PG 2 · cols. 673–686

D. Le Nourry, Dissertatio de epistola S. Barnabae

Editors' preface

PG 2:673

(D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam vet. Patr., Paris. 1703, in-fol., p. 38.)

(D. Le Nourry, Apparatus to the Bibliotheca maxima veterum Patrum, Paris 1703, folio, p. 38.)

ARTICULUS PRIMUS.

ARTICLE THE FIRST.

Analysis Epistolae S. Barnabae.

Analysis of the Epistle of St Barnabas.

Auctor hujus Epistolae, praemissa eorum ad quos scribit brevi salutatione, laudat illorum fidem, charitatem, aliaque, quibus repleti erant, Spiritus sancti dona. Nulla vero alia ratione animum se ad scribendum appulisse profitetur, nisi ut fidem illorum perfectiorem redderet, ostenderetque Deum ideo prophetas suo Spiritu afflasse, ut foedus novum, Incarnatione Filii sui ineundum, omnibus praenuntiarent. Hinc ille argumentum suum aggressus, ex eorumdem prophetarum oraculis Christum Dominum jure merito legis Mosaicae abrogasse sacrificia, nullaque alia, quam spiritus et cordis postulare demonstrat. Quamobrem illos sollicite admonet, ab iis caveant, qui legem Moysis et Christi simul observandam esse docerent. Ideo vero illam rescissam esse probat: ut dilectio Jesu consignetur in cordibus vestris in spem fidei illius; hisque tribus virtutibus, meditemur timorem Dei, et custodiamus mandata illius. Subinde aliis prophetarum locis planum utique facit Christum ideo carnem induisse, mortemque obiisse, ut, mortis imperio destructo, mundum sanguine suo redimeret. Quod Judaei cum credere noluerint, voluit ille Evangelium suum omnibus gentibus ab apostolis praedicari. Addit Christum etsi ex Patris praecepto, sicuti praedictum fuerat, lubens mortuus sit, ipsum tamen verum esse Dei Filium. Explicat deinde quomodo prophetae et verbis et figuris significarint Christum in passione aceto et felle potandum, purpura induendum, spinis coronandum; sed haec omnia surdis Judaeorum auribus decantata. Inde autem colligit aures cordis circumcidendas, docetque circumcisionem Judaeorum antiquatam, Mosaicasque leges, quibus cibi nonnulli prohibebantur, spirituali sensu intelligendas. Post haec ostendit ab iisdem prophetis insuper praenuntiatum fore ut Judaei nec Christi baptismo abluerentur, nec crucem ejus agnoscerent, atque ob ejusdem Christi ab illis ejuratam divinitatem exhaeredes facti, in eorum

The author of this Epistle, having premised a brief salutation of those to whom he writes, praises their faith, charity, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit with which they were filled. And he professes that he applied his mind to writing for no other reason than that he might render their faith more perfect, and show that God therefore inspired the prophets with His Spirit, that they might foretell to all the new covenant to be entered into by the Incarnation of His Son. Hence, entering upon his argument, he demonstrates from the oracles of the same prophets that Christ the Lord rightly and deservedly abrogated the sacrifices of the Mosaic law, and requires none other than those of the spirit and the heart. Wherefore he anxiously admonishes them to beware of those who taught that the law of Moses and of Christ ought to be observed together. And he proves that it was repealed for this reason: that the love of Jesus may be sealed in your hearts unto the hope of faith in Him; and by these three virtues, let us meditate on the fear of God, and keep His commandments. Next, from other passages of the prophets he makes it altogether plain that Christ therefore put on flesh and underwent death, that, the empire of death being destroyed, He might redeem the world by His blood. Which when the Jews refused to believe, He willed that His Gospel should be preached to all nations by the apostles. He adds that although Christ by the command of the Father, as had been foretold, willingly died, yet He is the true Son of God. He then explains how the prophets both by words and by figures signified that Christ in His passion was to be given vinegar and gall to drink, to be clothed in purple, to be crowned with thorns; but that all these things were chanted to the deaf ears of the Jews. Thence, however, he gathers that the ears of the heart are to be circumcised, and teaches that the circumcision of the Jews is antiquated, and the Mosaic laws, by which certain foods were forbidden, are to be understood in a spiritual sense. After these things he shows that it was moreover foretold by the same prophets that the Jews would neither be washed with the baptism of Christ, nor acknowledge His cross, and that, having been disinherited on account of the divinity of the same Christ abjured by them, into their

Editors' notes and page, col. 673

Page

running head: 673 FROLEGOMENA
marginal letters: A rarum vocibus; B ARTICULUS PRIMUS.; C cordis postulare; D tamen verum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title across cols 673-674 after Sed nolumus... demum not set: V. (D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam vet. Patr., Paris. 1703, in-fol., p. 38.); editors' matter: rarum vocibus, ARTICULUS PRIMUS; word split at start: [Litte]rarum; word split at end: eo-[rum]
other: a full-width band stands across cols 673/674 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 674 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 673 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the word eorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 674
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at ARTICULUS PRIMUS.

PG 2:674

locum adoptati Christiani subrogarentur. Denique postquam de Sabbati celebratione, Dominicae diei institutione, templi Hierosolymitani destructione, Deique in cordibus nostris habitatione disseruit, primam claudit Epistolae partem.

place adopted Christians would be substituted. Finally, after he has discoursed concerning the celebration of the Sabbath, the institution of the Lord's day, the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, and the dwelling of God in our hearts, he closes the first part of the Epistle.

In secunda, quae brevior est, stylum ad informandos Christianorum mores convertit; duasque eapropter demonstrat esse hominum vias. Et priorem quidem, cui angeli praesunt, quaeque via lucis dicitur, cum explicat, ibi quid Christianus agere, quid fugere debeat, omnium oculis subjicit. Posteriorem vero, quae subest angelis Satanae, et via tenebrarum cognominatur, explanando palam ille facit quae sint vitia, et mala opera, quibus inquinata anima poenis inferni addicitur. Postremo ut imperatis divinis morem gerant, adhortatur, comprecaturque ut sui meminerint apud Deum, cujus in gratia ut semper maneant, expetendo, Epistolae coronidem imponit.

In the second, which is shorter, he turns his pen to forming the morals of Christians; and on that account demonstrates that there are two ways of men. And when he explains the former indeed, over which angels preside, and which is called the way of light, he sets before the eyes of all what a Christian ought to do and what to shun there. But in explaining the latter, which is subject to the angels of Satan, and is surnamed the way of darkness, he makes plain what are the vices and evil works by which the defiled soul is given over to the punishments of hell. Lastly, he exhorts them to obey the divine commands, and prays that they may remember him before God, and by desiring that they may always remain in His grace, he puts the finishing touch to the Epistle.

ARTICULUS II.

ARTICLE II.

Hanc epistolam eamdem esse, quae ab antiquissimis Ecclesiae Patribus laudatur.

That this epistle is the same as that which is praised by the most ancient Fathers of the Church.

Constat Epistolam hanc eamdem esse, quam ab antiquissimorum Ecclesiae temporum Patribus Barnabae nomine citatam fuisse ex eorumdem testimoniis planum fit. Id autem vel ex sola Clementis Alexandrini auctoritate invictissime demonstratur. Quos enim ex ea locos protulit, ii ex Epistolae initio, ubi Graeca verba deleta, atque ex medio, ac tandem ex fine, ubi Latina interpretatio deficit, excerptos esse manifestissimum est. Erravit igitur Moynius, Calvinianae sectae olim Rothomagi minister, qui posteriorem hujus Epistolae partem nec ejusdem scriptoris, nec ejusdem styli ac priorem videri arbitratus est. Hanc quippe ipsam partem, praeter memoratum Clementem ab Origene Gregorioque Nazianzeno eodem Barnabae nomine citatam legimus.

It is certain that this Epistle is the same as the one which, as their own testimonies make plain, was cited under the name of Barnabas by the Fathers of the most ancient times of the Church. And this is most invincibly demonstrated even from the authority of Clement of Alexandria alone. For the passages which he produced from it are most manifestly excerpted from the beginning of the Epistle, where the Greek words have been obliterated, and from the middle, and finally from the end, where the Latin translation fails. Le Moyne, formerly minister of the Calvinist sect at Rouen, therefore erred, who judged that the latter part of this Epistle seemed to be neither of the same writer nor of the same style as the former. For we read this very part cited under the same name of Barnabas, besides the aforementioned Clement, by Origen and Gregory of Nazianzus.

ARTICULUS III.

ARTICLE III.

De auctore hujus epistolae antiquorum scriptorum opiniones.

Opinions of ancient writers concerning the author of this epistle.

Tota igitur de hac Epistola difficultas in eo versatur,

The whole difficulty, therefore, concerning this Epistle turns upon this,

Editors' notes and page, col. 674

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: Erravit igitur Moynius› · call in col 674

Varia sacra.

Varia sacra (Sacred Miscellanies).

