Barnabas , or Bar-nabe ,which means " son of consolation" or " son of exhortation", was a Jew and was born in Cyprus. He was known as Joses , Joseph, but was given this name by the disciples of Jesus. Although  little mention is made of him in the four accepted Gospel , it is evident from some of the other books in the New Testament that he became one of  the leaders of the disciples after Jesus had disappeared it .It was he above all who endeavored to hold to the pure teaching of Jesus and opposed any innovators, notably Paul of Tarsus, Luke, who also wrote the Acts of Apostles , was Paul's Physician and therefore gave Paul's point of view. This explains why Barnabas is only mentioned by him when it is serves to illustrate Paul's story.  Unfortunately , books like The Travels and Teachings of the Apostles were destroyed by the Pauline Church ,once it had adopted the doctrine of Trinity, in its attempts to eliminate any record which contradicted this dogma. Therefore, much that was known about Barnabas and the early Christians has been lost. It is this policy of the Trinitarians which probably indicates why any reference to Barnabas during  Jesus's mission is strangely missing from the four accepted Gospels ; and why Barnabas who, according  to Luke, acquires an importance second to none soon after the disappearance of Jesus , himself disappears from the pages of history as soon as he and Paul have a disagreement and part company.

Barnabas was with Jesus from the very start of his mission. His Gospel clearly demonstrate his great loyalty to Jesus and the love he had for him. Barnabas was not his constant companion, but also absorbed and retained his teaching, so that very soon he must have acquired the reputation, which is attested to so clearly in the Acts, as a man who had the ability to transmit what he had learned from his Master. The name the disciples gave him indicates his power  as a speaker who was a source of solace and encouragement. He was sincere, as well as generous. After meeting Jesus, he sold all that he possessed and gave the money for the use  of the followers of Jesus. The affection Jesus and the disciples had for him is shown in the number of different names by which he was known. When the apostles decided to elect an apostle in the place of Judas from among those who had constantly been with Jesus "beginning from the baptism of John". they selected two people to choose from: "Joseph , called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus : and Mathias" (Acts 1: 22 -23). There is no other Joseph who accompanied Jesus during his life referred to in the New Testament except the one who was popularly known as Barnabas. Thus in all probability Barsabas - who , Goodspeed tells us, once drank a dearly poison but experienced nothing unpleasant - was  none other than Barnabas. If this is so, then it also shows that if Barnabas was not one of the first twelve apostles, he was certainly one of the first seventy disciples. The fact that he was regarded highly enough to be proposed as someone suitable to make up the number of the first apostles to the original twelve is supported by the tradition that as Mary, the mother of Jesus, lay on her deathbed, she called for the apostles, the Barnabas was one  of those who came. Clement of Alexandria always refers to him as  an apostle in his writings

It is likely that Jesus was brought up by the Essene community, and there is a tradition that Barnabas was a student of Gameliel, the greatest teacher of orthodox Judaism at that time. And so the meeting of Jesus and Barnabas meant the fusing together of all that was best in the gnostic teaching of the Essene and the orthodox Judaism of the temple. Doubtless this contributed to the harmonious understanding between them. Since Barnabas was a Levite , he could well have been the commander of the division of the Zealots.

Although so little is known about Barnabas, the latest historical research is slowly uncovering the importance that was his while Jesus was on earth. It is now generally agreed that the Last Supper was held in the house of Barnabas's sister.

Albert Schweitzer in  The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christian Belief  writes :

        It may be inferred from the Acts that the disciples and the believers from Galilee met in. the house of the mother of John Mark, who later accompanied Barnabas and Paul on the First Missionary Journey (Acts 12 : 25) . The meeting place of the believers was the "upper room" ,which means the room situated immediately under the flat roof (Acts 1: 12-14).. It must have been large one to hold the entire company. It was in this room that the believers were "altogether in one place" on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1).  How did it come to be identified with the one in which Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with disciples.
        When Jesus sent two disciples from Bethany to the city with instructions to prepare the Passover meal for him, he told them with a pitcher of water. He would lead them to a house with a large upper room furnished with rugs, where they were to prepare the meal. We owe, this valuable piece of information to the Gospel of Mark (Mark 14: 13-15) , which rests on tradition going back to John Mark . Mathew only relates that Jesus sent the two disciples with directions to inform someone in the city, " The Master saith -' My time is at hand : I keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples'" (Mathew 26 : 8). Theodore Zahn was one of the first to put forward the view that the house of the last meal of Jesus with his disciples was identical with that of John Mark's mother ,in which the disciples met together with the believers from Galilee." (The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christian belief, Albert Schwitzer , p 149)

Although Schweitzer says the house was that of John Mark's mother, he does not remind us that Mark's mother was sister of Barnabas. Since Barnabas had by then sold all that he possessed , it is likely that he stayed with his sister when in Jerusalem , especially if she had a house with a room big enough  for all the disciples to meet in. Perhaps the reason why none of this is clearly stated in the New Testament is because the disciples wished to keep their meeting place a secret at a time when they were being persecuted for their belief.

