The date of the epistle of Barnabas.

[Ben C. Smith]

Subject: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

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)

Does this evidence not tend to compromise your case? The quotation characterizes the source for Hadrian's intention to rebuild the temple as a "Jewish legend" (about Rabbi ben Hananiah). Then it refers to Epiphanius, who contradicts this "legend" when he writes, "Hadrian made up his mind to (re)build the city, but not the temple." Then it mentions the many other Christian sources which insist that the Jews intended to rebuild the temple themselves. Is there no better evidence?

Interestingly for Bernard's case that the epistle of Barnabas was composed under Nerva, apparently Peter Richardson and Martin B. Shukster (in a 1983 article entitled Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis) and James Carleton Paget (in a 1994 book entitled The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background) have argued that the Jews had high hopes under Nerva that the temple might be rebuilt. I have no access either to the article or to the book at present, but from poking online a bit it would seem that the argument centers the coin minted under Nerva which bears the inscription: Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata:



This inscription may be translated, "malicious prosecution of the Fiscus Iudaicus has been abolished." The Fiscus Iudaicus (or Fiscus Judaicus) was the tax leveled on Jewry in place of their tithing to the Jerusalem temple after it had been destroyed in 70. Some interpret this coin as meaning that the tax was abolished under Nerva (apparently to be reinstated by Trajan, since receipts from Egypt which I recently came across in volume 2 of the Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum seem to indicate that the tax was still being paid after Nerva, at least as late as 116 or so), but most (I think) interpret it simply as a reform of systematic abuses of the taxation. The idea would be that Nerva did something favorable (toward Jews) with the tax, and that this spurred Jewish expectations that the temple would soon be rebuilt. But the whole thing seems pretty tenuous to me. The scenario seems possible, but hardly a smoking gun.

But the idea that Hadrian intended to rebuild the temple, thus jiving with two key verses in Barnabas, also seems tenuous to me so far:

Barnabas 16.3-4: 3 πέρας γέ τοι πάλιν λέγει· Ἰδού, οἱ καθελόντες τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον αὐτοὶ αὐτὸν οἰκοδομήσουσιν. 4 γίνεται.* διὰ γὰρ τὸ πολεμεῖν αὐτοὺς καθῃρέθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχτρῶν· νῦν καὶ αὐτοι οἱ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑπηρέται ἀνοικοδομήσουσιν αυτόν. / 3 Moreover he says again, "See, those who have destroyed this temple will themselves build it." 4 It is happening. For because of their war it was destroyed by their enemies. And now the servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.

* The word γίνεται ("it is happening") at the beginning of verse 4 is present in several defective Greek manuscripts which all hail from the same exemplar and is represented in the Latin translation, but is absent from codices Sinaiticus and Hierosolymitanus.

Also possibly relevant, of course, is the following:

Barnabas 4.4-5: 4. λέγει δὲ οὕτως καὶ ὁ προφήτης· Βασιλεῖαι δέκα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βασιλεύσουσιν, καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται ὄπισθεν μικρὸς βασιλεύς, ὃς ταπεινώσει τρεῖς ὑφ’ ἓν τῶν βασιλέων. 5. ὁμοίως περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λέγει Δανιήλ· Καὶ εἶδον τὸ τέταρτον θηρίον τὸ πονηρὸν καὶ ἰσχυρὸν καὶ χαλεπώτερον παρὰ πάντα τὰ θηρία τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀνέτειλεν δέκα κέρατα, καὶ ὡς ἐταπείνωσεν ὑφ’ ἓν τρία τῶν μεγάλων κεράτων. / 4 For also the prophet says, "Ten kingdoms will rule the earth and a small king will rise up afterwards; he will humble three of the kings at one time." 5 So too Daniel speaks about the same thing: "I saw the fourth beast, wicked and strong, and worse than all the beasts of the sea, and I saw how ten horns rose up from him, and from them a small horn as an offshoot; and I saw how he humbled three of the great horns at one time."

Are there any other indications of a date for this epistle? What is missing?

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

.. The Fiscus Iudaicus (or Fiscus Judaicus) was the tax leveled on Jewry in place of their tithing to the Jerusalem temple after it had been destroyed in 70. Some interpret this coin as meaning that the tax was abolished under Nerva (apparently to be reinstated by Trajan, since receipts from Egypt which I recently came across in volume 2 of the Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum seem to indicate that the tax was still being paid after Nerva, at least as late as 116 or so), but most (I think) interpret it simply as a reform of systematic abuses of the taxation. The idea would be that Nerva did something favorable (toward Jews) with the tax, and that this spurred Jewish expectations that the temple would soon be rebuilt.

I've done a bit of reading and research into the 'fiscus Iudaicus'.

• (In relation to it being a reason for people to leave Judaism, and it possibly being a catalyst for another religion ie. Christianity).

• The following notes are a summary of various sources.

It seems Nerva only relaxed the rules of collection.


Vespasian imposed it on all Jews in the empire, including women, children, and the elderly —and even Jewish slaves. The levy ('tithe') it replaced had only been payable by adult men between the ages of 20 and 50 [and I think only in Judea]. The Fiscus Iudaicus was humiliating to the Jews. Those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it.

