Barnabas and the Gospels

8/12/2019 Barnabas and the Gospels

1/17

Barnabas and the Gospels:

Was There an Early ?

R. Blackhirst

JHC 7/1 (Spring 2000), 1-22.

Introduction

THE extant , often classified among the "modern apocrypha," survivesin Italian and Spanish versions and is, no doubt, the product of the late Middle Ages.1There

is, however, a mentioned in earlier Christian history and it is fairly safe

to assume that the medieval book of the same name is intended by its author to be the samework. In the Preface to the Spanish text of the medieval we are told that an

employee of the Inquisition, a "Brother Marino" encountered a reference to an early

in the writings of Irenaeus. Then, some time later, by a happy accident, he found

a copy of the same early gospel in the library of Pope Sixtus V. Neither the known text of

Irenaeus' nor any existing fragments from Irenaeus' writings mention a

as the Preface claims, but two other works do: a gospel of that name is

mentioned in two lists of books "received and not received" by orthodox Christianity, the

so-called Gelasian Decree and the so-called List of Sixty Books. The later of these two

references is dated to the seventh century CE2after which a "Gospel according to Barnabas"

is never heard of again until the medieval work appeared. It is widely assumed that this is thehistorical opportunity seized upon by the author of the medieval work: knowing, through

Irenaeus, the lists, or some other source, that there had been a but

that it was no longer extant provided the medieval author with a perfect situation in which to

place his forgery. It is curious that the author of the Preface does not exploit the references in

the early lists directly, and cites Irenaeus as his source,3but the intent is the same. The story

is that "Fra Marino" encountered a notice of an early and then,

miraculously, he found a copy. More likely, of course, someone encountered a notice of an

early , and knowing it to be lost, a copy. We might, nevertheless,

speculate that someone find or had knowledge of an early and that

the extant work bear some relationship to an earlier work of the same name. This is oneof the controversies surrounding the medieval Barnabas. It is a "forgery," no doubt, but is it a

"worthless forgery," a baseless fiction? Cirillo tried to demonstrate that an early Gnostic

gospel underpins the medieval work,4and the Raggs, who translated the Italian manuscript

into English, made similar speculations. Several scholars have been struck by the work's

recreation of early Ebionite points of view.5In the 1960s Pines suggested that the medieval

work may contain residues of early Ebionite writings.6Those that see traces of early material

in the medieval text are naturally intrigued by the possibility that an ancient

is now buried in the medieval work of the same name.

Was there an early Gospel of Barnabas?

BUT was there really an early for the medieval work to be based upon?Despite the notices in the two lists, many question whether there ever was such a gospel.


2/17

Christian parties in the debate over the worth of the medieval Barnabas generally attempt to

squash any possibility that it may contain any germ of early material by arguing that both

notices of the early were mistaken and that there never was such a gospel

at all. They have several important New Testament authorities on their side. Both James's and

Schneemelcher's standard editions of Christian apocrypha question the accuracy of the

ancient lists on this point.7It is doubtful whether the authors of either the Gelasian Decree or

the List of Sixty Books had actually seen all of the works they list, so the fact that they

mention a is not proof that they actually possessed copies. It is thereforequite possible that their information about the existence of a gospel under Barnabas' name

was mistaken or was the product of empty hearsay. A is not mentioned in

any source outside of these two lists; it is not mentioned by any other Christian writers

(Irenaeus included) even for the purposes of condemning it. Nor does so much as a single

fragment of an early survive. It appears to be an empty title; not a single

word of it is extant. For some this counts heavily against it having been a real work. The

assertion that fragments of it may survive in the medieval Barnabas introduces the worst kind

of circular argument.8Given a lack of all corroborating evidence, it is safer, it is said, to

suppose that there was no such gospel to begin with. The tradition that there was an early

gospel is deemed to be feeble, and recourse to such a fantastic creation as the

medieval for supporting evidence makes the case for its existence even more feeble

still.

It is, however, that a Gospel might have been written under the name Barnabas.

As with most characters mentioned as having had even a subsiduary role in the events

described in the New Testament, there was a spurious literature gathered under Barnabas'

authority in the early history of the Christian faith, with contending sects claiming him as

their own. Barnabas was, in any Christian reckoning, an important figure in the Christian

story. There are extant, in whole or in part, Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Peter, James,

Bartholemew, Matthias, Nicodemus, a whole array of New Testament characters, so why notBarnabas as well? Even though the canonical Barnabas did not meet Jesus in person (not

joining the disciples until after the Ascension of Christ into heaven, according to the Acts of

the Apostles)9neither had Luke and, even more than Luke, Barnabas (in the New Testament

accounts) was in a position to hear of Jesus' life and teachings direct from those who did meet

him; this qualified him to write a gospel.10John Mark, a relative of Barnabas,11is supposed to

have written from the reports of Peter. Barnabas, in this same circle, could have written too.

