1. Introduction
The curious epithet ὁ μέλας for the counter-divine figure in Barn. 4.10 and 20.1 has been all but bypassed in the history of research on this important letter.Footnote 1 Uniqueness of the substantival use of a colour adjective as an epithet for a demonic force among early Christian texts is never articulated by commentators and nowhere addressed in an investigative essay or article.Footnote 2 As an epithet, the expression is unremarkable, perhaps suggesting an early Christian, apocalyptic and/or sectarian context.Footnote 3 Substantival use of the colour adjective, however, requires explanation.Footnote 4 David Brakke articulates the assumption probably at work among scholars:
In the earliest surviving piece of Christian literature, 1 Thessalonians, Paul tells his followers, ‘You are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness’ (1 Thess 5:5). In Revelation, virtuous Christians are dressed in white robes (6:11; 7:13, etc.). From here it was a short step to identifying the devil and evil persons as not merely darkness but black.Footnote 5
Yet this assumption is a premise in need of proof. If it is indeed a ‘short step’, why doesn't it occur elsewhere in Christian writings prior to fourth-century monastic literature?Footnote 6 Why does the writer employ colour rather than absence of light or life (e.g. darkness, death)? The divine is never correspondingly referred to as white in Barnabas (Gk ὁ λευκός).Footnote 7 Red – the third colour that appears frequently in apocalyptic texts – is likewise absent in Barnabas. Furthermore, scholars collapse the two occurrences of ὁ μέλας in Barn. 4 and 18 interpreting them in terms of each other. Persuasive redactional arguments, however, separate Barn. 1–17 and 18–20/1.Footnote 8 The latter section alone identifies ὁ μέλας as Satan.Footnote 9 By collapsing these references, interpreters overlook certain important nuances of the earlier occurrence. The present article explores inferences of the passages concerning ὁ μέλας in Barn. 1–17 exclusively, arguing that it adopts an ethnic stereotype in an apocalyptic context with a possibly anti-imperial target.
2. History of Research
Since – with good reason – most regard the Epistle of Barnabas as reflecting allegorical exegesis, the geographical setting of Alexandria seems like an appropriate place to begin our investigation.Footnote 10 The Coptic word for ‘Egypt’, ⲕⲏⲙⲉ, means the ‘Black Land’ (ⲕⲏⲙⲉ, ⲕⲁⲙⲉ, ⲕⲁⲙⲏ, ⲕⲙⲙⲉ, ⲕⲁⲙ, ‘black’) and references to the Nile as the ‘Black River’ are also common.Footnote 11 Black was a divine epithet for the chief beneficent gods in Egypt; malevolent spirits were red.Footnote 12 Whereas black possesses a positive connotation in these examples, at the same time it denotes a broad swath of negative stereotypes, including sexual promiscuity.Footnote 13 Because ‘Ethiopian’ was a somatic category, a variety of sub-Saharan people groups were frequent victims of this stereotype.Footnote 14 The Greek word αἰθιοπία derives from the verb αἴθειν ‘to burn’ plus the noun ὤψ ‘face, countenance’ – hence referring to anyone (irrespective of homeland) with a somatically ‘black’ appearance. Beginning in the third century, Christians including Origen, Jerome, Didymus the Blind and Paulinus of Nola associated ‘Ethiopians’ with sin and vice.
Commentators on Barn. 4.10a fold the nickname ὁ μέλας for the counter-divine figure into an understanding of the writer's overall outlook.