It might be asked why no mention of Barnabas is made in the descriptions of  the Last Supper in the four accepted Gospels, since clearly he would  have been in the host to any gathering of men in his sister's house. Either mention of him was made, but has been removed, or else he simply was not  present. It is possible that he was unable to be there because he was in prison. It is recorded that a man named Barabbas, with a company of men, attacked a group of  pro-Roman Jews in the fighting  which took place shortly before the feast of the Passover. Although the leader of these Jews was killed, Barabbas was captured and put in jail.

  Heinrich Holtzman, who examined the records of this fighting in detail, says that among those arrested was "the famous Barabbas who was certainly a patriot and political 'prophet' and was tried at almost the same time as Jesus" (Lebuch II , Heinrich Holzmann, pp 256, 376)

Since Barnabas was a Levite and one of Jesus foremost disciples, he could well have been a chief of one of the divisions of the Zealots. These four divisions, as we known from the Dead Sea Scroll, were an integral part of the Essene community and were committed to freeing the land of its foreign aggression and their supporters. Only a band of Zealots could have been capable of an organised attack on the pro-Roman Jews at that time, and thus it may well be that Barabbas and Barnabas were one and same person. It is quite possible that, along with its amendments, the Pauline Church either eradicated, or at least altered, Barnabas's name when he was mentioned in connection with an event which was not part of Paul's story. They could not adopt this procedure every time Barnabas was mentioned in the  books of the New Testament since, as the Acts of the Apostles of indicates, without the support which Barnabas gave Paul in early days of the Church, Paul  may well have had no place in the history of Christianity at all.

There is scant record of what happened to the close followers of Jesus after he had disappeared. It appears that many of them scattered after his supposed crucifixion. After some time they began to regroup in Jerusalem. How many of the twelve disciples and seventy closest followers came back is not known. It is certain, however, that those who did were men of faith, sincerely , and courage, and possessed a very deep love for Jesus. Barnabas's eminence as  a man who had been close to Jesus made him a prominent member of  this small group of disciples. They continued to live as Jews and practice what Jesus had taught them , observing the law of the prophets, which Jesus had come" not to destroy, but to fulfill" (Mathew 5:17). That the teaching of Jesus could ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of them.  They were sincere practicing Jews and were distinguished from their neighbours only by their faith in the message of  Jesus. In theses early days, they did not organise themselves as a separate sect  and did not have a synagogue of their own. There was nothing in the message of Jesus, as understood by them, to necessitate a break with what was clearly the continuance and revivifying affirmation of the guidance which Moses had brought. The conflict between the Jews and the followers of Jesus was started by those Jews  who had adapted Moses's  message to suit their own ends, and who feared, quite correctly,  that to support the followers of Jesus would inevitable lead to their losing the wealth, the power and the position which they enjoyed. The pact which the upper echelon of Jews had made with the Romans, to safeguard their vested interests  and the privileges they had enjoyed for centuries, had necessitated their departing even further from the guidance they had been given . This group of Jews actively supported the Romans in the persecution of those whose actions and words threatened to expose what they had done. Thus it was that a follower of Jesus while a Jew rejected him. It could not have been an easy time for the early followers of Jesus. On the one hand, they were hounded by the Romans who regarded them as a threat political power, and on the other hand they were pursued by the Jews who feared that their own "religious authority" would be undermined by them.

In the years that followed, the gulf between the Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus and those who followed him began to widen. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., the followers of Jesus left the city; and ; by the time of the Bar  Coachaba rebellion in 132 A. D.

The question of the origin of Jesus, his nature and relation to God, which were later to become a source of much convention, were not raised among the first followers of Jesus. That  Jesus was a man who was a prophet and one who had been given many gifts by god , was  accepted without question. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life on earth had led them to modify this certainty. according to Aristides, one of the earliest apologists,  the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic than even that of the Jews.

It was into this circle of sincere followers that Paul of Tarsus walked. He had never met Jesus, nor had he been well acquainted with any of Jesus's closest disciples. He had the reputation of being one of the greatest enemies of Jesus. He watched over the stoning  of St. Stephen . Stephen had been "full of faith and the Holy Ghost" (Acts 6 : 5 ) and one one of the growing number of people who had joined the followers  of Jesus after his disappearance. When   Paul's own teacher, the famous Gamaliel, tried to protect Stephen, he too was stoned to death. It is recorded that Paul, who was then called Saul, was responsible for "a great persecution against the Church" at that time, and that he "made a havock of the Church, entering into every house and haling men and women and committed them to prison" (Acts 8: 1-3 ) Paul himself admitted that :

" You have heard .... how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it - and profited in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in mine own nation, being more exceeding zealous of the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1: 13-15)

And ,as it is related in Acts 

Saul yet breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest , and desired of him letters to Damascus  to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way  , whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. (Acts 9: 41). 

It was on this journey to Damascus that Paul is said to have met Jesus in a vision and become  one of his followers as a result.