To the Church Fathers Barnabas was known as the writer of an important epistle. Some

Christian authorities supported moves to include this epistle in the canon of the New

Testament but, ultimately, it was rejected while still attaining and holding a place of honour

among early Christian writings. There is no reason why such a revered figure as Barnabas

might not have also had a gospel written in his name; indeed, given the welter of spurious

gospels written under a host of New Testament names it might be more surprising if a gospel

had been written in his name by someone at some stage. In modern times, particularly

among Muslims, the of Barnabas has often been confused with a of

Barnabas,12

but this is not a mistake found in the Fathers or other primitive Christian sources,

nor in the lists. The List of Sixty Books catalogues both the Epistle a Gospel, making it

clear that they were understood to be two distinct works. The Fathers know Barnabas as a

writer of letters, like Paul, but the lists would have us believe that at some time in the early

Christian centuries a gospel was added to Barnabas' by some group outside of

orthodoxy. This, it should be said, would not be an unlikely turn of events. It is not inherently

that such a work as a was written and circulated.

The Missing Gospel


3/17


4/17

- nothing extant.

- probably the Protevangelium.

- fragments extant.

LIST OF SIXTY BOOKS

- Apostolic Constitutions - extant.

- extant (letters).

- extant (letters).

- nothing extant.

- extant.

This suggests that the two notices may be related, the later dependant on the earlier, or that

they depend on the same source, or, if the notices are truly independent of each other, it

suggests that this travelled with the (identified as the

work more commonly known as the ), the two works being in some

way a matching set. In this case we have a genuine instance of double attestation which must

surely count in favour of there having been an early Barnabas gospel. There are no clues to

anything of this in the surviving fragments of the Gospel/Traditions of Matthias, but the

possibility is suggestive in other ways. Why, we wonder, have the Gospels of Barnabas and

Matthias been grouped together? Why these two names and in both lists? Why Barnabas and

Matthias?

In order to answer this question we need to consider it as an instance of a very complextangle of associations between characters of similar name found throughout our sources.

Matthias, according to the Acts of the Apostles, is the character who defeated a certain

in the election of a new disciple after the suicide of Judas Iscariot. Ebionite

literature, the Clementina, however, reports that this Barsabbas was in fact Barnabas and that

Barnabas defeated Matthias in the election. The pairing of the names Matthias and Barnabas

in the lists recalls this tangle of names and associations, and especially recalls the

Clementina's account of matters as opposed to Act's Matthias and . This is an

interesting point in itself, but should be considered in a wider context still. The names

Barnabas and are closely linked by tradition in relevant ways too. According to

orthodox identifications, both Barnabas and Matthew were Levites and were among the

leading Jews of the early Church. Barnabas, in fact, is credited with an important role in the

transmission of Matthew's gospel. It was through Barnabas, it was said, that Matthew's

Gospel-the "Jewish Gospel" of the orthodox Church-was preserved and transmitted. The

traditions recording this are found in the late work the . Barnabas, we are

told, 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


5/17

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 it immediately 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 Barnabas' remains were discovered he was clutching this hidden copy

of Matthew's Gospel to his chest. In some versions of the story both the book and his body

were miraculously preserved.

Barnabas with Matthew

MATTHIAS/Matthew/Barsabbas/Barnabas -- it is evident that our extant sources are givingsomewhat garbled versions of a common sub-stratum of stories involving this group of

names. The two lists, with their Gospels of Matthias and Barnabas grouped together,

participate in the same tradition of associations. The grouping of Matthias and Barnabas

reminds us of Matthias and Barsabbas in Acts, which reminds us of Matthias and Barnabas in

the Clementina, and both of these in turn remind us of Matthew and Barnabas in other

sources. Curiously, in the medieval we find these associations again. In

the list of disciples found in chapter 14 of the work (in both manuscripts) the supposed

author, Barnabas, lists himself as "he who writes ."14

Disciples are commonly grouped into pairs. In the canonical lists Matthew's pair is Thomas.

In the medieval gospel "Barnabas" is paired " " and Thomas is omitted. The very

idea that Barnabas is one of the Twelve, as it appears in the medieval work, is reminiscent of

the Ebionite claim that Barnabas defeated Matthias for the position left vacant by Judas.15Is

the author of the medieval Barnabas following the New Testament and grouping together two

Levites (taking Matthias and Matthew to be interchangeable) or does the grouping of "he who

writes " point to a stronger participation in the complex of associations between

the two names, especially as these two names are connected with the transmission of the

primitive "Jewish gospel"?

The Ebionites, the Fathers tell us, used the Gospel of Matthew and no other (especially not

Luke). It is surely significant that, in the Ebionitic medieval , the

supposed author "he who writes" counts himself among the disciples "with Matthew."

Matthew's Gospel, it will be remembered, was supposed to have been written originally in

Aramaic. The earliest testimony of the Fathers is that Matthew wrote first and that he wrote

down the teachings of Jesus in Jesus' own language. In the writings of the earliest Fathers wefind an overwhelming preference for the Gospel of Matthew; the other gospels are hardly

mentioned, if at all. This is because the Fathers were laying claim to the Jewish heritage and

it was important to demonstrate that the "gospel" was a product of authentic Jewish soil.


6/17

Legends quickly developed about a "Jewish Gospel," the original gospel written in a semitic

tongue. There were several contenders for this title, but Matthew's Gospel played this role in

orthodox accounts.

Barnabas' traditional role in preserving and transmitting Matthew's gospel -- the "Jewish

gospel," written in Palestine, in a native tongue - is surely relevant to the claims of the

medieval which purports to be the long-lost testament of the Jewish

Jesus. If the evidence for an early is slim and evidence of itstransmission through the Middle Ages non-existent, we can safely say that the idea that the

Gospel of Barnabas was associated with the "Jewish Gospel" was widespread and

continuous. This raises the possibility, it should be noted, that there has been some confusion

about a " ," for it is conceivable that the Gospel of Matthew might be

referred to as "Barnabas' gospel," meaning the gospel he preserved, not the gospel he wrote.

