Was Barnabas the Replacement for Judas?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

When narrative expectations are suddenly and inexplicably frustrated, we get a narrative failure. For example, if I am reading a story about a magic sword stuck in a rock that can make someone king and I am told about a young squire sent to find a sword for his knight, I may presume that the squire will find the magic sword. If instead, somebody else finds the magic sword and it plays no further part in the narrative, I may conclude that there has been a narrative failure.

When we meet with a narrative failure we can assume that censorship is at work.

An example of such censorship occurs in the movie the Way We Were(Pollack, 1973). The sudden divorce between Katey Morosky (Barbara Streisand) and Hubbel Gardner (Robert Redford) near the end of the film makes little sense in the final cut. Katey and Hubbel are still in love, and Hubbel’s single extramarital affair does not seem to be any kind of reason for Katey to suddenly divorce him, especially as she had shown her willingness to fight for him against other women before. One has a strange feeling that something has been left out. Only the great film critic, Pauline Kael, saw that “the decisive change in the characters’ lives which story hinges on takes place suddenly and hardly makes sense.”

In the original cut, and Arthur Laurents’ script, the explanation for the divorce was clear: Katey was an ex-member of the Communist Party, and as the wife of the Hollywood screenwriter Hubbel, she would have been forced to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee and that would have ruined his career. She needed to divorce him to save his writing career. Since she thought that he was going to be a great writer, this was an amazing act of self-sacrifice on her part and at the same time a very practical and logical political move.

The director, Sidney Pollack, cut the all important explanatory scene over the fervent objections of Barbara Streisand. He was apparently under pressure from Columbia Studios not to glorify an openly communist heroine onscreen, as anti-communist Richard Nixon had recently been re-elected president in a landslide.

In Acts 1:23 we read about the disciples replacing Judas: “And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.”

Matthias wins, but we never hear about him again.

We may consider this a narrative failure. The first act of the apostles in Acts is to replace Judas. We should expect that whomever replaces him should be an important part of the story. As written, the story is as senseless as the King Arthur story with someone else finding Excalibur and then never being heard from again.

A clue to the original uncensored story is provided by the Codex Bezae. This is a fourth century manuscript with some unique readings. Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, in a Journal for the Study of the New Testament Article (Dec98, Issue 72, p23-44), BARNABAS IN ACTS: A STUDY OF HIS ROLE IN THE TEXT OF CODEX BEZAE, suggests that this Codex may reflect much earlier Lucan readings.

This is the abstract of the article:

This article seeks to establish Barnabas’s function in the early church by comparing the readings of Codex Bezae with the more familiar Alexandrian text. Codex Bezae pays more attention to Barnabas’s Hellenistic Jewish background and to his role as a model of goodness and encouragement. The significance of this emphasis derives from an additional Bezan mention of Barnabas at Acts 1.23 as one of the candidates to replace Judas. Applying traditional Jewish techniques of exegesis, Codex Bezae identifies Barnabas with the biblical figure of Joseph. The implications are that Barnabas ought to have been selected, the error arising from the apostles’ lack of understanding. It is concluded that the Bezan readings represent the original text which was modified in order to attenuate the Jewish perspective and to remove the embarrassment of apostolic fallibility

I agree with her that the name of Joseph Barnabas was certainly proposed as the 12th apostle to replace Judas. This certainly makes more sense than the nonsensical name “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus” which is in all the other early manuscripts.

However, once we establish that all the other manuscripts have censored the name of Joseph Barnabas and replaced it with the unknown nonsense name of Joseph Justus Barsabas, we may suspect that we are still not getting the truth.

Unlike Matthias or Barsabas, Barnabas plays a significant role in the rest of acts. In fact he leads Saul/Paul on his first missions and we have consistent references to Barnabas and Saul until chapter 14, where Paul suddenly becomes the leading figure.

If Barnabas was elected the twelfth apostle and not Matthias, in the original version, then we have no narrative failure. Instead we have a satisfying narrative where the man elected to replace Judas goes on to spread the glory and message of the church to the gentiles.

Another indication that Joseph/Barnabas was elected to replace Judas is the fact that his first action, described in 4:36, is to sell a large plot of land and give the money to the church. As we know from 1:18, the last thing that Judas did was the exact opposite, taking the money (either from the church or for betraying Jesus) and buying a field with it. The mention that he sold his own field and gave the money to the church really only makes sense inside of a narrative where he has replaced Judas as the twelfth disciple.

If we take this suggestion that in the original text, Barnabas was the main character who replaced Judas, we can see that Luke probably used at least one text where Barnabas was the main character.

Please see my post #5937041 / #52 for more information on what was probably in this original text.

Since the conversion of the Cypiot Proconsul Sergius Paulus to Christianity is one of the major points of the text, and Barnabas was himself from Cyprus, we may suppose that the author himself of the original Acts of Barnabas text was from Cyprus.

We should keep in mind that Cyprus was part of Egypt in those days, and it was the nearest part of Egypt to Jerusalem. If Luke was writing against Marcion, we may suppose that he had a purpose in underplaying the role of the Egyptians Barnabas and Paulus in spreading Christianity to the gentiles and spreading the idea that a Jewish Saul/Paul was responsible.

I am wondering if anybody else has read anything suggesting that Barnabas was the 12th apostle or that Paul was originally Sergius Paulus or a combination of Saul and Sergius Paulus.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

[Toto]

Notes on the Apostle Barnabas

A more intriguing set of associations opens up when we compare and contrast Luke's Acts of the Apostles with the Clementina. In Acts "Matthias" defeats a certain "Barsabbas" in a casting of lots for the vacancy in the Twelve left by the suicide of Judas Iscariot. This would be a mere similarity of names except that in the Recognitions of Clement Barnabas IS the Matthias who was appointed to fill the vacancy among the disciples. This must surely reflect back upon the curious name "Barsabbas" in Luke's account. The interplay between the Clementina and Acts on this point is a good example of how those works are at odds. In this case, it would appear that Luke's "Barsabbas" is a garbling of "Barnabas" rather than the Pseudo-Clement's "Barnabas" being a mistaken reading of "Barsabbas" as Christian apologists claim.