It was expanded by Domitian (who ruled 81-96 AD) to include not only born Jews and converts to Judaism; but also on those who concealed the fact that they were Jews, or those who merely observed Jewish customs (Suetonius relates that, when he was young, an old man of 90 was examined to see whether he was circumcised, which shows that during this period the tax was levied even on those above the age of 62). Louis Feldman argues that the increased harshness was caused by the success of Jewish proselytism.

After the murder of Domitian in 96 AD, it seems Nerva only relaxed the rules of collection, limiting the tax to those who openly practised Judaism. The coins of Nerva are said to bear the legend fisci Iudaici calumnia sublata -"abolition of malicious prosecution in connection with the Jewish tax"- in reference to his reform of the harsh -'malicious'- policies of Domitian.

It remains unclear when exactly the fiscus Iudaicus was eventually abolished. Documentary evidence confirms the collection of the tax in the middle of the 2nd century, and literary sources indicate that the tax was still in existence in the early 3rd century. It is not known when the tax was formally abolished. Some historians credit the emperor Julian the Apostate with its abolition in about 361 or 362.

---

Our information about the fiscus Judaicus derives primarily from three literary passages (aside from tax receipts from the province of Egypt): one from the Jewish War of Josephus; one from Suetonius’s Life of Domitian [son of Vespasian, brother of Titus, and emperor 81–96 CE]; and one from Cassius Dio. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/rev ... -the-ways/

---

[Ben C. Smith]

Crosslinking for future convenience: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3575 (information on the fiscus Iudaicus).

[Bernard Muller]

Here is my argumentation about the dating of the Barnabas' epistle (from http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html):

7.4 Dating:
As we saw already, the epistle was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70C.E.
Can we determine a more accurate dating?
Let's consider:
Barnabas4:3-4 "The last offence is at hand, ... For to this end the Master has cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
[the end" was expected soon, as also in 4:9 "... let us take heed in these last days ..." and 21:3 "The day is at hand ...". This is typical of 1st century Christian writings]
` ... Ten reigns shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one." ("Barnabas" obviously intended to have a prophecy from Daniel 7:7-8 (about ten horns (kings), three of them disposed off by a fourth horn (king)) applied to his present times)
Do these ten and three kings make sense in a 1st century context?

The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.
Also, in chapter 16, "Barnabas" attacked the inadequacy of any man-made God's temple, past or future: did some Jewish Christians (or/and Jews) think Nerva, not from the same family of the ones who destroyed it (Vespasian & Titus), would allow its rebuilding? It is probable:
Barnabas16:1 "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God."
What about the other seven kings?
This series of kings, obviously Roman emperors (as the following four ones, Vespasian to Nerva), had just to make some sense in order to be believed as part of a fulfilled prophecy. Who are the candidates?
1) Julius Caesar (49-44)
2) Augustus (44-14)
3) Tiberius (14-37)
4) Caligula (37-41)
5) Claudius (41-54)
6) Nero (54-68)
7) Galba (Jun68-Jan69)
8) Otho (Jan69-Apr69)
9) Vitellius (Apr69-Dec69)
Out of these nine "kings", two of them never got to be emperor ("princeps"): Julius was dictator for life and Vitellius took only the title of consul for life.
Or one might keep Julius Caesar, the true founder of the imperial system, and remove Otho & Vitellius, because of their short-lived reigns and the fact they were usurpers.

[Stuart]

The epistle of Barnabas is in codex Sinaiticus, so for certain no later than the mid-4th century. It is mentioned by Origen (mid-3rd century) and Clement (early 3rd century)

The assumption that it was written in in the early 130s with the Romans building Aelia Capitolina based on this passage of verses 16.3–4

Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.

But this assumes predictive language is immediate and current. However most Christian literature puts up a fiction of earlier time for claim of authenticity. The fiction of the Gospels, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and James epistles are all set in past times, pretending things are to happen or just happened, when in fact the author is portraying events decades or even a century or more prior.

I would instead put an early terminus on 131 AD and a late terminus around 215 AD for Clement's mention. The fact that Barnabas 4:14 quotes Matthew 22:14 "many are called but few are chosen" as scripture suggests a much later date, when NT was considered Scripture. This would suggest a date not earlier than the second half of the 2nd century if not the start of the 3rd century. (Note, not pertinent for early daters, but in my model Matthew appeared around 150-155 AD, which would push the early terminus to at least 160 AD in my view, probably closer to 175 AD, which fits that notion of late acceptance of NT as Scripture observed in Apocryphal writing).

But post-Bar Kokhba dating is also suggested by the taking of Torah Law as spiritual. While this could be a development on the Therapeutae like themes only now adapted for a more orthodox type of Christian, it more likely fits the proto-Orthodoxy coming to terms with an era where Torah Law no longer has any legal force (dissolution of Judea province) and circumcision is already rejected by the Jewish Christian camp (Pauline influence), so has moved past Matthew 5:18-20 as literal and seeks to place that as spiritual. Again this would point to a period after the midpoint of the 2nd century.