The medieval may not, after all, be referring to the work mentioned in

the two lists of books but rather it may be some misconstruction of traditions that a "Jewish

Gospel" was associated with Barnabas' name.

In any case, the grouping of the Gospels of Matthias and Barnabas in both the GelasianDecree and the List of Sixty Books opens some useful lines of inquiry. When we think of the

biblical Barnabas we usually think of his association with Paul. But by tradition -- and

scripturally in the interesting Matthias/Barsabbas configuration -- it is Matthew/Matthias with

whom he is associated and, most importantly, this in the context of (a) the issue of

discipleship - was Barnabas a disciple?16and (b) the transmission of the original written

witness of Jesus. In the present writer's view this adds some weight to the notices in the two

lists; a might well have been a companion to the --

the grouping of the two together in both lists bears the mark of an authentic tradition; it

certainly signals meaningful associations. On what other grounds would Matthias and

Barnabas be grouped together, and in both lists? It points to something, most likely the chainof associations sketched here. This is a sign that there may be some substance in the notices

in the lists.

This, though, is still thin evidence. Until some early fragment or some other corroborating

evidence comes to light many will prefer to remain sceptical about an early

. If the lists are not confusing the for a Gospel, perhaps they are

confusing the for a Gospel?17Perhaps both lists are simply perpetuating

some error made in a common source? We can only conjecture as to what an early

might have been like. The lists only permit us to conclude that, if it existed, it was

for some reason unacceptable to orthodoxy. Most likely -- although it is, of course, pureconjecture -- it was too . The Clementina make it clear to what extant Barnabas was a

favourite in Ebionite thought. Even the deeply anti-Semitic was, finally,

too "Judaic" in its concerns to be admitted to the canon. Who might have written an early

? Which sect might have sought the authority of the figure of Barnabas in

writing? What climate of disputation might have called a "Gospel according to Barnabas"

into existence? If there was an early its general orientation and

affiliations would probably have made it an Ebionitic work, one favoured by "Jewish

Christians" among whom Barnabas was an especially revered figure. The author of the

medieval work was probably right in this respect, making his own work of exactly that

persuasian. But has he done so from a position of knowledge, a "forger" armed with insightsinto an early literature, or merely through the same conjectures we have just made?


7/17

The name "Barnabas"

TO continue this discussion, let us consider the question 'Is the name Barnabas integral tothe medieval work bearing this name?' How authentically "Barnabean" is the medieval

gospel? Perhaps the medieval work was not originally a but was made

so? Perhaps the medieval author had a body of work not in any way related to the name

Barnabas, but supplied the name after discovering that there had been a

that was now lost.18In that case, the author has simply adapted his material to the name,

although the name has no integral relation to the text. There are, indeed, signs of adaptation.

It is common to say that the medieval Barnabas is an anti-Pauline work, and it is. But there

are signs that it has been made more explicitly so than it had been. The Prologue to the Italian

manuscript reports that the supposed narrator, Barnabas, "he who writes," is motivated to

correct the errors of Pauline doctrine. They are "many," says the Prologue, who

being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious

doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God

for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been

deceived, whereof I speak not without grief. It is because of this that I am writing

that truth which I have seen and heard...

The same position is reiterated in the very final chapter. Certain "evil men" it says

pretending to be disciples, [have] preached that Jesus died and rose not again.

Others preached that he really died, but rose again. Others preached, and yet

preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul deceived...

These anti-Pauline notices at the beginning and end of the manuscript, however, do not quite

match the contents of Barnabas' gospel. For a start, as others have pointed out, there are

quotes from or allusions to nearly all of Paul's letters to be found in the text of the work.19

More importantly, the issues nominated in the Prologue over which "he who writes" is at

odds with Paul -the repudiation of circumcision and the eating of unclean meat -are not in

fact crucial issues in the gospel itself. References to circumcision are confined to a distinct

section, chapters 21 to 29. There is not another mention of the issue in the remaining 190

chapters. Similarly, the issue of unclean meats receives little treatment. In chapter 2 Jesus is

kept from "unclean meat and strong drink" and there is a reference to the issue in chapter 32,

but otherwise this is not the matter of contention signalled by the Prologue. This all suggests

that the Prologue is an addition to the text and that its agenda is to make the work more

explicitly anti-Pauline. There is every appearance that someone has added the Prologue,

added the chapters on circumcision and added a remark about Paul to the final sentences of

the text in order to make it an explicitly anti-Pauline work. In this case the name Barnabas

may have been added at the same time on the basis of the Epistle of Galatian's portrayal of

Barnabas and Paul at odds over the issues of circumcision and unclean meats.20If we remove

the Prologue, remove the chapters on circumcision, remove the reference to Paul in the final

chapter, and remove all references to the name Barnabas, we have a coherent gospel,

Ebionitic but not specifically anti-Pauline, written by an anonymous disciple "he who writes"in the manner of the Fourth Gospel.21This suggests that the work was not originally a

but has been made so in its final redaction. This, of course, would remove any

possibility that the medieval gospel has any relation to an early " ,"


8/17

supposing that such a work did once exist.

