NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

[Michael BG]

Barnabas 4:14 is πολλοὶ κλητοί, ολίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.
many called few yet chosen (I couldn’t find a translation for εὑρεθῶμεν)

That is the passive subjunctive aorist of εὑρίσκω (to find). The sense is: "Let us take heed lest, as it is written, we be found many called but few chosen."

Thank you Ben. I hoped someone would provide the meaning.

Barnabas is οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς,
"I came not to call the righteous but sinners,"

Mark 2:17 is οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Not I-came to-call the-just-ones but sinners

Matthew 9:13 οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Luke 5:32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν.

Barnabas has six words identical with Mark, but not Matthew and Luke, who both made small changes to Mark. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Mark’s gospel.

I wish it were so, but first of all, Mark has ἦλθον ("I came") where Barnabas has ἦλθεν ("he came"), so it is not six identical words. And Matthew's only difference is the intrusion of the γὰρ, which as a postpositive particle has to fall in this position in the clause. So Matthew and Mark are identical with respect to the words which line up with Barnabas. The omission of γὰρ cannot decide the case, since that can happen at any time for any reason in a quote, depending upon the context.

Thank you Ben. I blame tiredness for my missing what you point out. Therefore it seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Matthews or Marks gospel.

Being aware of the 'things [that also appear] in the gospels and the epistles' is not the same as having access to the gospels and epistles.

Why not?
Furthermore the internal evidence from the gospels themselves show they were written well before the times of Aristides and Quadratus.

Cordially, Bernard

I think the gospels were written before the times of Aristides and Quadratus. There are lots of books which existed before my time, but I have not read them and can only quote from those I have access to (in some way).

Perhaps an example would help.

“From a Hebrew virgin”. Both Matthew and Luke have the tradition that Mary was a virgin, but they do not have the same tradition. We can assume that before Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels there was a tradition that Mary was a virgin. It is possible that before this there was a tradition that Jesus’ mother was a virgin (name unknown). It is not logical to conclude that someone who believes Jesus’ mother was a virgin could only have access to this tradition via either of the gospels of Matthew or Luke. (I suppose one could believe that both Matthew and Luke created the virgin birth independently of each other and the rest of the Christian tradition and so Aristides could only know of the virgin birth if he had read either or their gospels.)

If someone quoted from Q and had no words which only Matthew or Luke have, then we could not conclude that the author knew Luke rather than Matthew or Q, or Matthew rather than Luke or Q. If the author did not use the same words as Q, then there would exist the possibility that they knew the tradition independent of Q, Luke and Matthew. (Your discussion of 1 Clement 15 seems aware of different possibilities and you have compared the Greek words.)

My dating of the epistle of Barnabas:

7.4 Dating:
As we saw already, the epistle was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70C.E.
Can we determine a more accurate dating?
Let's consider:
Barnabas4:3-4 "The last offence is at hand, ... For to this end the Master has cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
[the end" was expected soon, as also in 4:9 "... let us take heed in these last days ..." and 21:3 "The day is at hand ...". This is typical of 1st century Christian writings]
"` ... Ten reigns shall reign upon the earth, and after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one."
Do these ten and three kings make sense in a 1st century context?

The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.

You are not alone in thinking of a date c 96.

Barnabas 4:4-5 (Lake)

4 And the Prophet also says thus: "Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth and there shall rise up after them a little king, who shall subdue three of the kings under one."
5 Daniel says likewise concerning the same: "And I beheld the fourth Beast, wicked and powerful and fiercer than all the beasts of the sea, and that ten horns sprang from it, and out of them a little excrescent horn, and that it subdued under one three of the great horns."

Maxwell Staniforth adds “Daniel” in verse 4 after “Prophet” and suggests Daniel 7:24 as a parallel

[24] As for the ten horns,
out of this kingdom
ten kings shall arise,
and another shall arise after them;
he shall be different from the former ones,
and shall put down three kings.

