Is the Barnabas Epistle strong evidence against a historical Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

I am reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Astonishing-Cred ... B00O2K3XH6

According to this author, the following passage from Barnabas (I use the translation that is not in the book):

Barnabas 16:3
Furthermore He saith again; Behold they that pulled down this
temple themselves shall build it.
Barnabas 16:4
So it cometh to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down
by their enemies. Now also the very servants of their enemies shall
build it up.
Barnabas 16:5
Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of
Israel should be betrayed.

...would be evidence that the epistle was written after the destruction of the First Temple, and not after the 70 CE.

So proving that his Jesus is entirely mythical.

So Michael Lawrence:

This caption talks of a temple having been recently destroyed, and in the process of being rebuilt, in a Jerusalem which exists at the time of writing; it further states that the city and the temple being built, will both be destroyed in the future, in an as yet unfulfilled prophecy. This demonstrates that Jerusalem itself, and the reconstruction of the temple, exist intact in the authors present. We should also consider: between the dates of the destruction by Titus in 70, and the decision of Hadrian in 130 to build a temple to Jupiter on top of the second temple remnants, Jerusalem was uninhabited ruins. Hadrian built his pagan temple and modelled a new city which he named Aelia Capitolina and populated with Roman citizens. He barred the practice of circumcision in the Roman Empire and exiled all Jews from the lands of Judea; he then renamed Judea to Palaestina. The concept of Jerusalem ceased to exist after 70 and it does not reappear in history until the post-324 section of Constantine's rule. The second temple was never rebuilt after it was destroyed in 70. The first temple was however rebuilt within 100 years of its 586 BCE destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, and became the second temple; the author is clearly depicting the destruction of the first temple and the construction of the second.

(my bold)

[Ben C. Smith]

Giuseppe, why do you give credence to such nonsense?

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, why do you give credence to such nonsense?

Effectively, the view described above seems not very probable. No wonder that the author is an astrotheologist (or something of similar). Not a serious mythicist.

[Joseph D. L.]

...would be evidence that the epistle was written after the destruction of the First Temple, and not after the 70 CE.

Not at all.

Observe what the author states, that those who had destroyed the Temple would rebuild it, cannot refer to the period between the first and second Temples, because the Babylonians destroyed the first Temple, and the Persians allowed it to be rebuilt.

It can only refer to Hadrian's edict to have the Jewish Temple rebuilt, c. 125 ad. It was the Romans who destroyed it, and the Romans would rebuild it.