Another interesting possibility arises, however. In the medieval work the name Barnabas has

evidently replaced the name Thomas. Thomas is missing from among Jesus' disciples;

Barnabas - or more commonly just "he who writes"- takes his place. Perhaps this "

" was originally material attached to the name Thomas? This might be significant in

such a strongly docetic gospel where the name "Thomas," twin, might suggest the theme of

"double," "doppleganger," since, in the medieval work Judas Iscariot takes the of Jesusand is crucified in Jesus' stead. Is this perhaps related to some variation on the theme of the

"twins" and motifs of mistaken identity? This is a possibility that needs to be explored. Many

recent writers have explored the theme of the "twin" in Thomasine Christianity, noting the

appelation "Judas Thomas," "Judas the Twin." 22In the medieval Barnabas we have a

spectacular formulation of a "Judas the Twin" in Judas Iscariot who is made to look so like

Jesus that Jesus' own disciples are deceived; this in a work where "he who writes" replaces

Thomas among the disciples. In this way the name Thomas might be integral to the material,

the name Barnabas replacing it when the work was redrafted in a more explicitly anti-Pauline

form.23

Etymologies

ETYMOLOGY, however, supplies another connection that does suggest that the nameBarnabas integral to the work, and in a most fascinating way. The most common derivation

given for the name Barnabas is "Son of the Prophets," with = "prophet" the root.24There

are objections to this derivation - we cannot be sure what the name means, anymore than we

can be sure what the name "Barsabbas" is supposed to mean25- but 'Son of the Prophet' is the

most likely and natural derivation. Objections are often motivated by the fact that scripture

offers an alternative. In Acts Luke gives what is best described as a type of explanatory or

"descriptive" etymology:

There was a Levite of Cypriot origin called Joseph whom the apostles surnamed

Barnabas (which means son of exhortation)...26

The common translation 'Son of Exhortation' here is in turn only a "descriptive" translation.

Luke's Greek gives us the word " ," the same as 'Paraclete' in Jesus' teachings in

the Fourth Gospel. The idea is that a "paraclete," an advocate, as in a court of law, is one who

"exhorts" or argues a case, or it may similarly convey the idea 'consolation' or

'encouragement'.27Luke seems to have in mind the idea that Prophets ( ) exhort (or

console or encourage) - this at least is how his "descriptive" etymology is usually explained

in Christian apologetics.28One cannot help but wonder why Luke explains "Barnabas" as

meaning "son of " and thus only alludes-obliquely-to the more obvious "Son of

Prophets." Nevertheless, it should be noted that Luke's etymology does not undermine the

natural etymology; prophets exhort; the name still means "Son of the Prophets," although

Luke has seen fit to link it with the idea of the "exhortation" typical of "Advocates."29

All of this is strikingly relevant to the content of the medieval gospel. Throughout the work

there is a marked affinity with Elijah, Elisha, and their followers, the Sons of the Prophets, as

described in the Book of Kings. Jesus is in fact portrayed as Elijah redivivus.30

The Barnabas

gospel is replete with extra-canonical material stemming from the Elijah cycle in Kings and

several important canonical episodes have been changed or 'corrected' to conform to stories,

themes or motifs from the Elijah cycle.31In many respects, in fact, the whole of the


9/17

operates upon parallels between the time of Elijah and the time of Barnabas' Jesus.

Throughout there are parallels made between the persecution of Jesus and his followers, and

the persecution of the Sons of the Prophets by Ahab and Jezebel.32

There is a similar preoccupation with Samuel and David and the Sons of the Prophets

mentioned in the Book of Samuel. Moreover, it is clear that the 'True Pharisees' described in

the work are the Sons of the Prophets, the followers of Elijah and Elisha on Mount Carmel.33

There is an unmistakeable strain of thought in the work belonging to the latter-day Sons ofthe Prophets, the medieval Carmelites, who claimed continuity (through John the Baptist)

with the Sons of the Prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.34If the name Barnabas is taken to

mean Son of the Prophets, then it squares perfectly with this important aspect of the content

of the medieval Gospel; Barnabas, Son of the Prophets, delivers a gospel in which the Sons

of the Prophets are the heroes.

Remarkably, though, Luke's descriptive etymology also squares with the content of the work.

The Messianic doctrine in the medieval Barnabas, inseparable from the 'Sons of the Prophets'

theme, is founded upon the Paraclete doctrine from the Fourth Gospel.35In its current form

the medieval work nominates Muhammad as the Messiah of whom Jesus prophesies; inmaking Jesus the forerunner to the Messiah the author draws upon the Fourth Gospel's

portrayal of Jesus as the forerunner of the Paraclete who is to come.36It is possible in most

cases to extract Muhammad's name from the work and supply 'Paraclete' instead. It is quite

evident that the author had no detailed knowledge of Muhammad's biography or even of

legends regarding him. "Muhammad" is little more than a name in Barnabas.37When we

remove that name we find a Messianic doctrine largely based in the idea of the 'Paraclete'

(conceived as a prophetic function). This pronounced use of the Paraclete theme is consonant

with Luke's creative etymology of the name Barnabas. Together, the Sons of the Prophets

theme and the Paraclete theme constitute the characteristic core material of the medieval

work. Together, they are consonant with not only the natural etymology of Barnabas' name

but Luke's oblique etmyology as well. It is as if someone has assembled the content of the

gospel from a study of the etymology of the name Barnabas, including the "descriptive"

etymology given in Acts. Can it be a coincidence that this dwells on both

the Sons of the Prophets and the Paraclete, and that both these these are suggested by the

etymology of the name Barnabas?