Possible cause for Paul to convert

Not long before all these events took place, it is recorded that Paul had desired to marry a woman called Popea, who was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haunting beauty and an intriguing mind. She liked Paul , but she rejected his offers of marriage and went to Rome as an actress. Starting on the stage, she climbed step by step until she reached Nero's bed. Ultimately she married him and so became the Empress of the Roman Empire.  Paul therefore, had good reason to resent both the Jews and the Romans. Paul's conversion coincided with his being rejected by Popea.  He must have been under considerable emotional and mental  strain at the time . It is possible that this crisis in his life had some bearing on this sudden change from his being one of the greatest supporters of the Jewish Law to one of its greatest enemies.

After the conversion

After his conversion, Paul stayed with the followers of Jesus who were in Damascus and "straight away, he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the son of God" (Acts 9: 20). As a result , he began  to taste the persecution in which he himself had so recently been involved. It he actually used the term "son of God" to describe Jesus, then it was probably this which helped to anger the Jews. The idea of God having a child ascribed to Him was abhorrent to them, since they firmly believed in the Unity of God.

Paul then left Damascus and, instead of seeking out the company of the other followers of Jesus , went  into the Arabian desert where he remained hidden fro three years. It may well have been  here that he began to formulate his own version of what Jesus had taught. This involved a rejection of the Jewish Law, which in turn meant his turning away from the fact that throughout his life Jesus had  remained a practicing Jews, and always sought up uphold the teaching which  Moses had brought before him.

It was after this long period of withdrawal in the desert that Paul came to the apostles in Jerusalem.  The sudden arrival of Paul caused more suspicion than surprise. The stories of his persecution of  the followers of Jesus must still have been fresh in their mind. Could a leopard change its spots ? It seems that the disciples had no reason to accept him into their circle. Not only had he been their persecutor, but also he now claimed to know what Jesus had taught. although he had never even  seen him and had spent little time , it any , with those who had been with him. Instead of trying to learn from those who had been  so intimately connected with Jesus while he is on earth, Paul wanted to teach them. Paul later justified this approach in his epistle to the Galatians where he states:

I certify you brethren that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1: 10-12)

Thus, Paul claimed to have an access to Jesus which had been denied to the closest followers of Jesus while he was on earth. The teaching which Paul  claimed he had been given did not tally with what the apostle had heard from the very lips of Jesus. It is understandable that they were therefore suspicious of his conversion and considered his "revelation" unreliable. Many probably suspected that he was no more than a spy, posing as follower k of Jesus. (The Jesus Report, Johannes Lehman, p 123)

The dispute as to whether Paul should be accepted was therefore a bitter one  and its outcome must have seemed a foregone conclusion. Barnabas, however ,who according to tradition had been Paul's class  fellow under Gamilel, intervened and spoke in favour of Paul. Against their unanimous opposition, he succeeded in having Paul accepted by the followers of Jesus. This indicates the degree of influence which Barnabas had over the apostles, and therefore also points to the degree of intimacy which he must have enjoyed with Jesus when he was on earth. Paul must have realised that he had been  accepted by virtue of Barnabas's authority and not because of his own efforts. He probably felt dissatisfied as a result . This may well have been one of the main reasons why he decided to return to Tarsus, his home town, shortly afterwards ,although it is also recorded that he left because his life was in danger.

The persecution of the followers of Jesus, not only by the Romans, but also by the Jews,  forced many of them to disperse throughout the land . Some of the apostles made their way to  Antioch where they hoped to escape any further persecution by Paul and his followers. Founded by Seleucus  Necator, Antioch had grown in size until by then it was the third largest city of the Roman Empire after Rome and Alexandria.  It had once been the capitol of the Greek Kingdom and had grown into a centre of trade and commerce. With the accumulating of wealth, the people began to lead a life of luxury and decadence and so acquired the reputation of being a city of loose living. It was here that this small group  of strangers, dressed in rags, began to lead a god-fearing life with simplicity and honesty. Those who had grown tired of immoral lie began to gather around them, but the majority of those who met them regarded them with contempt and ridicule and nick-named them "Christians" .For a very few people, it might have been a term of respect, but to large number of people it was used as term of hatred and abuse. Up until this point, the followers of Jesus had always been known as Nazarenes. The root of this word in Hebrew means " to keep" or "to guard". Thus the adjective indicated their role as keepers and guardians of the guidance which Jesus had brought .
 Libanius records that the Jews in Antioch used to pray three times a day: "Send the curse of God upon the Nazarenes"
 Prophery, another historian, who always opposed the Nazarenes , described their way of life as a "barbarous, new and strange religion". 
 Celses records that, according to Jerome, the Christians were called "Greek imposters and deceivers", because they wore the same Greek cloaks which the priests of the Greek temple wore.