...

There are more interesting details and speculation there. The author, R. Blackhirst, seems to identify Barnabas with Matthias and Matthew. The main index is here and there is Notes Towards a Comprehensive Solution to the Riddles of the medieval Gospel of Barnabas by Blackhirst. The first essay is listed as one that might be out of date after the author found his comprehensive solution.

[Toto]

The Recognitions of Clement / Book_I / Chapter_60

After him Barnabas,[2] who also is called Matthias, who was substituted as an apostle in the place of Judas, . . .

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Toto,

Thanks, this is great. It really makes the evidence so much stronger. So now we can point to four reasons to suppose that Barnabas replaced Judas as the 12th Apostle in a pre-New Testament tradition:

1. The codex Bezae names him as a candidate for Judas' office.
2. The narrative of Acts is concerned with Barnabas, but not with Matthias, which we would expect if Barnabas was the replacement for Judas
3. Barnabas reverses Judas' buying a field with private money and sells his field to raise money for the Church.
4. The Recognitions of Clement identify him as Matthias.

Taken together, these present a pretty strong case for Barnabus as the replacement for Judas.



Sincerely,

Jay

Originally Posted by Toto

The Recognitions of Clement / Book_I / Chapter_60

After him Barnabas,[2] who also is called Matthias, who was substituted as an apostle in the place of Judas, . . .

[Toto]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thanks, this is great. It really makes the evidence so much stronger. So now we can point to four reasons to suppose that Barnabas replaced Judas as the 12th Apostle in a pre-New Testament tradition:

1. The codex Bezae names him as a candidate for Judas' office.
2. The narrative of Acts is concerned with Barnabas, but not with Matthias, which we would expect if Barnabas was the replacement for Judas
3. Barnabas reverses Judas' buying a field with private money and sells his field to raise money for the Church.
4. The Recognitions of Clement identify him as Matthias.

Taken together, these present a pretty strong case for Barnabus as the replacement for Judas.

Sincerely,

Jay

But this raises more questions than it answers -

- Who were "The Twelve?" If Jesus was a myth, are the 12 also mythical, or were they a historical group incorporated into the myth?

- Was Judas a historical figure? I think most of us would say no, but if Judas was not historical, was the person who replaced him historical?

- What is the purpose of splitting Barnabas into Matthias and Barsabas, or, alternatively, combining these two?

Or do you see this as just a mechanism for giving a real Barnabas some authority? Is canonical Acts a second layer that takes that authority away from him?

[Huon]

Eusebius on Papias in Church History 3.39.8 -13 :

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said." Acts 1:23

11. The same writer [Papias] gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[the_cave]

Possible answers:

Originally Posted by Toto

- Who were "The Twelve?" If Jesus was a myth, are the 12 also mythical, or were they a historical group incorporated into the myth?

The group may have been mythical, but the individuals in the group are probably (I would say almost certainly) based on real people. For the most part--a few (like Judas Iscariot) may be mythical.

- Was Judas a historical figure? I think most of us would say no, but if Judas was not historical, was the person who replaced him historical?

No, "Judas Iscariot" I would argue is not historical. An apostle named Judas, however, seems likely to be historical.

Consider these facts:


Matthew and Mark's lists of disciples include a Judas--Judas Iscariot, that is.

Luke's list (in Lk 6) also includes a Judas--the other one, that is.

Luke also includes Judas Iscariot, right after the other Judas--but we know that Iscariot is likely mythical.


Suggesting that the original semi-official list of disciples did include a Judas, but this was not identified with a "Judas Iscariot" until a later date. This explains Luke's lists: he has Mark (and perhaps some sort of proto-Matthew), so he knows about Judas Iscariot. But then why would he list Judas twice? Because...he has access to the earlier tradition, where Judas was just Judas (we also see this tradition reflected in John). He's combining his sources as best he can.

So the original list must have included twelve disciples, one named Judas, but not Iscariot. And...we have such a list--the list in Ac 1, i.e. Lk 6, minus Iscariot, and plus Matthias (or possibly Barnabas).

So Barnabas/Barsabbas was not a replacement at all. He was the original twelfth disciple! He was never elected. So why is there an election in Acts? Perhaps because this was in fact based on a record of the election of Matthias/Matthew. It's just that Joseph Barnabas ("Barsabbas") was never involved. The author of Acts uses the election to solve the problem of who replaces Iscariot.

What is the purpose of splitting Barnabas into Matthias and Barsabas, or, alternatively, combining these two?

The purpose is hinted at in the links you provided. Paul gets his insider access from associating with Barnabas. But if Barnabas was just one of the Twelve...then Paul is subordinate to the Twelve. However, the author of Acts ("Luke") is pro-Pauline. He wants to establish an authority for Paul separate from but parallel to the Twelve. So he makes Barnabas a respected apostle, but not one of the Twelve, letting Paul become his equal, as he is also outside the Twelve.

Just an idea, anyway.

Note also that this would give us all four names of Jesus' "brothers" in the list of the disciples: James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Toto,

Good questions. I haven't really thought about them much.

Right now, I'm thinking about the reconstruction of the Barnabas text that the person putting together the Acts of the Apostles was reading.

The two candidates being against each other can only make sense if we know something about the two candidates. If I tell you X and Y ran for office and God chose X, I am not telling a story. There is no point. It is useless information. On the other hand, if I tell you X and Y ran for office and X like green and Y likes Blue and God chose Y, we have a narrative. It is a way of telling us that God favors blue or that blue is a better color than green.

As the text stands now, there is no reason to choose one candidate over the other (Barnabas or Matthias). The decision is pointless. We do not know if the lots chose the correct man for the job.

This means that there must have been a reason for God to choose one man over the over. Yet, the only thing that we know about Barnabas is that he sold his field and gave the money to the Church. In myths. competing characters are generally opposites. Therefore, we may assume that the man running against Barnabas stole money from the church and bought land. But this description would only fit Judas. So Barnabas must have been running against Judas.

