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:

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

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

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?

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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