(printed under page 334)

Page

running head: FROLEGOMENA. 674
marginal letters: A fuerit, invidiam; B rum locum adoptati; C ut imperatis divinis; D tandem ex fine,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title across cols 673-674 after numeremus. not set: V. (D. LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam vet. Patr., Paris. 1703, in-fol., p. 38.); editors' matter: fuerit, invidiam, ARTICULUS II, ARTICULUS III; word split at start of second para: [eo]rum; word split at end: ver-[satur]
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 673 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word versatur, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 675

PG 2:675

utrum a Barnaba apostolo, cujus praefert nomen, vere profecta sit. Non una siquidem ea de re antiquorum Ecclesiae Patrum fuit sententia. Posteriores vero scriptores in plures magisque diversas opiniones abierunt. Clemens etenim Alexandrinus nullus unquam dubitavit eam verum genuinumque fetum esse Barnabae, quem apostolum, virum apostolicum, unum ex septuaginta, et Pauli adjutorem appellat. Haec videre est in illius Stromatum libris secundo, quinto et sexto. Clementi autem praeceptori suo subscripsit Origenes: ac postea Gregorius Nazianzenus Origenis ipsius verba transcribendo, in eadem quoque opinione se fuisse haud obscure significavit.

whether it truly proceeded from the apostle Barnabas, whose name it bears. For the opinion of the ancient Fathers of the Church on that matter was not one. And later writers diverged into more and more diverse opinions. For Clement of Alexandria never doubted at all that it was the true and genuine offspring of Barnabas, whom he calls apostle, apostolic man, one of the Seventy, and helper of Paul. This may be seen in the second, fifth, and sixth books of his Stromata. And Origen subscribed to his teacher Clement: and afterwards Gregory of Nazianzus, by transcribing the very words of Origen, signified not obscurely that he also was of the same opinion.

Verum adversus Clementem pugnare videtur Eusebius; quandoquidem ubi de ejusdem Clementis Operibus sermonem instituit: In iisdem, inquit, libris affert testimonia Scripturarum, quae a nonnullis repudiantur, nempe ex Sapientia Salomonis, item ex Epistola Clementis ac Barnabae. Et paulo post: Idem in libris Ὑποτυπώσεων omnium, ut uno verbo dicam, utriusque Testamenti scripturarum compendiosam instruit narrationem, ne illis quidem praetermissis scripturis, de quibus inter multos ambigitur, Judae Epistolam, et Barnabae, ac reliquas catholicas Epistolas intelligo. Tum denique ex sua sic ipse sententia pronuntiat: Pro spuriis habendi sunt etiam Actus Pauli... Barnabae item Epistola. Unde intelligas Eusebium, quorumdam antiquiorum vestigiis inhaerendo, Epistolam Barnabae pro spuria habuisse. Hieronymus vero illam inter Scripturas apocryphas amandat. Uterque porro Nicephorus, Constantinopolitanus scilicet atque Calixtus, Eusebii verba sensumque expressit: sed quaenam sit Eusebii ac Hieronymi de apocryphorum definitione opinio, adhuc est in controversia.

But Eusebius seems to contend against Clement; since where he discourses concerning the Works of the same Clement: In the same books, he says, he adduces testimonies of Scriptures which are rejected by some, namely from the Wisdom of Solomon, likewise from the Epistle of Clement and of Barnabas. And a little after: The same in the books of the Hypotyposes draws up a compendious account of all, to say it in one word, the scriptures of either Testament, not even passing over those scriptures concerning which there is doubt among many, I mean the Epistle of Jude, and of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic Epistles. Then finally from his own opinion he himself pronounces thus: Among the spurious are to be reckoned also the Acts of Paul... likewise the Epistle of Barnabas. Whence you may understand that Eusebius, cleaving to the footsteps of certain more ancient writers, held the Epistle of Barnabas as spurious. Jerome, however, relegates it among the apocryphal Scriptures. Furthermore, each Nicephorus, namely the Constantinopolitan and Callistus, expressed the words and sense of Eusebius: but what is the opinion of Eusebius and Jerome concerning the definition of apocrypha is still in controversy.

ARTICULUS IV.

ARTICLE IV.

Sententia recentiorum.

The opinion of modern writers.

Quantum ad recentiores, Hugo Menardus, Benedictinae gentis monachus, de hac Epistola sic sentit: Jure, inquit, inter scripturas apocryphas a citatis auctoribus connumeratur; tum quia an Barnabae sit, incertum est; tum quia quaedam reperiuntur, quae difficultate minime carent; siquidem nonnullae sunt in ea salebrae, ad quas minus cauti offendere possint. Nec ulli, subdit, mirum esse debet, quod illa nec a Clemente, nec ab Origene apocrypha censeatur, siquidem hujusmodi auctores utuntur apocryphis. Fluctuat animo Cotelerius, summisque se ait difficultatibus praepediri quominus Barnabae eam attribuat, quam tamen illi omnino abrogare non audet. Re autem perpensa, in hunc concludit modum: Ego magis inclino, ut censeam non esse apostoli; profiteturque se gratias iis habiturum, qui voluerint certiora proferre. Natalis vero Alexander, memoratusque Moynius illam Barnabae

As for modern writers, Hugues Ménard, a monk of the Benedictine order, thinks thus concerning this Epistle: Rightly, he says, is it numbered among the apocryphal scriptures by the cited authors; both because whether it be of Barnabas is uncertain; and because some things are found which are by no means free of difficulty; since there are some rough places in it, at which the less cautious might stumble. Nor, he subjoins, ought it to seem wonderful to anyone that it is deemed apocryphal neither by Clement nor by Origen, since authors of this sort make use of apocrypha. Cotelier wavers in mind, and says that he is hindered by the greatest difficulties from attributing it to Barnabas, although he does not dare to take it away from him altogether. Having weighed the matter, however, he concludes in this manner: I incline more to think that it is not the apostle's; and he professes that he will be grateful to those who are willing to bring forward more certain things. Noël Alexandre, however, and the aforementioned Le Moyne from Barnabas

Editors' notes and page, col. 675

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 675 (presumed; call not in the crop)

Vide supra Testimonia veterum.

See above, the Testimonies of the Ancients.

(printed under page 335)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 675 (presumed; call not in the crop)

Lib. vi Hist., cap. 13.

Book 6 of the History, chapter 13.

(printed under page 335)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 675 (presumed; call not in the crop)

lib. iii, cap. 25.

Book 3, chapter 25.

(printed under page 335)

(20) ‹anchor: sic ipse sententia pronuntiat› · call in col 675

Ibid , c. 14.

Ibid., chapter 14.

(printed under page 335)

(21) ‹anchor: Hieronymus vero› · call in col 675

De script. eccles.

On Ecclesiastical Writers (De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis).

(printed under page 335)

(22) ‹anchor: de hac Epistola sic sentit› · call in col 675

Præfat. in Epist. Barnab.

Preface to the Epistle of Barnabas.

(printed under page 335)

Page

running head: 675 S. BARNABAS APOSTO
marginal letters: A satur, utrum; B sebius; quandoquidem; C habuisse. Hieronymus; D nullae sunt
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: satur, utrum, ARTICULUS IV (Le Nourry continued); word split at start: [ver]satur; word split at end: Bar-[nabae]

PG 2:676

penitus abjudicant, et apocrypham atque supposititiam esse contendunt. Contra vero Hamondus, Vossius, Bullus et Dupinius eam non alium quam Barnabam auctorem habere propugnant.

altogether adjudge it away, and contend that it is apocryphal and supposititious. On the other hand, Hammond, Vossius, Bull, and Dupin maintain that it has no other author than Barnabas.

ARTICULUS V.

ARTICLE V.

Primum argumentum examinatur.

The first argument is examined.

Qui Epistolam hanc Barnabae abjudicant, his nituntur argumentis. Et primo quidem ii Eusebii atque Hieronymi, qui eam ad apocrypha et spuria ablegant, auctoritate a nobis superius allata utuntur. Docet quippe idem Hieronymus: Apocrypha eorum non esse quorum titulis praenotantur: vel, ut addit Gelasius papa, aliquo inficiuntur errore. Alii tamen negant Eusebii Hieronymique de Barnabae Epistola verba debere alterutro sensu accipi. Non quidem primo, cum Epistolam hanc Barnabae nomine inscribi non inficientur, ac Hieronymus eam a Barnaba compositam esse affirmet. Neque secundo, cum illam non tantum omnis erroris expertem, sed etiam, ut ait Hieronymus, ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pertinentem agnoscant. Eo igitur sensu eam uterque spuriam et apocrypham esse dixit, quod inter canonicos divinae Scripturae libros non adnumeretur.

