WAS THERE AN EARLY GOSPEL OF BARNABAS?

There are no known surviving fragments of an early Gospel of Barnabas but such a work is mentioned in two documents, the so-called Gelasian Decree and the so-called List of Sixty Books. These are independent documents separated in time by at least a century, but in neither case is it certain that the author/s of the lists had actually seen the books to which they refer. The Gelasian Decree is widely regarded as a forgery but it is nevertheless not later than the 6th C.

In the tables that follow I have listed all the New Testament apocrypha given in these two ancient lists and tried to account for each of the texts mentioned, largely following M. R. James New Testament Apocrypha. A number of things should be noted:

*In the List of Sixty Books the Gospel of Barnabas is the only text that cannot be accounted for and in the Gelasian Decree it is nearly the only one that cannot be accounted for.

*The List of Sixty mentions both an Epistle and a Gospel of Barnabas, so is not mistakenly calling the Epistle a Gospel. (Whereas this is a possibility in the Gelasian Decree which seems to confuse the Acts of Andrew for a Gospel of Andrew in that manner.)

*The Gospel of Barnabas is listed with the Gospel of Matthias in both cases.

Many scholars, including James, assert with confidence that no such work as the Gospel of Barnabas existed prior to the appearance of the late medieval work of that name. The evidence of these two lists suggests otherwise. Could both lists be mistaken? Could the List of Sixty only be mistaken on this one point? The argument that such a work never existed is founded on negative evidence: no fragments survive. But then, is it conceivable that of all the books in the List of Sixty only the Gospel of Barnabas left no trace?

 
Gelasian Decree (cannot be later than 6th C.)

Clementine Recognitions - extant
Acts of Andrew - extant
Acts of Thomas - extant
Acts of Peter - extant
Acts of Philip - extant
Gospel of Matthias - presumed to be Traditions of Matthias - fragments extant
Gospel of Barnabas - nothing extant
Gospel of James the Less - probably the Protevangelum
Gospel of Peter the Apostle - fragments extant
Gospel of Thomas - extant
Gospel of Bartholemew - extant
Gospel of Andrew - presumed to be a confusion with the Acts.
Gospels which Lucianus and Heschius falsified - recensions of the text of the canonicals, not extant.
Books concerning the Infancy of the Saviour - Pseudo-Matthew gospel - extant
Book concerning the birth of the Saviour - same as the last or Protevangelum)
The Shephard - of Hermes - extant
All the books of Leucius - a vague reference but Acts of John - extant
Book called the Fountain
Book called the Treasure - writings of Manes.
Acts of Thelca and Paul - extant
Revelation of Paul - extant
Revelation of Thomas - extant
Revelation of Stephen - extant
Passing of Mary - probably pseudo-Melito's narrative
Lots of the Apostles
Lusa apostolorum - unknown?
Canons of the Apostles - extant
Abgarus epistle - extant

 
List of Sixty Books (7th C.)

"those outside the sixty" "such as are apochryphal"

History of James - protev. extant
Apocyplse of Peter - extant
Travels and Teachings of the Apostles - apocryphal acts in general.
Epistle of Barnabas. - extant
Acts of Paul - extant
Apocyalpse of Paul - extant
Teachings of Clement - Apostolic Constitutions - extant
Teachings of Ignatius - extant (letters)
Teachings of Polycarp - extant (letters)
Gospel according to Barnabas
Gospel according to Matthias - extant

 

Note: A full account of this issue was published in the Journal of Higher Criticism: "Barnabas & the Gospels: Was there an Early Gospel of Barnabas?", R. Blackhirst, JHC 7/1 (Spring 2000), 1-22. This article can be read on-line at: http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/artread.html

 

Back to Main Index

 

©Copyright R. Blackhirst, 19992002