However, if Judas was dead or had betrayed Jesus, why would the Apostles even consider keeping him as an apostle? The answer is they wouldn't. This suggests that both the betrayal of Jesus and the death of Judas stories were invented after the Judas versus Barnabas election story.

The only thing that the original Barnabas text author knows about Judas is that he stole money from the apostles and bought land from it. The Barnabas author is suggesting that Barnabas replaced Judas because he acted in the opposite fashion to Judas. Instead of stealing money, he gave, and instead of buying, he sold land.

We may take it that this is related in some way to the twelve tribes of Israel and the land given to Joseph's sons Manasseh and Ephraim to share.

Warmly,
Jay

Originally Posted by Toto

But this raises more questions than it answers -

- Who were "The Twelve?" If Jesus was a myth, are the 12 also mythical, or were they a historical group incorporated into the myth?

- Was Judas a historical figure? I think most of us would say no, but if Judas was not historical, was the person who replaced him historical?

- What is the purpose of splitting Barnabas into Matthias and Barsabas, or, alternatively, combining these two?

Or do you see this as just a mechanism for giving a real Barnabas some authority? Is canonical Acts a second layer that takes that authority away from him?

[the_cave]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The two candidates being against each other can only make sense if we know something about the two candidates.

Luke tells all kinds of crazy stories about a rather motley crew of characters in Acts, many of whom come and go almost at random. I'm not sure we should expect a lot of narrative logic from him.

Yet, the only thing that we know about Barnabas is that he sold his field and gave the money to the Church.

On the contrary, we know a lot about him! He's the man who helped turn Saul into an apostle.

Therefore, we may assume that the man running against Barnabas stole money from the church and bought land.

There are different kinds of opposites. Ananias sold his land and didn't give the church money--therefore he is also a contrast to Barnabas.

If Luke made up part of the story himself, it's hard to tell which part.

However, if Judas was dead or had betrayed Jesus, why would the Apostles even consider keeping him as an apostle? The answer is they wouldn't. This suggests that both the betrayal of Jesus and the death of Judas stories were invented after the Judas versus Barnabas election story.

Maybe...but if Judas needed to be elected, then he wasn't one of the Twelve--so who was he? And why would Luke change the winner of the election?

The only thing that the original Barnabas text author knows about Judas is that he stole money from the apostles and bought land from it.

I would argue instead that this story follows after the betrayal story--it illustrates Judas' loss of his portion of Israel--his blood is spilled upon it.

The Barnabas author is suggesting that Barnabas replaced Judas because he acted in the opposite fashion to Judas. Instead of stealing money, he gave, and instead of buying, he sold land.

But...there's no evidence that Barnabas was elected to anything.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi The Cave,

As Claude Levy Strauss demonstrated in "The Raw and the Cooked," primitive narrative is structured by binary opposites.

The suppression of one side of the binary opposites often make the narrative appear to be a kind of news reporting. We must recognize that such news reporting was not invented until the 18th century with the invention of newspapers. When we get this pseudo newsreporting, we must look for the binary aspects that have been suppressed.

Let us say I wish to tell a tale of Mary, the Whore and Martha, the Virgin. In the tale, Mary willingly sleeps with every suitor, while Martha finds clever ways to avoid sleeping with them. The tale ends with Mary losing her beauty and dying abandoned and alone, while Martha finds a good, wealthy man to marry her. The story-telling quality and moral of the story is obvious: a woman should protect her virginity and she will be happy in the end. Now, let us say that a priest is happy with the tale, but unhappy about the idea of depicting a woman of loose morals like Mary, afraid that readers will emulate her despite the story's moral. The Priest re-edits the tale to show only Martha's story. What we end up with is the story of a woman who rejects many suitors and finds happiness in the end. The story no longer appears to be a story, but a biographical description of a real woman named Martha.

The numerous binary elements in the text of Acts make it certain that we are not dealing with newsreports 17 centuries before the process of newsreporting was invented. Therefore, we have to conclude that these pseudo-newsreport type items of things like the election of an apostle are being created through the censorship of binary elements and/or their replacement with other binary elements.

In the case of the tale where Judas and Barnabas' actions in regard to buying and selling land are contrasted, we are also getting the tale of Ananias and his unnamed wife added. This story has no real link to anything else in the text, (Who is Ananias anyway?) so we can be sure that it is simply being added as a commentary on Barnabas' actions. Barnabas' actions of selling the land and giving the full price of it to the church, are contrasted with the actions of Ananias who sold the land and held back part of the price. The good fortune of Barnabas is contrasted with the misfortune of Ananias who ends up dead for his actions.

The additional story of Ananias' wife is added to contrast the outcome of a person who sells land, cheats the church and lies with the outcome of a person who sells land, cheats the church and tells the truth. In both cases, the person dies. The point of killing Ananias' wife is that Ananias died, not for lying, but for withholding money from the church.

In any case the editor's addition of the Ananias story is simply the editor's way of warning people not to cheat the church.

We may suppose that he had the same thing in mind when he added Judas' death to the story. It is consistent with the author's belief/hope that whoever steals from the church will be struck dead by God.

This is not an element in the original story. We can know this because the death of Judas would have meant no election, but a simple replacement choice. The election between two different, but indistinguishable characters appears as a news report and does not contain the necessary narrative binary opposition element. Therefore, we may conclude that the opposite natures or actions of the candidates have been suppressed. Logically, we may conclude that an election did take place, but it was not between two indistinguishable candidates, but between Judas (who did not die) after stealing from the church to buy land and Barnabas who sold his land and gave the money to the church.

In the original story, we had the simple binary opposition of Judas stealing money from the church to buy land for himself and Barnabas selling his own land to give money to the church.

The original question that the Barnabas author faced was, "Should a church official found guilty of buying private land with church money be replaced?" The original story has the lots (God's will) decide, and concludes that "Yes, the use of church funds to buy private land is an action that should get a leader of a church replaced." The fact that Barnabas goes on to do good things for the church reinforces the idea that God has chosen correctly to replace Judas.