Those who adjudge this Epistle away from Barnabas rely upon these arguments. And first indeed they make use of the authority of Eusebius and Jerome adduced by us above, who relegate it to the apocryphal and spurious writings. For the same Jerome teaches: That apocrypha do not belong to those by whose titles they are marked: or, as Pope Gelasius adds, are infected with some error. Others, however, deny that the words of Eusebius and Jerome concerning the Epistle of Barnabas ought to be taken in either sense. Not indeed in the first, since they do not deny that this Epistle is inscribed with the name of Barnabas, and Jerome affirms that it was composed by Barnabas. Nor in the second, since they acknowledge it to be not only free from all error, but also, as Jerome says, pertaining to the edification of the Church. In this sense, therefore, each of the two said that it was spurious and apocryphal, because it is not numbered among the canonical books of divine Scripture.

Verum ex posita olim ab Augustino regula urgent eorum adversarii; ea quaeque scripta ab Ecclesia recipi debuisse, quae a quolibet apostolo prodiisse constiterit. Inde quippe sanctus ille doctor contra adversarium Legis et Prophetarum libros, Andreae et Joannis nomen praeferentes, apocryphos esse probat, quia si illorum essent, recepti essent ab Ecclesia. Quod si respondeas quosdam putavisse hanc Epistolam inter Scripturas canonicas ab Origene computari, atque eo in numero in antiquis earumdem Scripturarum catologis reperiri; instabunt iisdem in catalogis alios itidem libros reperiri, qui pro canonicis nunquam habiti sunt; atque Origenis verbis id quod aiunt, nullo significari modo contendent.

But from the rule formerly laid down by Augustine their adversaries urge that all those writings ought to have been received by the Church which were established to have proceeded from any apostle. For thence that holy doctor against the adversary of the Law and the Prophets proves that the books bearing the name of Andrew and of John are apocryphal, because if they were theirs, they would have been received by the Church. And if you reply that some have thought that this Epistle is reckoned among the canonical Scriptures by Origen, and is found in that number in ancient catalogues of the same Scriptures; they will insist that in the same catalogues other books likewise are found which were never held as canonical; and they will contend that what they say is in no way signified by the words of Origen.

Respondent itaque alii secundum Augustini mentem, non omnia omnino apostolorum, vel potius apostolicorum virorum, sicuti Barnabae, scripta in canonicorum numerum esse referenda; quandoquidem et liber Hermae, et Clementis Romani Epistola hunc in numerum minime referuntur. Addunt praeterea non eo ipso scriptum aliquod pro canonico habendum, quod ab apostolo quopiam editum sit; sed id insuper Ecclesiae definitione renuntiari debere asseverant.

Others accordingly reply in accordance with the mind of Augustine, that not all the writings whatsoever of the apostles, or rather of apostolic men, such as Barnabas, are to be referred to the number of the canonical; seeing that both the book of Hermas and the Epistle of Clement of Rome are by no means referred to this number. They add besides that a writing is not by the very fact to be held as canonical because it was published by some apostle; but they assert that it must moreover be declared so by the definition of the Church.

Nos autem Augustini mentem ex alia, quam de libris apocryphis statuit, certiori regula explicandam esse censemus. Cum enim ipse accuratius definit quis liber dicendus sit apocryphus: Scripturae apocryphae, inquit, nuncupantur, eo quod occulta earum origo non claruit Patribus, a quibus

We, however, think that the mind of Augustine is to be explained from another surer rule which he laid down concerning apocryphal books. For when he himself defines more accurately what book is to be called apocryphal: Apocryphal Scriptures, he says, are so called because their hidden origin was not clear to the Fathers, from whom

Editors' notes and page, col. 676

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 676 (presumed; call not in the crop)

Epist. 7, ad Lætam.

Letter 7, to Laeta.

(printed under page 335)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 676 (presumed; call not in the crop)

De script. eccles.

On Ecclesiastical Writers.

(printed under page 335)

(25) ‹anchor: apocryphos esse probat› · call in col 676

Lib. i, contra advers. Legis et Prophet., cap. 20.

Book 1, Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, chapter 20.

(printed under page 335)

(26) ‹anchor: dicendus sit apocryphus› · call in col 676

Lib. xv De civitate Dei, cap. 23, § 4.

Book 15 of The City of God, chapter 23, § 4.

(printed under page 335)

Page

running head: NABAS APOSTOLUS. 676
marginal letters: A nabae penitus; B tamen negant; C contra adversarium; D dem et liber
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nabae penitus, ARTICULUS V (Le Nourry continued); word split at start: [Bar]nabae

PG 2:677

usque ad nos auctoritas veracium Scripturarum certissima et notissima successione pervenit. Ex hac autem libri apocryphi definitione recte adversario suo, libros Andreae et Joannis objicienti, respondet, eos plane esse apocryphos; quia si ab iis quorum tanta erat apud Ecclesiam auctoritas, vere prodiissent, id et Patribus perspectum, et ab Ecclesia fuisset receptum. Quapropter cum e contrario origo epistolae Barnabae Patribus, nimirum Clementi, Origeni atque aliis claruerit, ex allata Augustini definitione inter apocryphas scripturas annumerari non debet.

the authority of the true Scriptures has come down even to us by a most certain and well-known succession. Now from this definition of an apocryphal book he rightly replies to his adversary, who objects the books of Andrew and John, that they are plainly apocryphal; because if they had truly proceeded from those whose authority was so great in the Church, that would both have been perceived by the Fathers and received by the Church. Wherefore, since on the contrary the origin of the epistle of Barnabas was clear to the Fathers, namely Clement, Origen, and others, by the adduced definition of Augustine it ought not to be numbered among the apocryphal scriptures.

ARTICULUS VI.

ARTICLE VI.

Secundum argumentum expenditur.

The second argument is weighed.

Secundum argumentum, quo haec Epistola Barnabae abjudicetur, inde desumptum est, quod videatur incredibile apostolum eas scripsisse, quas ibi legimus, coactas nimirum allegorias, enarrationes Scripturarum minus verisimiles, anilesque de animalibus fabulas. Respondet Hamondus, Gnosticos, Scripturae sacrae mystice interpretandae facultatem sibi arrogantes, multa Veteris Testamenti testimonia ad impuros usus accommodasse..... Hinc Barnabas hac fere universa Epistola sua Veteris Instrumenti loca quamplurima mystice, etiam cabalistice exposita, Gnosticorum doctrinis opponit.

The second argument by which this Epistle is adjudged away from Barnabas is taken from this, that it seems incredible that an apostle wrote those things which we read there, namely forced allegories, less plausible expositions of the Scriptures, and old wives' fables about animals. Hammond replies: That the Gnostics, arrogating to themselves the faculty of interpreting sacred Scripture mystically, adapted many testimonies of the Old Testament to impure uses..... Hence Barnabas in almost the whole of this Epistle of his opposes very many passages of the Old Testament, mystically and even cabalistically expounded, to the doctrines of the Gnostics.

Respondent alii Clementem Alexandrinum, Origenem, aliosque qui hanc Epistolam Barnabae adjudicant, nihil coactum in ejus allegoriis, nihil non verisimile in enarrationibus, nihil denique fabulosum in ea reperisse; imo nihil quod non apostolicum virum, nihil quod a Barnabae ipsius stylo alienum aliquid, aut illo indignum prae se ferat. Quapropter quosdam nostrae aetatis viros temeritatis audacter incusant, qui de stylo apostolicorum scriptorum melius quam eorumdem discipuli, aliique suppares, aut ejusdem aetatis homines, se judicare posse confidunt. His adjiciunt illud fuisse Judaeorum ad Christianam fidem, sicut ipse Barnabas, noviter conversorum ingenium; ut Scripturas sacras allegoriis ac mysticis enarrationibus interpretarentur, multaque in animalium proprietates observarent.

Others reply that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others who adjudge this Epistle to Barnabas found nothing forced in its allegories, nothing implausible in its expositions, nothing finally fabulous in it; nay, nothing that does not display an apostolic man, nothing at all alien from the style of Barnabas himself, or unworthy of him. Wherefore they boldly accuse of rashness certain men of our age, who trust that they can judge concerning the style of apostolic writers better than their disciples and other contemporaries or men of the same age. To these things they add that such was the bent of Jews newly converted, like Barnabas himself, to the Christian faith, that they interpreted the sacred Scriptures by allegories and mystical expositions, and observed many things regarding the properties of animals.

Addemus, nos paulo post demonstraturos hanc Epistolam si Barnabae non sit, auctoris esse ejusdem cum illo, aut certae proximae aetatis. Nemini autem vero videbitur simile scriptorem pium et doctum, viris apostolicis coaevum, quique quomodo apostoli Scripturas exponerent, apprime noverat, ab eorum stylo, et scribendi interpretandique methodo hac in Epistola penitus descivisse.

We shall add that we will demonstrate a little later that this Epistle, if it is not Barnabas's, is of an author of the same age with him, or certainly of the next age. Now to no one will it seem likely that a pious and learned writer, contemporary with apostolic men, and one who knew exceedingly well how the apostles expounded the Scriptures, departed altogether in this Epistle from their style and method of writing and interpreting.