2.1 Robert Kraft (1965)
Referring to Barnabas’ ‘eschatological atmosphere’, Robert Kraft describes the narrative circumstances as ‘charged with a view of “the last times” which borders on the apocalyptic and makes the task of parenesis all the more important and urgent’.Footnote 15 Kraft explains,
These are the ‘last days’, the climax of evils which will usher in the ‘age to come’ (2:1; 4:1, 3, 9; 16:5 f.) The Christian must walk carefully and perform his righteous tasks with deliberate haste (19:1b; 21:7b; cf. 1:5; 4:9a) as he continually looks forward to the imminent holy age (8:6; 10:11d; 21:1, 3). The Lord is about to judge (4:12; 5:7; 7:2; 15:5; cf. 10:5; 12:9) and the Christian must be prepared for this ‘day of recompense’ (11:8; 19:10f; 20:2c; 21:6).Footnote 16
In this setting, Kraft emphasises dualism: the way of righteousness and the way of lawlessness (e.g. 4.12).Footnote 17 According to Kraft, the kingdom of God is in a present state of anguish awaiting Jesus's interventionFootnote 18 and ‘the Black One’, understood as Satan, is an actor in this mythological drama – dragging Christians to the evil path.Footnote 19 Kraft qualifies the moral struggle Christians face as symptomatic of the present tension between the two ages.Footnote 20
2.2 Pierre Prigent (1971)
Pierre Prigent links Kraft's interpretation of the text's eschatology to its soteriology.Footnote 21 According to Prigent, the tradition that Barnabas adopts implies a history of Israel characterised by rebellion. Beginning with the golden calf incident, the Jews never understood their covenantal obligation to God and thus forfeited their divine alliance. Christians perceive the true sense of the law and have thus assumed that divine alliance, which they will retain, unless they too squander it through disobedience.Footnote 22
Like Kraft, Prigent interprets ὁ μέλας in 4.10 in light of 20.1, namely as a reference to Satan: ‘Le Noir est un nom de Satan en tant qu'il préside à la voie des ténèbres.’Footnote 23 On the origin of the appellation, Prigent cites Dölger's history of anti-Ethiopian and anti-Egyptian sentiment in Greek texts beginning with Herodotus.Footnote 24 Dölger's monograph remains a standard on the topic. However, it lacks nuance in the interpretation of Christian texts by failing to differentiate between darkness (“Dunkelheit”, “Finsternis”) and blackness (“Schwarzheit”), and – among Christian texts – between the Devil and Satan.Footnote 25
2.3 F. R. Prostmeier (1999)
Ferdinand Prostmeier holds a similar view of the importance of eschatology in Barnabas. Based on the fourth-century interpretation of the text by Didymus the Blind, he rules out any understanding of ὁ μέλας as other than Satan who is in turn identified as the devil.Footnote 26 The work of this evil figure is to mislead the congregation. According to Prostmeier, 4.10a is followed by three warnings illustrating the devil's seduction. No one, Barnabas warns, is immune to the tomfoolery of ‘the Black one’.Footnote 27 Vanity, arrogance and worldliness are his ‘inroad’ into the community.Footnote 28 The counter-divine creeps into communities imperceptibly – recognised only once it is too late. Prostmeier characterises such warnings as both (1) typical of heretical polemics and (2) a topos of paraenesis – eschatology adding urgency to moral demands.Footnote 29
2.4 Other Interpreters
Largely in isolation from the work of these commentators, a small group of scholars has investigated ancient black stereotypes and prejudice among early Christian texts. Until recently, conclusions of this group have swung back and forth between a perception of early Christians as either utilising colour symbolism to foster negative attitudes towards dark-skinned people or emphasising equality of all believers irrespective of skin colour. For example, in 1967 Roger Bastide argued that colour was used to facilitate racial hatred among early Christians.Footnote 30 Swinging back in the other direction, in 1970, Frank M. Snowden, Jr. argued that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.26–40 suggests that colour prejudice is a recent development;Footnote 31 and, in 1979, swinging back again, J. M. Courtès argued that the universal appeal of the gospel was achieved through reversal (i.e., even the black-skinned may come to faith).Footnote 32 In 1989, Lloyd A. Thompson's Romans and Blacks established the present consensus: somatic blackness coupled with spiritual whiteness is a theme Christians ‘harp on’.Footnote 33 Subsequent work by Peter Frost (1991) on early Christian attitudes towards blacks, Vincent Wimbush (1992) on ascetic boundaries among accounts of Moses as Ethiopian, David Brakke (2001) on portrayal of blacks in monastic literatureFootnote 34 and Gay Byron (2002) on demons (often female) as Ethiopian explores specific instances of the consensus, usually acknowledging, but not interacting in depth with, the example in Barnabas.Footnote 35
3. Evidence: Barn. 4.9b–14
With this background in mind, we turn to Barn. 4.9b–14. Ὁ μέλας occurs in the context of a series of four eschatological warnings.Footnote 36 In terms of early Christian writings, in most respects this exhortation is unexceptional: the end days are near and Christians must be vigilant or the counter-divine will ensnare them and they will be found sinful at the final judgement.Footnote 37 Three points are, however, distinctive. (1) A counter-divine figure, referred to as ‘the Black one’ (v. 10a) and ‘the wicked archon’ (v. 13b),Footnote 38 threatens to capture and banish believers. (2) Together with conventional admonitions to flee vanity (v. 10a), fear God (v. 11c) and avoid complacency (v. 13a–b), the writer warns addressees not to ‘monasticise’ (μονάζειν, v. 10b).Footnote 39 (3) The writer exhorts his audience to be pneumatic and a perfect temple (4.11b). Although each one of these anomalies is a desideratum of research on this text, I will focus exclusively on ὁ μέλας in vv. 9c–10a.