We may add that the miraculous apostle tales predate the Jesus story and the Jesus story may be seen as part of the genre of miraculous apostle tales. We should look at it In the same way that we know that stories of people from other planets predated the Superman comic book story. In 1929, Jack Williamson's "Girl From Mars" was published. In it, Mars is a super-civilization that destroys itself and a scientist sends his only daughter to Earth as the last survivor of his civilization. We know that Jerry Siegel, the creator of Superman read the story. As late as 1936, Siegel was still considering making "Superman" the last survivor from the future, sent back in time by his scientist father. Later, he decided to use the "Girl from Mars" motif.

The many miraculous apostle tales that involve no Jesus character or Jesus only plays a minor role suggests that the apostles predated Jesus. We may assume that the Barnabas replacing Judas tale had nothing to do with the Jesus gospel stories at all, just as Paul's letters have virtually nothing to do with them at all.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by the_cave

Luke tells all kinds of crazy stories about a rather motley crew of characters in Acts, many of whom come and go almost at random. I'm not sure we should expect a lot of narrative logic from him.


On the contrary, we know a lot about him! He's the man who helped turn Saul into an apostle.


There are different kinds of opposites. Ananias sold his land and didn't give the church money--therefore he is also a contrast to Barnabas.

If Luke made up part of the story himself, it's hard to tell which part.


Maybe...but if Judas needed to be elected, then he wasn't one of the Twelve--so who was he? And why would Luke change the winner of the election?


I would argue instead that this story follows after the betrayal story--it illustrates Judas' loss of his portion of Israel--his blood is spilled upon it.

But...there's no evidence that Barnabas was elected to anything.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Right now, I'm thinking about the reconstruction of the Barnabas text that the person putting together the Acts of the Apostles was reading.

The two candidates being against each other can only make sense if we know something about the two candidates. If I tell you X and Y ran for office and God chose X, I am not telling a story. There is no point. It is useless information.

To the contrary, the replacement of Judas by Matthias may be construed as serving at least three very distinct purposes:

1. It fulfills or otherwise reflects Psalm 69.25; 109.8.
2. It is an object lesson in the efficacy of the principle laid out in Proverbs 16.33.
3. It explains more fully why some Christian sources (Paul, Ascension of Isaiah, gospel of Peter) speak of the twelve after the resurrection while other sources (Matthew, Mark 16.9-20, Luke itself) speak of the eleven. IOW, two postresurrectional counts were circulating by the time this episode was published, and this episode serves to explain (harmonize) both.

Any one of these reasons is enough to render censorship an unnecessary hypothesis; the three together are formidable. The author had no reason ever to mention Matthias again (though his currency in gnostic circles may have been reason enough at that) once the above points were satisfied.

This is an illustration, BTW, of the flaw in the argument from ignorance; I cannot imagine X happening without Y, so if X happened then Y must be the case.

Ben.

[the_cave]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

As Claude Levy Strauss demonstrated in "The Raw and the Cooked," primitive narrative is structured by binary opposites.

Well, maybe Levy-Strauss is not the end-all and be-all of literary criticism, but he can be useful.

The suppression of one side of the binary opposites often make the narrative appear to be a kind of news reporting. We must recognize that such news reporting was not invented until the 18th century with the invention of newspapers. When we get this pseudo newsreporting, we must look for the binary aspects that have been suppressed.

Instead, I think Luke was just trying to mimic the style of his model, Josephus. He did a poor job of it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying. (I also think Luke used Hegesippus, but that's another discussion.)

In the case of the tale where Judas and Barnabas' actions in regard to buying and selling land are contrasted, we are also getting the tale of Ananias and his unnamed wife added. This story has no real link to anything else in the text, (Who is Ananias anyway?) so we can be sure that it is simply being added as a commentary on Barnabas' actions.

True, though I think the names must have some symbolic meaning for the reader that we might never understand.

In any case the editor's addition of the Ananias story is simply the editor's way of warning people not to cheat the church.

Right, but this then uses up the Barnabas contrast.

We may suppose that he had the same thing in mind when he added Judas' death to the story. It is consistent with the author's belief/hope that whoever steals from the church will be struck dead by God.

But--notice that Matthew (and Papias) records Judas' death as well. So Judas' death must have already been in Luke's source.

This is not an element in the original story. We can know this because the death of Judas would have meant no election, but a simple replacement choice. The election between two different, but indistinguishable characters appears as a news report and does not contain the necessary narrative binary opposition element.

I am not so sure about this. Who would have made the replacement choice, and why wouldn't it have been a kind of election? Also, Luke could have been drawing on a source that had more information about the candidates. And maybe the reader would have known more about the personalities than we do. In other words, there are other possibilities.

In the original story, we had the simple binary opposition of Judas stealing money from the church to buy land for himself and Barnabas selling his own land to give money to the church.

But why assume the original was about an election at all? Maybe in the original, Judas simply died (just like Ananias) as a sign of God's punishment. Note that the information about Judas' land and Barnabas' land is separated by three chapters in Acts--if there was an underlying story, it's been pretty severely tampered with. If the original story was just about Judas and Barnabas and some land, there's no need to assume that there was any election at all. The punishment was death, just like for Ananias--not an election loss.

Barnabas loses the election, but goes on to be an important apostle, whereas Matthias, the winner, is never mentioned again. Barnabas hardly seems to have suffered at all, despite losing the election.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the hypothesis.

25 Let their habitation be desolate; Let none dwell in their tents.

105: 6 Set thou a wicked man over him; And let an adversary stand at his right hand.

7 When he is judged, let him come forth guilty; And let his prayer be turned into sin.

8 Let his days be few; And let another take his office.

It is hard to believe that anybody would have connected these passages with the election in Acts unless they had been told it was a reference to them. We would have to imagine that the author was writing specifically for an elite Jewish audience who knew the scriptures so well that they could pick out a single line with only the most oblique references. The rest of Acts gives us no indication that the author is writing for such an audience.

2. Proverbs. 33 The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.

This works just as well with my interpretation as with a different one. As I noted casting the lot is the same as saying "Let God do the choosing". It emphasizes the importance of the text continuing with the adventures of the elected apostle.

3. In some manuscript texts the election refers to the election of the 11th apostle, in some to the 12th apostle and in some to just an apostle. So it harmonizes nothing.