Strange to relate, this configuration of ideas is found in the Clementina, but associated with

James the Righteous.38James is described as an authority on the manner in which Christ "is

drawn from Scripture." "We must first inquire from what Scriptures we are especially to

derive our discussion," says James. For this purpose he nominates the Law, but "afterwards

he made mention also of the prophets" and specifically "he made some statements respecting

the books of the Kings: in what way, and when, and by whom they were written, and how

they ought to be used." Later in the same passage we are told that the Paraclete was also a

subject of the same discourses of James.39James' (Ebionitic) exegesis of the Book of Kings

and James' discourses on the Paraclete - and both of these things in the context of the "True

Prophet" ideology of the Clementina - this is all very suggestive of the conjunction of the

same ideas in the (Ebionitic) , remembering also the important role

played by the character Barnabas in the Clementina.40

Noting the Ebionitic character of the medieval gospel, we turn to other Ebionite writing in

search of consonances and coincidences of ideas. This section of the

provides an important parallel; it tells us that a (True Prophet) exegesis of Kings

(and presumably the Elijah cycle within Kings) was characteristic of the teachings of James


10/17

and that in the same discourses he spoke of the Paraclete. These are elements of the of

Ebionism found in the medieval Barnabas. Ebionism is a blanket term.41What type of

Ebionite thought do we find in the medieval Barnabas? This passage in the has

several of the elements characteristic of the medieval work, and they happen to also suggest

the two etymologies yielded by the name "Barnabas." Perhaps the name Barnabas is integral

to the work, but its source is via such works as the Clementina, not some early gospel written

in Barnabas' name? Perhaps the author had a body of Ebionite material,42under Barnabas'

name, and has crafted it into a gospel to take advantage of the fact that the early gospel ofthat name mentioned in the lists is nowhere to be found? There are certainly signs that the

medieval work has been pressed into its present format: the "gospel" construction is highly

artificial.43

This again counts against any continuity with an early , but it

leaves open possibilities of dependence on or reflections from other early sources.44

The name Barnabas, though, does seem to adhere to the core of the work. The name matches

the content.45If we ask what sort of gospel might have been written in Barnabas' name, we

should not be surprised to find a work that reflects his prophetic credentials, although the

extant work might almost be said to be written as well as Barnabas' name. Someone,

evidently, has imagined that such a work should be overtly anti-Pauline, but more importantly

someone else has matched his name to the 'Sons of the Prophets' and furthermore to the

Paraclete idea. If there is some textual evidence that the name Barnabas might not have been

originally attached to the work, the coincidence between the etymology of the name and the

work's core material - its prophetology and Messianic doctrine - is hard to overlook. How

though did this happen? Was the material assembled to match the name? We might suspect

that the coincidence between name and content reveals too much artiface to be trustworthy,

but the provides evidence that such ideas do reflect a genuine strand

of Ebionism. We can imagine some related or derivative early work; an Ebionite work based

on James' exegesis of Kings and the Paraclete, but bearing Barnabas' name - it would be such

a document upon which the medieval work is based.

Conclusion

THE present writer is of the view that the Gelasian Decree and the List of Sixty Books werenot both mistaken; there probably was an early . The positive evidence,

identical reports in two lists, outweighs the negative evidence, a lack of corroborating notices

outside of the two lists (which corroborate each other) and a lack of surviving fragments.

Given the reports in the two lists, there are no grounds for any confident assertion that a

existed, even if the lack of corroborating evidence might make us

question if it ever did. The pairing of the names Barnabas and Matthias in both lists, which

points to a complex of associations, adds to the substance of the notices; the notice of a

in both cases is not just a haphazard report; the pairing with a Gospel of

Matthias suggests a stronger line of tradition. What became of this early ,

though, is impossible to say. Let us suppose there was an early . It could

not have had wide circulation or it would have left more of a mark than it did, especially

among those eager to condemn heretical gospels. Then, there are any number of ways by

which it could have passed into oblivion. It may have been highly specific to a particular

group and perished when they were purged by orthodoxy. It may have been burned; it may

have been lost. It may be still buried, waiting to be rediscovered. In any case, it seems, to thepresent writer, that there was such a work and that it has since disappeared, leaving only the

notices in the two lists.

Or perhaps it or something of it survived? What is its relationship to the medieval work?


11/17

There are at least grounds for believing that the constituent material now taking the form of

the medieval gospel did already have the name "Barnabas" attached to it. If we admit an early

, the extent to which the medieval work is able to replicate early Ebionite

points of view may be explained by some continuity with the earlier work. At least, the

notices of the early work point to an heretical literature in Barnabas' name, something of

which may now be reflected in the medieval gospel. The present writer is of the opinion that

the medieval work does contain at least adumbrations of early works; if the name "Barnabas"

is integral to the medieval work then it is tempting to explain these adumbrations bysupposing that the early somehow survived into the Middle Ages where

it was adapted to new purposes.

