LiTERATCRE.— Artt. in BDB on ' Barjesus ' (Massie) and ' Magic ' ( Whitehouse), and in EBi (Schmiedel) on ' Barjesus ' ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Trare'.ler, London, 1895, pp. 75- 8S (cf. Was Christ horn in Bethlehem .2, do. 1898, p. 54) ; C. v, Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, ifi do. 1897, pp. 80, 111, 240, 274 ; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Edinburg-h, 1897, pp. 174-176; EGT on ' Acts,' 1900, p. 2S7. J. E. ROBERTS.
138
EARN ABAS
BARXABAS
BARNABAS (otherwise Joses [AV] or Joseph [RV]). — A meniLier of the primitive Church of Jerusalem and a close associate of Paul in the early years of his Christian career. He is not to be identified with Joseph called Barsabbas (Ac 1^*), though he is sometimes substituted for him by ecclesiastical writers (see Joseph [Barsabbas]). Information regarding him is mostly derived from Acts. _ According to 4^'', the surname Barnabas was given him by the apostles, presumably as an honourable distinction, and signifies ' son of con- solation or exhortation ' (vlbs irapaKX-qaeois = Aram. bar, ' son,' and Heb. root which appears in ndbhi', ' prophet '). This etymology draws upon two ditt'erent languages, and leaves the terminal form unexplained. Besides, the name may have been self-assumed, in accordance with a common practice of the Jews in their intercourse with the Gentile W'Orld. Other derivations therefore have been proposed, which give ' the son of Nebo,' ' the son of peace' (=Aram. bar n'^vdhdh), etc., as the meaning. In any case, the statement of Acts implies that Barnabas was noted for his prophetic or preaching gifts ; and comparison with 14'^ prob- ably warrants the furtlier inference that he was more fluent in Aramaic than in Greek.
In Ac 4^"'- Barnabas is introduced as a Levite of Cyprus, who sold land that he possessed, and devoted the proceeds to the use of the Church. No other Levite is mentioned by name in the NT. His ownership of land, in contravention of the law (Dt 10^) whicli excluded Levi from part or inherit- ance with his brethren, is not surprising, as in later times this Deuteronomic prohibition cannot have been enforced (Jer 32^"'''' ; Jos. Vita, 76). From Cyprus the youthful Barnabas may have passed over to the neighbouring Tarsus, famous in his time for its culture as well as its commerce, and there made the acquaintance of Paul. At any rate, he appeared as his friend, and stood sponsor for him on his first visit to Jerusalem, when other members of the Church regarded him with distrust (9J6f.)_ Thereafter Paul retired to Tarsus, but Barnabas remained in Jerusalem till tidings reached the mother Church of the success of the gospel in Antiocii, when he was commissioned to visit that city and confirm the disciples. Having souglit out Paul at Tarsus, he induceil him to join him in his work in Antioch. After a year of service there, the two fellow-labourers were dis- patched to Jerusalem with alms for the needy Christians of Judaja (U-^-s"). Soon after their return to Antioch they were solemnly set apart by the Churcli for special evangelization work, and started on what is usually called the first missionary journey, in the course of which they visited Cyprus and the southern parts of Asia Minor, accompanied as far as Perga in PamphyJia by John Mark (q.v.)—a. relative of Barnabas (Col 4i»)— whom they had brought with them from Jerusalem. In the account of the journey, the independent character of Paul appears in the precedence gradually accorded him over Barnabas, whose name has previously had first place in the narrative, probably because he had been better known in Antioch and Cyprus. Following upon this mission came a prolonged stay at Antioch, broken at length by another visit to Jerusalem, in consequence of dissensions that had arisen over the necessity of circumcision. A judgment on this question having been obtained from the leaders of the mother Church met in Council, Paul and Barnabas repaired again to Antioch, and began to consult about another missionary journey. As Barnabas, iiowever, insisted on taking Mark with them, in spite of liis defection on tiie previous journey, a sharp contention took place between them, witli tlie result that Paul chose Silas as his
companion, and proceeded to Syria and Cilicia, while Barnabas set sail with Mark for Cyprus (12-5-15^'). There is no further notice of Barnabas in Acts.
Galatians (chs. 1-2) partly covers the same ground as Acts, but between the two narratives a discrepancy appears which has provoked much discussion. Reviewing his association with the Church of Jerusalem, Paul asserts tliat it did not extend beyond two visits. One of these (1'**) seems to have been the occasion of his introduction by Barnabas, and the other (2^) has usually been identified with the visit to the Council ; but, in that case, what becomes of the intervening visit in Acts — that on which Paul and Barnabas con- veyed the otterings of the Antiochene Christians ? Its comparative recentness and the asseveration of P* preclude the supposition that it could have been forgotten or passed over by the Apostle. One solution of the ditticulty is obtained by re- jecting entirely the story of this visit in Acts, and taking the rendering of the facts only from Gal. (EBi i. 486). Others endeavour to harmonize the two accounts with a smaller sacrifice of the credi- bility of Acts. Such is the suggestion of Neander, Lightfoot, and others that, while Paul and Barna- bas were both commissioned to carry the contribu- tions from Antioch to Jerusalem, only the latter actually accomplished the journey ; and that the author of Acts, finding the record of the appoint- ment in his sources, naturally assumed that Paul had fulfilled his part of the mission. Such also is the view very generally held that the second and third visits of Acts were rea,lly one and the same — the visit to the Council recorded in Galatians ; but that, as it was undertaken with the twofold object of bearing alms to the poor and discussing circumcision with the leaders of the Church, two accounts of it came into existence which the author of Acts erroneously supposed to refer to separate events. A third form of solution has been advanced by Ramsay and others, whicli would identify the second visit of Gal. with the second visit of Acts. Recently this view has been ably maintained by C. W. Emmet [The Eschato- logical Question in the Gospels, Edinburgh, 1911, p. 191 ti'. ), who also contends that Gal. was written before the third visit of Acts had taken place, that is, before the Council of Jerusalem. On this theory, the accuracy of Acts is fully vindicated, but an early date is required for Galatians, whicli may not be generally conceded. Cf., further, Galatians, Epistle to.