And Daniel 7:7-8 as a parallel to verse 4

[7] …, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; …; and it had ten horns.
[8] … there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; ...

As Barnabas is quoting Daniel there is no need to see in them a reference to the current time. The author could see them as events in the future which still have to happen and not events in the recent past which set the scene for the end of times. Even if there is reference to three kings being subdued they could be the kings of Dacia, Armenia and Parthia under Trajan. Should we even equal kings with emperors? If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

3 Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it."
4 That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again. (Lake)

No, it is wishful thinking for an action in the future.
And "that is happening now" might be a misleading translation. There are others such as "So it cometh to pass" (Lightfoot) and "And so doth it happen" (Hoole).
Maybe Ben can clarify that, as for also the Greek tense for the two verbs.

This is Ehrman's text from the Loeb edition:

Barnabas 16.3-4: 3 Moreover he says again, "See, those who have destroyed [καθελόντες, aorist tense] this temple will themselves build [οἰκοδομήσουσιν, future tense] it." 4 This is happening [γίνεται, present tense]. For because of their war it was destroyed [καθῃρέθη, aorist tense] by their enemies. And now the servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild [ἀνοικοδομήσουσιν, future tense] it.

Well, "it is happening" is definitely in present tense. But what is "it" that is happening? Surely not the destruction, which is twice represented by the aorist tense. And surely not the (re)building, which is twice represented by the future tense. I think "it" (which is only implied in the Greek) is the prophecy itself, namely that those who destroyed the temple will themselves rebuild it. I think it means that the prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled; it has two parts (destruction and rebuilding), and the writer stands between the two events.

Bernard I didn’t consider any other translation, I just picked Lake because I thought it would be a more current English translation.

It seems that their enemy destroyed it and the servants of the enemies are going to rebuilt it. If the enemy is the Romans, then the servants of the enemy are the workers of the Romans. This would fit 130 /131 CE when Hadrian had announced he was going to rebuild the Temple.

[Ben C. Smith]

As Barnabas is quoting Daniel there is no need to see in them a reference to the current time. The author could see them as events in the future which still have to happen and not events in the recent past which set the scene for the end of times. Even if there is reference to three kings being subdued they could be the kings of Dacia, Armenia and Parthia under Trajan. Should we even equal kings with emperors?

But recall Lightfoot's point that Barnabas added something to the prophecy: "three kings under one [ὑφ’ ἓν]." Quoting Daniel may be par for the course, but adding that detail seems noteworthy. Since kingly conquest involves subjugating others "under" a king by definition, it seems like more may be meant by the three-in-one language than just a synonym for subjugation.

If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

I would say because most imperial lists begin with Julius, not with Augustus. Not a lock, for sure, but something to bear in mind.

[Bernard Muller]

to MichaelBG,

“From a Hebrew virgin”. Both Matthew and Luke have the tradition that Mary was a virgin, but they do not have the same tradition. We can assume that before Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels there was a tradition that Mary was a virgin. It is possible that before this there was a tradition that Jesus’ mother was a virgin (name unknown). It is not logical to conclude that someone who believes Jesus’ mother was a virgin could only have access to this tradition via either of the gospels of Matthew or Luke. (I suppose one could believe that both Matthew and Luke created the virgin birth independently of each other and the rest of the Christian tradition and so Aristides could only know of the virgin birth if he had read either or their gospels.)

Yes, but Paul stated Jesus was a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David and Israelites. In these days descendance was always from the male line throughout. So no virgin here for Jesus' mother.
Mark did not change that, that is saying nothing about a virgin mother. 1 Clement, also written before gMatthew and gLuke, has Jesus as a descendant of Jacob, as other Jews:
1 Clem 32:2:"For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the
altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of
him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and
the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God
promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven."
And the beginning of gJohn does not have any Hebrew virgin for the reason that part of gJohn was written before the author knew about gLuke, as I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
And gJohn has also Jn 1:45 "Philip found Nathan'a-el, and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."" and Jn 6:42
"They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?""