The story told in the Spanish Preface of "Friar Marino" in the Pope's library, it should be said,

is fanciful, but it should not be dismissed out of hand. It no doubt alludes to the efforts of

Sixtus V. to consolidate and catalogue the Vatican library. In the papacy of Sixtus V. there

were, for the first time, paid scriptores appointed to the task of sorting through the huge

accumulation of material belonging to the papacy then scattered through several libraries in

Rome.46Leaving the details aside, the general claim made by the Preface, that an old gospel

came to light during the papacy of Sixtus V, is not out of the question. Books can traverse thecenturies unseen. The Preface also mentions heretical books -"repugnant to Christian law"-

appearing from the "books of the forefathers" of the two Roman families, the Orsini and the

Colonna. These families traced their origins to the early Middle Ages. We know of no such

books "repugnant to Christian law" as mentioned in the Preface, but the story is not entirely

outlandish, especially in the context of the Inquisition. Doctrinally suspect works among the

books of ancient collections may have suddenly been brought to light by the unprecedented

thoroughness of the Inquisition's methods. This is the scenario presented in the Preface.

Let us suppose that the medieval Barnabas does bear some relationship to the earlier gospel

of that name (supposing it existed). The difficulty then becomes demonstrating the earlymaterial's passage through history. There is, to put it plainly, no textual history of which to

speak. As stated at the outset, between the List of Sixty Books and the appearance of the

medieval gospel there is no sign of a . Other than the route of

transmission supplied in the Preface (the work was buried in an ancient library), Schlomo

Pines drew attention to the way in which Judaeo-Christian works could pass unnoticed

through the centuries by other means, namely embedded and effectively hidden in Arabic

works. He suggested that material in the medieval Barnabas may have moved in the same

way and, controversially, he pointed to an obscure notice in al-Biruni as evidence that

perhaps a survived among the Arabs. It is inconceivable, though, that

had the Arabs possessed such a work-and it was the same work now developed into theextant medieval gospel-they would not have used it or portions of its constituent material for

ideological and doctrinal ammunition against the Christians. As it happens, Arab sources are

silent regarding a until after the publication of the medieval work in

Europe. Pines may have demonstrated the possibility of the passage of Ebionite material

through Arab literature, but there is a wealth of evidence to say that the medieval Barnabas is

not an instance of it. It might be argued that the early material can be so deeply embedded in

the literature through which it is transmitted that no one notices it, but how then was the

author of the medieval Barnabas able to extract it? A perennial weakness, in any case, for the

medieval work containing early material - even shadows of an early - is

that the passage of the early material through time cannot be demonstrated unless we acceptthe Preface's claim that it was simply out of circulation for centuries and came to light

suddenly towards the end of the 1500s.


12/17

The present writer believes that the Carmelite elements in the medieval Barnabas offer the

most likely avenue along which early material - whether in the form of a "gospel" or not -

may have travelled. The medieval Barnabas invokes the primitive hermits of Mount Carmel,

the Sons of the Prophets. We know that there were hermits of Carmel before the arrival of the

Latin Crusaders in the Holy Land. We even know that there was a "School of the Prophets"

on the mountain in the early thirteenth century, distinct from the emerging Latin monks, and

presumably adhering to some Palestinian form of Christianity.47The present writer suspects

that the medieval Barnabas has been compiled from material belonging to this "School of theProphets"- a Palestinian sect claiming great antiquity, with Jewish, Christian, and Islamic

elements woven into a syncretistic cult of Elijan prophetology. In some such group there was

an active Barnabas (= Son of the Prophets) tradition preserving or at least reflecting ancient

Ebionite ideas still current in Palestine (under the umbrella of Islam) but unknown in the

West. Carmelite sources claim continuity with the ancient "Essenes and Rechabites." Much of

their pre-Latin tradition was lost or written over when the monks migrated to Europe at the

close of the Crusades. Torn from their holy mountain, they were also torn from their eremetic

traditions and transformed into a mendicant Order. There were waves of resistance to these

changes; attempts to restore the old ways and primitive traditions. In the medieval Barnabas

the 'True Pharisees' (the primitive hermits) are contrasted with the 'False Pharisees,'book-learnt pretenders. It seems that much of the Barnabas material has been written by

parties opposed to the reform (or rather, transformation) of the Carmelites. Perhaps some

clash within Carmelite ranks occasioned the re-emergence of some errant material from

before the time the Carmelites were brought into Latin orthodoxy? Perhaps this material had

ancient roots? Perhaps the primitive Carmelites knew an early or at least

a "Gospel of the Sons of the Prophets"?48This again is speculation, but when we are dealing

with such a mysterious work as the medieval Barnabas, and ancient gospels that might or

might not have been, then speculate -- with a view to stimulating further research and

prompting fresh ideas from others -- is all we can do.

Return to Home Page

Notes

1All references and quotations from the Gospel used here are from the

translation of L. & L. Ragg, 1907, the only English translation. The Ragg translation,

however, is only from the Italian manuscript; the Spanish version was lost until the 1970s and

is, in any case, incomplete.

2The Gelasian Decree is considered a forgery but is not later than the sixth century. The List

of Sixty Books is of eastern provenance and is as old as the seventh century. Both lists, it

should be noted, probably drew on earlier lists, including those supplied through Jerome.

3Perhaps the Preface is alluding to the "discovery" of lost sections of Irenaeus, circa 1575.