ARTICULUS VII.

ARTICLE VII.

Tertium argumentum examinatur.

The third argument is examined.

Tertium argumentum est, Barnabam modo tam hyperbolico non vocaturum apostolos iniquissimos hominum, et super omne peccatum peccatores. At

The third argument is that Barnabas would not in so hyperbolical a manner call the apostles the most iniquitous of men, and sinners above every sin. But

Editors' notes and page, col. 677

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 677 (presumed; call not in the crop)

Lib. cont. Celsum.

Book Against Celsus.

(printed under page 336)

Page

running head: 677 PROLEGOMEN
marginal letters: A usque ad nos; B Secundum argumentum,; C verisimile in; D Addemus, nos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: usque ad nos, ARTICULUS VI, ARTICULUS VII (Le Nourry continued)

PG 2:678

contrariae sententiae propugnatores ac patroni respondent, haec verba non omnino ad litteram, sed benignius accipienda, nihilque aliud sonare quam apostolos, quod quidem verum est, ante conversionem suam multa magnaque peccasse.

the champions and patrons of the contrary opinion reply that these words are not to be taken altogether literally, but more kindly, and mean nothing else than that the apostles, which indeed is true, before their conversion committed many and great sins.

Nos vero hoc idem argumentum ab Origene jam olim fuisse dilutum respondemus. Cum enim fortasse Celsus ex iisdem auctoris nostri verbis occasionem, ipso teste Origene, arripuisset, ut apostolos infames et nequissimos diceret, Jesum ad apostolicam functionem elegisse homines omni iniquitate iniquiores; sic illum, et quidem apposite ad rem nostram confutat: Quid igitur absurdi, si Jesus ostendere volens humano generi quantum ejus medicina contra pestes animarum polleat, infames et nequissimos elegit, ut morum purissimorum exemplum fierent amplectentibus ejus Evangelium. Nihil ergo absurdi, nihil Barnaba indigni, nec nimium hyperbolici in his verbis esse vir summae eruditionis Origenes arbitratus est: Hieronymus autem hanc sententiam viro apostolico ita dignam credidit, ut in libro contra Pelagianos scripto, eamdem Ignatii martyris nomine laudare non dubitaverit.

We, however, reply that this very same argument was already refuted long ago by Origen. For when perhaps Celsus had seized an occasion from the same words of our author, as Origen himself testifies, to call the apostles infamous and most wicked, saying that Jesus had chosen for the apostolic office men more iniquitous than all iniquity; he thus refutes him, and indeed appositely to our purpose: What absurdity, therefore, is there if Jesus, wishing to show to the human race how powerful His medicine is against the plagues of souls, chose the infamous and most wicked, that they might become an example of the purest morals to those who embrace His Gospel? Origen, therefore, a man of the highest learning, judged that there was nothing absurd, nothing unworthy of Barnabas, nor overly hyperbolical in these words: and Jerome believed this sentiment so worthy of an apostolic man that, in the book written against the Pelagians, he did not hesitate to praise the same under the name of Ignatius the martyr.

ARTICULUS VIII.

ARTICLE VIII.

Moynii conjecturae discutiuntur.

The conjectures of Le Moyne are discussed.

Moynius aliis quibusdam contra eamdem epistolam pugnat conjecturis: quae quidem quamvis sint levissimae, tamen cum nullus hactenus iis respondisse legatur, pro more nostro, ne quid relinquamus intactum, illas singillatim examinabimus. Ait itaque: « Haec epistola si esset Barnabae, illam non secus ac Evangelium Matthaei tumulo suo condi jussisset. » Verum quis Moynio Barnabam Epistolae suae exemplar semper, aut saltem, cum mortem obiit, secum asservasse patefecit? Num moris est apud homines epistolarum suarum sic apud se servare exemplaria? Demus tamen Moynio penes morientem Barnabam fuisse Epistolae suae exemplar: nunquid ergo lucubrationem suam vir modestissimus eodem in pretio ac Matthaei Evangelium habebat? Si id contendat Moynius, dicemus eum ideo cum hoc Evangelio, non autem cum sua Epistola, sepeliri voluisse; quia illud historiam vitae, mortis, ac miraculorum Christi, quam semper prae oculis habuerat, complectebatur.

Le Moyne fights against the same epistle with certain other conjectures: which indeed, although they are very slight, yet since no one hitherto is read to have replied to them, according to our custom, lest we leave anything untouched, we shall examine them one by one. Accordingly he says: « If this epistle were Barnabas's, he would have ordered it, no otherwise than the Gospel of Matthew, to be buried in his tomb. » But who revealed to Le Moyne that Barnabas always, or at least when he died, kept a copy of his Epistle with him? Is it customary among men thus to keep copies of their epistles with themselves? Yet grant to Le Moyne that a copy of his Epistle was in the possession of the dying Barnabas: did that most modest man therefore hold his own composition in the same esteem as the Gospel of Matthew? If Le Moyne contends this, we shall say that he wished to be buried for this reason with this Gospel, and not with his own Epistle: because that contained the history of the life, death, and miracles of Christ, which he had always had before his eyes.

Instat tamen Moynius apocryphos libros ab auctore nostro citari. Quid inde? Nonne et doctissimi viri Paulum et Judam libros itidem apocryphos laudavisse fatentur? Nonne et Paulus ipse ethnicorum, quos apocryphis ab auctore nostro citatis praestare nemo dixerit, attulit auctoritatem?

Yet Le Moyne insists that apocryphal books are cited by our author. What follows from that? Do not even the most learned men confess that Paul and Jude likewise quoted apocryphal books? And did not Paul himself adduce the authority of heathen writers, whom no one would say excel the apocrypha cited by our author?

Urget adhuc Barnabam Epistolae ad Hebraeos, nomine Pauli praenotatae, fuisse auctorem. Atqui, inquit ille, non video quare secundis curis argumentum istud iterum pertractasset cum quadam primae delibatione, quasi in Epistola ad Hebraeos materiam istam nimis perfunctorie, minusque feliciter esset

He further urges that Barnabas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, marked with the name of Paul. And yet, says he, I do not see why by second thoughts he should have treated that subject again with a certain diminution of the first, as if in the Epistle to the Hebrews he had pursued that matter too perfunctorily and less felicitously.

Editors' notes and page, col. 678

Footnotes

(28) ‹anchor: Urget adhuc› · call in col 678

Lib. cit.

In the book cited. [print faint; reading "Lib. cit." probable]

(printed under page 336)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 678
marginal letters: A contrariae sententiae; B git, ut morum; C mus intactum,; D habuerat, complectebatur.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: contrariae sententiae, ARTICULUS VIII (Le Nourry continued)

PG 2:679

prosecutus. Neque hoc argumentum priore validius est. Primo quippe falsum est Barnabam hanc ad Hebraeos scripsisse Epistolam. Deinde, esto, scripserit. Nunquid non potuit idem auctor duabus ad diversos diversae regionis homines, quos iisdem doctrinis et praeceptis imbuere volebat, datis epistolis, idem tractare argumentum? Denique nonne idem auctor plures de re eadem litteras scribere, eademque in illis repetere et inculcare quandoque cogitur?

Nor is this argument any stronger than the former. For first, it is false that Barnabas wrote this Epistle to the Hebrews. Next, grant that he wrote it. Could not the same author, in two epistles sent to different men of a different region, whom he wished to imbue with the same doctrines and precepts, treat the same subject? Finally, is not the same author sometimes compelled to write several letters on the same matter, and to repeat and inculcate the same things in them?

Urget iterum Moynius hanc Epistolam a primi et secundi saeculi scriptoribus, puta Clemente Romano, Polycarpo, Ignatio etiam in suis adversus Judaeos disputationibus nullibi laudatam. Verum quas alias iidem scriptores aliorum epistolas et scripta citaverint, in medium proferre debuerat. Quid vero, si haec Epistola in eorum manus non venerit? Sed conjecturis non est opus; certum quippe est hanc Epistolam a Clemente Alexandrino saeculi secundi auctore, ut supra vidimus, citari; quod ad vanam objectionem plane diluendam satis superque dictum sit.

Le Moyne urges again that this Epistle is nowhere quoted by the writers of the first and second centuries, for instance Clement of Rome, Polycarp, or even Ignatius in his disputations against the Jews. But what other epistles and writings of others the same writers cited, he ought to have brought forward. What if this Epistle did not come into their hands? But there is no need of conjectures; for it is certain that this Epistle is cited by Clement of Alexandria, an author of the second century, as we saw above; which is enough and more than enough said to refute altogether an empty objection.

Instat denique hanc Epistolam a Barnaba, qui sub Nerone martyrium passus est, scribi non potuisse; quippe quae post eversam a Tito Hierosolymam data fuerit. Atque hoc illud est quod in notis et observationibus suis argumentum invictissimum et evidentissimum appellat. Id itaque paulo prolixiori responsione solvendum est.