The Hebrew virgin might have been from a later tradition fabricated for the reasons I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1.html then look (find) search for: 1.2.3 The "Virgin Birth (godly conception)"
But I agree that a common tradition about the virgin fabricated around 80 CE was picked up by "Luke" & "Matthew" who greatly expanded it with their own invented stuff.

However, if we look for the total passage from Aristides' apology:

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness."

that looks very much like an abbreviated version of a combination of several written gospels (gJohn and gMatthew or/and gLuke or/and gMark). And if you think (as I do) the gospels existed then, the source of all that is better explained by Aristides knowing about the gospels rather than doing a collage of different written traditions (of which we do not know anything about, except if these "written traditions" are the gospels themselves).

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

As Barnabas is quoting Daniel there is no need to see in them a reference to the current time. The author could see them as events in the future which still have to happen and not events in the recent past which set the scene for the end of times. Even if there is reference to three kings being subdued they could be the kings of Dacia, Armenia and Parthia under Trajan. Should we even equal kings with emperors?

But recall Lightfoot's point that Barnabas added something to the prophecy: "three kings under one [ὑφ’ ἓν]." Quoting Daniel may be par for the course, but adding that detail seems noteworthy. Since kingly conquest involves subjugating others "under" a king by definition, it seems like more may be meant by the three-in-one language than just a synonym for subjugation.

If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

I would say because most imperial lists begin with Julius, not with Augustus. Not a lock, for sure, but something to bear in mind.

I do not understand why my last post has:

If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

I took on board the idea that the king over three kings should the eleventh and so changed it to:
If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva? This would mean Trajan came next and conquered three kings.

This includes your idea that

"three kings under one … Since kingly conquest involves subjugating others "under" a king by definition, it seems like more may be meant by the three-in-one language than just a synonym for subjugation.

[Bernard Muller]

to MichaelBG,

I took on board the idea that the king over three kings should the eleventh and so changed it to:
If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva? This would mean Trajan came next and conquered three kings.

If you insert Galba, then the eleventh king becomes Nerva.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

As Barnabas is quoting Daniel there is no need to see in them a reference to the current time. The author could see them as events in the future which still have to happen and not events in the recent past which set the scene for the end of times. Even if there is reference to three kings being subdued they could be the kings of Dacia, Armenia and Parthia under Trajan. Should we even equal kings with emperors?

But recall Lightfoot's point that Barnabas added something to the prophecy: "three kings under one [ὑφ’ ἓν]." Quoting Daniel may be par for the course, but adding that detail seems noteworthy. Since kingly conquest involves subjugating others "under" a king by definition, it seems like more may be meant by the three-in-one language than just a synonym for subjugation.

If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

I would say because most imperial lists begin with Julius, not with Augustus. Not a lock, for sure, but something to bear in mind.

I do not understand why my last post has:

If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan?

I took on board the idea that the king over three kings should the eleventh and so changed it to:
If we are looking for ten emperors then why not, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva?

I am very confused. I can see Julius Caesar added to this list, which I agree with. But the rest (about your post) I am not sure about.

ETA: Also, I do not think any of the three emperors who died in 69 should be removed. They are rarely if ever skipped in the lists. Clement of Alexandria skips a couple of them once, in book 1 of the Miscellanies, but he is using them to count years, not emperors, and two of them added up to less than a year in total time ruling. When he gives the list again, this time as what others reckon, he skips none of them. The other lists I know of (from the Sibylline Oracles, Suetonius, 4 Ezra, and other texts) never skip any.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

ETA: Also, I do not think any of the three emperors who died in 69 should be removed. They are rarely if ever skipped in the lists. Clement of Alexandria skips a couple of them once, in book 1 of the Miscellanies, but he is using them to count years, not emperors, and two of them added up to less than a year in total time ruling. When he gives the list again, this time as what others reckon, he skips none of them. The other lists I know of (from the Sibylline Oracles, Suetonius, 4 Ezra, and other texts) never skip any.