These were expressions of millenarian doctrine by Irenaeus which were comprehensively

repressed throughout the Middle Ages but came to light in the heat of the Reformation. It

should also be noted that many believe that even with the return of the repressed sections our

is incomplete. Our author seems to be claiming to have seen some writing

by Irenaeus that is otherwise unknown to us.

4For an account of recent theories see J. Slomp, 'The in Recent


13/17

Research' , Pontifico Instituto Di Studi Arabi E D'Islamistica, Rome, 1997,

although Slomp, a Christian missionary, is generally hostile to and dismissive of any attempts

to connect the medieval work to an earlier gospel.

5Beginning with John Toland, the Irish deist, who announced the existence of the

to Europeans in 1718. He was struck by the resemblance of the work's doctrines to

those of the early Christian "Ebionites".

6See Pines S. , Hebrew Academy of

Science & Humanities, Jerusalem, 1968.

7James says outright: "The existence of a is most doubtful" (M. R.

James (ed.), , Oxford at Claredon, 1924 [1980 edition], p. 22).

Scholarly opinion has not changed since James offered this assessment.

8The circular argument is: the medieval Barnabas preserves the early .

Was there an early Barnabas? There was. We know this because it is preserved in the

medieval Barnabas.

9Acts 4:36

10Contact with first hand knowledge of the ministry of Jesus is the fundamental qualification

for gospel writers. Most gospels, of course, are written in the name of one or another of Jesus'

immediate disciples, but Luke's Gospel is sufficient evidence to show that those who knew

the immediate disciples, or received their witness, qualify as well. Although not one of the

Twelve - by orthodox accounts - it would not have been considered out of order for Barnabas

to have written a gospel based on knowledge acquired from the inner circle of Jesus'

disciples.

11Col. 4:10.

12In some Muslim propagandist literature, for example, the textual history of the Epistle of

Barnabas is presented as the textual history of the by way of

demonstrating how the Church conspired to keep it from the canon.

13The identifications given here are those given by James. Some have been modified by

more recent study, but the details are not essential. The important point is that, of all

identifications, only the "Gospel according to Barnabas" has scholars scratching their heads.

14The list of disciples reads: "Their names are: Andrew and Peter his brother, Barnabas, who

wrote this with Matthew the publican, who sat at the receipt of custom; John and James, sons

of Zebedee; Thaddaeus and Judas; Bartholomew and Philip, James, and Judas Iscariot the

traitor."

15Although, of course, in the Clementina Barnabas still does not meet Jesus in person, as

Barnabas does in the medieval gospel.

16Ebionite sources (Clementina) say he was; orthodox sources (Acts) say he was not (and

furthermore Acts says it was not Barnabas but some character named "Barsabbas," and he

lost.)


14/17

17The Acts of Barnabas, a document by which Cypriots claimed Barnabas as their own, is

dated to the fifth century. It is possible that the lists are mistaking the Acts for a Gospel.

18Little work has been done attempting to reconstruct the redaction history of the Barnabas

text. But even if we disallow redactions and claim the work was written all of a piece, there is

still the issue of what sources the author may have consulted. Several different sources are

clearly discernible in the text.

19Most conspicuous is the whole docetic account of the ascension of Jesus which is closely

related to Paul's description of "a man he knew in Christ" being "caught up to the third

heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:1ff.

20Gal 2:13

21It is relevant to note here that the Clementina are not explicitly anti-Pauline either. Paul is

clearly the "enemy" in the Clementina, but he is not named.

22See, for instance, the : "And he saw Jesus in the likeness of the apostle

Judas Thomas." See R. M. Price, "Docetic Epiphanies: A Structuralist Analysis of the

Apocryphal Acts," , 5/2 (fall 1998), pp. 163-187, for a

relevant discussion of this and other aspects of docetic mythology.

23It is relevant to note here that in the Spanish Preface the discovery of a "

" in Irenaeus is said to be in the context of anti-Pauline statements made by

Irenaeus.

24See any standard lexicon of New Testament useage for discussion on this.

25"Son of the Sabbath"? Compare also "Barabbas" the "notorious prisoner" in the Gospels.

Barnabas, Barsabbas, Barabbas - there is evidence of considerable "play" involving these

similar names in our texts, but all of them defy a straight-foward etymology.

26Acts 4:36

27"Admonitory, encouraging and consolatory exhortation...": H. Cremer. -

, Edinburgh, 1872, pp. 336-337.

28"It is not an inaccuracy," writes Cremer (Ibid., p. 337) "when in Acts 4:34 the name

Barnabas is interpreted in order to indicate that his prophetic gift expressed

itself specifically in the exercise of ."

29See also Acts 13:1 where Barnabas is listed first among the "prophets and teachers" in the

church at Antioch. He is associated with the Christian "prophets". See also Acts 11:27 where

"some prophets came down to Jerusalem" to meet Barnabas and Paul. These New Testament

prophets are charismatics, like Old Testament prophets, who "edify, exhort, console'. See 1

Cor 14:3.

30A role, of course, played by the canonical John the Baptist. Barnabas' Jesus is very

John-like in this and in other respects. This is a further indication of Carmelite influence upon

the work.


15/17

31See for instance the place of the city of Jericho in Barnabas' gospel. It is described as a

"city rebuilt under a curse" in chpt. 30, a reference to Jos 6:26 but more directly to 1 Kings

16:34, the rebuilding of Jericho by Hiel of Bethel at the beginning of the reign of Ahab. In

Barnabas Jesus never goes to Jericho; it symbolizes the forces that were opposed by Elijah.

