The name of Joseph Barnabas has never been strange or
unknown to the scholars of the New Testament of the Bible; but his Gospel was
scarcely known before the publication of the English Translation of ‘The Koran’
by George Sale, who introduced this ‘Gospel’ in the ‘Preliminary Discourse’ to
his translation. Even then it remained beyond the access of Muslim Scholars
owing to its non-availability in some language familiar to them. It was only
after the publication of the English translation of the Gospel of Barnabas by
Lonsdale and Laura Ragg from the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907, that some
Muslim scholars could get an approach to it. Since then it has emerged as a
matter of dispute, rather controversy, among Muslim and Christian scholars. In
this article it would be endeavoured to make an objective study of the subject.
I. BRIEF LIFE-SKETCH OF BARNABAS
Joseph Barnabas was a Jew of the tribe of Levi and of the
Island of Cyprus ‘who became one of the earliest Christian disciples at
Jerusalem.’ His original name was Joseph and ‘he received from the Apostles the
Aramaic surname Barnabas (...). Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius number him
among the 72 (?70) disciples mentioned in Luke 10:1. He first appears in Acts
4:36-37 as a fervent and well to do Christian who donated to the Church the
proceeds from the sale of his property. Although he was Cypriot by birth, he
‘seems to have been living in Jerusalem.’ In the Christian Diaspora
(dispersion) many Hellenists fled from Jerusalem and went to Antioch of Syria.
That Barnabas did not flee is evidence of his good standing in Jerusalem, along
with the ‘apostles’. (...) he was sent to join the company of workers at
Antioch, to preach to Jews, Hellenists, and Greeks (Acts 11:19-22). As the work
of the Antioch Church expanded and more workers were needed, Barnabas went over
to Tarsus and brought back with him Saul (Paul). It seems that Barnabas was the
leader of the Antioch Church, and the order which Luke gives, ‘Barnabas and
Saul,’ indicates his pre-eminence. If was ‘Barnabas and Saul’ who carried relief
funds from Antioch to the famine-stricken Jarusalem (Act 11:30). Barnabas was
commissioned by the Antioch Church, along with Saul and John Mark, to undertake
the missionary journey which led them to Cyprus and later to the provinces of
the N. Mainland (...). in the city of Lystra... Barnabas was given the title
‘Zeus, while Paul was only ‘Hermes’ the spokesman (Act 14:12). The men of
Lystra must have recognised a comparative dignity in Barnabas... Luke’s account
of the conference at Jerusalem (Acts:15) again places Barnabas at the front,
indicating that Barnabas was in better standing than Paul in Jerusalem.
‘Barnabas and Paul’ made the report in the conference relating to the work which
had been done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). The document which was sent by
the conference recommending ‘Barnabas and Paul’ to the Syrian and Cilician
Churches again shows Luke’s knowledge of the relative standing of the two men in
Jerusalem.
‘The separation of Barnabas from Paul and their divergent
missionary activity began in Antioch after the Jerusalem Conference. The issue
which Luke gives was the taking of John Mark on another journey (Acts 15:36).
Marks’ defection at Cyprus (Acts 13:13) seemed to Paul to be sufficient grounds
for dropping him from the party. But Barnabas was devoted to Mark as a cousin
(Col 4:14), and leaving Paul, Barnabas took Mark on a separate mission again to
Cyprus. Luke’s cryptic words “sailed away to Cyprus” (Acts 15:39) are his
farewell to Barnabas.’ The details of this separation have also been given by
John Mark himself in his small work ‘The Acts of Barnabas’. He tells that after
setting sail from Cyprus (during the first missionary journey), they landed in
Perga of Pamphylia, and there he stayed for two months, wishing to sail to
the regions of the West; but the Holy Spirit did not allow him. When he returned
to Antioch, he found Paul ill, who was much cross on his delay in Pamphylia.
‘And I gave repentance on my knees upon the earth of Paul, and he would not
endure me.’ says John Mark, ‘for his great grievance against me was on account
of my keeping several parchments in Pamphylia.’
Barnabas was martyrised at Salamis in Cyprus in 61 A D
and his corpse was placed in a cave near Salamis. It was discovered safe and
sound after about 400 years in the reign of Emperor Zeno (474-491). B.M.