Despite the opposition they faced, people continued to visit these strange newcomers and their number increased. Encouraged by this interest, the disciples in Antioch send word to Jerusalem asking the apostles there to send a man to help spread the truth and teaching of Jesus among the pagans who surrounded them. The disciples selected Barnabas became the first missionary in Christian history. Barnabas came to Antioch and met with unexpected success. Due to his efforts. "much people was added unto the Lord" (Acts 11:24) for "he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and faith " . After a year, he decided the time had come to extend his activity beyond Antioch. He was sure that Paul would make a good helper and with this in view he went to Tarsus and brought Paul back with him. (The beginning of the Christian Church , Hanz Lietzman, p 104). Thus , again, Paul came face to face with some of the people who had suffered persecution at his hands, and again he met with hostility and opposition. Once more, the importance of and respect for Barnabas can be assessed by the fact that he had his way, and Paul was received into the community. Perhaps Barnabas was looking to the best in his  former class-mate and felt that of Paul's zeal and enthusiasm, which had made him such a thorough persecutor, could only be rechannelled , he would make an outstanding and invaluable followers of Jesus.

Not all the apostles shared this view, and Peter came out in open opposition to Paul. As well as the hostility kindled by Paul's past actions, there was a difference of opinion over two  other issues. They could mot agree to whom the teaching of Jesus should be taken and what should be taught. Peter held that Jesus had come to revivify the guidance given to the Jews and that, therefore, what he had taught could only be preached among the Jews .On the other hand, there was Paul who not only believed in spreading the truth to everyone. Jews or otherwise, but also asserted that he had been given additional instruction from Jesus after his disappearance. He felt that any necessary adjustments should be made to adapt the teaching according to the apparent  demands of time and situation. Barnabas held the middle position between the two. He held that they should only teach what they had been taught by Jesus , but felt that they should bring this guidance to everyone who would benefit from it and was receptive to it, Jew or non-Jew. Both Barnabas and Peter regarded the guidance they had been given as  a continuation and an extension of Judaism. They could not accept Paul's teaching where it differed from what they themselves had heard from Jesus. They believe that Paul's new doctrine was in the main a purely personal creation of his own. Albert Schweitzer , in his book Paul and his Interpreters, says that "Paul never appealed to the sayings and commands of the Master's" ( Paul and his Interpreters, Albert Schweitzer, p 198)

It is likely that Barnabas hoped that the two extremes would mellow, and that Paul, especially ,by keeping company with the followers of Jesus , would  forsake his own  ideas in favour of their own knowledge of what must still have been a fairly complete understanding and embodiment of what Jesus had taught. It is clear how important Barnabas's support  was to Paul at this stage, since Barnabas shielded and protected  him against the unanimous opposition of the Apostles. It is probably for this reason that this part of Barnabas's life is recorded with such  detail in the Act of the Apostles. The relationship between Barnabas and Paul is indicated in Acts 13 :1- 2

There was in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger and Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch,  and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said: "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work  where unto I have called them

In the list of these followers, Luke mentions Barnabas first and Paul last. Having been selected to work together, they set out, accompanied by John Mark, who was Barnabas's nephew , to spread the teaching of Jesus in Greece. James , son of Mary by Joseph ,was left at the head of the followers of Jesus. Peter also stayed behind.

It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that, in spite of being stoned in some places, these two missionaries were on the whole successful. Their reputation as men of Truth spread far and wide. When they reached Lucaonia and healed a cripple in Lystra, it was rumored that:

......the gods are comedown to us in the likeness of  men. And they called Barnabas. Jupiter and Paul, Mercurius. Then the priests of Jupiter ...... brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice , with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas said Paul, heard of , they rent their clothes and ran  in among the people crying out. And saying : Sirs, why do ye these things ? We also are men of like passions with you , and preach unto you the Living God, which made heaven and earth and the sea and all things are thereon" (Acts 14 :11 - 15)

If this reaction by the inhabitants of Greece was typical, it is an indication of some of the practical difficulties which must have faced Barnabas and Paul. A true  Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as s reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new strange and perhaps a little complicated . Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought,  mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human  life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like description of one of their gods, and they were probably  quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However ,the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity. This could not have been received with favour by many of these idol worshippers. Furthermore, the code of behaviour which was an integral part of  Jesus's guidance, would have necessitated an immediate and far-reaching change in the way of life of anyone who decided to follow it unless, of course, that person was already a practicing Jew,  which these pagans were clearly not. The Jews, who were regarded as a nation of money- lenders, were not at all like by those who were not Jews. Toland, in his book The Nazarenes, p 6 (preface) says that : 

.... amongst the Gentiles ,so inveterate was the hatred of the Jews that their observing of anything, however reasonable or necessary, was sufficient motive for Gentile convert to reject it.

To anyone not as sincere and steadfast as Barnabas, the task of establishing Jesus's way of life in Greece without making any compromises must have seemed overwhelming . To Paul, who had already displayed his tendency to change what teaching he did know, it must have now seemed absolutely necessary to make what adjustments were needed to make Jesus's teaching palatable to the common people. Greece was now part of the Roman Empire. The Roman gods bore a marked resemblance to the Greek ones and belief in them only served to support the same misconceptions which a belief in the Greek gods entailed. Paul had previously spent some time in Rome and was a Roman citizen. It is possible that his own reasoning had been influence by his contact with the  Roman way of life. He was well aware of the strong hold which the Graeco-Roman religions  had on the common people within the Roman Empire. It is clear that he seems to  have felt that it would not be possible to change their ways without making changes too. Barnabas, on the other hand, as it is recorded of Jesus in Mathew 5 : 18 , knew that his Creator did not wish His Law to be diminished or changed "one jot or one tittle" . He therefore held firm to the guidance he had been given.