4. Interpretation
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that black Africans were looked upon with aversion and contempt (occasionally even as a threat to Roman rule in Upper Egypt). I review nine brief examples next.
4.1 Tannaim
One tannaitic interpretation of Deut 32.21 may refer indirectly to these circumstances. Deut 32.21 describes the punishment that God has decided to inflict on Israel for disloyalty:
I will incense them with a no-folk (be-lo’‘am); I will vex them with a nation of fools (be-goy nabal).
The interpretation follows:
‘And I will incense them with a be-lo’‘am.’ Do not read bl’‘m, but blwy‘m; this refers to those who come from among the nations and kingdoms and expel them from their homes. Another interpretation: This refers to those who come from the barbaria and mrtny’, who go about naked in the marketplace.Footnote 40
David Goldenberg argues that the ‘other interpretation’ – by its reference to Barbaria in East Africa and Mauritania in West Africa – indicates that the tannaitic exposition interprets the biblical term be-lo’‘am as Blemmyan, and the word nabal as Nobaen (Nubae, Nobatae, Nobadae), two groups of black Africans frequently viewed as a threat to Roman rule in the third and fourth centuries. The Blemmyans were the best-known tribe in East Africa (on the border of Upper Egypt). Their political importance lasted 300 years (ca. 250–550 ce). Goldenberg characterises them as ferocious:
During this time, they are mentioned again and again in Roman sources as a fierce nomadic people who inhabit the desert south of Egypt between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea and often invaded Egypt. Their raids finally forced Diocletian in 297 to cede control of Roman territory south of the first cataract, even though the raids later continued. The Nobae were also known for their raids into Roman territory and they are regularly mentioned by Roman writers together with the Blemmyes as threats to Roman security.Footnote 41
4.2 Epigram #1
Lloyd Thompson presents two third-century Romano-African epigrams likewise expressing abusive attitudes towards sub-Saharan people.Footnote 42 The first of these reads:
This text depicts the black-skinned man as frightening. Associated with death, he resembles a human being, but is in fact a monster who belongs at the gates of hell. Thompson notes that this epigram may have been directed at a single well-known black warrior who was either captured in combat and made a slave at Hadrumetum (modern Susa in Tunisia) or born into slavery there (and possibly collaborating with the barbarian bandits).Footnote 46 However, the epigram may simply express xenophobic aversion to black African immigrants (possibly slaves) in Rome.
