(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...In my last post in starting to explain why early Christians may have attributed the anonymous Letter to Barnabas to Barnabas, best known as a one of the closest companions of Paul. That post was a set up to this; in it I explained some of the key things we know about the mid-second century philosopher/theologian-eventually-branded-arch-heretic Marcion. Here I explain the relevance of that.
It is important to recall that the letter of Barnabas is stridently anti-Jewish, claiming that the Jews never were the people of God because they had broken the covenant as soon as God had given it to them on Mount Sinai (by worshipping the Golden Calf); they misunderstood the law, taking it literally, when it was meant figuratively. Even though Jews never realized it, the OT was not a Jewish book but a Christian book, that not only anticipated Christ but proclaimed the Christian message.
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman.
Do you think the concept of demons and the devil were prominent in the Old Testament or even before the Old Testament?
Thanks.
No. Those concepts didn’t appear until after virtually all the OT was written, around 200 years before Jesus when apocalytic thinking started to appear.
In light of Barnabas insisting that the OT was to be interpreted in a figurative way, rather than literally, I don’t understand how the modern literalists are able to make peace with Barnabas, unless they’ve decided to ignore the tension (it seems to be a tension to me) or to interpret Barnabas in something other than a literal way, which, if that’s what they do, then there’s yet another problem.
I’m not sure I’ve ever met a modern literalist who has ever read Barnabas or found him useful!
It’s interesting that the perspectives of the “Barnabas” document and Marcion were diametrically opposite. But they did have something in common: hostility toward Judaism, and one assumes, Jews. Or was Marcion and his church less hostile toward Judaism than might seem to be the case? (“Barnabas” is plainly hostile toward them.)
I’m wondering out loud if maybe that’s one thing that Christians could agree on, in spite of a lot of other things they disagree on.
Yeah, I guess there is hostility and there is hostility; these are two ways of attacking Jews.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
In Galatians 2 did Paul speak to Peter in Aramaic? Did Paul knew Aramaic, i dont think Peter knew Greek.
He shows no evidence of knowing ARamaic. I assume they had a translator, since that’s how most foreigners would hav had to
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Did non Jewish Jews know Aramaic in the 1 century? For example if Peter traveled to Rome could he even speak to people there? Did he even travel i mean he was poor.
Mainly not. I don’t know that Peter ever did go to Rome, but he travel apparently. I don’t know how he communicated (translators?). Though poor, he, like Paul, would have bee supported by other Christians.
Can we assume Barnabas also walked with Jesus as Matthias or Barsabbas, did?
No, this letter was written over a century after Jesus’ death. If you mean Barnabas the person, again no. He’s never mentioned as a follower of the historical Jesus.
Acts 14:14[2] is also the only biblical verse where Barnabas is referred to using the Greek word for Apostle.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnabas