Notes on Barnabas the Apostle The Apostle Barnabas is an important character in early Christian sources but what few independent historical sources we have from that period make no mention of him, nor of anyone like him. Christian sources, mainly Acts, describe him as a Levite of Cypriot origin, a relative of John Mark, and as one of the first to join Christ's disciples in Jerusalem immediately following the Ascension of Christ into heaven. He spoke on Paul's behalf when the disciples were reluctant to admit Paul into their inner circle and, at the direction of the Jerusalem 'Church', headed by James the Righteous, he became Paul's companion and mentor in the mission to the Gentiles. According to Paul's letters he sided with the Jerusalem and Jamsean party in disputes over Paul's teachings on the issue of food regulations. At some point he split from Paul and was replaced by a character named Silas. He drops out of Christian sources as suddenly as he appears. For information on his later life, the circumstances of his death and so forth, we must turn to wholly unreliable hagiographical literature written many centuries after the time in which he was supposed to have lived.
Given this small amount of information, and the fact that he does not appear outside of Christian sources, it must be admitted that we cannot say for certain that he was even a real, historical figure. Our judgement on such questions will depend entirely upon our view of the Christian sources in which he is described. Christian and even secular writers regularly assume that Luke's Acts of the Apostles is a reliable historical source. More objective appraisals of Acts, however, dismiss it as a pseudo-historical Hellenistic romance from the second century CE. and maintain that it cannot be trusted at all. This is particularly true of the first part of Acts as distinct from the later 'We document' sections. The first part of Acts is highly mythologized; only the second half seems to have some kernel of actual historical reportage. As it happens, notices concerning Barnabas appear entirely within the first part of Acts. In fact, the point at which the mythologized section ends and the 'We document' begins coincides more or less with the point at which Barnabas drops out of the narrative. All of Luke's information concerning the character of Barnabas, therefore, comes from the most unreliable part of Acts. In the Pauline epistles, on the other hand, Barnabas appears in the letters that even the most sceptical critics tend to nominate as authentic, the Letter to the Galatians especially.
Outside of Acts and Paul's letters most orthodox notices of Barnabas refer to an Epistle written in his name. Some early Fathers of the Church supported moves to include this epistle in the canon. Ultimately, it was rejected but it still had a place of honour among early Christian writings. We can be confident, however, that the Barnabean epistle is pseudepigraphical: it was not written by the historical Barnabas despite claims that are sometimes made for it. It is, for a start, a deeply anti-Semitic work and, as a rule of thumb, Jews - even "Christian" Jews - do not write anti-semitic works. Muslim enthusiasts for the medieval Gospel of Barnabas have often confused this Epistle and references to this Epistle in early Church literature for a Gospel under Barnabas' name. In fact, there is no mention of a Gospel according to Barnabas until the sixth century. Another work, the Acts of Barnabas, is clearly late and adds little that is useful to our understanding of this character. It records that he went to Cyprus where he was martyred at the hands of Jebusites - said to be kinsmen of Nero - who had recognized him as a companion of Paul. The Acts of Barnabas is the main source from which Barnabas is nominated as the patron saint of Cyprus.
In heterodox Christian sources from the early period he appears most prominently in the Clementine literature, and most notably the Recognitions of Clement. This is Jewish-Christian or Ebionite writing probably from the third century. There he is reported to have preached in Rome, to have met Clement, and to have forged the links between Clement and Peter or, more generally, between Rome and Jerusalem. It is clear from the Clementina that the Jewish-Christians or Ebionites counted him as one of their own. In many ways the Clementina runs counter but parallel to the first, mythologized parts of Acts and it too seems to draw upon a 'We' source in the sections where Barnabas does not appear. The nature of the Clementina, also Hellenistic romance, invites comparison and contrast with Luke's Acts. Neither can be judged "history" but, taken together, they might reflect upon real historical events.
Searching through all of these sources for common themes or motifs we are left knowing very little for certain. The notion that Barnabas was a Levite, for instance, is based wholly and solely in Acts and is not corroborated in any independent source. Similarly, Acts and Acts alone says that his original name was Joses or Joseph. His association with Cyprus is based in Acts too and is only reiterated by sources that are themselves dependant upon Acts. The Clementina does not call him a Levite or a Cypriot. On the other hand, virtually all of our sources - even those that associate him with Cyprus - also associate him with Jerusalem. This is not just by virtue of being a Jew; a pattern in our sources is strong and persistent links with Jerusalem.
Another more interesting pattern that emerges is a persistent association with the name Matthew or Matthias. Notices of Barnabas in orthodox sources alway associate him with Paul, but there also appears to be a parallel tradition associating him with several characters all with the name Matthew ( or Matthias). Traditions about Barnabas, based in the Acts of Barnabas, associate him with the transmission of the Gospel of Matthew. He supposedly used "documents from Matthew" - noting the plural - for the purposes of both preaching and healing:
And having gone into Salamis. we came to the synagogue near the place called Biblia; and when we had gone into it, Barnabas, having unrolled the Gospel which he had received from Matthew his fellow-labourer, began to teach the Jews.
...........And Timon was afflicted by much fever. And having laid our hands upon him, we straightway removed his fever, having called upon the name of the Lord Jesus. And Barnabas had received documents from Matthew, a book of the word of God, and a narrative of miracles and doctrines. This Barnabas laid upon the sick in each place that we came to, and itimmediately made a cure of their sufferings. At his death the supposed writer of the Acts of Barnabas, John Mark, saved Matthew's Gospel and hid it away.
But I, finding an opportunity in the night, and being able along with Timon and Rhodon to carry it, we came to a certain place, and having found a cave, put it down there, where the nation of the Jebusites formerly dwelt. And having found a secret place in it, we put it away, with the documents which he had received from Matthew. And it was the fourth hour of the night of the second of the week.
In later traditions when his remains were discovered Barnabas was clutching this hidden copy of Matthew's Gospel.
A more intriguing set of associations opens up when we compare and contrast Luke's Acts of the Apostles with the Clementina. In Acts "Matthias" defeats a certain "Barsabbas" in a casting of lots for the vacancy in the Twelve left by the suicide of Judas Iscariot. This would be a mere similarity of names except that in the Recognitions of Clement Barnabas IS the Matthias who was appointed to fill the vacancy among the disciples. This must surely reflect back upon the curious name "Barsabbas" in Luke's account. The interplay between the Clementina and Acts on this point is a good example of how those works are at odds. In this case, it would appear that Luke's "Barsabbas" is a garbling of "Barnabas" rather than the Pseudo-Clement's "Barnabas" being a mistaken reading of "Barsabbas" as Christian apologists claim.
There are, in fact, two late decrees that list a "Gospel according to Barnabas" among books not received into the canon, the Galesian Decree and the so-called 'List of Sixty Books'. These are independent documents, separated by a century, and yet in both this "Gospel according to Barnabas" is grouped with a "Gospel according to Matthias." In the case of the List of Sixty Books there are twenty-five books named as "not received". Since there is extant an early Gospel of Matthias (as distinct from the Gospel of Matthew), the Gospel of Barnabas is the only work of the twenty-five for which no account can be given. There is no record of a Gospel of Barnabas after these decrees before the appearance of the medieval Barnabas. Then, in the medieval Barnabas the supposed apostolic author - "he who writes"- is grouped among the disciples "with Matthew" in the list of the Twelve. In the canonical lists this place "with Matthew" is taken by Thomas. To what extent is the medieval Gospel of Barnabas participating in these traditions?
Although the claim that Barnabas was a Levite seems poorly attested, the fact that the New Testament counts both Barnabas and Matthew as Levites further underlines the association between the two figures. The description of Barnabas as the "Zeus" to Paul as "Hermes" in Acts of the Apostles may also suggest a man of priestly office or stature.
The notices associating Barnabas with Paul all represent only one thing: Paul attains his authority through Barnabas. Barnabas is Paul's gateway to the inner circle of the disciples. Paul's spiritual authority, of course, comes from his visions of Christ, but it is on Barnabas' testimony of his sincerity that he attained his apostolic authority. Paul's evident insecurity on this issue, his protestations of "being one of the apostles too" make Barnabas' role in Pauline legitimacy most interesting. In the Clementina, on the other hand, Paul is identified with Simon Magus, the multiform imposter, the "Enemy" who infiltrated the inner circle and Barnabas becomes instead Clement's gateway into the inner circle of nascent Christianity. However he is aligned, Barnabas is, in these sources, an important representative of the earliest stirrings of Christianity in Palestine - specifically Jerusalem - and the bridge into the inner circle for outside (Gentile) interests.
The medieval Gospel of Barnabas seems to be written so as to respond to these early Christian vicissitudes. In the prologue by the supposed Apostle Barnabas he speaks against those "preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat" and among these, he says, is also "Paul [who] has been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief." In other words the medieval Barnabas speaks to a situation in which Paul, after having been sponsored by Barnabas, is regarded as having been led astray, as having betrayed Barnabas and the Laws of Moses. Against this the medieval Barnabas asserts an Ebionitic Christianity. The associations with Matthew and traditions connecting him with the transmission of Matthew's Gospel underline the idea that Barnabas is a representative of an early Judaic Christianity, the original Jewish witness to Christ. The Gospel of Matthew was supposed to have been first written in Hebrew. Other early Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites all participate in a complex set of associations around the idea of an original, Hebrew Gospel. The medieval Gospel of Barnabas wants to participate in the same idea. It claims, through the figure of Barnabas, to report the teachings of the Jewish Jesus.
The name "Barnabas" is mysterious in itself. The most likely derivation is from the root "Nabi" = prophet, so that the name would mean "son of the prophet". This would be remarkable in the context of the Gospel of Barnabas which has a strong Carmelite influence and an especial reverence for Elijah and the 'Sons of the Prophets'. In Acts, however, Luke gives a spurious etymology. He says that the name means "son of exhortation", the Greek being from the same word as "paraclete" (advocate) - one who exhorts. Why does Luke give this false etymology? Christian apologists say that Luke's is an explanatory translation. Most likely, they say, "Barnabas" does mean "son of prophet" and Luke alludes to this on the basis that prophets exhort. In any case, the root "paraclete" that Luke applies to Barnabas here becomes fascinating in the context of the Gospel of Barnabas where the whole Messianic frame of the work is founded upon the Paraclete doctrine from John's Gospel. Thus, whether as "son of the prophet" or as "son of exhortation" the name "Barnabas" seems remarkably consonant with two key features of the medieval work written under his supposed authority. Is the name Barnabas integral to the Gospel of Barnabas? Could it as easily be a Gospel of Silas or someone else? The general content of the work suits the Jewish Barnabas we meet in early Christian literature and more especially the Clementina, but the name "Barnabas" does suggest two important aspects of the work's content: "Son of the Prophet" signals the work's reverence for the followers of Elijah and "Son of Exhortation" signals the author's extensive use of the Paraclete passages in John: in this respect name and content match.
Back to Main Index ©Copyright R. Blackhirst, 1999-2002