Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:33 pm
Perhaps the Epistle of Barnabas is what I am looking for to set a date whereby we have very strong evidence that some of the gospels exist.
It has been dated into the range 80 to 120 CE.
My dating of the epistle of Barnabas:
7.4 Dating:
As we saw already, the epistle was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70C.E.
Can we determine a more accurate dating?
Let's consider:
Barnabas4:3-4 "The last offence is at hand, ... For to this end the Master has cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
[the end" was expected soon, as also in 4:9 "... let us take heed in these last days ..." and 21:3 "The day is at hand ...". This is typical of 1st century Christian writings]
"` ... Ten reigns shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one."
Do these ten and three kings make sense in a 1st century context?
The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.
Also, in chapter 16, "Barnabas" attacked the inadequacy of any man-made God's temple, past or future: did some Jewish Christians (or/and Jews) think Nerva, not from the same family of the ones who destroyed it (Vespasian & Titus), would allow its rebuilding? It is probable:
Barnabas16:1 "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God."
What about the other seven kings?
This series of kings, obviously Roman emperors (as the following four ones, Vespasian to Nerva), had just to make some sense in order to be believed as part of a fulfilled prophecy. Who are the candidates?
1) Julius Caesar (49-44)
2) Augustus (44-14)
3) Tiberius (14-37)
4) Caligula (37-41)
5) Claudius (41-54)
6) Nero (54-68)
7) Galba (Jun68-Jan69)
8) Otho (Jan69-Apr69)
9) Vitellius (Apr69-Dec69)
Out of these nine "kings", two of them never got to be emperor ("princeps"): Julius was dictator for life and Vitellius took only the title of consul for life.
Or one might keep Julius Caesar, the true founder of the imperial system, and remove Otho & Vitellius, the short-lived inept usurpers.
PS: Clement of Alexandria provided two lists of Roman emperors in 'Stromata', I, XXI. The first one excludes Julius, Otho and Vitellius; the second includes the three of them:
"And nothing, in my opinion, after these details, need stand in the way of stating the periods of the Roman emperors, in order to the demonstration of the Saviour's birth. Augustus, forty-three years; ... Galba, one year; Vespasian, ten years; ...
Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus: Caius Julius Caesar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus ... Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian ..."
Lightfoot comes up with a rather different date for the epistle, but using much of the same interpretation you apply.
The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, volume 2, appendix B, pages 509-510:
The solution, which I venture to offer, has not, so far as I am aware, been given before. We enumerate the ten Caesars in their natural sequence with Weizsacker, and we arrive at Vespasian as the tenth. We regard the three Flavii as the three kings destined to be humiliated, with Hilgenfeld. We do not however with him contemplate them as three separate emperors, but we explain the language as referring to the reigning sovereign, Vespasian, associating his two sons Titus and Domitian with himself in the exercise of the supreme power. At no other point in the history of the imperial household do we find so close a connexion of three in one, until a date too late to enter into consideration. And lastly; we interpret the little horn as symbolising the Antichrist with Volkmar, and we explain it by the expectation of Nero's reappearance which we know to have been rife during the reign of Vespasian. No other epoch in the history of the Caesars presents this coincidence of the three elements in the image—the ten kings, the three kings, and the Antichrist—so appropriately. For these reasons we are led to place the so-called Barnabas during the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 70—79).
The enumeration of the ten kings speaks for itself; but the significance of the three kings requires some illustration. When Vespasian assumed the supreme dignity, the power of the empire was sustained by Titus among the legions, while it was represented by Domitian in the capital (Tac. Hist. iii. 84, iv. 2, 3). The three were thus associated together in the public mind, as no three persons had been associated before in the history of the Empire. Immediately on the accession of their father the two young men were created Caesars by the Senate and invested with the title of 'Principes Juventutis.' The first act of Vespasian was to associate Titus with himself as colleague in the consulship, while Domitian was made praetor with consular power. Several types of coin, struck during this reign, exhibit the effigy of the reigning emperor on the obverse with figures of Titus and Domitian on the reverse in various attitudes and with various legends. An extant inscription, on a marble (Eckhel Doctr. Num. vi. p. 320 sq), which has apparently served as a base for three busts, commemorates the emperor and his two sons in parallel columns, Vespasian's name and titles occupying the central column. 'Along this path (to glory)', says the elder Pliny (N. H. ii. 5) 'now advances with godlike step, accompanied by his sons, Vespasianus Augustus the greatest ruler of any age.' The association of Titus with his father's honours was close and continuous. He was seven times colleague to the emperor in the consulate during the ten years of Vespasian's reign. He was associated in the Pontificate, the Censorship, and the Tribunician Power, which represented respectively the religious, the moral, and the political authority of the sovereign. From the moment of his return to Rome after his Eastern victories 'he never ceased,' we are told, 'to act the part of colleague and even guardian of the empire1.' The title Imperator itself was conferred upon him, so that the language of the elder Pliny is perfectly correct, when he speaks of 'imperatores Caesares Vespasiani, pater filiusque' during the lifetime of the father. On the other hand the relations of Vespasian towards his younger son were never cordial. But the good nature and generosity of Titus interposed to prevent any open breach between the two. He represented to his father that the safety of the empire was dependent on the harmony of the imperial household; and the baseness of Domitian was in consequence overlooked. Coins were struck, which had on the obverse the two sons of Vespasian, with the legend TVTELA AVGVSTI. At the triumph after the close of the Judaic war, 'Vespasian,' says one who witnessed it, 'preceded in a chariot, and Titus followed, while Domitian rode on horseback by the side, himself splendidly habited and mounted on a horse which was a sight to see.'
Here then were the very three kings of whom the prophecy spoke. It is true that the obvious interpretation of the words pointed to three several kings belonging to the ten who are mentioned just before, whereas the so-called Barnabas found the three combined in one of the ten together with his sons and colleagues in the kingship. But this manipulation was forced upon him by the stubbornness of contemporary facts; and he calls attention to it by repeating the expression 'three in one,' which has no place in the original.
Lightfoot is correct to bear in mind that this prophecy originates in Daniel:
Daniel 7.7-8: 7 After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.
Barnabas had to make do with what he had, and the three horns may well have reminded him of Vespasian and his two sons, just as you and Lightfoot both surmise. The three horns, which in Daniel's wording should apply to three of the same emperors, instead apply to Vespasian himself and his two sons; as Lightfoot says, "this manipulation was forced upon him by the stubbornness of contemporary facts; and he calls attention to it by repeating the expression 'three in one,' which has no place in the original." But I think I like your perspective, Bernard, better insofar as the actual date is concerned: it makes sense that the three horns have already fallen by the time Barnabas is writing. It would be the coincidence of Daniel's 10 horns and 3 horns with Vespasian being the 10th emperor and having two practically coregent sons that would have inspired the whole idea of using the Danielic prophecy for guidance. And Barnabas emphasizes that the end is near, which may imply that the 3 kings have already run their course, with their supplanter being the last king on the prophetic timetable.
All of this assumes that the 10 kings and 3 kings mean something in Barnabas' immediate context, of course. It stands to reason, but it has been doubted.