Finally he insists that this Epistle could not have been written by Barnabas, who suffered martyrdom under Nero, inasmuch as it was written after Jerusalem had been overthrown by Titus. And this is what in his notes and observations he calls a most invincible and most evident argument. It must therefore be resolved by a somewhat fuller reply.

ARTICULUS IX.

ARTICLE IX.

Quandonam haec epistola scripta sit.

When this epistle was written.

Jam enim quo tempore haec Epistola scripta sit, indagandum. Qui eam Barnabae tribuunt, hi ante ejus obitum datam esse indubie pronuntiant. Quibus vero res in ambiguo est, ii tamen illius auctorem temporibus apostolorum floruisse vero putant similius. Denique qui a Barnaba profectam negant, eam post excidium Hierosolymitanum, sed ante finem secundi saeculi scriptam esse opinantur. Moynius his addit illam post necem Justini, qui anno 162 aut 163 martyr occubuit, et ante Tertulliani mortem, quae circa annum 215 contigit, obsignatam fuisse. Neque tamen ille alia ratione opinionem suam confirmat, quam quod nonnullae de emissario Judaeorum hirco caeremoniae in hac Epistola memorentur, quas sicut apud Justinum, licet de iis disserat, frustra quaesieris, ita apud Tertullianum tantummodo invenias. Verum a quo didicit Moynius hanc Epistolam penes Justinum unquam fuisse, ipsumque eam legisse? Fac tamen et habuerit et legerit, nunquid ideo omnes hirci emissarii caeremonias, ne iis quidem, quae in Epistola Barnabae occurrunt, praetermissis, debuit commemorare? Nihil igitur hac negativa conjectura magis frivolum, minusque ad rem aliquam asserendam idoneum.

For we must now investigate at what time this Epistle was written. Those who attribute it to Barnabas pronounce without doubt that it was written before his death. Those, however, to whom the matter is in doubt nevertheless think it more likely that its author flourished in the times of the apostles. Finally, those who deny that it proceeded from Barnabas opine that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, but before the end of the second century. To these Le Moyne adds that it was sealed after the death of Justin, who died a martyr in the year 162 or 163, and before the death of Tertullian, which happened about the year 215. Yet he confirms his opinion by no other reason than that some ceremonies concerning the scapegoat of the Jews are mentioned in this Epistle, which, just as you would seek in vain in Justin, although he discourses of them, so you find only in Tertullian. But from whom did Le Moyne learn that this Epistle was ever in the hands of Justin, and that he himself read it? Yet suppose that he both had it and read it, was he therefore bound to recount all the ceremonies of the scapegoat, not even passing over those which occur in the Epistle of Barnabas? Nothing, therefore, is more frivolous than this negative conjecture, and less suited to asserting anything.

Quo porro tempore Barnabas obierit, incertum est. Unde nescio quid sibi velit Moynius, cum ex communiori opinione asseverat illum sub imperio Neronis martyrio affectum Qui enim id investigaverunt

Furthermore, at what time Barnabas died is uncertain. Whence I know not what Le Moyne means when from the more common opinion he asserts that he suffered martyrdom under the reign of Nero. For those who have investigated this

Editors' notes and page, col. 679

Page

running head: 679 S. BARNABAS APOS
marginal letters: A prosecutus. Neque; B scripta citaverint,; C Quandonam haec; D Judaeorum hirco
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: prosecutus. Neque, ARTICULUS IX (Le Nourry continued); word split at end: investiga-[verunt]
other: the word investigaverunt was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 680

PG 2:680

diligentius hi ingenue fatentur apud antiquos scriptores nihil succurrere, unde quandonam Barnabas ab Cypro insula redierit, vitamque martyrio posuerit, certo definiatur. Constat autem illum post Hierosolymam anno 72, aut juxta doctiores chronologos 70 a Tito destructam, vitam potuisse producere. Petrus siquidem et Paulus anno tantum 66, id est uno aut tribus post excidium Hierosolymitanum annis, martyrii palmam adepti sunt. Nihil ergo vetat quominus Barnabas in Epistola sua hujusce excidii fecerit mentionem.

more diligently frankly confess that nothing occurs in ancient writers from which it may be defined with certainty when Barnabas returned from the island of Cyprus and laid down his life by martyrdom. And it is established that he could have prolonged his life after Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in the year 72, or according to more learned chronologers 70. For Peter and Paul obtained the palm of martyrdom only in the year 66, that is, one or three years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing, therefore, forbids Barnabas to have made mention of this destruction in his Epistle.

Certo autem certius est hanc eamdem Epistolam non solum ab Origene citari, sed etiam a Clemente Alexandrino, qui, ut ait Eusebius, primis apostolorum temporibus proximum se fuisse testatur. Unde conficitur Clementem, qui Epistolam hanc, sicuti ex frequentioribus ejus citationibus liquet, magni aestimare videbatur, ab apostolicis viris, quis verus illius auctor exstiterit, curiosius indagasse, nec difficiliter didicisse. Deinde idem Clemens circa annum 200 fato functus est, proindeque libros suos, ubi hanc Epistolam laudavit, in lucem prius emiserat. Atqui illam non ut recens aliquod, sed antiquae auctoritatis scriptum laudat, ideoque quam putabat martyrio Ignatii antiquiorem. Quin imo ubique pro certo ponit illam a Barnaba apostolo scriptam, nullumque, quem nosset, huic opinioni refragari. Tanti viri tantaeque eruditionis, ac temporibus apostolicis adeo vicini auctoritas, maximi certe apud omnes debet esse ponderis; cum in primis nulla firma rationum argumenta, nihilque illi, nisi conjectura quaedam, parum valida opponatur. Caeterum quantumvis Clemens in Epistolae auctoris nomine errasse diceretur, ex ejus tamen auctoritate invictissime demonstratur illam vel ab uno ex apostolis, vel saltem ab aliquo ex proximis eorum successoribus fuisse exaratam.

Moreover, it is surer than sure that this same Epistle is cited not only by Origen, but also by Clement of Alexandria, who, as Eusebius says, testifies that he was very near to the first times of the apostles. Whence it is concluded that Clement, who, as is clear from his rather frequent citations of it, seemed to value this Epistle highly, inquired carefully from apostolic men who its true author was, and learned it without difficulty. Next, the same Clement died about the year 200, and accordingly had previously published his books in which he praised this Epistle. And yet he praises it not as some recent work, but as a writing of ancient authority, and therefore one which he thought more ancient than the martyrdom of Ignatius. Nay more, everywhere he lays it down as certain that it was written by Barnabas the apostle, and that no one whom he knew opposed this opinion. The authority of so great a man and of such great learning, and so near to the apostolic times, ought certainly to be of the greatest weight with all; especially since no firm arguments of reason, and nothing except a certain conjecture of little force, are opposed to it. For the rest, however much Clement might be said to have erred in the name of the author of the Epistle, yet from his authority it is most invincibly demonstrated that it was penned either by one of the apostles, or at least by someone from among their nearest successors.

Id quidem ex manuscriptis codicibus Graecis et. Latinis confirmari potuisset, si qui omnino incorrupti, ac verum Epistolae titulum praeferentes ad nos pervenissent. At in Graecis codicibus caput ejus amputatum est, et titulus qui in Graeca Menardi editione legitur, ex Eusebio videtur desumptus. Latinus vero bibliothecae nostrae codex, qui omnium procul dubio est antiquissimus, hac tantum epigraphe inscribitur: Incipit epistola Barnabae feliciter, atque demum in fine sic concluditur: Explicit epistola Barnabae.

This indeed could have been confirmed from the Greek and Latin manuscript codices, if any altogether uncorrupted and bearing the true title of the Epistle had come down to us. But in the Greek codices its head has been cut off, and the title which is read in the Greek edition of Ménard seems to have been taken from Eusebius. The Latin codex of our library, however, which without doubt is the most ancient of all, is inscribed only with this superscription: Here begins the epistle of Barnabas happily, and finally at the end is concluded thus: Here ends the epistle of Barnabas.

ARTICULUS X.

ARTICLE X.

Ad quos haec epistola scripta sit.

To whom this epistle was written.

