chap. 114).
It is evident, as Valesius (with whom Lardner and ilefele agree) has remarked, that Eusebius uses term narha, not in the strict sense of spurious, but as synonymous with those that are disputed, controverted, and applies it to writings which were received by sonic, but rejected by others. The term apocryphal also, used by Jerome, was applied both by Jews and Christians to works which (though the authors were known) were not considered canonical. The use of these terms, therefore, in reference to the Epistle before us, cannot be deemed as absolutely decisive against its genuineness.
(5) Barnabas Not the Author. The follow ing considerations, however, omitting some of less weight which have been urged by different writers, will, it is believed, go far to prove that Barnabas was not the author of this Epistle: (re) Though the exact date of the death of Bar nabas cannot be ascertained, yet from the particu lars already stated respecting his nephew, it is highly probable that that event took place before the martyrdom of Paul (A. D. 64). But a passage in the Epistle (chap. xvi) speaks of the temple at Jerusalem as already destroyed; it was conse quently written after the year 70.
(b) Several passages have been adduced to show that the writer (as well as the persons addressed) belonged to the Gentile section of the church; but waiving this point, the whole tone of the Epistle is different from what the knowledge we possess of the character of Barnabas would lead us to expect, if it proceeded from his pen. From the hints given in the Acts he appears to have been a man of strong attachments, keenly alive to the ties of kindred and fatherland; we find that on both his missionary tours his native island and the Jewish synagogues claimed his first at tention. But throughout the Epistle there is a total absence of sympathetic regard for the Jewish nation: all is cold and distant, if not contemptu ous. 'It remains yet that I speak to you (the 16th chapter begins) concerning the temple; how those miserable men, being deceived, have put their trust in the house.' How unlike the friend and fellow-laborer of him who had 'great heavi ness and continual sorrow in his heart for his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh' (Rom. ix:2).
(c) Barnabas was not only a Jew by birth. but a Levite; from this circumstance. combined with what is recorded in the Acts. of the active part he took in the settlement of the points at issue between the Jewish and the Gentile converts, we might reasonably expect to find, in a composition bearing his name, an accurate acquaintance with the Mosaic ritual ;t clear conception of the nature 01 the Old Economy and its relation to the New Dispensation, and a freedom from that addietit•i to allegorical interpretation which marked the Christians of (he Alexandrian school in the second and succeeding centuries. But the following speci mens will suffice to show that exactly the contrary may be affirmed of the writer of this Epistle; that he makes unauthorized additions to various parts of the Jewish Cultus: that his views of (he Old Economy arc confused and erroneous; and that he adopts a mode of interpretation countenanced by none of the inspired writers, and at utter variance with every principle of sound criticism, being to the last degree puerile and absurd. The inference is unavoidable that Barnabas, 'the Son of Prophecy,' 'the Man full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,' was not the author of this Epistle.
(1) He mentions m two passages the fact re corded in Exod. xxxii no, of Moses breaking the two tables of stone, and infers that Jehovah's covenant was thereby annulled. The falsity of this statement need not be pointed out to the Biblical student. lie says, 'They (the Jews) have forever lost that which Moses received. For thus saith the Scripture: And Moses . . . received the covenant from the Lord, even two tables of stone, etc. But, having turned themselves to idols, they lost it.; as the Lord said unto Moses, Go down quickly. etc. And Moses cast the two tables out of his hands. and their covenant was broken. that the love of Jesus might be scaled in your hearts unto the hope of his faith' (chap. iv). The sec ond passage, in chap. xiv, is very similar, and rued not be quoted.