4.3 Epigram #2
Rhetorically less severe, the second epigram focuses on the black skin colour of Ethiopians:
While less violent, a tone of mockery in the second epigram is, nevertheless, present. Black skin is ugly, possessing an unwelcome permanence. The writer uses the slanderous epithet ‘Night's child’ to suggest malevolence and fear – ‘ugliness of the ruffian “whom one would not care to meet late at night as one drives past the tombs on the Latin Way”.Footnote 49 According to Thompson, repetition of the Latin c sound in the third verse evokes the word caca- (i.e. Lat. cacare, ‘to pass, defecate, or go to stool’). Alternatively, it may mimic the ‘cackle’ of the partridge (Lat. cacabare < Gk κακκαβίζειν) or the clicking sound of certain African languages.Footnote 50 Thompson views these epigrams as reflecting a xenophobic fear (in the frontline provinces) of armed conflict with sub-Saharan marauders coming up to Roman territory in the early third century, although mere aversion may suffice to explain them also.Footnote 51
4.4 John of Lycopolis (305–94 CE)Footnote 52
With this same setting in mind, David Brakke reflects on an episode in the Historia monachorum about the incursion against the Thebaid border town of Syene by ‘Ethiopians’. A Roman general asked the monk John of Lycopolis whether John thought the general would prevail in the event of an invasion. According to Brakke, this vignette depicts Ethiopians as ‘a military threat powerful enough to worry a general and as opponents of the Christian state’.Footnote 53 Brakke writes:
While persons elsewhere in the Mediterranean may have been able to romanticize the mythic military power of the Ethiopian people, Egyptians had a more palpable sense of an ‘Ethiopian’ threat and thus were more likely to scapegoat darker-skinned persons in their midst. And indeed, the anti-ascetic Ethiopian demon was ‘a product typical of the monastic environments of Egypt’, which was then exported through literature to Syria, Palestine, and western Europe.Footnote 54
As Thompson points out, Romans loved mockery of all kinds – black versus white was just one example among many.Footnote 55 However, Alexandria was well situated for this particular lampoon since use of somatic categories meant that confusion between Ethiopians, Egyptians and Alexandrians was rampant. The stereotype of ‘Egyptians’ as ‘black’ goes back to Herodotus, who characterised them as μελάγχροος (2.104). Such a blanket stereotype inevitably piqued Alexandrian sensibilities. Among the propertied classes in Roman Egypt but especially in Alexandria, ‘Egyptian’ denoted uncivilised peasant. Supporting this point, Thompson cites P.Oxy. 1681: ‘Perhaps, my brothers, you think I am some barbarian or uncivilized Egyptian [Αἰγύπτιος ἄνθρωπος].’Footnote 56
4.5 Imperial Letter of 215 ce
In 215 ce, fear of an armed ‘Ethiopian’ incursion against Alexandria prompted an imperial letter of Caracalla ordering the expulsion of all ‘Egyptians’ from the city. The letter specifies its target as ‘the countryfolk who have fled from other parts’ and who, ‘by the numbers of their kind and their uselessness, are disturbing the city’, to which they have fled from their own districts, ‘to escape rustic toil’. The ban exempted ‘pig-dealers and river boatmen and the men who bring down reeds for heating the baths’ (ll. 17–19). Tourists and those visiting on business were also exempt (i.e., those who had come ‘to view the glorious city of Alexandria’ or to enjoy ‘a more civilized life [πολιτικώτερα ζῴη] or for incidental business’).Footnote 57 Below I will return to Caracalla's relationship with Alexandria and its possible importance for Barnabas.