At this stage in the spread of Christianity, the main source of contention was not of a metaphysical nature. The subtle arguments and fine distinction of the intellectuals were a development which was  to come later. The issues over which Barnabas and Paul disagreed were those which affected a human's everyday existence and way of life. Paul wished to avoid making any abrupt changes in those customs which the Greeks and probably taken for granted before his and Barnabas's arrival in Greece. He therefore wished to abandon the commandments transmitted through Moses as to what meat it was lawful to eat and how the animal was to be sacrificed. He also wished to relinquished , where it seemed expedient , the commandment established by Abraham regarding the necessity of circumcision. Faced by the practical difficulty of establishing and implementing these aspects of Jesus's teaching, the difference between Paul and Barnabas  must have been emphasised  rather than diminished.

However, at this stage, these differences were probably not that marked . Both Paul and Barnabas were faced with the  practical challenge of establishing Jesus's way of life.  The teaching of the affirmation of the Divine Unity was essential to this , but initially it was necessary establish a pattern of behaviour which  was probably different in many ways to the one which the pagans had been used to. clearly, this new way of doing things could only be learned and assimilated in to the texture of  everyday life gradually. No pagan community could have adopted overnight the whole course of action which Jesus embodied. From what records there are,  it seems that Barnabas and Paul never stayed for very  long in any one place. they could not have transmitted the whole of Jesus's teaching in a short space of time. They must, therefore, have taught what seemed to be the most important parts first, with the intention of returning later and supplementing what they had shown the people with further instruction. Whereas Barnabas intended to transmit the whole teaching of Jesus, Paul was prepared to dispense with many of its aspects altogether, since , according to the new doctrine he was developing , they were no longer necessary. Thus on their return to Jerusalem, they must have defended their actions each for a different reason. Despite their  descriptions of the  miracles they had performed together, this underlying difference remained, and finally there was a parting of the ways.

It is said that they fell out with each other because Paul refused to take John Mark with them on any future mission, while Barnabas insisted that John Mark should continue to accompany them. It is recorded in Acts 15 : 39 - 40 that "the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from  the other - and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed  unto Cyprus", which was Barnabas's birth-place. The fact that John Mark accompanied Barnabas clearly indicates that his beliefs were the same as his uncle's. This was probably one of the reasons why Paul had no desire to keep his company. Hardly any mention of Barnabas is made in the Bible after this point.

It is interesting that Barnabas , who , it is recorded in the Acts, was chosen by the Holy Ghost, was rejected by Paul. Perhaps Paul felt that he no longer needed Barnabas. In his early days as a Christian, no one would have relied on him once they knew  that he had not been with Jesus. Now that he had become established among the community, this was  no longer the case. His reputation was such that perhaps he felt he could go out and preach his doctrine without fear of being rejected, and without the restraining  hand  of Barnabas, to check him, whenever he deviated from what Jesus had taught. Furthermore , Paul was a Roman  citizen . He must have learned the language of Rome. He probably spoke Greek. It was the official language of the area in which he was born. The epistles he later wrote to the  Christian communities in Greece must have been written in their native tongue. This meant that he could travel in Greece and probably Italy without  any difficulties over language. Barnabas, on the other hand, spoke neither of these two languages. John Mark, who spoke Greek, had accompanied him on the first missionary journey into Greece  to act as his interpreter .If Barnabas were to go there by himself, he would not be able to make himself understood. Thus Paul's refusal to travel with John Mark may have been a round about way of ensuring that Barnabas would refuse to travel with him. Commenting on their parting in his History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age ,McGiffert says :

That Barnabas ....... whose right to work among the Gentiles had been recognised in Jerusalem ....... should have drawn back and separated himself from them is very strange. Barnabas was not in full sympathy with Paul's doctrine of the Christian's complete liberty from all laws of whatever kind ..... The separation of Paul and Barnabas is stated by the author of the Acts to be the result of a disagreement concerning Mark,  but the real reason lay deeper than that ....... The man who stood closest to Paul and was most intimately associated with him during the early years of his Christian career was Barnabas , who was a member of the Church in Jerusalem in its primitive days ........... His friendship meant much to Paul and doubtless contributed in no small degree to his credit and influence with the Christians. Barnabas stood sponsor for Paul in the early days when the memory of his persecuting career was fresh in the mind of the Church    (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age ,A. C. McGiffert , pp 216 ,231 , 425 - 5 )

The change in Barnabas's attitude towards Paul could only have come about as a result of his experiences while travelling with Paul. Any hopes that Paul would change his views and become a true follower of Jesus must have been dispelled by what happened on that first missionary journey. Perhaps too Barnabas realised the futility of trying to spread  a guidance , which had only been intended for the Jews , among the Gentiles, and , seeing the folly of this course of action, left it. Before he had attempted it, spreading Jesus's message among the Gentiles had seemed a viable proposition. But, having  actually tried it , experience had  proved that it was not possible. His experience in Antioch had seemed far more successful because there the Gentiles had been coming  to the followers of Jesus and asking to be accepted as Christians. Whereas , when he and Paul went to Greece ,it was they who had been asking the Gentiles to become Christians.

