Reading the Ransom Logion 265 Barn 14,6 shares the same concepts and unbroken word order with both ina clauses of Titus 2,14. As I have already stated, Barn 14,6 is simply the { author’s summary of Isa 42,6-7; 49,6-7, quoted in Barn 14,7-8. gevgraptai ga;r pw'" aujtw/' oJ path;r ejntevlletai, lutrwsavmenon Barn 14,6 hJma'" ejk tou' skovtou", eJtoima'sai eJautw/' lao;n a{gion. levgei ou\n oJ profhvth": ΔEgw; Kuvrio" oJ Qeov" sou ejkavlesav se ejn Barn 14,7 dikaiosuvnh/, kai; krathvsw th'" ceirov" sou kai; ejniscuvsw se, kai; e[dwkav se eij" diaqhvkhn gevnou", eij" fw'" ejqnw'n, ajnoi'xai ojfqalmou;" tuflw'n, kai; ejcagagei'n ejk desmw'n pepedhmevnou" kai; ejx oi[kou fulakh'" kaqhmevnou" ejn skovtei (Isa 42,6-7). ginwvskomen ou\n povqen ejlutrwvqhmen. pavlin oJ profhvth" levgei: ΔIdouv, tevqeikav se eij" fw'" ejqnw'n, tou' Barn 14,8 ei\naiv se eij" swthrivan e{w" ejscavtou th'" gh'": ou{tw" levgei Kuvrio" oJ lutrwsavmenov" se Qeov" (Isa 49,6-7). What initially makes the summarizing function of Barn 14,6 evident is the introductory language of gevgraptai. Also, the phrase in 14,6, aujtw/' oJ pathr ejntevlletai, is a reference to God’s (the Father’s) call on the Isaianic ; servant (Jesus) in Isa 42,6/Barn 14,7. Further, Barnabas’ language of ejk tou' skotou" in 14,6 comes from the quotation of Isa 42,6-7 in Barn 14,7. The v -lut language in 14,6 could be influence from Isa 49,6-7, which is quoted in Barn 14,8, though Barn is the only witness to -lut in the Greek text of Isa(2). Given the strong parallel between Barn 14,6 and the two i{na clauses in Titus 2,14, we are certainly justified to suggest that like Barn 14,6, the two i{na clauses in Titus 2,14 are also a summary of Isa 42,6-7; 49,6-7 (3). If the ransom logion in Titus 2,14 is intertwined with a summary of Isa 42,6-7; 49,6-7, then we might question if the same author reads the ransom logion in 1 Tim 2,6 with the same texts from Isa. There are two reasons to think that the author does. First, in Isa 42,6; 49,8 and in 1 Tim 2,1-7 there is a shared emphasis on universal salvation (4). It was common for early Christian writers to allude to Isa 42,6 or 49,8 as proof that God’s salvation extends to everyone, even the gentiles (5). If we think of 1 Tim 2,1-7 in the context of early Christian appeals to scripture supporting the extension of salvation to the gentiles, then we would hardly be surprised if Isa 42,6; 49,8 were behind the universal emphasis of 1 Tim 2,1-7. Second, the language of mediator (mesivth") in 1 Tim 2,5 likely implies a covenant (diaqhvkh) (6). The (2) It could also be that the -lut term in Barn 14,5-8 is due to influence from the ransom logion. (3) The connection between Titus 2,14 and Isa 42,6-7; 49,6-7 is almost completely missed in modern scholarship because the connection between Titus 2,14 and Barn 14,6 is never appreciated. This connection between Titus 2,14 and Barn 14,6 is not a secret. It is listed in Biblia Patristica I, 518, and A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford 1905) 14. (4) In 1 Tim the concern is explicitly for all people (pavntwn ajnqrwvpwn – 2,1; pavntwn twn ejn uJperoch'/ o[ntwn – 2,2; pavnta" ajnqrwvpou" – 2,4), even the gentiles (ejqnw'n – 2,7). ' (5) Luke 2,32; Acts 26,18.23; Barn 14,1-8; Justin Dial 26, 121-122; Tertullian AdvJud 12; AdvMarc 3,20,4; 5,6,1. (6) In the NT, mesivth" is almost always linked with the idea of covenant (Gal 3,19- 20; Heb 8,6; 9,15; 12,24).