So broadly speaking we have a ranch of 131 AD for the earliest possible date, and 215 AD for the latest, but a lot of lesser pointer suggest we should be looking sometime around the 175 AD time frame. That pretty much fits all theories comfortably, except those that take the rebuilding of Jerusalem literally as something yet to happen (which I reject). That is my two cents.

[Peter Kirby]

Prediction of a rebuilding of the temple had a limited window of time for the hoping, setting the terminus ad quem at 135.

[Peter Kirby]

Result
Decisive Roman victory:

An all-out defeat of Judean rebels
Large-scale destruction of Judean population by Roman troops
Suppression of Jewish religious and political autonomy by Hadrian
Jews banned from Jerusalem

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt

[Peter Kirby]

Just to be clear, it's not merely an assumption. The alternative is assuming that the text would be retrofitted with something that the author knows will not come to pass. Avoid being too clever by half.

[Stuart]

Prediction of a rebuilding of the temple had a limited window of time for the hoping, setting the terminus ad quem at 135.

That requires buying into the theory that it
a) refers to Aelia Capitolina and that specific time
b) that it refers to a physical temple
c) that it was "timely" in it's reference, and not tardy

Other evidence points to a later date, and that at least one of the above three assumption must be wrong. But I would go further and say that the entire document is something of a snowball. The chapters 1-4 (through 5.7) are missing from most manuscripts, and the Didache is quite separate piece (missing in one Old Latin version). So when you are dating you are dating sections. BTW, the elements discussed have been in the early sections the first five chapters which are missing from the manuscripts derived from G. But these chapters are present in Sinaiticus (ℵ, 4th/5th century) and Hierosolymitanus (H, 11th century).

We are dealing with many traditions in this document from different eras. I would object on grounds that cherry picking the earliest, and assuming early Gospel dates, which would be needed for a 135 terminus, is not likely to hold up.

[MrMacSon]

Prediction of a rebuilding of the temple had a limited window of time for the hoping, setting the terminus ad quem at 135.

... The alternative is assuming that the text would be retrofitted with something that the author knows will not come to pass ...

Hi Peter. I presume you're referring to

The epistle of Barnabas is ... mentioned by Origen (mid-3rd century) and Clement (early 3rd century)

The assumption that it was written in the early 130s with the Romans building Aelia Capitolina based on ... verses 16.3–4

Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.

But this assumes predictive language is immediate and current. However most Christian literature puts up a fiction of earlier time for claim of authenticity. ....

I would instead put an early terminus on 131 AD and a late terminus around 215 AD for Clement's mention. The fact that Barnabas 4:14 quotes Matthew 22:14 "many are called but few are chosen" as scripture suggests a much later date, when NT was considered Scripture. This would suggest a date not earlier than the second half of the 2nd century if not the start of the 3rd century ...

But post-Bar Kokhba dating is also suggested by the taking of Torah Law as spiritual ...

Interestingly,

.
Mishnah Shekalim 1.5

"And thus is it stated by Ezra ... [ (Ezra 4:2¹): "Let us build (the Temple) with you, for as you, will we seek out G d, etc." - What did they answer?] (Ibid. 4):

• "It is not for you and us to build a house to our G d". "

[Composed in Talmudic Israel (c.190 - c.230 CE). Sheqalim (Shekels) belongs to the second order, Moed (Festivals) and discusses the collection of the half-Shekel as well as the expenses and expenditure of the Temple.]

¹ Ezra 4.1-4

1 When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD God of Israel,

2 they approached Zerubbabel and the chiefs of the clans and said to them, “Let us build with you, since we too worship your God, having offered sacrifices to Him since the time of King Esarhaddon of Assyria, who brought us here.”

3 Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the chiefs of the clans of Israel answered them, “It is not for you and us to build a House to our God, but we alone will build it to the LORD God of Israel, in accord with the charge that the king, King Cyrus of Persia, laid upon us.”

4 Thereupon the people of the land undermined the resolve of the people of Judah, and made them afraid to build.

https://www.sefaria.org/Ezra.4.4?lang=b ... l&lang2=en

and the epistle of Barnabas says

Barnabas 4.11
For the scripture saith; Woe unto them that are wise for themselves, and understanding in their own sight. Let us become spiritual, let us become a temple perfect unto God. As far as in us lies, let us exercise ourselves in the fear of God, [and] let us strive to keep His commandments, that we may rejoice in His ordinances.

and

Barnabas 6:15
For a holy temple unto the Lord, my brethren, is the abode of our heart.

and

Barnabas 16:1-2
Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God.

For like the Gentiles almost they consecrated Him in the temple. But what saith the Lord abolishing the temple? Learn ye. Who hath measured the heaven with a span, or hath measured the earth with his hand? Have not I, saith the Lord? The heaven is My throne and the earth the footstool of My feet. What manner of house will ye build for Me? Or what shall be my resting place? Ye perceive that their hope is vain.
.

ie. Barnabas is variably allegorical about what a temple is, as well as hope on or in the building.