Integri autem si exstarent manuscripti illi codices, nobis utique non modo Epistolae hujus titulum indicassent, sed eos etiam ad quos illa directa est. Id enim sua non caret difficultate. Putant siquidem nonnulli ex tota orationis serie conjici posse eam ad Christianos missam Hebraeos, tenaces nimirum antiquae legis, et ad Hebraeos esse inscriptam. Verum vel ex ipsa totius Epistolae, a nobis superius facta synopsi, exploratum fit, ideo praecipue ad eam

Now if those manuscript codices were extant complete, they would assuredly have indicated to us not only the title of this Epistle, but those also to whom it was directed. For that is not without its difficulty. Since some think that from the whole tenor of the discourse it may be conjectured that it was sent to Hebrew Christians, tenacious namely of the ancient law, and was inscribed to the Hebrews. But even from the very synopsis of the whole Epistle made by us above, it becomes an established fact that its author was impelled to write it chiefly for this reason,

Editors' notes and page, col. 680

Page

running head: ARNABAS APOSTOLUS. 680
marginal letters: A verunt diligentius; B conficitur Clementem,; C mis nulla firma; D procul dubio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: verunt diligentius, ARTICULUS X (Le Nourry continued); word split at start: [investiga]verunt

PG 2:681

scribendam auctorem ejus impulsum ut eos ad quos scripsit praemuniret, prohiberetque ne ab iis deciperentur qui legem Moysis et Christi simul servandam esse asserebant. Atqui hic error ejusdem fere cum Christiana religione est aetatis: illumque non solum Hebraeos, sed etiam haereticos, quales erant Ebionitae et Cerinthiani, docuisse certissimum est. Praeterea etsi a solis Hebraeis error hic disseminatus fuisset, poterant tamen ipsi eo quo flagrabant religionis suae studio, illum apud omnes cum Hebraeos, tum gentiles ad Christianam fidem conversos ubique disseminare. Potuit ergo auctor noster non ad Hebraeos tantummodo, sed etiam ad Christianos, quos ab Hebraeis vel haereticis decipi metuebat, suam dirigere epistolam.

that he might forewarn those to whom he wrote, and prevent them from being deceived by those who asserted that the law of Moses and of Christ ought to be kept together. Now this error is of almost the same age as the Christian religion: and it is most certain that not only Hebrews, but also heretics, such as were the Ebionites and Cerinthians, taught it. Besides, even if this error had been disseminated by the Hebrews alone, yet they could, through that zeal for their religion with which they burned, disseminate it everywhere among all converted to the Christian faith, both Hebrews and Gentiles. Our author could therefore direct his epistle not to the Hebrews only, but also to Christians whom he feared might be deceived by the Hebrews or by heretics.

Objicitur tamen Tertullianum Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos citasse Barnabae nomine; forsitan, inquiunt, accepto rumore de Epistola quadam Barnabae ad Hebraeos a se non visa? Sed hac objectione levis conjectura alia multo leviori probatur. Verumenimvero si Tertullianus Epistolam ad Hebraeos Barnabae assignat, eamdem alii Lucae, alii Clementi adjudicant. Nunquid ergo in hanc sententiam abierunt: forsitan rumore accepto de Epistola quadam Lucae vel Clementis ad Hebraeos a se non visa? Quid hac conjectura futilius? Dicendum igitur Epistolam ad Hebraeos a Tertulliano Barnabae nomine idcirco laudatam, vel quia eum vere putabat ejus Epistolae auctorem, seu potius mavis, interpretem; vel quia cum illam ab aliquo Pauli socio et discipulo scriptam crederet, id nulli potiori jure quam Barnabae tribuendum judicavit: vel denique aliis fretus conjecturis, ex falso auctorum aut codicum manuscriptorum errantium testimonio desumptis, quas jam divinare promptum non est.

Yet it is objected that Tertullian cited the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas; perhaps, they say, having heard a rumour concerning a certain Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews not seen by him? But by this objection a slight conjecture is proved by another much slighter still. For indeed if Tertullian assigns the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas, others adjudge the same to Luke, others to Clement. Did they therefore go over to this opinion: perhaps having heard a rumour concerning a certain Epistle of Luke or of Clement to the Hebrews not seen by them? What is more futile than this conjecture? It must be said, therefore, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was quoted by Tertullian under the name of Barnabas either because he truly thought him the author, or if you prefer, the translator of that Epistle; or because, believing it to have been written by some companion and disciple of Paul, he judged that this should be attributed by a better right to none than to Barnabas: or finally, relying on other conjectures taken from the false testimony of erring authors or manuscript codices, which it is not now easy to divine.

Porro si certo definiri non possit qui homines, cujusve regionis ii fuerint ad quos hanc Barnabas misit Epistolam, constat tamen eos Christianos fuisse, qui in assequenda vitae Christianae perfectione profectus aliquos jam fecerant, quosque ut magis ac magis in ea proficerent, adhortatur; quos denique admonet, caveant sedulo ab haereticis, qui vanis argutiis et subtilitatibus legem Moysis ac Christi simul observandam aliis suadere conabantur. Quamobrem idem auctor noster eos tota epistola sua contra haereticorum illorum errores munit, ac Christianae pietatis praeceptis informat.

Furthermore, if it cannot be defined with certainty what men or of what region those were to whom Barnabas sent this Epistle, yet it is established that they were Christians who had already made some progress in attaining the perfection of the Christian life, and whom he exhorts to make more and more progress in it; whom finally he admonishes to beware diligently of heretics, who by vain subtleties and refinements were endeavouring to persuade others that the law of Moses and of Christ must be observed together. Wherefore our same author fortifies them throughout his whole epistle against the errors of those heretics, and instructs them in the precepts of Christian piety.

ARTICULUS XI.

ARTICLE XI.

De hujus Epistolae fortuna, et variis ejus editionibus.

Of the fortune of this Epistle, and its various editions.

Epistola haec fortunam habuit variam, mirumque in modum mutabilem. Cum enim tanto, ut supra diximus, splendore et secundo et duobus, ac forsitan etiam tribus sequentibus Ecclesiae saeculis micuisset, deinceps ita evanuit, ut praeter utrumque Nicephorum, qui verba Eusebii aut saltem eorum sensum descripsere, vix alius de ea mentionem fecisse reperiatur. Nostro tandem saeculo Graece et Latine variis in Bibliothecis feliciter inventa, e tot saeculorum tenebris emersit.

This Epistle had a varied and wonderfully changeable fortune. For whereas it had shone with so great a splendour, as we said above, both in the second and in the two, and perhaps even three following centuries of the Church, thereafter it so vanished that besides the two Nicephoruses, who copied the words of Eusebius or at least their sense, scarcely anyone else is found to have made mention of it. At length in our century, happily discovered in Greek and Latin in various Libraries, it emerged from the darkness of so many centuries.

Editors' notes and page, col. 681

Page

running head: 681 PROLEGOMENA
marginal letters: A scribendam auctorem; B Objicitur tamen; C ptam crederet,; D tur. Quamobrem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: scribendam auctorem, ARTICULUS XI (Le Nourry continued); signature at foot of page omitted: PATROL. GR. II

PG 2:682

Usserius quippe archiepiscopus Armachanus primam ejus editionem ex manuscriptis, quae mutuo ab aliis acceperat, Oxonii anno 1642 adornavit. Sed, Vossio teste, una urbis hujus parte paulo post igne consumpta, hoc incendio omnia editionis hujus exemplaria perierunt. Unus tamen codex, flammis ereptus, in bibliotheca ejusdem urbis, si qua edito ipsius Catalogo fides habenda sit, asservatur.

For Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, prepared its first edition at Oxford in the year 1642 from manuscripts which he had borrowed from others. But, as Vossius testifies, one part of this city having been consumed by fire a little later, in this conflagration all the copies of this edition perished. One copy, however, snatched from the flames, is preserved in the library of the same city, if any credit is to be given to its published Catalogue.

Haec prima Epistolae nostrae editio doctis ita parum innotuit, ut eam ab Hugone Menardo primum editam vix unus aut alter non agnoscat. At certe omnes facile concedent eum primum fuisse, qui illam typis mandatam nostri juris fecerit. Is enim cum incidisset in manuscriptum Latinum bibliothecae Corbeianae, annorum plus quam 900 codicem, aliumque Graecum, inter Thuriani scripta Romae inventum, a doctissimo Sirmondo accepisset, ex utroque exemplari ad parandam editionem suam totis viribus incubuit. Sed collatis codicibus, altera Epistolae parte in Latinum versa, variisque obseavationibus compositis, priusquam aliquid prelo committi potuerit, immatura morte exstinctus est. Quapropter Lucas Dacherius paratae ab illo editionis curam in se recepit, eamque praemissa a se praefatione anno 1645 absolvit.

This first edition of our Epistle became so little known to the learned that scarcely one or two fail to acknowledge it as first edited by Hugues Ménard. And certainly all will easily grant that he was the first who made it our property in print. For when he had lighted upon a Latin manuscript of the library of Corbie, a codex of more than 900 years, and had received from the most learned Sirmond another Greek one found at Rome among the papers of Turrianus, from both exemplars he applied himself with all his might to preparing his edition. But after the codices had been collated, the second part of the Epistle translated into Latin, and various observations composed, before anything could be committed to the press, he was cut off by an untimely death. Wherefore Luc d'Achery took upon himself the care of the edition prepared by him, and completed it in the year 1645 with a preface premised by himself.

Anno subsequente Isaac Vossius iterum eamdem Epistolam ex tribus manuscriptis, uno bibliothecae Florentinae, altero Vaticanae, tertio Theatinorum Romanorum, Amstelodami emisit in publicum. In his autem omnibus codicibus manu exaratis Epistola caret initio, atque uni ex Ignatii Epistolis proxime, et absque titulo conjungitur.

