Barnabas compared

I'll continue my thoughts on Barnabas' take on Christ.

Jesus existed alongside Creation as Genesis 1:26's Imago Dei (5:5), and became incarnate. This sounds Johannine but really, follows 2 Corinthians 4:4. On the other hand, Paul - ever full of selfcontradiction - simultaneously had taught that Jesus became the Son of David. Barnabas' reaction was to refuse Paul as an authority, simply declaring the Imago Dei as allbinding dogma, and refuting the Davidide thesis - here by way of Psalm 110 (cf. Matthew 22:41-5). The Virgin Birth is not explicit so, more Hebrews than Luke or Justin.

Less emphasised by Paul but more by 1 Peter and 1 Clement, Barnabas' Christ is the Servant of Isaiah 52-3 whose Passion (pascha) befits a Rene Girard figure to redeem all humanity. In Barnabas 5:1 the Lord does his own Paradosis (1 Clement 16:7 / 1 Corinthians 11:23 / Isaiah 53:6): not betrayed, nor passed around by others.

Barnabas famously hits against "Israel", whether this be a rhetorical stance for in-house consumption or no. It/he aligns with John and Peter in having the Synagogue of Israel slay Christ - by crucifixion, using that motif of the Bronze Serpent also John 3:14+12:34. The Israelis just nail him up there, without Roman input. The nails by the way match Ignatius and John against the Synoptics.

In one stunning departure from mainline Christian dogma Israel are "lawless", having lost their covenant at Sinai. The Disciples start out as lawless, also; Barnabas knows they were Judaeans of that Torah. One wonders, in between, why Isaiah or the other prophets and psalmists even bothered. Then one understands that Barnabas is an Enochian.

Barnabas differs from Mark and the others in not mentioning the "Sign of Jonah" nor the Passover; all he'll note is that Christ's body had time to go rotten (5:1). Barnabas doesn't mention the empty tomb nor the lead-in to the post-Resurrection appearances. I think this is because these themes were apologetic, for chain-of-custody, aimed at outsiders and docetists; Barnabas wrote to insiders and isn't aware of docetism. The Resurrection chapter 15 comes on the eighth day, in the context of the Sabbath closing the seven-day week - so Sunday. Barnabas does agree with canon not to elevate Christ straight from the Cross; also, Barnabas implies post-Resurrection appearances, although he doesn't care to whom.

Barnabas is sure that the End is nigh, hinting at why the Sinaiticus includes it after John's Apocalypse. In that light his dating of events is vague. Unlike us who recite Theodosius' Creed, Barnabas is more like the Second Isaiah: Barnabas won't say when Christ lived and died. Under Tiberius? - Claudius? This may involve the embarrassment that Christ preached the imminent End himself and, now, it's four decades hence or more.

Some say Barnabas depends on Matthew. I am unsure. Barnabas passes up chances to defer to New Testament citations; everything is Old Testament. Barnabas doesn't even know that Christ himself had argued Christology, as Matthew 22:41-5 [EXPANDED 7/2]. By contrast Matthew has the motive to transfer Christological disputes back into Christ's own mouth.