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," survives
in Italian and Spanish versions and is, no doubt, the product of the late Middle Ages.
1
There
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 same
work. 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 CE
2
after which a "Gospel according to Barnabas"
is never heard of again until the medieval work appeared. It is widely assumed that this is the
historical 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,
3
but 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 one
of 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,
4
and 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.
5
In the 1960s Pines suggested that the medieval
work may contain residues of early Ebionite writings.
6
Those 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.
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.
7
It 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 therefore
quite 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.
8
Given 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 not
Barnabas 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)
9
neither 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.
10
John Mark, a relative of Barnabas,
11
is 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
A closer look at the lists reveals evidence that could be taken either way on this matter; it
could support a case an early Barnabas as much as it could support the case against. The
remarkable fact is that it is possible to account for all of the works mentioned in both lists
. The lists will sometimes use variants of the
more common names of known works, as when the List of Sixty calls the
the History of James, but every work in these lists has been identified, at least to the
general satisfaction of most scholars. The Gelasian Decree's obscure reference to "All the
books of Leucius" has been identified with the (extant).
13
The Decree's "Passing
of Mary" is presumed to be pseudo-Melito's narrative. A reference to "Gospels which
Lucianus and Heschius falsified" is taken to refer to recensions of the text of the canonicals,
known but not extant. The , however, is today extant. The
is extant. The survives in fragments. "Books
concerning the Infancy of the Saviour" are identified as the - , extant.
Discoveries in the twentieth century, especially those at Nag Hammadi, have filled many
gaps in our record. It is, remarkably, in these lists for
which no satisfactory account can be given. It is true that in some cases the accepted
identifications are highly conjectural, but by standard reckonings only the Gospel according
to Barnabas presents serious problems. This can be interpreted in two ways. It may count
against there having been such a work, or it may just as easily count for it. Is it conceivable
that both lists could be wrong on this and only this point? The Gelasian Decree and the List
of Sixty Books are, as far as we know, independent of each other: geographically one is from
the east and one from the west; in time they are separated by at least a century. It seems
hardly plausible that, by a coincidence of errors, both lists are mistaken in this one case, the
only occasion where both lists have their information significantly wrong. On the other hand
we may say that since all the other information in the lists seems to be in order, is it
conceivable that there was a but it and it alone has left no further trace?
If such a book did exist why does it and it alone defy identification? It is not unusual for a
work from that period to have left nothing but its name. There are literally hundreds of works
mentioned in extant writings of which not even fragments survive. It is entirely possible,
therefore, for there to have been a but for there to be no part of it extant
today. There is no doubt from the two lists of books "received and not received" that the
was not a favourite in orthodox circles. These lists were, in themselves,
catalogues of those books that were to be preserved and those that were to be destroyed in the
Church's campaign to assert its version of the Christian message to the exclusion of all others.
We should not be too surprised to find that, in this case, the work in question was eradicated.
But is it conceivable that only the , of all the works listed in these
catalogues, was eradicated comprehensively?
Barnabas and Matthias
A curious feature of the notices in both lists deserves some attention. This is that in both
cases a "Gospel according to Barnabas" is paired with a "Gospel according to Matthias."
Here are relevant samples from both lists to make this clear:
GALASIAN DECREE
- extant.
- extant.
- presumed to be Traditions of Matthias - fragments extant.
- 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 complex
tangle 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
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 giving
somewhat 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.
15
Is
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 we
find 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.
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 its
transmission 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 Gelasian
Decree 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?
16
and (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 chain
of 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?
17
Perhaps 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, pure
conjecture -- 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 insights
into an early literature, or merely through the same conjectures we have just made?
The name "Barnabas"
TO continue this discussion, let us consider the question 'Is the name Barnabas integral to
the 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.
18
In 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.
20
If 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.
21
This 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 " ,"
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 Jesus
and 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."
22
In 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 name
Barnabas 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.
24
There
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 mean
25
- 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'.
27
Luke 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.
28
One 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.
31
In many respects, in fact, the whole of the
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 of
the Prophets, the medieval Carmelites, who claimed continuity (through John the Baptist)
with the Sons of the Prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.
34
If 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.
35
In its current form
the medieval work nominates Muhammad as the Messiah of whom Jesus prophesies; in
making 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.
36
It 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.
37
When 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.
38
James 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.
39
James' (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
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.
41
What 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,
42
under Barnabas'
name, and has crafted it into a gospel to take advantage of the fact that the early gospel of
that 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.
45
If 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 were
not 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 the
present 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?
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 by
supposing 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.
46
Leaving 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 the
centuries 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 early
material'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 the
extant 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 accept
the Preface's claim that it was simply out of circulation for centuries and came to light
suddenly towards the end of the 1500s.
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.
47
The present writer suspects
that the medieval Barnabas has been compiled from material belonging to this "School of the
Prophets"- 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"?
48
This 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
1
All 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.
2
The 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.
3
Perhaps 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.
4
For an account of recent theories see J. Slomp, 'The in Recent
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.
5
Beginning 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".
6
See Pines S. , Hebrew Academy of
Science & Humanities, Jerusalem, 1968.
7
James 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.
8
The 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.
9
Acts 4:36
10
Contact 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.
11
Col. 4:10.
12
In 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.
13
The 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.
14
The 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."
15
Although, of course, in the Clementina Barnabas still does not meet Jesus in person, as
Barnabas does in the medieval gospel.
16
Ebionite 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.)
17
The 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.
18
Little 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.
19
Most 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.
20
Gal 2:13
21
It 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.
22
See, 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.
23
It 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.
24
See 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.
26
Acts 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 ."
29
See 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.
30
A 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.
31
See 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.
32
See, 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."
33
See chps. 144 - 151 especially. The identification of the 'True Pharisees' with the primitive
Carmelite hermits is certain. Mount Carmel is named in chapter 188.
34
This 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 of
Elijah and Elisha.
35
See, 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.
36
The 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.
37
Christian 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.
38
See , chs. 68, 69.
39
The 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.
40
In 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
which is introduced to the same circle.
41
And 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.
42
Not necessarily ancient material. Ebionism is not merely a movement among early
Christians but an enduring tendency in Christian thought, especially in the east.
43
The 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.
44
Large 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.
45
Another 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."
46
This 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.
47
A 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.
48
This 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
?? ??