In the following year Isaac Vossius again published the same Epistle at Amsterdam from three manuscripts, one of the Florentine library, another of the Vatican, the third of the Roman Theatines. In all these manuscript codices, however, the Epistle lacks a beginning, and is joined immediately and without a title to one of the Epistles of Ignatius.

Cotelerius anno 1672 ex Sirmondi ms. Graeco codice, de quo ante diximus, illam rursus edidit, novaque versione, antiquiore tamen non omissa, donavit; praefixitque Operibus sanctorum Patrum, qui temporibus apostolorum floruerunt. At multa hujus editionis exemplaria incensis bibliopolae apothecis, igne consumpta sunt.

Cotelier in the year 1672 from Sirmond's Greek manuscript codex, of which we spoke before, edited it again, and endowed it with a new version, yet without omitting the more ancient one; and prefixed it to the Works of the holy Fathers who flourished in the times of the apostles. But many copies of this edition, the bookseller's warehouses having been burned, were consumed by fire.

Denique Moynius cum Rothomago Leisdam docendae theologiae causa se contulisset, ibi eamdem Epistolam inter sua Varia sacra edi curavit. Ultimam autem hanc editionem ille ex codice manuscripto Florentino, quem in Hollandiam Rullaeus attulerat, et in quo haec Epistola uni ex Ignatianis absque titulo et principio connectitur, se adornasse testatur. Quod sane magno nobis indicio est hunc manu exaratum codicem non alium esse a primo ex iis tribus queis Vossium in accuranda sua editione usum esse diximus. Caeterum utrique Vossius et Moynius non aliam versionem Latinam, quam antiquiorem, a Menardo inventam et adornatam, atque a Dacherio editam adhibuerunt.

Finally Le Moyne, having betaken himself from Rouen to Leyden for the purpose of teaching theology, took care to have the same Epistle published there among his Varia sacra. And he testifies that he prepared this last edition from a Florentine manuscript codex which Rullaeus had brought into Holland, and in which this Epistle is connected without title and beginning to one of the Ignatian epistles. Which indeed is a great indication to us that this manuscript codex is none other than the first of those three which we said Vossius used in preparing his edition. For the rest, both Vossius and Le Moyne employed no other Latin version than the more ancient one, discovered and prepared by Ménard, and edited by d'Achery.

ARTICULUS XII.

ARTICLE XII.

De notis et observationibus in hanc Epistolam.

Of the notes and observations upon this Epistle.

Singuli harum editionum auctores Epistolam illam notis et observationibus suis illustrarunt. Quas edidit Menardus, eae fere omnes vel ad correctionem explicationemque textus, vel ut illa styli

Each of the authors of these editions illustrated that Epistle with his notes and observations. Those which Ménard published almost all conduce either to the correction and explanation of the text, or to proving that it is of an

Editors' notes and page, col. 682

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 682
marginal letters: A Usserius quippe; B aliumque Graecum,; C his autem omnibus; D attulerat, et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Usserius quippe, ARTICULUS XII (Le Nourry continued); signature number 22 at foot omitted

PG 2:683

esse apostolici probetur, conducunt. Nonnullas tamen quandoque admiscet eruditionis suae testes, ex quibus facile intelligas multo perfectiorem futuram fuisse ejus editionem, si per mortem viro tam docto ad umbilicum illam perducere licuisset.

apostolic style. Yet sometimes he mingles some notes as witnesses of his learning, from which you may easily understand that his edition would have been much more perfect, if death had permitted so learned a man to bring it to completion.

Nullus Vossio pauciores brevioresque in hanc Epistolam adnotationes edidit; nec ille quidem prolixiores facere consueverat. Omnes fere correctionem textus spectant. Quaedam, sed paucissimae, quosdam obscuros locos explicant; atque in illarum praecipua observatione disputatur, quo spinarum genere corona Christi patientis compacta fuerit.

No one published fewer and briefer annotations upon this Epistle than Vossius; nor indeed was he accustomed to make fuller ones. Almost all regard the correction of the text. Some, but very few, explain certain obscure passages; and in the principal observation among them it is disputed from what kind of thorns the crown of the suffering Christ was put together.

His multo plures longioresque in hanc Epistolam animadversiones a Cotelerio compositae sunt. Sed optandum sane, ut in iis quae non minus quam septem supra triginta numerantur, vir ille eruditus ab auctoris scopo non ita saepe digressus fuisset, suisque non tam facile indulsisset conjecturis.

Much more numerous and longer animadversions than these upon this Epistle were composed by Cotelier. But it were certainly to be wished that in them, which are numbered not fewer than thirty-seven, that learned man had not digressed so often from the author's aim, and had not indulged so easily in his own conjectures.

Moynius postremus omnium notas observationesque divulgavit in hanc Epistolam, caeteris omnibus longe diffusiores, tantaeque prolixitatis, ut ad solam eruditionis suae, praesertim Hebraicae, ostentationem compositae videantur. Nulla quippe est observatio, ubi non sint digressiones, et saepe ex ipsis digressionibus in alia fit iterum digressus, ita ut textus auctoris, notis obrutus, lectorum oculis evanescat. Nec ille quidem alia ratione se tot tamque diffusas animadversiones publicasse innuit, nisi quia praerepta sibi occasione typis mandandi novam Operum Josephi, quam a longo tempore moliebatur editionem, quidquid magis eruditum, magisque curiosum ad eam perficiendam praeparaverat, hoc in notas observationesque suas congerendum esse putaverit. Non contemnimus viri docti eruditionem, sed prudentiori judicio ac locis aptioribus collocanda erat.

Le Moyne last of all published notes and observations upon this Epistle, far more diffuse than all the rest, and of so great a prolixity that they seem composed solely for the ostentation of his learning, especially his Hebrew learning. For there is no observation where there are not digressions, and often from the digressions themselves a digression is made again into other matters, so that the text of the author, overwhelmed with notes, vanishes from the eyes of the readers. Nor indeed does he hint that he published so many and such diffuse animadversions for any other reason than because, the opportunity having been snatched from him of committing to the press a new edition of the Works of Josephus which he had long been planning, whatever more learned and more curious material he had prepared for completing it, he thought should be heaped together into his notes and observations. We do not despise the learning of the learned man, but it ought to have been placed with more prudent judgement and in more suitable places.

ARTICULUS XIII.

ARTICLE XIII.

Novae observationes in hanc Epistolam.

New observations upon this Epistle.

Si quid nobis tot tamque diversis observationibus addendum superesset, Christiana libertate cum Moynio aliisque nonnullis de eorum confidentia expostularemus, qua et auctorem nostrum et antiquissimos Ecclesiae scriptores eo arguunt, quia plures Veteris Testamenti locos de Messia interpretati sint, quos illi ad eum minime respicere arbitrabantur. Nihil enim hac accusatione nobis videtur iniquius, nihil plane absurdius. Constat siquidem Christum apostolis et discipulis suis sensum, ut ait Scriptura ipsa, aperuisse, ut intelligerent Scripturas, maxime vero illos ejusdem Scripturae locos, qui adventum ejus, mortem, caeteraque ipsius facta praenuntiabant. Atqui apostoli et discipuli Christi eosdem Scripturae sensus, quos a divino praeceptore suo acceperant, suis quoque discipulis, id est auctori nostro, aliisque ejusdem aevi scriptoribus aperuerunt.

If anything remained for us to add to so many and such diverse observations, we would with Christian liberty expostulate with Le Moyne and some others concerning their confidence, whereby they censure both our author and the most ancient writers of the Church because they interpreted several passages of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which they themselves judged did not refer to Him at all. For nothing seems to us more unfair than this accusation, nothing plainly more absurd. Since it is established that Christ opened the sense to His apostles and disciples, as Scripture itself says, that they might understand the Scriptures, and especially those passages of the same Scripture which foretold His coming, death, and the rest of His deeds. And yet the apostles and disciples of Christ opened the same senses of Scripture, which they had received from their divine Teacher, to their own disciples also, that is, to our author and other writers of the same age.

Editors' notes and page, col. 683

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: ut intelligerent Scripturas› · call in col 683 [note numeral faint; 29 by sequence]

Luc. XXIV, 45.

Luke 24:45.

(printed under page 339)

Page

running head: 683 S. BARNABAS APOSTOL
marginal letters: A esse apostolici; B Sed optandum; C nisi quia praerepta; D quissimos Ecclesiae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: esse apostolici, ARTICULUS XIII (Le Nourry continued); word split at end: ape-[ruerunt]
other: the word aperuerunt. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 684

PG 2:684

Cur ergo in Scripturis sacris, quibus Christus praedicabatur, exponendis tam turpiter errasse criminantur? Nunquid ultimae nostrae aetatis homines in iis explicandis doctiores sunt et acutiores, quam illi qui ab apostolis vel ab eorum discipulis suscepti et educati, in eorum schola scientiam Scripturarum didicerunt? Caveant inconsiderati Patrum accusatores, ne vano litteralis sensus, quem ubique venditant, praetextu, a littera occidente percussi, in caecitatis errorem, quem aliis temere inurunt, ipsimet prolabantur.