When we consider that the election is part of a text that tells us about the adventures of Barnabas and we have another text that tells us that Barnabas was Matthias, and yet we have no further adventures of Matthias, censorship remains the most likely reason for explaining this narrative failure. If I tell you that John McCain was elected president in 2008 and then go on to talk about how Barack Obama took the oath of oath, we may see my substitution of John McCain either as a mistake or a deliberate but failed attempt to change history. Assuming that John McCain was elected President and the narrator was satisfied not to explain how that happened and still Obama took the oath of office seems illogical.

I do not think we should assume that the author had some obscure, mysterious unknown purpose in causing a narrative failure. Especially when assuming censorship is the simplest, most reasonable and clearest explanation. The author wanted to use the Barnabas text, but did not want Barnabas credited as one of the apostles.

Incidentally, I think it is interesting that Tertullian gives Barnabas credit for Hebrews:

but I will even because of the super-
abundance add a testomony from one of the companions of the Apostles,
who can confirm with almost the same authority the discipline of
the first masters.For there is even an epistle to the Hebrews,
written by Barnabas, who has been authorized by God sufficiently,
because St. Paul has mentioned him at his own side in observance of
abstinence, 'for I only and Barnabas, have we not power to
forbear working.' At any rate this epistle of Barnabas is more
accepted by the churches, than that apocryphal "Pastor" of the
adulterers. (de pudicitia. 28)
Still, Tertullian only calls him "a companion to the Apostles"

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

To the contrary, the replacement of Judas by Matthias may be construed as serving at least three very distinct purposes:



1. It fulfills or otherwise reflects Psalm 69.25; 109.8.
2. It is an object lesson in the efficacy of the principle laid out in Proverbs 16.33.
3. It explains more fully why some Christian sources (Paul, Ascension of Isaiah, gospel of Peter) speak of the twelve after the resurrection while other sources (Matthew, Mark 16.9-20, Luke itself) speak of the eleven. IOW, two postresurrectional counts were circulating by the time this episode was published, and this episode serves to explain (harmonize) both.

Any one of these reasons is enough to render censorship an unnecessary hypothesis; the three together are formidable. The author had no reason ever to mention Matthias again (though his currency in gnostic circles may have been reason enough at that) once the above points were satisfied.

This is an illustration, BTW, of the flaw in the argument from ignorance; I cannot imagine X happening without Y, so if X happened then Y must be the case.

Ben.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It is hard to believe that anybody would have connected these passages with the election in Acts unless they had been told it was a reference to them. We would have to imagine that the author was writing specifically for an elite Jewish audience who knew the scriptures so well that they could pick out a single line with only the most oblique references.

Quite the opposite; the author specifically quotes the relevant passages; he does not expect his readers to pick them out on their own.

Proverbs. 33 The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.

This works just as well with my interpretation as with a different one.

No, your interpretation required that the men either selected or deselected in this process be given attributes that would make the selection or deselection meaningful. If the main point is the selection itself (as in Proverbs 16.33), then such attributes are no longer necessary to make sense of the incident. It the process of selection (the lot) that makes the incident click, not the attributes of each man.

In some manuscript texts the election refers to the election of the 11th apostle, in some to the 12th apostle and in some to just an apostle. So it harmonizes nothing.

I do not know what you mean here. Matthew and Mark have 11 apostles after the resurrection; other sources have 12. Acts has 11 being augmented up to 12, rendering both kinds of sources correct. That is harmonization.

If I tell you that John McCain was elected president in 2008 and then go on to talk about how Barack Obama took the oath of oath, we may see my substitution of John McCain either as a mistake or a deliberate but failed attempt to change history.

Barnabas having an adventure or two does not equate taking an oath of office.

I do not think we should assume that the author had some obscure, mysterious unknown purpose in causing a narrative failure.

Nor do I. I gave several nonobscure, nonmysterious purposes.

Especially when assuming censorship is the simplest, most reasonable and clearest explanation.

It simply is not. Demonstrating censorship requires more than a narrative jolt.

The author wanted to use the Barnabas text, but did not want Barnabas credited as one of the apostles.

Then the author must have been incompetent; he explicitly calls Barnabas and Paul apostles later in the text.

Ben.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

we have consistent references to Barnabas and Saul until chapter 14, where Paul suddenly becomes the leading figure.

Paul never met Jesus, and arrived in jerusalem decades after his death. Paul was imprisoned in Ceasarea in 68 CE, then sent to Rome for his trial and was crucified with a spear along with a bunch of other bad Jews.

Instead we have a satisfying narrative where the man elected to replace Judas goes on to spread the glory and message of the church to the gentiles.

Churches never existed at this time, nor Synagogues - till well past 70 CE.

As we know from 1:18, the last thing that Judas did was the exact opposite, taking the money (either from the church or for betraying Jesus) and buying a field with it. The mention that he sold his own field and gave the money to the church really only makes sense inside of a narrative where he has replaced Judas as the twelfth disciple.

Isn't everything Jewish always the bad guy - otherwise the entire NT story goes belly up!? If Judas was a bad guy, it surely cannot be because he flaunted his beliefs and nation, as the Gospels wants to propose. Here, one looses either way and cannot win either way either.

If we take this suggestion that in the original text,

There's no original texts! 400 years thereafter, in a Latin writ, with no historical evidence and no Hebrew, is not so original - if its speaking about the Hebrews. Looks like the Europeans were not stiff necked - no proof was demanded.

Barnabas was the main character who replaced Judas, we can see that Luke probably used at least one text where Barnabas was the main character.

There was no trial by the Romans of Jesus - and you have no proof outside of the Gospels there was one. No Roman or Hebrew archives of it either. Alarm bells must go up here. In fact, there is only one pivotal issue here: how would Jesus have survived the hovering Roman decree of Heresy - when 1.2 million other Jews did not? Fact is, Rome never cared who was a Messiah - but that a Messiah was even mentioned. Fact is, but hardly touched by the Gospels, if Jesus refused to worship a divine Roman Emperors' statue 3 times a day - he would not have survived anyways - making the notion of a sacrfice somewhat superfluous when the true, historical premise is confronted. The fundamental things apply?