Then we are back to these two options:

The three kings might be the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and sons Titus & Domitian). It was ended by the accession to the Roman throne by Nerva (96-98), the same day of Domitian's murder. Nerva may have been thought to be the king who brought low the previous threesome.
Also, in chapter 16, "Barnabas" attacked the inadequacy of any man-made God's temple, past or future: did some Jewish Christians (or/and Jews) think Nerva, not from the same family of the ones who destroyed it (Vespasian & Titus), would allow its rebuilding? It is probable:
Barnabas16:1 "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God."
What about the other seven kings?
This series of kings, obviously Roman emperors (as the following four ones, Vespasian to Nerva), had just to make some sense in order to be believed as part of a fulfilled prophecy. Who are the candidates?
1) Julius Caesar (49-44)
2) Augustus (44-14)
3) Tiberius (14-37)
4) Caligula (37-41)
5) Claudius (41-54)
6) Nero (54-68)
7) Galba (Jun68-Jan69)
8) Otho (Jan69-Apr69)
9) Vitellius (Apr69-Dec69)
Out of these nine "kings", two of them never got to be emperor ("princeps"): Julius was dictator for life and Vitellius took only the title of consul for life.
Or one might keep Julius Caesar, the true founder of the imperial system, and remove Otho & Vitellius, the short-lived inept usurpers.

There is no other emperor than Nerva who could be attributed that: "after them shall arise another king, who shall bring low three of the kings under one."

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

1 Clement, also written before gMatthew and gLuke ..

Is that a common proposition or conclusion? ie. a 'consensus'?

[Michael BG]

I am very confused. I can see Julius Caesar added to this list, which I agree with. But the rest (about your post) I am not sure about.

ETA: Also, I do not think any of the three emperors who died in 69 should be removed. They are rarely if ever skipped in the lists. Clement of Alexandria skips a couple of them once, in book 1 of the Miscellanies, but he is using them to count years, not emperors, and two of them added up to less than a year in total time ruling. When he gives the list again, this time as what others reckon, he skips none of them. The other lists I know of (from the Sibylline Oracles, Suetonius, 4 Ezra, and other texts) never skip any.

Your earlier comment only requested that I consider adding Julius Caesar, which should have been there because I had already accepted the need to make Trajan the eleventh.

When Henry VII became king he didn’t accept that Richard III had ever been king! Therefore it is possible to exclude all emperors between Nero and Vespasian. It has to be remembered that Barnabas does not have the freedom of 2 Esdras 11:1 assuming that the “twelve feathered wings” are emperors. 2 Esdras 12:14 states that these kings shall “reign … one after another”. I believe this is not true for Julius Caesar and Augustus, and some were joint rulers with their successors Tiberius with Augustus and mention has already been made of Titus with Vespasian. (It is likely that Sibylline Oracles book 5 is too late (161+) to be of assistance here). Suetonius (c 119) is relevant. Therefore if the author of Barnabas was not quoting Daniel he could have gone with 12 like Suetonius and possibly 2 Esdras (c 97), but he couldn’t he had to have “ten kingdoms” (Barn. 4:5) to agree with Daniels “ten horns” (Dan. 7:24 Barn 4:6).

[Michael BG]

to MichaelBG,

“From a Hebrew virgin”…. (I suppose one could believe that both Matthew and Luke created the virgin birth independently of each other and the rest of the Christian tradition and so Aristides could only know of the virgin birth if he had read either or their gospels.)

The Hebrew virgin might have been from a later tradition fabricated for the reasons I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1.html then look (find) search for: 1.2.3 The "Virgin Birth (godly conception)"
But I agree that a common tradition about the virgin fabricated around 80 CE was picked up by "Luke" & "Matthew" who greatly expanded it with their own invented stuff.

I am glad you do accept that “From a Hebrew virgin” does not have to be dependent on the gospels of Mathew or Luke, which was my point.