4.6 P.Oxy. 480
In Roman Egypt, Hellenised Egyptians and Jews were considered Greeks who mutually ‘scorned or disliked the peasant of the soil’ (ἀγροῖκοι Αἰγύπτιοι), ‘and wished to hold themselves aloof’.Footnote 58 Most Hellenised Egyptians were wealthy and lived in Alexandria,Footnote 59 which was considered ad Aegyptum (‘near Egypt’), not in it.Footnote 60 Alexandrians considered themselves above all other classes.Footnote 61 P.Oxy. 480 (180 ce) provides evidence of this view in its division of the Egyptian population into ‘stranger, Roman, Alexandrian, Egyptian, freedman’.Footnote 62
4.7 Origen
Given that he was dwelling in Alexandria off and on during his career, it is unsurprising to find such stereotypes in the writings of Origen.Footnote 63 Although he traces all creation to God and considers all humanity ‘equal and alike’ (Princ. 9.6), demographic groups have distinguishing characteristics: Ethiopians are cannibalistic, Scythians legally sanction parricide, and so forth.Footnote 64 Origen associates the black skin colour of sub-Saharan people with sin and vice.Footnote 65 Therefore, he demonstrates real concern in Comm. Cant. over the text's qualification of black skin as beautiful (Cant 1.5).Footnote 66 Christians, he argues, can view blackness as a recoverable condition: ‘If you have repented, however, your soul will indeed be black because of your old sins, but your penitence will give it something of what I may call an Ethiopian beauty.’Footnote 67 But from the length at which he discusses blackness in this commentary – even acknowledging that his argument is slightly obsessiveFootnote 68 – we infer that Origen was aware of the threat posed by blackness even as he understands it as an impermanent state for those who repent.Footnote 69
4.8 Didymus the Blind
Reliant on the Epistle of Barnabas, Origen's student in Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, offers the next explicit Christian reference to the counter-divine as black after Barnabas. With regard to Zeph 2.12 (i.e., ‘You also, O Ethiopians, shall be killed by the sword’), Didymus argues that black-skinned people (literally: ‘Ethiopian’) are progeny of the devil who is black:
How is it that they became ‘Ethiopians’, those who are wounded by the good so that they might die to impiety? Is it not because they have been born from the devil [cf. John 8.44] and want to perform his desires (ἐπιθυμίαι)? For it is said concerning him that he is black because of the dark ignorance and evil attaching [to him], as it is made clear in the Book of Repentance, called The Shepherd, and in the Epistle of Barnabas.Footnote 70
4.9 Epistle of Barnabas
Four resemblances to the evidence above suggest that Barnabas’ characterisation of ὁ μέλας belongs among such fourth-century North African depictions of Ethiopians.
(1) The first epigram (4.2 above) refers to the Ethiopian slave as frightening. Because the Ethiopian communicates using language instead of sound (e.g. bark, tweet), he is human, although abhorrent as a monster – a ‘Trojan horse’ – i.e., disguising malevolent intent.Footnote 71 The second epigram (4.3 above) underscores the Ethiopian's association with night-time, an ominous bird (e.g. crow), eschatological judgement (e.g. carbon, coal) and death (e.g. cinders). In Barnabas the counter-divine resembles both of these portraits in its description as vigilance is required because ‘the Black One’ sneaks around like a thief penetrating cloisters through secretive means and catching Christians off guard.Footnote 72
(2) The first epigram portrays the Ethiopian as frightening even to grown men. Similarly furtive:, Barnabas refers to the counter-divine as terrifying, threatening salvation by seizing and hurling believers from safety. The addressees are exhorted not to live alone (μονάζειν) – implying safety in numbers – and not to grow confident, as if the threat had passed.
(3) The first epigram also depicts the Ethiopian as grotesque – not only resembling a monster but belonging, like Cerberus, at the gates of the Underworld. Barnabas too associates ὁ μέλας with death – the object of the believer's worship prior to the day on which each confessed Christ (Barn. 16.9). The power of ὁ μέλας to eject Christians from the kingdom constitutes a threat of death.Footnote 73
(4) An unpleasant permanence comes through in the second epigram's association of the Ethiopian with the natural environment: night, crows, carbon and cinders. Barnabas refers to ‘the Black One’ as ruling both in the present age of lawlessness and creating scandal in the future, that is, he is, like nature, a permanent fixture of the universe until Jesus returns.Footnote 74
As Brakke insightfully observes, the vignette about John of Lycopolis suggests that Christian Egyptians (probably northern) knew the sub-Sahara as unwelcome military exposure. Closer examination of Barnabas’ warnings concerning the counter-divine suggests a similar disposition. Comparing Barn. 4.9b–14 with the warning in 2.10b, we observe that three elements in the earlier passage (2.10b) recur in the latter (4.9c: #1, #3; 4.13b: #1, #2). These elements are: (1) counter-divine figure as subject; (2) action of thrusting away from safety (alternately referred to as salvation, life and kingdom); and (3) evil achieving ingress and jeopardising believers in an eschatological confrontation. According to 4.9c, unless he is resisted, ὁ μέλας penetrates the proverbial backdoor (Gk παρείσδυσις) of the believer's life, costing them the reward of a lifetime of faith. Similarly, in 2.10b, ὁ πονηρός brings error in through the backdoor (Gk παρείσδυσις), casting Christians from ‘life’. 244 TLG hits for the word παρείσδυσις show a surprising predilection for applications in scientific literature. The oldest occurrences are in works on botany by Theophrastus – the fourth-century bce successor to Aristotle at the Lyceum, known for his work on botany (3 hits), Thessalus of Tralles – a first-century ce physician and author of a few medical works (4 hits), and Hero, a first-century Alexandrian physician (10 hits, see below). Hero probably taught at the Musaeum since a majority of his writings are lecture notes for courses in mathematics physics and mechanics at the Library in Alexandria.Footnote 75 He was widely read in Alexandria in the second and third centuries ce.
