Bernard Muller wrote:
I think your analysis on my cited quotes on 'Barnabas" are right on (exception in my view: cast a lot) and very helpful for me in order to understand their limitations concerning their value as evidence about "Barnabas" knowing the Synoptics, more so gMatthew. Thanks.
Thank you.
Bernard Muller wrote:I mean the tradition which preceded the gospels.
I don't see why "Barnabas" would used traditions which we don't know existed (before the gospels) rather than some gospels which you accepted existed then.
If you think there were no traditions before Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke and John wrote them down then you have to conclude that where Barnabas has a tradition which is the same as in one of them, it must come from one of them. However I don’t think that is your position because you wrote
I agree that a common tradition about the virgin fabricated around 80 CE was picked up by "Luke" & "Matthew" who greatly expanded it with their own invented stuff.
Therefore you do recognise that not everything in the gospels was created by the authors of the gospels and the author of Q.
Therefore I think for you to present a case that Barnabas could only have been using something from the gospel you have to not only present that the same idea was in a gospel but that it was created by a gospel author and so could not have existed as an independent tradition for Barnabas to use. If you can’t provide this second part then you have left open the possibility that the tradition was independent of the gospels and reached Barnabas independently of the gospels.
BTW, I did not see any close phrases between 'Barnabas" and gJohn. It does not look "Barnabas" knew any traditions preceding gJohn which eventually got into the same gospel. If it is true, that would be an argument against preceding traditions for gospels and "Barnabas" knowing gJohn.
I haven’t looked for John parallels to all the texts we have considered, but there is Jn 19:1-3 (crown of thorns and purple robe Mk15:16-20), Jn 19:23-24 which ends with “they parted my garments among them and for my clothing they cast lots”.
If Barnabas does not have unique parallels to John’s gospel this could mean John’s gospel was not written by then and that there are no unique early traditions in it, John just created new ones and used the Synoptics, but it can’t be used as evidence for this.
Bernard Muller wrote:Also, I made a study on the missing block (from gMark) in gLuke and one of my conclusion is "Luke" did not know of traditions (appearing in the missing block) available from other sources: you may consult that webpage:
http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
This is a discussion for another day.
Bernard Muller wrote:I don’t think Mark has Jesus say the words from the Septuagint. As I have shown the Greek of Barnabas and Septuagint Psalm 21:19b are identical. I am sure you are aware of the view of C. H. Dodd that the Old Testament testimonia were attached to the narratives in their oral stage before the tradition came to the gospel writers. Even Luke has “his garments” rather than the Psalms “clothing of-me”. You have failed to show dependency on Luke’s gospel. What we know is that Mark has a link to the same Psalm verse. Therefore it is very possible that the linking of this Psalm verse with the crucifixion of Jesus was very early before Mark wrote his gospel. Therefore the use of the Psalms “clothing of-me” could be put on the lips of Jesus independent of Luke.
I did not try to show dependency on Luke's gospel, rather dependency on the Synoptic gospels. After all, it is only in these gospels that "they" casted a lot
specifically on the garment of Jesus. That would be too much of a coincidence that "Barnabas" attributed that relative to Jesus by knowing only the Septuagint on that matter.
Mk 15:24 “… they … and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, …”
Mt 27:35 “… they divided his garments among them by casting lots;”
Lk 23:34 “And Jesus said, “Father …”. And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
My mistake Barnabas is not using Mark, Matthew or Luke. As I stated earlier the words are identical to Septuagint Psalm 21:19 “καί Ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον” (“my clothing” not “his clothing”). In fact the Greek is also identical to that used by John:
“καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον”.
Are you saying that Barnabas used “they” from either Luke or Matthew rather than “they” being natural or from the Septuagint Psalm – “διεμερίσαντο” – “they-are”?
Bernard Muller wrote:It looks to me that casting Jesus' garment a lot was something already known by "Barnabas" and his audience. It does not look it is something that "Barnabas" read in the LXX and then thought it was a good idea to attribute that to Jesus.
If you think the casting of lots for Jesus’ garments was known by Barnabas and his audience then this could be because of one of three things:
1. It happened and this fact was always part of the story,
2. The Psalm quote was attached to the story early and came to Barnabas this way,
3. Mark attached the Psalm to the story and Barnabas could only know of it from one of the gospels.
For the third of these to be true the other two must be false, but you haven’t provided a case for why these are false. For me I think the second is most likely but I haven’t ruled out the other two.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:08 pm
Michael BG wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:53 amI have already stated that I date Barnabas by 16:3-4 to 130 or 131.
Do you have a link to your post or to evidence that 16.3-4 lines up nicely with 130/131?
I am not sure what you are asking for. In this thread page 8 I wrote,
It is possible that Barnabas was written in either 130 or 131 CE after the Emperor Hadrian had agreed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. This would be why the author wrote that the rebuilding was happening now.
On page 10 I wrote,
It seems that their enemy destroyed it and the servants of the enemies are going to rebuilt it. If the enemy is the Romans, then the servants of the enemy are the workers of the Romans. This would fit 130 /131 CE when Hadrian had announced he was going to rebuild the Temple.
I have just found this
HADRIAN
By: Richard Gottheil, Samuel Krauss
Roman emperor (117-138). … Afterward he seems to have avoided conflict with the Jews and to have granted them certain privileges. … and Jewish legend says that R. Joshua b. Hananiah was on friendly terms with him, and that Hadrian intended to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem (Gen. R. lxiv.). This agrees with the statement of Epiphanius ("De Mensuris et Ponderibus," § 14) that the emperor commissioned the proselyte Akylas (Aquila)—who, according to the rabbinical legend, was related to him—to supervise the building at Jerusalem, this of course referring to the city and not to the Temple. Other Christian sources, as Chrysostom, Cedrenus, and Nicephorus Callistus, say that the Jews had intended to build the Temple themselves; but a passage in the Epistle of Barnabas (xvi. 4)—though its interpretation is disputed among scholars—seems to indicate that the Jews expected the pagans to rebuild the Temple.
(
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7015-hadrian)