Ahern, in his article on St. Barnabas in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, says
‘According to legend he met a martyr’s death there [Cyprus]; his body was later
found with his own hand-written copy of Mathew’s Gospel over his heart.’ It
may be noted that Barnabas died in 61 A D and ‘There is wide agreement that it
[the Gospel of Mathew] is later than 70 A D, although the evidence for this is
not great; a date after the fall of Jerusalem is favoured by Mt 22:7.’ How can
a man, who dies in 61 A D, copy the book in his own handwriting, which did not
exist before 70 A D? It is therefore certain that the gospel which was found
‘over his heart’ and was ‘his own hand written’, could only be the ‘Gospel of
Barnabas’. It might have been taken to the capital of the Empire
(Constantinople), where it passed into the possession of the Ottoman Empire, the
successor of the Byzantines, and was discovered from a cave in Oloderay, a
village of Turkey in 1984.
II. ATTRIBUTION OF THE SURNAME ‘BARNABAS’ AND ITS
SIGNIFICANCE
Barnabas in Hebrew and Aramaic means the son of PROPHECY
(Bar = son; Nabas = prophecy; from Nabiy = a prophet; from the primary root Naba
= to prophesy). Luke in his Acts of the Apostles (4:36), has interpreted it as
‘the son of consolation; but according to Mckenzie’s Bible Dictionary: ‘this
popular etymology can hardly be accepted.’ A New Standard Bible Dictionary
also relates it to the word ‘prophet’. O Zockler in the New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge explains:
He was surnamed by the apostles (in Aramaic) Bar Nebhuah,
which is explained by the Greek huios parakleseos (‘son of exhortation’ not ‘of
consolation,’ cf Acts xi, 23) and denotes a prophet in the primitive Christian
sense of the word (cf Acts xiii, 1; xv,32).
From the observations made above, it can be inferred:
i) that Barnabas was not the original name; but a
surname, given to him by the apostles on account of some predominant attribute,
which was so conspicuous in his personality that it became the very introduction
and identification for him.
ii) that this special reference of his introduction was
the utterance of some ‘Nebuah’ or ‘prophecy’ which is the true sense of this
word and can be seen pervading and prevailing only in his extant gospel; in the
absence of which the title, Barnabas, attributed to him by the apostles, is
rendered meaningless.
iii) that the apostles unanimously endorsed, approved, and
appreciated this prophecy. Had they disapproved it, or found it objectionable
and contrary to the teachings to Jesus, they would never have affectionately
addressed and attributed him with Barnabas’.
III. APOSTLESHIP OF BARNABAS AND HIS STANDING IN
EARLY CHRISTIANITY.
The word ‘APOSTLE’ is the English transliteration of a
Greek word meaning ‘one who is sent out.’ Mckenzie explains:
‘Jesus himself is called an apostle (Heb 3:1), as one sent
from God. In the New Testament the word designates a small group who hold the
highest position in the Church and are charged with its most responsible
functions; but a closer definition of the term discloses some problems which do
not admit a peremptory answer.’ ‘Apostolic lists appear in Mt. 10:2-4; Mark
3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; and Acts 1:13. Each of the lists contains twelve names,
but not always the same twelve. The number twelve probably refers to God’s
elect, the 12 tribes of Israel. (....) The exact nature of “apostleship” in the
early church is obscure.’ Thaddaeus, who is given at No. 10 in the lists of
Matthew and Mark, is missing from the list of Luke’s Gospel and of the Acts,
wherein ‘Judas the son of James’ is found at No.11. This discrepancy has been
explained diversely; for example “(i) Judas son (or brother) of James, and
Thaddaeus (or lebbaeus) are the same person, (ii) The lists in Luke and Acts
reflect a change in the apostles. (iii) Tradition has preserved the fact that
Jesus had an inner group of trusted followers (the Twelve) and has retained the
names of most of the members of this group but not without slight variations.”
There is some hardship in the first explanation. The second one appears
unlikely. ‘The third is plausible in the light of the fact that the gospel
traditions were transmitted within difference communities, making some variation
far from surprising. (...) Post-biblical traditions supply additional
information about Thaddaeus, but this is of questionable value.’
Barnabas has also provided a list of the ‘Twelve apostles’
in his Gospel. Ten members of his list are the same as Matthew’s and Mark’s.
Instead of ‘Thomas’ he has entered ‘Judas.’ Smith’s A Dictionary of the Bible
states:
According to Eusebius his (Thomas’) real name was
‘Judas.’ Thus, there remains only one variation which requires explanation
that is instead of Simon the Cananaean / Zealot, he lists his own name as an
‘apostle’. As regards Simon the Zealot, it look to be a fictitious name or
person or a later interpolation, as none of his authorised written work or a
record or result of his missionary service is reliably available. Most of the
authorities find themselves at a loss even to identify him, for example (a)
‘very little is known about this Apostle. Many would identify him with Simon the
brother of Jesus, but this identification does not seem likely’, (b) ‘Of his
personal history nothing certain in known’ and (c) ‘Identification of Simon
Zealot with the Simon who is named among the brethren of Jesus, together with
the cognate assumption that the later was a brother of James the son of
Alphaeus, is quite unfounded, as are the reports of a later activity of the
apostle in Egypt and in Britain, or in Persia and Babylonia.’ As regards the
apostleship of Barnabas, there exists abundant evidence in the early biblical
literature, church history, and even in the Bible itself. Some of the quotations
are given below:
(i) Among the Apostolic Fathers Barnabas is the first
and the only one who expressly teaches...