Hero uses παρείσδυσις in his work Pneumatica (10 hits, Pneum. 1.2, 8, 19, 22, 40; 2.25, 28) to describe machines, such as the hydraulis, that utilise air, steam or water pressure. In most cases, παρείσδυσις refers to the interruption of a vacuum by air or water.Footnote 76 This scientific context suggests Barnabas’ view of his community as a vacuum threatened by material contaminants undetectably making their way in from the outside.Footnote 77 Barnabas’ exhortation to his audience to be spiritual (γενώμεθα πνευματικοί, 4.11b) and ‘a perfect temple’ reinforce this metaphor of an airtight context to which nothing impure should gain entry. This interpretation might be improbable if not for a very similar construction in Shepherd, Mand. 5.1.3 [33.1].
In Barn. 2.10b the counter-divine figure ‘hurls (ἐκσφενδονᾶν) Christians from life’. Similarly, in 4.13b, ὁ πονηρὸς ἄρχων wrests authority and forces Christians out of the kingdom. Barn. 4.13b also describes Christians as ‘driven out’ or ‘expelled from’ (ἀπωθεῖν) the kingdom. A TLG search finds 43 occurrences of ἐκσφενδονᾶν; only Barn. 2.10b and Basil (Homilia adversus eos qui irascuntur 31.357.48.) predate the seventh century. LSJ offers two occurrences of the verb, translated ‘throw as from a sling’. The second source is Michael, In parva naturalia commentaria (93.32), but the first is a passage on Ethiopian battle tactics deployed against the Persians in Heliodorus, Aeth. 9.5.8. In ch. 8, Heliodorus relates the special hurling talent of the Troglodytes:
The Troglodytes are a nomad people who live in Ethiopia on the borders of Arabia. They are naturally swift runners, and practice the art from childhood. They have no training whatever in heavy arms, but use slings to attack from a distance. Either their speed disconcerts the enemy, or, if they find themselves worsted, they run away. No one ever tries to pursue them, for they are known to be as swift as the wind and to hide in rocky caves with small openingsFootnote 78 which are difficult to find. Though on foot, these Troglodytes overtook the Persian horsemen and succeeded in wounding some of them with their slings.Footnote 79
Barnabas’ use of slinging as the primary action action of the counter-divine against Christians strongly suggests his Ethiopianisation of this figure. Together with the qualities of ‘seizing authority’ and polluting the vacuum, the reference to the counter divine as ὁ μέλας mirrors the geopolitical and cultural circumstances of Alexandrians in the third century.