There is no record of what happened to Barnabas after he returned to Cyprus. but it is known that, like so many who held to a new prophet's teaching, he died as a martyr. In spite of the  fact that Barnabas is blocked out from many of the pages of the Bible, it is evident  that he acquired an integral position in the history of Christianity and cannot be forgotten. He was willing openly to affirm and teach what he had learned from Jesus in the early  days of the Church, when even some of those who were nearest to Jesus were afraid to acknowledge their association with him. Barnabas's loyalty to Jesus is accepted as a fact by friends and foes alike. It was his sister's house where Jesus had his last Passover meal , and it must have remained a meeting place for the followers of Jesus after he had disappeared. The influence of Barnabas over the Apostles and other followers of Jesus has been established from the Bible itself. He is called a prophet, a teacher, and also an Apostle by Luke whose unquestioned loyalty was to Paul. Above all, he is remembered as a man who was not prepared to compromise of change Jesus's message.

After Barnabas had left for Cyprus. Paul continued with what he had begun. Although he had now been with many of the early Christians long enough to be accepted as one of  them, he was still conscious of the weakness of his position. He might now be called an Apostle of Jesus ,yet this did not alter the fact that he had never met Jesus in his life. Although he claimed to have had access to Jesus by revelation, he still needed someone who had access to Jesus by revelation, he still needed someone who had lived with  Jesus to accompany him on his journeys among the Gentiles. The company of an eyewitness would provide  him with invaluable support and serve to back up his arguments with additional authority. He therefore persuaded Peter to join him.

That these two, who had opposed each other so vehemently in the past, should now  come together is perhaps surprising. However, the situation had changed. Paul was now accepted by many as a Christian and was no longer regarded as a possible spy of persecutor. Celsus, a Greek philosopher  and  a bitter critic of the Christians, said that the root of the disagreement between the two in Antioch had been Paul's jealousy of Peter's popularity. Obviously , Paul's jealously would by now have dwindled with his own increase in reputation, especially among the Gentiles. The persecution of the Christian also probably  played its part in drawing them together. The persecution by the Romans and those Jews who supported them was quite severe by now .Peter had already demonstrated his weakness when, under pressure or faced by immediate danger, he denied his being a companion of Jesus at the time of Jesus's supposed trial and crucifixion. He was  probably now more willing to fall in line with Paul's approach to Jesus's message, since changes here and there might mean less persecution.

Thus the situation in these early days was such that it seemed expedient to some to change and adapt the message of Jesus not only so that people who were not Jewish would accept it , but also so that it would not offend or apparently threaten those in authority in the land. This policy of obeying rulers indiscriminately, whether their laws were in accord with those of the Creator of the Universe or not, is evident in Peter's first Epistle 3 : 13 -18 :

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake : whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors ,as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men : as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness , but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood . Fear God. Honour the king. Servants , be subject to your master with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the  forward

Paul travelled West with Peter .Without the sincerity and restraining  influence of Barnabas, he must have met with little opposition to his new doctrines and adapted ways of conduct and behaviour. In Romans 16 :20 -21, he says:

Yes, so have I strived to preach  the Gospel , not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: but as it is written.
To whom he was not spoken of ,they shall see:
And they that have not heard shall understand

If Paul had been spreading the original teaching of Jesus, then "another mans foundation" would have been the same as his. They would both have been involved in building the same structure. The people  who were  hearing about Jesus, or rather Christ, for the first time from Paul's lips, had no means of comparing his account with that of the Apostles who still held to Jesus's teaching. Paul's version was the only one to which they had access.

Paul was helped a great deal in spreading his message by a learned Jew from Alexandria called Appolos. He was very successful in spreading the ideas of Paul among people. Paul, it was said , planted and Appolos watered. Ultimately , even Appolos could not accepted all the innovations of Paul, and, like Barnabas , parted company with him.

Paul deviated further and further from the teaching Jesus  had embodied, and laid more and more emphasis on the figure of Christ whom he claimed had appeared  to him in visions. His defence against those who accused him of changing the guidance Jesus had brought was- that what he preached had its origin in a direct revelation he had received  from Christ. This gave  Paul Divine Authority. It was by virtue of this "authority" he claimed, that the blessings of the Gospel were not limited to the Jews, but to all who believed. Furthermore ,he asserts that the requirements of the Law of Moses were not only unnecessary, but also contrary to what had been directly revealed to him from  God. In fact, he said , they were curse. Thus, Paul incurred not only the wrath of the followers of Jesus, but also that of the Jews, since he was contradicting both of their prophets. It is clear why he chose to spread  his teaching among people who hated the Jews and who had not heard the truth about Jesus.