(ii) ... but possibly he bore the name ‘Barnabas’ and so
had been confounded with his holy and apostolic name-sire. (...) was attributed
to Saint Barnabas, by those who supposed that apostle to be the...
iii) Dressel gives ‘Epistle of Barnabas the Apostle,’
from the Vatican MS. of the Latin Codex.
iv) The Apostle Barnabas says...
v) One of the Apostles, of the tribe of Levi and of the
country of Cyprus.
vi) Barnabas was the elder companion of Paul in his
journeys as apostle (...); wherefore the two together are called ‘apostles’
(Acts xix, 4,14).
vii) The resultant sharp ‘contention’ led the separation
of the two Apostles (Acts. 15:36-39).
viii) Himself called an apostle in Acts xiv, 4, 14 (...).
An unhappy discussion separated the two apostles.
ix) He is further described panegyrically as ‘a
goodman, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith’ (Acts 11:24). Undoubtedly,
these gifts gave him influence and leadership, so that he is regarded with
Simeon (Niger), Lucius, and Manaeu as among the PROPHETS and teachers at Antioch
in Syria (Acts 13:1). Together with Paul he is designated as an apostle (Acts
14:14).
x) Barnabas who is called an apostle by clement of
Alexandria (Strom. II. 31.2. cf. 116.3) and already in Acts 14:14 (cf. also
verse 4), is in Pseudo-Clement, Hom. 1.9-16; II.4, a personal disciple of Jesus
a strict servant of the law, a Palestinian by birth, but residing in Alexandria,
(...). The Recognitions, which identify Barnabas with Matthias (1.60; cf. Th.
Zahn, Forschungen II, p. 562) and thus enrol him as substitute for the betrayer
in the band of the twelve, have the meeting between Clement and Barnabas take
place in Rome, whither the later had brought the gospel already in the life-time
of Jesus (1:6f). The Acts of Peter (C.4) also knows of a stay of Barnabas in
Rome. For Tertullian (de pud. 20.2) Corp. Christ. 2, p. 1324) and the Tractatus
Origenis (PL Supp. 1,417) the Epistle to the Hebrews counts as a work of
Barnabas. (...) In the Decretum Gelasianum as also in the list of the 60 Books
there appears a Gospel of Barnabas which baffles us.
Besides the fact that in his Gospel, Barnabas has
mentioned his name in the list of the twelve apostles, there is another list of
apostles, in which as well he is counted as a member, which is pertinently
quoted here:
As a sort of list of the apostles there can be counted the
enumeration of the twelve apostles who in Pseudo - Clement, Rec. I.55.62, debate
with the Jews and Samaritans in the temple at Jerusalem. Here we have the
following sequence: 1. Mathew (55), 2. Andrew (56),
3. and. 4. James and John (57), 5. Philip (58),
6. Bartholomew (59), 7. James the son of Alphaeus (59), 8. Lebbaeus (59), 9.
Simon Cananeus (60), 10. Barnabas who is also called Mathias (60), 11. Thomas
(61), 12. Peter (62). That Peter, who is the speaker, names himself last is not
surprising.
All these references amount to the fact that Barnabas
enjoyed a privileged position among the early Christianity. He was one of the
earliest companions of Jesus. He has been attributed with the titles of a saint,
a disciple, a prophet and an apostle by almost all the Encyclopaedias and
Histories of the Church.