5. Conclusion
Interpreters understand ὁ μέλας in Barn. 4 as Satan – the undifferentiated counter-divine figure appearing unsystematically across early Christian literature. Yet only Barn. 18 refers to this figure as Satan.Footnote 80 Barn. 2 refers to it as ὁ πονηρὸς ἄρχων, ‘the evil ruler’. Didymus the Blind interprets the figure as Ethiopian. Two clues suggest that Didymus accurately apprehends Barnabas’ intention. The first is Barnabas’ construal of the community as a vacuum which ‘the Black one’ – albeit a natural part of the environment – contaminates. The second is Barnabas’ characterisation of this figure as using ‘slings’ in battle.Footnote 81 Thus, reference to the counter-divine as ‘the Black One’ should be added to the anti-Egyptian rhetoric in the Epistle of Barnabas (e.g. 9.6), supporting a view of the writer as leader of an Alexandrian Christian community.Footnote 82
Is Barnabas a sophisticated Alexandrian Roman Christian quavering over sub-Saharan marauders? Such a position would be pro-Roman given that the Roman government greatly feared this type of incursion. If, however, as most commentators agree, the apocalyptic predictions alluding to Daniel's vision of the ten kingdoms (Barn. 4.4, Dan 7.24) and the fourth beast (Barn. 4.5, Dan 7.7–8) (and perhaps also the discussion of the temple in ch. 16) reliably indicate the epistle's date, then the stereotypical ethnic epithet ‘the Black One’, rather than representing unspecified fear, disdain or loathing of ‘Ethiopians’ or an Ethiopian incursion, may signify aversion to a specific ‘Ethiopian’ foe.
In 193 ce, Septimius Severus became the first Roman emperor to have been born in Africa.Footnote 83 From 198 to 211 he ruled together with his son Caracalla, and after his death in 211 Caracalla ruled with his brother Geta until Caracalla murdered Geta later in the same year. As Richardson and Shukster have shown, the ‘offshoot’ or ‘excrescence’ in Barn 4.5 is clearly the present emperor.Footnote 84 They surmise that this figure is Nerva. Another possibility is that reference to the counter-divine as ‘the Black One’ – a factor Richardson and Shukster did not consider in their study – indicates Caracalla and Serapis, the notoriously black deity with whom Caracalla associated.Footnote 85
Following the death of Commodus on 31 December 192 ce, three emperors succeeded one another in a short period of time: Pertinax, Didius Julianus and Septimius Severus.Footnote 86 Barn. 4.4 cites Dan. 7.24: ‘Ten kingdoms will rule the earth and a small king will rise up afterwards, he will humble three under one of the kings’; and Barn. 4.5 cites Dan 7.7–8.Footnote 87 It is possible to see the fourth beast as Severus and the small horn and offshoot as Caracalla, who assumed rule, after his father died, by murdering his brother.
At the outset of his reign as sole emperor in 211, Caracalla declared divine support for Serapis. Σάραπις was a hybrid god created by Ptolemy I ca. 300 bce by fusing Osiris and Apis. The deity's iconography has many Greek elements. The image is anthropomorphic – a bearded man with a Greek men's hairstyle wearing a Greek robe. On top of his head is a modius (i.e. a basket for measuring corn symbolising fertility). Sometimes Cerberus, the three-headed dog and guardian of the Underworld, sits at his feet as in the first epigram (4.2 above).Footnote 88 Neither Septimius nor Caracalla were considered black emperors,Footnote 89 although each was of African descent. Serapis, however, was depicted as black because he was perceived as a combined manifestation of Osiris and the black bull Apis. Like other Egyptian gods including Osiris and Anubis, black was a frequent honorific epithet for Serapis. Plutarch associates Serapis with Pluto, also known as black.Footnote 90 Clement of Alexandria describes the face of Serapis as ‘dark blue’.Footnote 91 A fragment of papyrus belonging to the Alexandrian World Chronicle depicts it as black.Footnote 92
The Serapeum in Canopus was known for healing.Footnote 93 The Serapeum in Alexandria was destroyed and rebuilt during Caracalla's co-reign with his father.Footnote 94 Both father and son were devotees of Serapis.Footnote 95 Caracalla also erected a temple dedicated to Serapis on the Quirinal Hill in 212.Footnote 96 The population of Alexandria viewed Caracalla as a deceitful and villainous ruler.Footnote 97 According to both Dio (78.2.2) and Herodian (4.9.8), Caracalla came to the city to pay respects to the tomb of Alexander the Great. Prior to his visit, he heard that he was being mocked (διαβάλλοιτο, 78.22.1) by the Alexandrians for murdering his brother. On arrival, he nonetheless cordially greeted the people of the city hosting a banquet in their honour. Following the banquet, however, he turned on his guests slaughtering a great many. He reported to the Senate that, on that occasion, he had no idea how many Alexandrians he had killed and that it was irrelevant ‘since all had deserved to suffer this fate’ (78.22.3). Dio sums up: ‘Now Antoninus, in spite of the immense affection which he professed to cherish for Alexander, all but utterly destroyed the whole population of Alexander’s city.’ While in Alexandria, Caracalla frequently took part in the battles, but when he did not, he issued official communiques from the temple of Serapis where he had set up quarters (78.23.2). Caracalla's association with Serapis and his temple was thus intimate.Footnote 98
Further suggestive that Caracalla's reign comprises the backdrop of the Epistle of Barnabas is an oracle applied to Caracalla – one in which Dio records the emperor took pride.Footnote 99 Dio writes that on a visit to Pergamum, the following oracle comes to be applied to Caracalla: ‘Into Telephus’ land the Ausonian beast shall enter’ (78.16.8). Twice Dio explains that Caracalla was delighted by this reference to himself as θήρ: ‘And because he was called “beast” he was pleased and proud and put to death great numbers of people at a time’ (cf. 78.23.4). Just as Barnabas equates the small king who subdues the other two kings with the fourth beast, so it seems ‘beast’ was a nickname Caracalla favoured.