Since the conversion of the Cypiot Proconsul Sergius Paulus to Christianity

Christianity or the term Christ emerged only after 174 CE - and the Nasserites were a Jewish group at this time: so what did Paul convert from and to? Paul was already a non-believing 3rd generation secularised Greek. He was expelled from the then small Nasserite group who, unlike Paul, did know Jesus first hand - and vehemently rejected the Pauline views. Europe embraced the Pauline doctrines, which were already prevalent for centuries in Europe via the Greeks - Europeans never once demanded proof of anything put to them. But I believe the pre-christian Europeans never had a choice here: the emergent Roman Catholicism took more than the prefix of a Roman name - the Heresy factor continued more fastediously into an art form, mass murdering innocent souls a 1000 fold more than Rome could muster. Rome lost - Israel won the fight for the freedom of belief. Don't be so shy of the truth.

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE - IF ITS EVER ACKNOWLEDGED.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Ben,

The codez Bezae has 12 apostles in 1:26, while other manuscripts say 11 apostles, and as I recall some simply leave out the number of apostles altogether.

I am not sure where the author quotes the relevant passages. Can you point them out?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quite the opposite; the author specifically quotes the relevant passages; he does not expect his readers to pick them out on their own.



No, your interpretation required that the men either selected or deselected in this process be given attributes that would make the selection or deselection meaningful. If the main point is the selection itself (as in Proverbs 16.33), then such attributes are no longer necessary to make sense of the incident. It the process of selection (the lot) that makes the incident click, not the attributes of each man.



I do not know what you mean here. Matthew and Mark have 11 apostles after the resurrection; other sources have 12. Acts has 11 being augmented up to 12, rendering both kinds of sources correct. That is harmonization.



Barnabas having an adventure or two does not equate taking an oath of office.



Nor do I. I gave several nonobscure, nonmysterious purposes.



It simply is not. Demonstrating censorship requires more than a narrative jolt.

Then the author must have been incompetent; he explicitly calls Barnabas and Paul apostles later in the text.

Ben.

[the_cave]

Bezae does not say the election was for the 11th apostle; it says that the winner was included with the Twelve. Canonical Acts says he was included with the Eleven:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jm...ezae#PPA109,M1

Note the odd difference in terminology:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jm...ezae#PPA115,M1

I think that to be "reckoned with the Twelve" could simply mean that the winner was included in the group of "The Twelve"--it's the name of a group, even if they're missing a member. It doesn't mean he was the 13th disciple. And, after Matthias (or Barnabas) was elected, they numbered twelve again. Unclear whether canonical Acts is an attempted clarification of this, or the other way around.

As for the Recognitions, maybe the author is just confused by the phrasing of Ac 1:23

os epeklhqh ioustos kai maqqian

Misreading it to say "called 'Barnabas' and 'Matthias'"? Thinking that the other candidate was left unnamed? Just a hunch, it's hard to tell.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

The codez Bezae has 12 apostles in 1:26, while other manuscripts say 11 apostles, and as I recall some simply leave out the number of apostles altogether.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I am not sure where the author quotes the relevant passages. Can you point them out?

Acts 1.20 quotes the relevant psalms. The writer did not leave it to the reader to have to figure out where to find the scriptural referents.

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

The codez Bezae has 12 apostles in 1:26, while other manuscripts say 11 apostles, and as I recall some simply leave out the number of apostles altogether.

I'm not aware of manuscripts that leave out the number of apostles altogether in 1:26. (There are (non-Greek) manuscripts that try and have it both ways reading he was counted among the eleven apostles as the twelth but this is rather different)

Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you. Yes, I believe Bezae is the only manuscript that has the number 12.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not aware of manuscripts that leave out the number of apostles altogether in 1:26. (There are (non-Greek) manuscripts that try and have it both ways reading he was counted among the eleven apostles as the twelth but this is rather different)

Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Ben,

I would maintain that explaining narrative failure by the cleverness of the author is like explaining a car accident by the bravery of the driver. Yes, the author may have been clever and wanted to make an obscure point for a specific group of readers, but presumably the author could have done that without causing a narrative collapse. In the same way a driver in an auto accident could have presumably found another way to to prove his/her bravery without crashing their car in a seemingly reckless and unplanned manner.

In a previous post I noted four reasons to believe that Barnabas replaced Judas in the original text.

1. The codex Bezae names him as a candidate for Judas' office.
2. The narrative of Acts is concerned with Barnabas, but not with Matthias, which we would expect if Barnabas was the replacement for Judas
3. Barnabas reverses Judas' buying a field with private money and sells his field to raise money for the Church.
4. The Recognitions of Clement identify him as Matthias.

I would like to add to those reasons, a couple of more.

In The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, by Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger (New York, NY: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2006, pg. 129), we read:

Of the successful candidate, it is only known that his name is Matthias and that he presumably fulfils the stipulated condition. No-one ever speaks of him again in Acts. In contrast, rather more is said of the candidate who is named first, Joseph. It is odd that the rejected candidate should be the one named first and described more fully than the other. The implication in the Bezan text of the fuller, positive information concerning Joseph is that he was Peter’s preferred choice.
Joseph is cited along with two other names, the latter of which is the Latin ((….Justus….) of the Hebrew word ‘tsadik’ (…’righteous), the highest ethical quality that a Jew was exhorted to achieve. According to Codex Bezae (by no means alone, see selling his field (note the contrast with Judas!) at 4.36. There, Luke provides the translation of this name, given by the apostles as ‘the Son of Encouragement’...

The combination of the names, Joseph/Son of Encouragement/the Righteous is a clue that the first candidate is being assimilated with the patriarch Joseph because of what the latter had come to stand for…In the intertestamental literature, the character of Joseph is considerably developed compared with the biblical account: he is the heroic figure without fault or failing, the supreme example of a wise, pious and generous man, who isplayed impeccable conduct even when living in exile in Egypt. He serves as an example of purity for Jews among foreigners, at the same time as being their representative. Two titles are especially associated with him: Joseph the Righteous (cf. r Macc.2.2) and Joseph the Son of Encouragement (cf. Gen. 50. 15-21 and the Rabbinic Midrash Gen
R.C. IX2)

Barnabus is given a honorary name - Josephus and two honorary titles (The Just one and Son of Encouragement). No information is given about Matthias.

Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger see the problem, but give an explanation that presumes that a real event is being described. From pg. 134:

The result of the election is difficult to reconcile with the Alexandrian reading of 1.23, for it is inexplicable that an assembly should be aware of the qualities of the first candidate (‘the Righteous’) and then without further comment go on to elect the second who was presented without any kind of qualifying description. ..the decision of the disciples could be understood as a vote against Peter’s preferred choice.

This assumes that the author is describing a real event, but does not explain the narrative failure. Presumably the author would have explained that the apostles' had voted against Peter's preferred choice if that is what he wanted the reader to understand. His failure to explain this would have to be considered an additional narrative failure. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Barnabas won the election in the earlier text and the author is erasing that fact from the narrative does not assume a real election (although one might have taken place) but does explain the narrative failure. The narrative failure takes place because the author is only interested in erasing the victory of Barnabas from the story.

The connection of Barnabas and Matthias or the single identity of the two
is also made more possible with this information from the article Barnabas and the Gospels:Was There an Early Gospel of Barnabas? by R. Blackhirst
(JHC 7/1 (Spring 2000), 1-22.) The author points out that in two separate lists, the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Matthias are put together.

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...

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

These two lists have nothing in common except that they list the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Matthias together. This can hardly be a coincidence. It suggests that some kind of close relationship must have been
perceived between Barnabas and Matthias.

Blackhirst further notes the coincidence of name changing regarding both:

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.

We now have six reasons to suspect that Barnabas replaced Judas

1. The codex Bezae names him as a candidate for Judas' office.
2. The narrative of Acts is concerned with Barnabas, but not with Matthias, which we would expect if Barnabas was the replacement for Judas
3. Barnabas reverses Judas' buying a field with private money and sells his field to raise money for the Church.
4. The Recognitions of Clement identify him as Matthias.
5. In the Codex Bezae, Barnabas is given the honorary name of Joseph and the honorary names of "The Just one" and "Son of Encouragement." Matthias is given no names or titles, so there is no reason why he should have won and no explanation for why he won.
6. Two independent ancient lists associate the Gospel of Barnabas with the Gospel of Matthias.

Tomorrow, I'll bring more support for the hypothesis.

Warmly,

Philosopoher Jay

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quite the opposite; the author specifically quotes the relevant passages; he does not expect his readers to pick them out on their own.
No, your interpretation required that the men either selected or deselected in this process be given attributes that would make the selection or deselection meaningful. If the main point is the selection itself (as in Proverbs 16.33), then such attributes are no longer necessary to make sense of the incident. It the process of selection (the lot) that makes the incident click, not the attributes of each man...

{snip}...
Ben.

[Amaleq13]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

These two lists have nothing in common except that they list the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Matthias together.

What do you mean by "together" here?

How are the two "together" in the list as opposed to both just being part of the list? Or is that all you mean?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

Here is the promised additional reasons to suspect Barnabas replaced Judas as the 12th apostle.

Note this text at 15.22:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely , Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren

We know that Barsabbas is the name used in 1:26 as the candidate to replace Judas. Since Codex Bezae has Barnabas at 1:26, we may presume that Barsabbas is also just a disguise/mistake for Barnabas at 15:22. The term Barsabbas is never used again. Judas and Silas are referenced at 15:32, and then disappear from the narrative.

In the Codex Bezae, we again have a substitute for the name Barsabbas. This time, instead of Barnabas, it is Barabbas. Again, the Codex Bezae is telling us that name Barsabbas was not the name in the original text. The name is also spelled Barsabas in some Greek Texts which puts it even closer to Barnabas. Again it would be quite a fantastic coincidence having a man named Barnabas and a man named Barsabas both sent on the same mission.

Besides the Codex Bezae, the narrative itself is telling us that something is wrong. Why do the Apostles and elders select Judas B. and Silas to deliver a message along with Barnabas and Paul who have just gotten back from Antioch and are returning again. Judas B. and Silas serve no function in the narrative. They disappear and play no role in the narrative afterwards.

What would make sense is for the the Apostles and Elders to send the letter with Barnabas and Saul.

Now note this from Wikipedia:

There is some disagreement over the proper form of his name: he is consistently called "Silas" in Acts, but the Latin Silvanus, which means "of the forest", is always used by Paul and in the First Epistle of Peter; it may be that "Silvanus" is the Romanized version of the original "Silas", or that "Silas" is the Greek nickname for "Silvanus". Fitzmyer points out that Silas is the Greek version of the Aramaic "Seila", a version of the Hebrew "Saul", which is attested in Palmyrene inscriptions.

Silas is the Greek version of Saul. Up till 13:12 in acts, we are encountering Barnabas and Saul. So it seems that 15:22 is telling us that the apostles sent leading men Barsabbas/Barabbas and Saul to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch to deliver a letter.

This is incredible nonsense. It is as if someone said that Batman and Robin went with the Dark Night (Sic) and the Boy Wonder to fight the Joker. The writer would appear to either not know that the Dark Knight is another name for Batman or that the Boy Wonder is another name for Robin.

We must presume that the narrative made sense originally and that Judas Barsabbas/Barabbas and Silas were orignally Barnabas and Saul. Barnabas and Saul were sent to deliver letters to Antioch.

We may conjecture that the name Judas Barsabbas/Barabbas probably comes from the line at 15:22 originally saying

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely , the apostle who replaced Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren

"The words the apostle who replaced" have been exercised. This would explain the name Judas in this sentence, which makes no sense otherwise.

The fact that the text is again trying to substitute Barsabbas for Barnabas and the fact that the name Judas is found in proximity to Barsabbas/Barabbas or Barnabas indicates a further connection between Judas and Barnabas.

Thus reasons 7 and 8 should be.

