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 existed.
It has been dated into the range 80 to 120 CE.
16:3-4 is normally used to date it:
3 Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it."
4 That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again. (Lake)
Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613-614):
“Since
Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple,
Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. …”
(
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html)
It is possible that Barnabas was written in either 130 or 131 CE after the Emperor Hadrian had agreed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. This would be why the author wrote that the rebuilding was happening now.
Bernard Muller wrote:
About the epistle of Barnabas:
The epistle has numerous quotes from the scriptures and also allegedly from Jesus, which are not known from any other early Christian texts. However, it is likely "Barnabas" knew about bits & pieces of GMatthew, probably by mouth to ears or recollection from past readings. Let's review the evidence:
- Barnabas7:3 "But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink ..."
Only in GMatthew, Jesus is given a mixture of vinegar and gall at his crucifixion:
Mt27:34 "they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink."
Note: the gall is not necessary for the argument developed by "Barnabas" in 7:3-5.
Barnabas 7:3 is “ἀλλὰ καὶ σταρωθεὶς ἐποτιζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ.
3 But moreover when he was crucified "he was given to drink vinegar and gall."
Matthew 27:34 is ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον:
They-give him to-drink wine with bile mixed-together
Mk 15:23 is καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον,
And they-gave him to-drink blended-with-myrrh wine
Septuagint Ps 68:22 καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸ βρῶμά μου χολὴν καὶ εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος.
“And they gave me also gall for my food and made me drink vinegar for my thirst”
Mark has ἐσμυρνισμένον, which Strongs tells us is “mingle with myrrh, a bitter herb given to help deaden the pain of criminals sentenced to crucifixion” and οἶνον – wine.
If this is correct then Mark has something that is based on historical fact, those being crucified are offered wine with myrrh in it.
I think Matthew has changed it to οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς – wine with bitter herbs (because χολῆς can mean “bitter herbs”)
Barnabas has ὄξει καὶ χολῇ - sour wine and gall.
The Septuagint PS 68:22 has ὄξος – sour wine and gall or bitter herbs
I would like to think that Barnabas has just copied Matthew, but it is equally possible that he changed both the wine and myrrh in the original story to sour wine and gall to make it agree with Sept Ps 68:22 independent of Matthew.
Bernard Muller wrote:
- Barnabas4:14 "as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
It appears "Barnabas" was confused about the origin of this citation, not appearing in the O.T. But in the N.T., it shows in GMatthew and only here:
Mt22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Furthermore, the saying is typically Matthean, and about the treatment of undesirables:
Barnabas 4:14 is πολλοὶ κλητοί, ολίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.
many called few yet chosen (I couldn’t find a translation for εὑρεθῶμεν)
Mt 22:14 is πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.
Many for they-are called few yet chosen
Bernard Muller wrote:Also, the saying fits very well into the heavily "colored" all-Matthean ending (22:11-14) of the parable of the wedding banquet.
All five words in Barnabas appear in Matthew 22:14. This seems to be good evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Matthews gospel, especially if we believe that Mt 22:11-14 is wholly a Matthean creation, which is very possible.
Bernard Muller wrote:
a) 'Barnabas' and GMatthew or GMark
- Barnabas7:9 "... Is not this He, Whom once we crucified and set at nought and spat upon;"
Jesus is spat upon only in Mk15:19 & Mt27:30
Barnabas 7:6-11
7 But what are they to do with the other? "The other," he says, "is accursed." Notice how the type of Jesus is manifested:
8 "And do ye all spit on it, and goad it, and bind the scarlet wool about its head, and so let it be cast into the desert." And when it is so done, he who takes the goat into the wilderness drives it forth, and takes away the wool, and puts it upon a shrub which is called Rachel, of which we are accustomed to eat the shoots when we find them in the country: thus of Rachel alone is the fruit sweet.
9 What does this mean? Listen: "the first goat is for the altar, but the other is accursed," and note that the one that is accursed is crowned, because then "they will see him" on that day with the long scarlet robe "down to the feet" on his body, and they will say, "Is not this he whom we once crucified and rejected and pierced and spat upon? Of a truth it was he who then said that he was the Son of God."
10 But how is he like to the goat? For this reason: "the goats shall be alike, beautiful, and a pair," in order that when they see him come at that time they may be astonished at the likeness of the goat. See then the type of Jesus destined to suffer.
11 But why is it that they put the wool in the middle of the thorns? It is a type of Jesus placed in the Church, because whoever wishes to take away the scarlet wool must suffer much because the thorns are terrible and he can gain it only through pain. Thus he says, "those who will see me, and attain to my kingdom must lay hold of me through pain and suffering."
Mark 15:16-20
[16] And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion.
[17] And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him.
[18] And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"
[19] And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
[20] And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.
There are many parallels, scarlet robe/ purple cloak, crowned thorns / crown of thorns as well as spat / spat. However, these actions are not specified in Leviticus 16, but Aaron has to wear special linen clothes including a headdress translated as turban. There does not appear to be enough word agreement to conclude Barnabas is using Mark’s gospel, however Matthew has “scarlet” (Mt 27:28) - κοκκίνην and Barnabas has κόκκινον. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Matthews gospel.
Bernard Muller wrote:- Barnabas5:9 "He came not to call the righteous but sinners"
Mk2:17 & Mt9:13 "... I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners ..."
Barnabas is οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς,
"I came not to call the righteous but sinners,"
Mark 2:17 is οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Not I-came to-call the-just-ones but sinners
Matthew 9:13 οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Luke 5:32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν.
Barnabas has six words identical with Mark, but not Matthew and Luke, who both made small changes to Mark. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Mark’s gospel.