To be sure, with Richardson and Shukster, the author's discussion of the rebuilding of the temple in Barn. 16 refers, at least on one level, to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. However, the reference may reflect verisimilitude of the life of the historical Barnabas with an allegorical referent in the author's own day. Caracalla finished the magnificent Serapeum in Alexandria in 215 ce, the same year he issued the edict expelling Egyptians from Alexandria and roughly the same year in which the Epistle of Barnabas is first attested. According to Clement of Alexandria (who first attests Barnabas), Basilidean Christians could be found worshipping Serapis as the highest God in the pagan temple (Strom. 1.146).Footnote 100 Also attesting this dual commitment, Hadrian writes, in a letter to Servianus, that it is easy to confuse Christians and worshippers of Serapis. Caracalla's new temple to Serapis drove more Christians towards this kind of syncretism. Barnabas’ emphasis in 4.11 on a ‘a perfect temple to God’ (ναὸς τέλειος τῷ θεῷ) – the temple carefully qualified in ch. 16 as the individual believer – reflects disapproval of worship in a publicly designated ναός. While a variety of historical circumstances may lie in the background, Christian Egyptians living in Alexandria who simultaneously confess belief in Serapis (e.g. followers of Basilides) or disguise their Christian faith by also worshipping publicly in the new temple to Serapis is an obvious choice. From either group (or both), Barnabas would be demanding exclusive devotion.Footnote 101 In such an historical context, utilisation of an ethnic stereotype to characterise the counter-divine disguises anti-imperial as anti-pagan critique, accusing Caracalla of barbarianism, heresy and promoting Christian (in particular) association with the cult of Serapis in Alexandria, and condemning such behaviour as an unqualified compromise of God's covenant akin to the golden calf. In Memphis, such Serapian Christians followers cloistered themselves as anchorites (ἀναχωρεῖν ‘to withdraw’) – a practice Barnabas explicitly forbids (‘Do not live alone’, 4.10).Footnote 102 Although Barnabas directs his message primarily against Christians, the author depicts the counter-divine on anti-imperial terms to make clear a distinction between a pro-imperial form of Christianity condoning simultaneous Serapis worship and an exclusive form of Christian worship with distinctly anti-establishmentarian implications.
In the Book of Revelation, followed immediately by Barnabas in Codex Sinaiticus, the Empire is an enemy of the Christians; in the Epistle of Barnabas, Rome is likewise a foe. Both texts hypostatize stereotypes to concretize anxiety. If this is correct, all anti-Egyptian rhetoric in Barnabas, including the passages singling out Moses (e.g. 4.6–8; 14.1–5), must be reconsidered. The potential of such work to stipulate the communis opinio doctorum concerning Barnabas’ anti-Jewish position should be obvious:Footnote 103 the warnings against Jews are a component of an attack on the surrounding environment and the message is an allegory. Fellow Christians compromising the laws of God stand to forfeit the covenant forever.