You are here:   Christianity > Jews, Christians and Judaeo-Christians
 

For Barnabas and his Gentile Christian followers, the covenant between God and the Jews was a sham; it was never ratified. When, bringing down the Law from Sinai, Moses saw that the Jews were engaged in the worship of the golden calf, he smashed into pieces the two stone tablets inscribed by God's hand, and thus rendered the Jewish covenant null and void. It had to be replaced by the covenant sealed by the redemptive blood of the "beloved Jesus" in the heart of the Christians (Barn. 4. 6-8; 14. 1-7).

Barnabas's portrait of Jesus is considerably more advanced than the Didache's "Servant" of God. He calls Jesus "the Son" or "the Son of God" no less than a dozen times. This "Son of God" had existed since all eternity and was active before the creation of the world. It was to this pre-existent Jesus that at the time of "the foundation of the world" God addressed the words, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Barn. 5.5; 6.12). The quasi-divine character of Jesus is implied when Barnabas explains that the Son of God took on a human body because without such a disguise no one would have been able to look at him and stay alive (Barn. 5. 9-10). The ultimate purpose of the descent of "the Lord of the entire world" among men was to enable himself to suffer "in order to destroy death and show that there is resurrection" (Barn. 5. 5-6). We are in, and perhaps slightly beyond, the Pauline-Johannine vision of Christ and his work of salvation.

The type of outlook represented by the Didache has no place in the religious vision of Barnabas. The parting of the ways between Jewish and Gentile Christianity is manifest already at this stage and the Epistle of Barnabas marks the start of the future doctrinal evolution of the church on exclusively Gentile lines. Half a century after Barnabas, for the bishop of Sardis, Melito, the Jews are judged guilty of deicide: "God has been murdered...by the right hand of Israel" (Paschal Homily 96). Jewish Christianity makes no sense any longer. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
62peppe
March 18th, 2014
12:03 PM
"Didachè.7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water." Isn't there clearly stated the trinity? Who should be the "Son" if not Jesus?

sabluerAnonymous
April 3rd, 2013
9:04 AM
I THINK i'VE ALWAYS BEEN A JEWISH CHRISTIAN, BUT NEVER PUT A NAME TO IT UNTIL RECENTLY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM COMBINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. I ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS THE MESSIAH, BUT I AM OPEN TO THE FACT THAT JESUS MAY HAVE BEEN "LIGHTING THE WAY" FOR ANOTHER, WHO IS YET TO ARRIVE.

Unimpressed
June 13th, 2012
1:06 PM
I don't know why Standpoint feels the need tho humour Geza Vermes by publishing these articles. His method of scholarship is less "historical critical" and more "cut and paste". The traditional gospels are not to be trusted (unless they can be mined for tidbits which support his argument). Here's a good overview of his nitpicky approach to criticism: http://www.amazon.com/review/R23BXJ5P3WJQWV/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R23BXJ5...

jackndc
December 24th, 2011
2:12 AM
The comments on here are a great example of how mankind has been able to argue about things of many years past which have zero use in today's society of Islamic jihad terror, Arab-Zionist fights, and other such threats to civilization. The are all petty people picking fights over nonsense that is mostly myth.

andyd
December 15th, 2011
10:12 PM
Sorry, Ben David: "Until the middle of the 20th century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722–721 BC). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials. According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century AD they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.("Samaritans" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, op. cit., col. 727.)"

andyd
December 15th, 2011
9:12 PM
Love the self-appointed experts who boldly claim that Geza Vermes has only a superficial knowledge of the bible and/or gospels!

notmelbrooks
December 15th, 2011
9:12 PM
How can I believe anything past the 2nd sentence in the article," For how can someone simultaneously be a follower of both Moses and Jesus?" Jews dont "follow" Moses.

giuseppebrasil
December 14th, 2011
11:12 PM
the christian meme evolution

AnoJoenymous
December 14th, 2011
6:12 PM
Monism is passe: The Uncertainty principle and Relativity make that evident. If monism is passe so too is monotheism.

Ben David
December 14th, 2011
1:12 PM
Just one quibble: Samaritans were not, are not Jewish. They are one of the alien tribes moved in to resettle Israel after the destruction of the first Temple. Their attempt to prevent the return of the Jews - and their disputes with Ezra and Nehemia - are recorded in those books, and in the book of Daniel.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.