However, if we look for the total passage from Aristides' apology:
…
that looks very much like an abbreviated version of a combination of several written gospels (gJohn and gMatthew or/and gLuke or/and gMark). And if you think (as I do) the gospels existed then, the source of all that is better explained by Aristides knowing about the gospels rather than doing a collage of different written traditions (of which we do not know anything about, except if these "written traditions" are the gospels themselves).

Cordially, Bernard

I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not saying that the author of Aristides apology didn’t know some of the gospels. I am pointing that there is not sufficient evidence to know for sure, it is therefore just one option, another option is that he didn’t have access to any gospels, but knew the traditions behind the gospels. I hope I have successful explained what I am saying.

- Barnabas 12:10-11 "... David himself prophesies ..."The Lord said to my Lord sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool." ... See how "David calls him Lord" and does not say Son."
This is very similar to:
Lk20:41-44 "... How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said ...: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."' Therefore David calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?" (see also Mk12:35-37 and Mt22:42-45)

Barnabas 12:10 (Lake)

See again Jesus, not as son of man, but as Son of God, but manifested in a type in the flesh. Since therefore they are going to say that the Christ is David's son, David himself prophesies, fearing and understanding the error of the sinners, "The Lord said to my Lord sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool."

ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρωπου, ἀλλὰ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τύπῳ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς. ἐπεὶ οὖν μέλλουσιν λέγειν, ὅτι Χριστὸς υἱὸς Δαυείδ ἐστιν, αὐτὸς προφητέει Δαυείδ, φοβούμενος καὶ συνίων τὴν πλάνην τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν·
Εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου,
ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.

Lk 20:41-44

Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Πῶς λέγουσιν τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι Δαυὶδ υἱόν;
αὐτὸς γὰρ Δαυὶδ λέγει ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν,
Εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου
ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.

Δαυὶδ οὖν κύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ, καὶ πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν;

He-said now to them, How are-saying some the Christ is David’s son
He for David is-saying in book of-Psalms
said the Lord to-the Lord my sit at right-side my
Til (.) I-place the enemies of-you footstool for feet of-you

David then Lord him is-calling. And how of-him son is-he

Septuagint Psalm 109:1

ΕΙΠΕΝ ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου,
ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.

Barnabas is quoting the Septuagint Psalm 109:1 rather than Luke’s gospel

Barnabas 12:11f (Lake)

See how "David calls him Lord" and does not say Son.

ἴδε, πῶς Δαυεὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν κύριον, καὶ υἱὸν οὐ λέγει.

It seems that Barnabas has Δαυεὶδ, αὐτὸν, κύριον, which Luke has and υἱὸν rather than Luke’s υἱός.

However Mark has:

αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν κύριον, καὶ πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υἱός;

Mk 12:37ab
He David is-saying him Lord. And how son of-him he-is.

While Mark has the same idea, it seems more likely that Barnabas knew Luke rather than Mark.

- Barnabas6:6 "What then saith the prophet again [about Jesus]? ... For My garment they cast a lot." as in:
Mt27:35: "And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots;" (see also Mk15:24, Lk23:34 & Jn19:23)

Barnabas 6:6c

and, "They cast lots for my clothing."

καί· Ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον.

Septuagint Psalm 21:19

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον.

They-are-dividing the garments among them and upon the clothing of-me they-cast lots

Barnabas is quoting the Septuagint Psalm 21:19 not Matthew or Mark’s gospel.

From these example we can conclude that Barnabas often quotes from the Septuagint and there is one small example of him using a word used by Luke, rather than using the one used by Mark. We can set this by the side of the earlier examples of his use of Matthew - πολλοὶ κλητοί, ολίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ (many called few yet chosen Mt 22:14), κόκκινον for Matthew’s κοκκίνην (scarlet Mt 27:28) and ἦλθεν (he-came) in Mt 9:13 rather than Mark’s I-came (ἦλθον Mk 2:17).

The evidence seems strongest that the author of Barnabas knew and used Matthew’s gospel. However, is this evidence strong enough to convince everyone?