HistoricalChristian.Faith

Was Matthias the same man as Zacchaeus, or as Barnabas?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: weak — two old attempts to give the featureless Matthias a fuller biography by fusing him with a better-known figure. The first identifies him with Zacchaeus, the tax-collector of Jericho, on the strength of a single line in Clement of Alexandria; the second identifies him with Barnabas, on the surface overlap of the name Joseph. Both fail. The Zacchaeus equation rests on a manuscript variant (Clement’s Greek reads “Matthias” where the standard English reads “Matthew”) and even at face value reports only what “some” said; the Barnabas equation trades on a confusion between Matthias and his rejected fellow-candidate, Joseph Barsabbas, and collapses men the tradition itself keeps distinct. Neither has early or independent support.

The claim

It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans…

— Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.6. Two identifications are on the table. (a) Matthias = Zacchaeus. Clement’s aside — whose Greek runs Zakchaion… hoi de Matthian phasi, “Zacchaeus, or, as some say, Matthias” — is read as evidence that the apostle chosen by lot was the repentant publican of Luke 19 under a second name; a later strand (the Apostolic Constitutions) even makes “Zacchaeus” a first bishop. (b) Matthias = Barnabas. Because the rejected candidate in Acts 1 was “Joseph called Barsabbas” and Barnabas’s given name was also Joseph (Acts 4:36), some have folded the two “Josephs” together and, in the muddle, identified Matthias himself with Barnabas.¹

The evidence for

For the Zacchaeus reading: it has a real second-century root. Clement is an early and serious witness, and the note that “some” called the converted chief-publican “Matthias” is not a medieval invention. It also answers a felt need: Zacchaeus is a vivid convert who then disappears, Matthias a name without a story — joining them gives each what it lacks. For the Barnabas reading: the names genuinely overlap. The rejected candidate is a “Joseph” with the surname Barsabbas; Barnabas is a “Joseph” surnamed by the apostles; and Eusebius, drawing on Clement, lists Barnabas, Matthias, and Barsabbas together among the Seventy — a proximity that could invite fusion. On the surface, a reader could take these as one or two men wearing several names.²

The evidence against

Both equations dissolve on inspection. The Zacchaeus text is unstable and hedged. Clement does not assert the identity; he reports it as what “some say,” and the very name in the sentence wavers between “Matthias” (Greek) and “Matthew” (the Ante-Nicene Fathers rendering) — the same Matthias/Matthew slippage that dogs the whole tradition. A lone, hedged, textually-uncertain aside cannot carry an identification. Worse, it runs against Acts’ own datum: the twelfth apostle had to have followed Jesus “beginning from the baptism of John” (Acts 1:21–22), whereas Zacchaeus meets Jesus only near the end, at Jericho on the last journey to Jerusalem — he does not fit the qualification Matthias by definition met. The Barnabas equation confuses the wrong man. The “Joseph” overlap is with Barsabbas, the candidate who lost the lot — not with Matthias, who won it; and even that link is weak, since Acts distinguishes Joseph Barsabbas from Barnabas without a hint that they are one. Tradition itself keeps all three apart: Eusebius names Barnabas, Matthias, and Barsabbas as separate members of the Seventy. To make Matthias “Barnabas” one must first swap him for his rival and then merge that rival with a third man — two errors stacked.³

Adversarial assessment

What holds. Something real underlies each guess: Clement’s Zacchaeus note is genuinely old, and the “Joseph” names do overlap. The impulse is understandable — a blank apostle attracts identifications the way a vacuum draws air.

What fails. But neither identification meets the bar. The Zacchaeus equation is a single hedged clause, textually unsteady, and contradicted by the eyewitness-from-the-baptism-of-John requirement that defines Matthias; the Barnabas equation is built on mistaking Matthias for the losing candidate and then mis-merging him. In both cases the tradition that supposedly supports the fusion in fact keeps the persons distinct (Eusebius lists them side by side). These are the natural accidents of a figure known from one verse — name-collisions and harmonizing guesses — not evidence of a hidden second identity.⁴

Assessment

Weak. Neither the Zacchaeus nor the Barnabas identification stands. The first rests on one hedged, textually-variant line in Clement and contradicts Matthias’s defining qualification; the second confuses Matthias with the rejected candidate Barsabbas and then with Barnabas beyond him. Matthias is best left as Acts leaves him: a disciple from the beginning, chosen by lot, and otherwise unknown — not a better-known man in disguise.

Sources