32See, for instance, chpt. 18 concerning the persecution of the servants of God: "Remember,"

says Jesus, " [the] holy prophets that have been slain by the world, even as in the time of

Elijah ten thousand prophets were slain by Jezebel, insomuch that scarcely did poor Elijah

escape, and seven thousand sons of prophets who were hidden by the captain of Ahab's host."

33See chps. 144 - 151 especially. The identification of the 'True Pharisees' with the primitive

Carmelite hermits is certain. Mount Carmel is named in chapter 188.

34This makes the Carmelites unique among Christian Orders in that they do not have a New

Covenant founder. Instead, the Virgin Mary is their special "sponsor," but this seems a later,

Latin aspect of Carmelite spirituality designed to supplement the traditional account of the

Order's origins through John. John is supposed to have re-established the ancient school ofElijah and Elisha.

35See, for instance, in chapt. 42 where Jesus speaks of "the Messenger of God whom you

call "Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words

of truth..." The phrase "and shall bring words of truth" alludes to the Paraclete, Spirit of

Truth, from Jn 14:17. Similarly, in chpt. 97: "but my consolation is in the coming of the

Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me..." is based in John's Paraclete.

36The identification of Muhammad as Messiah is unusual and, from the perspective of

Muslim orthodoxy, incorrect, but Muhammad was and is commonly identified with the

Paraclete by Muslims.

37Christian critics tend to argue that the work is deeply, inherently Islamic (and therefore a

"Muslim forgery".) But it is quite clear that the name "Muhammad" is not essential to the

work's Messianic doctrine. It is equally clear that the Messianic doctrine is based in the

Paraclete sections of Jesus' discourses in the Fourth Gospel. The author knew the Fourth

Gospel well and the of Muhammad not at all. Nor, should it be said, does the author

display any direct knowledge of the Koran; on the contrary, there are several key ways in

which the work flatly contradicts the Koran, the nomination of Muhammad as Messiah

among them. On the other hand, the identification of the Paraclete (but not the Messiah) with

Muhammad comes naturally to the Muslim mind.

38See , chs. 68, 69.

39The phrase "Son of God" is used of the Paraclete in this passage of the Recognitions,

contrary to teachings central to the medieval Barnabas. There are other significant

differences. However, there are also significant parallels between this passage and the

medieval work, and between the 'True Prophet' ideology of the Clementina and Barnabas'

prophetology. The parallels and differences require a more thorough study. Some think the

reference to the Paraclete in the Recognitions is a late interpolation.

40In the Clementina Barnabas is the avenue through which Clement meets the inner circle of

Jesus' followers. This is in contrast to the story in Acts, where Barnabas is the avenue through


16/17

which is introduced to the same circle.

41And is used throughout this article as a term of convenience. It is hardly more satisfactory

than the term "Jewish Christian." We mean followers of Jesus with a markedly more Judaic

point of view than that which prevailed in what became Christian orthodoxy, call them what

you will.

42Not necessarily ancient material. Ebionism is not merely a movement among earlyChristians but an enduring tendency in Christian thought, especially in the east.

43The author has taken as a framework a loose gospel harmony and attached to it slabs of

non-canonical material. The Infancy and Childhood narrative (chpts. 1-9) has the appearance

of having been added on, and it is possible that the Passion narrative was also a separate

composition. The whole work is far from seamless.

44Large sections of the work seem, to the present writer, to have not originally been part of a

"gospel." A closer study needs to be made of the framework to which such material has been

attached. This framework is a form of diatessaron.

45Another instance of this deserves noting. In the Clementina Barnabas relates a parable of

the "gnat and the elephant." Although this is a well-known and wide-spread parable, its

association with Barnabas continues into the Middle Ages; the story told in the Clementina

found its way into medieval works such as the Golden Legend. In chpt. 46 of the medieval

Jesus relates the example of the "ant and the elephant."

46This point does not seem to have been given proper attention before. The Preface reports

that a renogade Inquisitor the from the library of Sixtus V. It was

Sixtus V who brought the Vatican library into its modern form. His papacy was characterized

by extensive building programs and reorganisations that consolidated the papal collections

into what we today call the Vatican Library. The notice in the Preface should be considered in

this context. No doubt, the reference to the "pope's library" specifically refers to the

, the pope's private and "secret" collection, also reorganised during the

papacy of Sixtus V.

47A medieval itinerary, dated to the early 1200s, distinguishes between "the Latin hermits

who are called Brothers of Carmel" who lived higher up the mountain at the Fountain of

Elijah, and "the Hermits of Carmel," the School of the Prophets.

48This is another possibility that presents itself. Other than gospels written in the name of

disciples and other New Testament characters, there is also a class of gospels written in the

name of certain groups: the , , etc. It is

possible that the present might originally have been a "Gospel of the

Sons of the Prophets" or some such account. The medieval "Sons of the Prophets" (certainly,

the Latin Carmelites) believed that their ancient brothers, refounded by John, had witnessed

the life of Christ and might easily have had their own written accounts of that supposed

witness.

Return to Home Page

Copyright Institute for Higher Critical Studies, 2001


17/17

?? ??

Documents

Barnabas and the Gospels