7. The text attempts in chapter 15 to make us believe that Barsabbas/Barabbas and Silas are different from Barnabas and Saul, but there is no reason to bring in these separate characters. They serve no function in the story more than Barnabas and Silas serve. This must make us suspect that the text is trying to scam us in some regard.
8. Judas Barsabbas at 15:22 again points to a connection between Judas and Barnabas.

Warmly,

Philosophr Jay

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quite the opposite; the author specifically quotes the relevant passages; he does not expect his readers to pick them out on their own.
No, your interpretation required that the men either selected or deselected in this process be given attributes that would make the selection or deselection meaningful. If the main point is the selection itself (as in Proverbs 16.33), then such attributes are no longer necessary to make sense of the incident. It the process of selection (the lot) that makes the incident click, not the attributes of each man...

{snip}...
Ben.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Amaleq13,

I mean the books are next to each other on the lists. They are the only two books that are together on both lists.

Here the list in the Gelasian Decree (from http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htmm [Thanks, Roger]):

the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew apocrypha
the Gospels which Lucianus forged apocrypha
the Gospels which Hesychius forged apocrypha
the book on the infancy of the saviour apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphus
all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi
the book which is called the Foundation apocryphus
the book which is called the Treasure apocryphus
the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos apocryphus
the cento on Christ put together in Virgilian verses apocryphum
the book which is called the Acts of Thecla and Paul apocryphus
the book which is called Nepos's apocryphus
the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy Sixtus apocryphus
the Revelation which is called Paul's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Thomas's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Stephen's apocrypha
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Adam apocryphus
the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon apocryphus
the book which is called the Testament of Job apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Origen apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of holy Cyprian apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre apocryphus
the book which is called the Lots of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the grave-plate (?) of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the canons of the apostles apocryphus
the book Physiologus written by heretics and prefixed with the name of blessed Ambrose apocryphus
the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha
the works of Tertullian apocrypha
the works of Lactantius also known as Firmianus apocrypha
the works of Africanus apocrypha
the works of Postumianus and Gallus apocrypha
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla apocrypha
the works of Faustus the Manichaean apocrypha
the works of Commodian apocrypha
the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria apocrypha
the works of Thascius Cyprianus apocrypha
the works of Arnobius apocrypha
the works of Tichonius apocrypha
the works of Cassian the Gallic priest apocrypha
the works of Victorinus of Pettau apocrypha
the works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocrypha
the works of Frumentius Caecus apocrypha
the cento on Christ stitched together from verses of Virgil apocryphum
the Letter from Jesus to Abgar apocrypha
the Letter of Abgar to Jesus apocrypha
the Passion of Cyricus and Julitta apocrypha
the Passion of Georgius apocrypha
the writing which is called the Interdiction of Solomon apocrypha
all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels as they pretend but are written in the names of great demons apocrypha

Here is the mentions in the List of the sixty (http://www.ntcanon.org/Sixty_Canonical_Books.shtml):

1. Adam
2. Enoch
3. Lamech
4. The Patriarchs
5. The Prayer of Joseph
6. Eldad and Modad
7. The Testament of Moses
8. The Assumption of Moses
9. The Psalms of Solomon
10. The Revelation of Elias
11. The Vision of Isaiah
12. The Revelation of Zephaniah
13. The Revelation of Zechariah
14. The Revelation of Ezra
15. The History of James
16. The Revelation of Peter
17. The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
18. The Epistle of Barnabas
19. The Acts of Paul
20. The Revelation of Paul
21. The Teaching of Clement
22. The Teaching of Ignatius
23. The Teaching of Polycarp
24. The Gospel according to Barnabas
25. The Gospel according to Matthias

If they were together on just one list, we could dismiss this as a coincidence, but the fact that the only two lists in antiquity list them and only them together demands an explanation. Their inclusion on both lists together suggests to me that they must have been circulating together.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

What do you mean by "together" here?

How are the two "together" in the list as opposed to both just being part of the list? Or is that all you mean?

[the_cave]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We know that Barsabbas is the name used in 1:26 as the candidate to replace Judas. Since Codex Bezae has Barnabas at 1:26, we may presume that Barsabbas is also just a disguise/mistake for Barnabas at 15:22.

No, we may not. We might possibly be able to assume that for 1:26, but certainly not for 15:22. For one thing, there is no textual evidence for it that I'm aware of. It's more likely, based on the evidence, that "Barsabbas" (or possibly "Barabbas" as in Bezae) is a real name, but was the name of a different apostle. In fact, that other apostle isn't named Joseph either, as Acts gives his other name as "Judas". So, Joseph Barnabas and Judas Barsabbas/Barabbas are more likely different people.

In the Codex Bezae, we again have a substitute for the name Barsabbas. This time, instead of Barnabas, it is Barabbas. Again, the Codex Bezae is telling us that name Barsabbas was not the name in the original text.

Don't assume Bezae is correct just because it is different. I'm sure Bezae has its own idiosyncrasies.

Again it would be quite a fantastic coincidence having a man named Barnabas and a man named Barsabas both sent on the same mission.

But possibly not such a coincidence if it were "Barnabas" and "Barsabbas" or "Barabbas".

Judas B. and Silas serve no function in the narrative. They disappear and play no role in the narrative afterwards.

What are you talking about? Silas becomes Paul's companion all the way through Acts 18.

What would make sense is for the the Apostles and Elders to send the letter with Barnabas and Saul.

Maybe, but this doesn't mean that "Judas Bar(s)abbas" is the same person as Joseph Barnabas. Luke could have just confused the two.

Silas is the Greek version of Saul. Up till 13:12 in acts, we are encountering Barnabas and Saul. So it seems that 15:22 is telling us that the apostles sent leading men Barsabbas/Barabbas and Saul to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch to deliver a letter.

You're taking Luke at face value, and making the assumption that Saul is Paul. I'm surprised you accept this noncritically.

If Silas is a Saul (and I have thought for a while that this is a distinct possibility), then Saul already has a Latin name. He doesn't need "Paul". Meaning...Saul and Paul are two different people. Who was Paul and where did he come from? We don't know (yet).

So there probably are four people here--Joseph Barnabas, Judas Bar(s)abbas, Saul/Silas, and Paul.