### ACTS OF ST BARNABAS
Apocryphal book composed at the end of the 5th century.
In 1698, D. Papebroch published for the first time, from the Greek Vatican Codex 1667, *Acta et passio Barnabae in Cypro*, with the respective Latin version by Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (*Acta SS. Junii*, II, Antwerp ed. 1698, pp. 431-36). The Greek edition by C. von Tischendorf, *Acta apostolorum apocrypha*, Leipzig 1851, pp. xxvi-xxx, 64-74, also utilized the Paris Codex 1470. However, the credit for the critical edition, based on four other manuscripts as well, belongs to M. Bonnet, *Acta apostolorum apocrypha*, II, ibid. 1903, pp. XXVII ff., 292-302.
As the author of these *Ieplodoi xal maptoioy toi aiyoi Bapvabai toi oposoioi* is identified John Mark, cousin of B., first assistant to Cyril, high priest of Jupiter, and, after his baptism in Iconium, attached to the service of Paul, B., and Silas. After recounting the lively discussion between Paul and B. (cf. Acts 15:37-39), it proceeds to extol B.’s activity in Cyprus. There he was cruelly tormented by the Jews of the island and then burned alive. Mark managed to collect and conceal the relics “together with the Gospel received from Matthew,” then fled to Egypt where he continued his work of evangelization. Baronius (*Annales*, ad annum 51, n. 51) severely defined it as a “nebul.” From the very precise topographical information, one might perhaps deduce the Cypriot origin of these Acts towards the end of the 5th century.
**
---
### EPISTLE OF ST BARNABAS
Apocryphal work of the New Testament, probably composed towards the end of the 1st century.
1. **Content.** – It aims (1:4-5) to lead the faithful to a perfect knowledge of Christianity. Besides the introduction (ch. 1) and conclusion (ch. 21), it comprises two unequal parts, clearly distinguished by the author himself. The first (chs. 2-17) is of a didactic-polemical character. It exhorts to the practice of virtue, contrasting it with sacrifices (ch. 2) and fasts of the Old Testament, now abrogated (ch. 3), since the judgment is near (ch. 4). It then illustrates the redemption accomplished by Christ through his passion (ch. 5), foretold by the prophets (ch. 6), prefigured by the symbols (words, deeds, rites, various prescriptions) of the Mosaic law, which the Jews have wrongly understood literally (chs. 7-17). This is followed by a moral section: the doctrine of the two ways (ch. 18), very similar to that of the *Didache* (q.v.; chs. 1-5): the way of light, i.e., of virtue (ch. 19), and the way of darkness, i.e., of vice (ch. 20). In the concluding exhortation, it reminds that the day of the Lord is near (ch. 21).
2. **Author.** – It is attributed to B. by manuscript tradition (mainly the Sinaitic Codex of the Bible, 4th century, and the Jerusalem Codex of the *Didache*, 11th century) and by ancient ecclesiastical writers: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Serapion of Thmuis, Eusebius of Caesarea (doubtfully). Today this attribution is generally rejected (supported by J. D. Burger, in *Museum Helveticum* 1946, pp. 180-193, assigns it to 70-75), because the writing was not included in the New Testament canon, because of its exclusively allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, contrary to the doctrine of St. Paul, of whom B. was a companion, and because it postdates B., who probably died no later than AD 70. It was likely written by a Christian converted from Judaism, living in the Alexandrian environment where biblical allegorism flourished. It was composed after AD 70, since it alludes to the destruction of the Temple, and before AD 170, when Celsus implicitly mentioned it (Origen, *Contra Celsum*, I, 63). The interpretation of a prophecy of Daniel, referring to the Roman Empire (4:3-10), leads most modern critics to place the work under the reign of Nerva (18 Sept. 96 – 25 Jan. 98). According to L. Williams in *Journal of Theol. Stud.*, 1933, p. 337 sq., it was composed before AD 100. Others (thus Stählin), due to a literal allusion to the rebuilding of the Temple (16:4), place it in AD 130. Cf. also Schoeps in *Conject. Neotestamentica*, VI, pp. 3, 18 (shortly after the Bar Kokhba revolt).
3. **Doctrine.** – As mentioned, the pseudo-Barnabas professes allegorism in biblical exegesis, not only seeing in the entire Old Testament types of Christ and the Church, but denying altogether the literal sense (especially 10:9-12). The divinity of Christ is clearly affirmed (4:12; 5:5-10; 6:12; 7:2; 12:10 sq.). It dwells at length on the redemption accomplished by Christ’s sacrifice to obtain for us the forgiveness of sins and new life. It speaks extensively of Baptism. In its eschatology, it affirms that the world will last six thousand years, that the end is near, that in the seventh millennium God will rest, and in the eighth another world begins (4:3; 15; 21:3).
**
---
### GOSPEL OF ST BARNABAS
Apocryphal work, mentioned only in two collections of canonical and apocryphal books, of Gnostic origin.
The so-called *Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis* cites the *Evangelium secundum Barnabam* (*PL* 59, 162, 175 sq.; E. von Dobschütz [*Texte und Untersuchungen*, 38, IV], Leipzig 1912); the other mention is in a Greek list of 60 canonical books (T. Zahn, *Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons*, II, Erlangen 1890, p. 292). The common opinion is that no trace of it remains; but some authors claim to have identified two brief texts (e.g., E. Hennecke, *Neutestamentliche Apokryphen*, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1924, p. 64, note 2).
From the 14th-16th centuries we have Italian manuscripts (in the libraries of The Hague and Vienna) containing a *Gospel of Barnabas*, not to be confused with the ancient Gnostic one. The author is an Italian who, having converted from Christianity to Islam, in opposition to the doctrine of St. Paul, sought to prove with the authority of B. that Jesus was a prophet and not the Son of God, and that the true Messiah was Muhammad. “C'est un curieux monument d'un étrange état d'âme” (*Rev. bibl.*, new series, 5 [1908], p. 300).
**