Paul justified his new doctrine with the use of this analogy:

" Know ye not ,brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he lieveth ? for the woman which hath hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead ; she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then : if , while here husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress : but , if her husband be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress , though she be married to another man . Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of  Christ: that ye should  be married to another , even to him who is raised  from the dead , that we should bring  forth fruit unto God" (Romans 7: 1- 4)

This analogy clearly indicates that Paul made a distinction between Jesus and "Christ". According to his reasoning , the law which had bound Jesus and his followers was no longer necessary , since Jesus  had died. Now they were no longer "married" to  Jesus, but to Christ, who had brought  another law, It was, therefore, necessary to follow Christ and not Jesus. Thus, anyone who held to Jesus's teaching had gone astray. It was with the use of this reasoning that he assembled his doctrine of redemption and atonement , a theory which Jesus had certainly never taught. It was a great success,  since, in so many words, it preached that a man could do what he wanted and not face the inevitable , consequences of his actions, provided that, at the end of the day, he said :"I believe in Christ" However , the basic premise on which Paul's reasoning was based is false, since Jesus was neither crucified  nor resurrected. His doctrines of redemption and atonement are fallacious.

Paul's reasoning had two major consequences. It is not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people's idea of who Jesus  was. He was being transformed from man to a conception in people's mind. Divinity had been attributed to Jesus even when he was on earth by some of those who marvelled at his words and miracles, and who, mistakenly, considered him to be more than a prophet. Some of his enemies had also spread the rumour that he was the "son of God", hoping to rouse the orthodox Jew's anger against  him for associating himself with God. Thus, even before he disappeared, there had been a tendency to obscure his true nature and ascribe godhood to Jesus. This imaginary figure of Christ, who apparently had the power to annul what Jesus had previously taught., was clearly no ordinary mortal, and , inevitably, become confused by many with God. Thus, this imaginary figure became an object of worship , and was associated with God. 

This shift of emphasis from Jesus  as a man to the new image of Christ, who was divine , enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their  own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were  preaching, Their view of existence was a tripartite one, and, with the Pauline Church talk of "God the Father" and the "Son of God", it  only needed the inclusion of the "Holy Ghost" to have a Trinity which matched theirs. With the passage of time, these two pictures merged into one, and the doctrine of Trinity was born. Not only the philosophical ideas prevalent in Greece at that time coloured the teaching, but also the very language of Greece itself influenced the expression of the teaching, trapping and limiting its meaning.  Greek could contain the philosophy of the Greeks, but was neither vast nor supple enough to carry what Jesus had said. Thus, even a true follower of Jesus who spoke , fluent Greek could not have expressed the totality of Jesus's teaching in this language. It had to be reworded . when the time  came to translate the Hebrew Gospel s into Greek, these limitations were made permanent, and finally sealed, when nearly  all the Gospels in Hebrew  were destroyed.

Although Paul never actually preached the divinity of Jesus, nor the doctrine of Trinity, his manner of expression and the changes he made opened the door to both these misconceptions, and prepared the way for their becoming established doctrines in Europe. It was these doctrines which lead to Mary being put in the impossible position of being regarded as the "mother of God".

It appears that Paul rationalised his action  by holding that there was no link between the period in which Jesus had lived and the period in which Jesus had lived. Times had changed and the conditions which now prevailed were such that the teaching of Jesus was out of date and could no longer be applied. It had therefore become necessary to find a new basis for ethics. Paul  took stock of the conditions which existed then and taught what they seemed to require him to believe.  

" All things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" .(I Corinthians 7 : 12) 

Paul not only rejected both Moses and Jesus, but asserted  that he was law unto himself. Many people, obviously , could not accept this. Paul responded by saying :

For if truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His Glory ; why yet also judged a sinner ? (Romans 3 : 7- 8)

It would seem from this statement that, although he knew he was lying, Paul felt that the means justified the end, but it is not understood how truth would  abound through  a lie. According to this reasoning, if the man Jesus was equated with God, what objections could a follower of Jesus have?

Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of pagans. This admixture was combined with some of what Jesus had taught and some of what Paul  claimed Christ had revealed to him. Paul's theology was based on his personal experience interpreted in the light of contemporary Greek thoughts. Jesus was deified and the words of Plato were put  in his sacred mouth. The theory  of redemption was the child of Paul's brain, a brief entirely unknown to Jesus and his disciples. It was based on the belief in "original sin", the "crucifixion" , and the "resurrection" ,none of which have any validity. thus, a synthetic religion was produced : Christianity - mathematically absurd , historically false, yet psychologically impressive. In the magnificent temple of the religion which Paul helped so zealously  to erect, he built doors on all sides. The result was that people who came across his brand  of Christianity for the first time, when they entered its temple, were given the impression  that they were paying homage to the same deity that they had worshipped all along , whether they were Jews or Gentile. As the basic misconception introduced by Paul evolved and became established, many  a man who thought that he was following Jesus  followed Paul without knowing it.

