much larger and uses different manuscripts than what you have. the Deuteronomy in all Bibles is a joke compared to the original one that Barnabas used.

[carlsonap16]

@AgApE010 furthermore the 66 have the same socalled errors. you also assume the 66 are Scripture without sufficient justification. what is the basis for your canon?

[carlsonap16]

@AgApE010 that's not true. i have a lost work of Enoch which fits the reference of Barnabas exactly. its called "the Vision of Enoch" and its in Armenian collection of ancient writings. I have also identified some of his quotations as they come from various apocrypha such as 2 Esdras and one comes from one of the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "Apocryphon" of Ezekiel.

[carlsonap16]

@realirishdude no i haven't. lol, i totally forgot about this. thanks for the reminder =D

[realirishdude]

Have you checked out Bercot's site yet?