David Lincicum on the Christology on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Use of LXX Isaiah 45:1

  

Christology

 

At one point, Barnabas criticizes the view that Jesus might be the son of man or the son of David, the former title important to all the New Testament Gospels, the latter for the Synoptics in particular. In 12.8-10, Barnabas develops a contrast between Jesus (i.e., the Septuagint’s rendering of Joshua) the son of Nun, and Jesus the Son of God. He wants to distinguish the two and, although committed to the view that Jesus was “in the flesh” (εν σαρκι, en sarkí), Barnabas nevertheless emphasizes the fundamental difference between the two: “Observe again that it is Jesus, not a son of man but the Son of God [ουχι υιος ανθρωπου αλλα υιος του θεου, ouchi huios anthrōpou alla huios tou theou].” Rather than a straightforward critique of the title, derived from Daniel 7, that we find in the New Testament, this seems to be a focused contrast to highlight the divinity of Jesus, though it skirts worryingly close to certain forms of Docetism as a bare assertion.

 

Immediately after this, Barnabas goes on to write against an unnamed group of opponents who “say that the Messiah is the Son of David.” To refute this assertion, Barnabas cites Psalm 110:1 [109:1 LXX] (the same text cited in Mark 12:35-37 parr.) and a variant text of Isaiah 45:1, “The Lord said to the Messiah my Lord . . .” (κυριω, kyriō, rather than Κυρω, Kyrō, that is, to Cyrus). He concludes, “Observe how Daid calls him ‘Lord,’ and does not call him ‘son’” (Barn. 12.11). Barnabas seems to evince an anxiety about Jewish messianic conceptions that might not endorse the divinity of the Messiah, and so he denies a title that the Gospels seem at most to qualify. While it is not clear that Barnabas knows the text of Ps 110 [109 LXX] directly through the Synoptic usage of it, and so we cannot be seen to oppose the Christology of the Synoptics in particular, the text demonstrates a worry that is cognate to Barnabas’s general unease with Jewish tradition. (David Lincicum, “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 150-51)

 

In the Göttingen text of Isaiah, we find the following note from the editor concerning the use of Isa 45:1 in the Epistle of Barnabas:

 

Einige innergriechische Verderbnisse sind wichtig für die altchristliche Exegese geworden. 45:1 lag es nahe, Κύρῳ neben τῷ χριστῷ μου im messianischen Sinne in κυριω umzudeuten. Die Hss. lesen alle Κύρῳ; aber bereits im Barnabasbrief XII 11 steht κυριω, so daß diese Stelle neben Ps. 109:1 als messianische Prophezeiung verwendet werden konnte. So haben auch die alten lateinischen Väter (siehe App.) 45:1 als Weissagungsbeweis verwertet. Dagegen nimmt Hieronymus in seinem Is.-Kommentar zu 45:1 Stellung: „Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …“ (Migne PL 24, 440sq.). Als weitere Stelle ist 58:8 zu nennen, wo verschiedene Minuskeln ιματια statt des richtigen ἰάματα lesen. Die Lesart ιματια bietet bereits der Barnabasbrief III 4 und Justin, Dial. XV; auch Clemens von Alexandrien hat ιματια gelesen (Stählin hat zu Unrecht in seine Ausgabe I 285₁₅ ἰάματα aufgenommen; denn der beste Zeuge, die Apologetenhs. des Arethas = P, hat als ursprüngliche Lesart ιματια). In der lateinischen Väterliteratur erscheint dann häufig die falsche Lesart vestimenta; an der Spitze steht Tertullian, der in seiner Schrift De Carnis Resurrectione 27 diese Stelle als Beweis für die Auferstehung des Fleisches verwendet: „Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare“ (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Auch hier zeigt sich wiederum Hieronymus als gesunder Textkritiker, der diesen dogmatischen Beweis ablehnt: „Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur“ (Migne PL 24, 568)¹).

 

Die innerlateinischen Verderbnisse lassen sich gewöhnlich leicht auf Grund der griechischen Lesart erklären, so 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Hier seien einige innerlateinische Verderbnisse angeführt, die in den einzelnen neueren Ausgaben nicht erkannt und notiert worden sind. (Isaias, ed. Joseph Ziegler [Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 100)

 

 

Some internal Greek corruptions became important for early Christian exegesis. At 45:1 it was natural to reinterpret Κύρῳ alongside τῷ χριστῷ μου in a messianic sense as κυρίῳ. The MSS all read Κύρῳ; but already in the Epistle of Barnabas XII.11 it stands as κυριω, so that this passage, together with Ps. 109:1, could be used as a messianic prophecy. In the same way the early Latin Fathers (see App.) also exploited 45:1 as proof of prophecy. By contrast, Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah takes a different view of 45:1: “Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …” (Migne PL 24, 440 sq.).

 

Another passage to be mentioned is 58:8, where various minuscules read ιματια instead of the correct ἰάματα. The reading ιματια is already attested in the Epistle of Barnabas III.4 and in Justin, Dial. XV; Clement of Alexandria also read ιματια (Stählin wrongly included ἰάματα in his edition I 28515; for the best witness, the apologetic manuscript of Arethas = P, has as its original reading ιματια). In the literature of the Latin Fathers the erroneous reading vestimenta then frequently appears; foremost among them is Tertullian, who in his work De Carnis Resurrectione 27 uses this passage as proof for the resurrection of the flesh: “Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare” (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Here again Jerome appears as a sound textual critic who rejects this dogmatic proof: “Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur.” (Migne PL 24, 568)¹)

 

The internal Latin corruptions can usually be explained easily on the basis of the Greek reading, for example 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Here are some internal Latin corruptions that have not been recognized and noted in some of the more recent editions.