Why then are they accused of having erred so shamefully in expounding the sacred Scriptures in which Christ was preached? Are the men of our latest age more learned and more acute in explaining them than those who, received and educated by the apostles or by their disciples, learned the knowledge of the Scriptures in their school? Let the inconsiderate accusers of the Fathers beware lest, under the vain pretext of the literal sense, which they everywhere boast of, struck by the letter that kills, they themselves slip into the error of blindness which they rashly brand upon others.

Observandum praeterea auctorem nostrum quaedam utriusque Testamenti citasse testimonia, quae cum in sacris libris non reperiantur, illa a Judaeorum Christianorumque traditionibus desumpsisse existimandum est. Quaedam vero ex quarto libro Esdrae protulit: sed illum censoria Moynii nota male inustum ex his, quae de hoc scripto in nostris ad Ambrosii Opera admonitionibus disputavimus quivis facile intelligat.

It is to be observed besides that our author cited certain testimonies of either Testament which, since they are not found in the sacred books, he must be thought to have taken from the traditions of the Jews and of the Christians. Some things indeed he produced from the fourth book of Esdras: but that he was wrongly branded with the censorious note of Le Moyne, anyone may easily understand from what we have disputed concerning this writing in our admonitions on the Works of Ambrose.

Adnotandum quoque ab auctore nostro antiquos non tantum haereticos expugnari, sed etiam impios nostri saeculi Socinianos, contra quos Christi divinitas in hac Epistola invictissime asseritur.

It is to be noted also that by our author not only ancient heretics are vanquished, but also the impious Socinians of our century, against whom the divinity of Christ is most invincibly asserted in this Epistle.

Nonne enim ibi Barnabas illum aperte terrarum Dominum appellat, huncque ipsummet esse testatur, cui a Patre suo aeterno ante mundi creationem dictum est: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram? Sed praestat eum verbis suis loquentem audire: Et ad hoc Dominus sustinuit pati pro anima nostra, cum sit orbis terrarum Dominus, cui dixit die ante constitutionem saeculi: « Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. »

For does not Barnabas there openly call Him Lord of the earth, and testify that He is the very same to Whom it was said by His eternal Father before the creation of the world: Let Us make man in Our image and likeness? But it is better to hear him speaking in his own words: And for this the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, though He is the Lord of the whole earth, to Whom He said on the day before the foundation of the world: « Let Us make man in Our image and likeness. »

Quid vero quod idem auctor noster non modo solem opus manuum ejus, scilicet Christi, asserit: sed in ipso et propter ipsum esse omnia diserte pronuntiat: Habes etiam, inquit, in hoc gloriam Jesu, quod in ipso sunt omnia, et in ipsum.

What of the fact that our same author not only asserts that the sun is the work of His hands, namely Christ's, but expressly pronounces that all things are in Him and for Him: You have also, he says, in this the glory of Jesus, that in Him are all things, and unto Him.

Denique ne plura alia passim in hacce Epistola simili modo dictata congeramus, id tantum juvat subjungere, quo Christus in cordibus nostris, tanquam in templis Deo consecratis habitare dicitur: Quia oportebat eum in carne apparere, et habitare in nobis; templum enim sanctum, fratres mei, Domino est habitatio cordis nostri.

Finally, not to heap together many other things dictated in like manner passim in this Epistle, it suffices to subjoin this alone, whereby Christ is said to dwell in our hearts as in temples consecrated to God: Because it behoved Him to appear in the flesh, and to dwell in us; for a holy temple to the Lord, my brethren, is the habitation of our heart.

Quis autem, amabo te, nisi jam praejudicata opinione plane obcaecatus homo, negare audeat haec omnia ab auctore nostro non de alio scribi unquam potuisse, nisi de vero germanoque Dei Filio, qui ejusdem omnino cum Patre suo sit naturae et substantiae, ipsique perfecte planeque coaeternus?

Now who, I pray you, unless a man already altogether blinded by a preconceived opinion, would dare to deny that all these things could never have been written by our author concerning anyone else than the true and genuine Son of God, Who is of altogether the same nature and substance with His Father, and perfectly and plainly coeternal with Him?

Animadvertendum denique hanc auctoris nostri Epistolam ad nos integram non pervenisse: siquidem Graeci codices manuscripti titulo et principio carent, pluribusque scatent erratis, quae nisi aliorum ope codicum emendari non queunt. In codice Latino

Finally it must be noticed that this Epistle of our author has not come down to us entire: since the Greek manuscript codices lack title and beginning, and abound in many errors which cannot be emended without the help of other codices. In the Latin codex

Editors' notes and page, col. 684

Footnotes

(30) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the crop)› · call in col 684 (presumed; call not in the crop) [numeral faint; 30 by sequence]

Admonit. in lib. S. Ambros. De bon. mort.

Admonition (the editors' preface) to St Ambrose's book On the Good of Death (De bono mortis).

(printed under page 339)

Page

running head: NABAS APOSTOLUS. 684
marginal letters: A ruerunt. Cur; B existimandum est.; C loquentem audire:; D nobis; templum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ruerunt. Cur ergo (Le Nourry continued); word split at start: [ape]ruerunt

PG 2:685

secunda pars Epistolae deficit; primae vero additus est finis, quasi nihil amplius desideretur. Vetus autem interpres Latinus non omnia auctoris verba reddidit, et nonnulla aliquibus in locis, quae in

the second part of the Epistle is wanting; and to the first an ending has been added, as though nothing more were lacking. Moreover, the old Latin translator did not render all the words of the author, and in some places certain things which in

Graeco habentur, ab ipso praetermissa sunt. Quapropter ille vel in mutilum codicem incidit, vel data opera quaedam omisit, vel denique auctoris sui sensum non assecutus est.

the Greek are found, were passed over by him. Wherefore either he lighted upon a mutilated codex, or he purposely omitted certain things, or finally he did not grasp the sense of his author.

Editors' notes and page, col. 685

Footnotes

(31-32) ‹anchor: Eusebio teste› · call in col 685 Euseb., Hist. eccles., lib. vi, cap. 14.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 14.

(printed under page 340)

(33) ‹anchor: nonnulla delibat› · call in col 685

Clement. Alex., Pædag., lib. ii, cap. 10, p. 221, edit. Oxon. 1715.

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Paedagogus), book 2, chapter 10, p. 221, Oxford edition of 1715.

(printed under page 340)

(34) ‹anchor: Scripturæ nomine insignivit› · call in col 685

Origen., Explanat. in Epist. ad Rom. I, 24.

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:24.

(printed under page 340)

Footnotes

(35) ‹anchor: Sic enim ibi› · call in col 686

Hieron., De vir. illustr., cap. 6.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 6.

(printed under page 340)

(36) ‹anchor: scite Pearsonius› · call in col 686

Pearson., Vindic. Ignat., part. i, cap. 4, pag. 289.

Pearson, Vindication of the Epistles of St Ignatius (Vindiciae Ignatianae), part 1, chapter 4, p. 289.

(printed under page 340)

(37) ‹anchor: in Decreto Gelasiano› · call in col 686

Gelas., Decr., cap. 4.

Gelasius, Decree, chapter 4.

(printed under page 340)

(38) ‹anchor: inter alios Svicerus› · call in col 686

Svicer. Thes. eccl., v. Ἀπόκρυφος, tom. I, p. 457.

Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, under the word Ἀπόκρυφος, vol. 1, p. 457.

(printed under page 340)

(39) ‹anchor: cl. Fontaninus› · call in col 686

Fontanin., Hist. Aquil., lib. v, cap. 11, § 8, pag. 354.

Fontanini, History of Aquileia, book 5, chapter 11, § 8, p. 354.

(printed under page 340)

(40) ‹anchor: Annalium parens Baronius› · call in col 686

Baron., ad an. 31, § 9.

Baronius, [Annales,] under the year 31, § 9.

(printed under page 340)

(41) ‹anchor: Augustinus tradit› · call in col 686

Aug., De Civit. Dei, lib. xv, cap. 23.

Augustine, The City of God, book 15, chapter 23.

(printed under page 340)

Page

running head: PROLEGOMENA. 636
marginal letters: A Graeco habentur,; B unam ad aedificationem; C Historia Eusebii; D ab Ecclesia omnino
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title across cols 685-686 after assecutus est. not set: VI. (GALLANDIUS, Vet. Patr. Bibliotheca, t. I, Venetiis, 1765, in-fol., Proleg., p. XXIX.); editors' matter: Graeco habentur, viris illustribus edidit (Gallandi continued); word split at end: ortho-[doxorum]
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 685 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)