days of criticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistles, but the great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the composition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed to Barnabas the friend and fellow worker of Paul.  Those who maintain the former opinion date the Epistle about A.D. 70-73, or even earlier, but this is scarcely the view of any living critic” ("Supernatural Religion,” vol. i., pp. 237-239).

“From its contents it seems unlikely that it was written by a companion of Apostles and a Levite.  In addition to this, it is probable that Barnabas died before A.D. 62; and the letter contains not only an allusion to the destruction of the Jewish temple, but also affirms the abnegation of the Sabbath, and the general celebration of the Lord’s Day, which seems to show that it could not have been written before the beginning of the second century” ("Westcott on the Canon,” p. 41).  “Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle.  The writer’s name is Barnabas; but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to the illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul....  The internal evidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this opinion....  The external evidence [ascribing it to Barnabas] is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas, the apostle....  The general opinion is, that its date is not later than the middle of the second century, and that it cannot be placed earlier than some twenty or thirty years or so before.  In point of style, both as respects thought and expression, a very low place must be assigned it.  We know nothing certain of the region in which the author lived, or where the first readers were to be found” ("Apostolic Fathers,” pp. 99, 100).  The Epistle is not ascribed to Barnabas at all until the close of the second century.  Eusebius marks it as “spurious” ("Eccles.  Hist,” bk. iii., chap. xxv).  Lardner speaks of it as “probably Barnabas’s, and certainly ancient” ("Credibility,” pt. ii., vol. ii., p. 30).  When we see the utter conflict of evidence as to the writings of all these “primitive” authors, we can scarcely wonder at the frank avowal of the Rev. Dr. Giles:  “The writings of the Apostolical Fathers labour under a more heavy load of doubt and suspicion than any other ancient compositions, either sacred or profane” ("Christian Records,” p. 53).

Paley, in quoting “Quadratus,” does not tell us that the passage he quotes is the only writing of Quadratus extant, and is only preserved by Eusebius, who says that he takes it from an apology addressed by Quadratus to the Emperor Adrian.  Adrian reigned from A.D. 117-138, and the apology must consequently have been presented between these dates.  If the apology be genuine, Quadratus makes the extraordinary assertion that some of the people raised from the dead by Jesus were then living.  Jesus is only