There is , therefore, some justification for Heinz Zahrnt calling Paul  a "corrupt of the Gospel of Jesus" (quoted in The Jesus Report, Johannes Lehman , p 126 ) and Werde describing him as "the second founder of Christianity".  Werde says that, due to Paul :

 "... the discontinuity between the historical Jesus  and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unity between them is scarcely recognizable " (quoted in The Jesus Report, Johannes Lehman , p 127 )

Schonfield wrote:
            " ...the Pauline heresy became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical "(quoted in The Jesus Report, Johannes Lehman , p 128 )

Thus Barnabas became the arch-heretic.

To the followers of Jesus , the path of truth, like the geometrical straight line, had length but no breadth. They did  not agree to change the teaching  of Jesus merely because it seemed expedient. To  them what Jesus had taught was the Truth and the whole Truth. Barnabas and his followers continued to preach and practise the Christianity they had learned from Jesus himself. They were always and still are to be reckoned  with as a force. From among them came saints and scholars respected by every sect of Christianity. 

The followers of Jesus and Barnabas never developed a central organisation , yet, due to the  devotion of their leaders for the Truth, their number increased rapidly. These leaders were wise and learned men who loved and feared God. They went into the deserts and mountains. Small communities formed around each saint. They were independent of each other. largely due to the rough terrain which surrounded them. Their lack of a structured organisation was a source of strength because it as not easy for their persecutors to pick them up. Paul's version of Christianity spread through Greece and then Europe ,while these men of God spread with knowledge to the south and, eventually , right across North Africa. The communities they formed retained the life style of Jesus. Those who still  embodied Jesus's teaching must have transmitted much of their  knowledge directly  from person to person. Behaviour was imitated and the doctrine passed on orally. They continued to affirm the Divine Unity. Thus, there are records of various sects who lived in the early centuries after Jesus's disappearance ,such as the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians,  and the Hypisistarians, who refused  to worship God as a father. They revered Him as the Almighty Ruler of the Universe, the Highest of all with no one equal to him.

By now many different written accounts of Jesus's life and teachings were in use. Jesus had spoken in Aramaic, a dialect of Arabic, which  was not commonly written. The first  Gospels were  therefore recorded  in Hebrew. In these early days, none were formally accepted  or rejected. It was up to the leader  of each Christian community  to decide what books he would  use. Depending on whom they had been taught by, each sects went to a different source. Those who followed  Barnabas's example went to one source, those  who followed Paul to another.

Thus, quite soon after Jesus's disappearance from earth, there was a definite and widening divergence between the followers of Jesus and the Pauline Church , which was later to become  known  as the Roman Catholic Church. Differences between the two  were not only evident in life-style and belief, but were  also clearly delineated geographically. As the Pauline Church grew more established , it became increasingly hostile to the  followers of Jesus. It aligned itself more and more with the rulers of the Roman Empire, and the persecution which to begin with had been directed at all who called themselves Christians, now began to fall  mainly on those who affirmed the Divine Unity. Attempts began to be made to change their beliefs and forcibly to remove those who refused to do so, together with the books they used. Most of the martyr were Unitarians. The more the doctrine of Trinity became accepted , the more its adherents opposed those who affirmed the Divine Unity. By the time the Emperor Julian came to power  , this  infighting  had reached such a stage that he said : "No wild beast are so hostile to man as Christian sects in general are to on another ".

Naturally , those who deviated from the teaching of Jesus  were prepared to change the Scriptures too, and even introduce false writings in order to support  their opinions. Toland , in his book The Nazarenes , records these words of Iranius , who was one of the early Unitarian martyrs:

In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth , they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude  of apocryphal and spurious  scriptures of their own devising"

 Toland continues :

            We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready  to receive as the first was to forge books....... This evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole  keepers of all books good  or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history  from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity .......
            How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about theses matters so early how came such s followed them by a better light ? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon  the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers , and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last , or sometimes , when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose theses two other questions :'Why all the books cited as genuine by Clement of Alexandria , Origen , Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic ? And what stress should be laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another  but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts ? 

 Toland goes on to say that when these questions area asked of the "wooden priest and divinilings", instead  of meeting the arguments , they begin to call those who raise the questions "heretic of concealed atheists ". He continues :

This conduct will make them suspect all to be a cheat  and imposture, because men will naturally  cry out when they  area touched in a tender part ...... Now man will be angry at a question who is able to answer it.

Finally Toland askes:

Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians ,  or those who believed in Christ among the  Jews  with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom  were all the Apostles, considering this , I say how it was possible for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should from wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus ? And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things, of whence they could have their information but from  the believing Jews? .(The Nazarenes ,John Toland , pp 73 -76 )

Please click Next and read what happened next : [ Back ] [ Next ]

 (ICRA) 

[ Home ] [ Christianity ] [ Bible ] [ Christian Salvation Scheme ] [ Converts ] [ Prophesies ] [ True followers of Jesus ] [ Jesus-the Son of Man ] [ Jesus- the Son of God ] [ Women ] [ Bible and the Modern Sceince ] [ Holy Sins ] [ Comparative Studies ] [ links ] [ About us ] [ Contact us ] [ Site Map ]