IV. PAUL AND BARNABAS
Paul was born of Jewish parents in Tarsus, a city of
Cilicia, probably between zero A D and 5 A D. Before going for preaching
Christianity in Gentiles, he was known as Saul. At Tarsus he must have learnt
to speak and write Greek language fluently. In his boyhood he shifted to
Jerusalem and was brought up there. During the life-time of Jesus, he remained a
bitter enemy of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Luke states in Acts 9:13-19 that
Saul received sudden light from heaven; the voice of Jesus speaking with
authority to his persecutor; Saul struck to the ground blinded, overcome; the
three-days suspense; the coming of Ananias as s a messenger of the Lord; and
Saul’s baptism. This package of events occurred in Damascus in
37 A D. Then he went to Arabia. In 40 A D, he went to Jerusalem, but the
disciples were afraid of him. It was Barnabas who introduced him to them, and
convinced them to accept him as a Christian, even though reluctantly. After some
time he had again to flee from Jerusalem to Tarsus to save his life. Barnabas
was sent by the apostles on a special and important mission to Antioch. Barnabas
brought Paul from Tarsus so that he might help him in his mission at Antioch;
and both of them worked there for a whole year. ‘ALL THIS TIME SAUL WAS
SUBORDINATE TO BARNABAS.’ During the first missionary journey (45 A D to 49 A D)
Barnabas was the leader of the mission. It was indeed the missionary journey of
Barnabas which is erroneously ascribed to Paul. Paul was planning to bypass all
the disciples and even his benefactor, Barnabas, and to gain pre-eminence for
himself. He wanted to be second to none. He managed to set Barnabas aside by
laying a ridiculous blame on John Mark, and to set himself in as the sole
representative, spokesman, interpreter and leader of Christianity. He contrived
to throw Barnabas away from the main stream of Christianity into his native
isolated island of Cyprus. He undertook his second missionary journey from 50 A
D to
54 A D, and the third one from 54 A D to 58 A D, during which he received
successes and sufferings. He led a dynamic life and was at last beheaded at Rome
by Nero in 67 A D or 68 A D. He wrote many important missionary epistles during
his missionary life, which form a considerable portion of the New Testament of
the Bible.
After separation from Paul, Barnabas continued to travel
widely on his missionary services ‘as later St Paul mentions him as if he were
known to Galatians (Gal. 2:1-13), the Corinthians (I. Cor. 9.6), and possibly
the Colossians (Col. 4.6). He is the traditional founder of the Cypriot
Church.’ ‘Paul mentions him in I Cor 9:6 as one known for his sacrificial
labours in the gospel. Paul’s words in Gal. 2:13 (‘Barnabas also was carried
away with their dissimulation’) indicate Paul’s high esteem for Barnabas.’
Paul indicates two points of his dissension from Barnabas. According to him:
Barnabas not only insisted on taking Mark on a second
journey, but he had shown a wavering, along with Peter, on the issue of
association with Gentiles, particularly eating with them at table (Gal. 2:11
ff). Peter was to Jerusalem, and the sympathies of Barnabas were there too.
It inconceivable that everlasting separation can take
place on such minor disputes between two close companions. As regards the
dispute on the desertion of Mark, it is desirable that the version of the second
party be also brought on record. John Mark explains in the ‘Acts of Barnabas’
that he stayed in Perga of Pam Phylia for about two months wishing to go to
preach in the regions of the West, but probably the climatic conditions did not
allow him. On his return to Antioch, he found Paul ill ‘from the toil of the
journey.’ Mark states:
Who (Paul) also seeing me, was exceedingly grieved on
account of my delaying in Pamphylia (...). And I gave repentance on my knees
upon the earth to Paul, and he would not endure it. And when I remained for
three Sabbaths in entreaty and prayer on my knees, I was unable to prevail upon
him about myself; for his great grievance against me was on account of my
keeping several parchments in Pamphylia.
As regards the defection of Mark, both the versions
basically agree, though not in details. But such a minor thing does not justify
so grave an action by Paul. Only a highly ungrateful person can exhibit such a
severe disregard towards a benefactor like Barnabas. It seems as if Paul wanted
to get rid of Barnabas and exploited the incident as a lame excuse for his
defection. There is another reason given by Mark, that is keeping several
parchments. It looks to be something meaningful. As regard the wavering of
Barnabas about Gentiles, it is also not so grave an issue. In fact, the serious
issue was that of obedience and observance of the ‘Law of God’, which is
manifest from Gal. 2:14, 16, 21, eg.:
(...) I [Paul] said unto Peter (...), why compellest thou
the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (...) a man is not justified by the works
of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ (...): for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified. (...): for if righteousness come by the law, then
Christ is dead in vain.
Indeed Paul has tried to twist the discussions in such a
way as to give them quite a different tint. Obviously, neither Peter nor
Barnabas, the true disciples of Jesus Christ as they were, could share and
accompany Paul in leading people astray and away from the law of the Lord, about
which their teacher, Jesus Christ, had affirmed:
Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say
to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from
the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of
these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the
scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
N.B. The following important points will be dealth with in
the next instalment of this article:
i) Barnabas as an author: Epistle to Hebrews; Epistle of
Barnabas; His Acts; His Gospel.
ii) The story of the discovery of this Gospel.
iii) Proofs of his authorship of a Gospel.
iv) Rejection and Prohibition of his Gospel by the church
and the reasons for them.
v) Prophecies in this Gospel regarding the Holy Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) by name.
vi) Conclusion.
|