Talk:Gospel of Barnabas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Something to Clarify

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that Messiah is Muhammad. Jesus is given that term in the Qur'an [as a title of honor]. (Refer to sura 3:49, 3:45, etc..) and this article http://answering-christianity.org/sami_zaatri/is_isa_god_in_islam.htm

Someone can change this article a bit because the Gospel of Barnabas contradicts Islam's teachings and it is pretty absurd in that part where it said that Jesus said "I am not the Messiah".....

This is not right. Someone should make a sub chapter in the "Muhammad is the Messiah" part to show an islamic perspective about this.

The article is concerned with what the Gospel of Barnabas says about the Messiah; not what may be the orthodox Islamic teaching on the subject, which is covered in Messiah and links. It is surely enough to say that the GoB usage of the term is not consistent with the Qur'an (which indeed is stated more than once in the article). TomHennell 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is wrong. It´s been long proven that the GoB is a hoax produced by muslims somehwere inthe 15th century. It uses words and phrases of the Quoran and also refers to parties that didn´t even exist at the time of Barnabas. So, it´s a bunch of bull...look up some real scientific resources instead ...

That view has certainly been asserted on polemical sites, but I am not aware of any academic study that can be said to have proved it. Those who hold that the text is Muslim in origin, tend rather to suggest that it is Morisco and late 16th Century. But they then are faced with the question of why the book departs so radically from Quraninc traditions on a number of points. Perhaps you could back up your claims with specific references. TomHennell 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom: If you have any doubts, then you are entitled to them. It does not mean that the Gospel does not 'exist'. Why don't you just say the Quran is fabricated, and put that on the Quran's talk page? And if you don't believe it is fabricated, well, that makes you a believer in the Quran? Or could there be a medium position, whereby you acknowledge it exists, but cast doubt on its authenticity, instead of resorting to phrases such as "it´s a bunch of bull" - as this just makes you seem very unprofessional, and your opinions completely ignored by any sane intellectual reader.

Section "Muslim perspectives"

Very interesting, this is a new one on me. I would wonder, though, how neutral it is, if indeed there are some (however biased and unreasonable) Muslims who are publishing it as genuine. We can convey the fact that most researchers believe it's fraudulent without committing Wikipedia to probability estimates ("almost certaintly") with which earnest, well-meaning (but almost certainly wrong, it seems) religionists would disagree. --LMS

These concerns have since been addressed by the section "Muslim perspectives." The neutral POV is that of the dispassionate textual analsysis of a non-partisan historical approach, as with any manuscript. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, some of the people who republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may think it reports on an actual meeting of 19th century people, but it's been proved to be a fabrication. If it is (a) claiming to be an authentic and (b) provably Islamic, then it's not even in the same boat as the 2nd century C.E. gospels. Maybe 'fraudulent' is less neutral than 'fabrication'? --MichaelTinkler

---

It's very easy to say exactly that, though, or that sort of thing, in the relevant articles, from the neutral point of view. If there is not even any minority dissent on the point, you can simply say it's been proven. If there is only a few wacko nuts, then you can say, "It has been proven that such-and-such, according to virtually all researchers. [insert details]" Then you add, as an afterthought in a sentence or two, something to the effect that there is a small minority of people who believe that the fabrication, or whatever, is genuine. What's wrong with that? It's completely fact-stating. --LMS

---

That's true. --MichaelTinkler

---

Omigosh. I decided I wouldn't wait to go by the library this afternoon and get my interlibrary loan books to look in the reference section. Do a google search on Gospel of Barnabas and you poke a hornet's nest. Not fun.--MichaelTinkler

---

The hyperlink in the article is broken. Darn. --Branden

Hyperlink now restored - now incorporates a speculative theory of the origins of the surviving manuscripts, in the bitter internal rivalries within the Papal Curia in the late 16th century. TomHennell 26 Apr 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the above, I have added a para pointing to the published views of David Sox regarding the possibility of the manuscripts representing a forensic falsification. TomHennell 2nd Jun 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further a para added outlining variant theories for the place of origin of the known manuscripts. TomHennell 11th July 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further a para added outlining the "true Pharisee": "false Pharisee" polemic that is prominent in the text. TomHennell 8th Sept 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merbúb ibn Javed, I have moved your useful observation that some Muslim scholars regard the inconsistencies between GOB and the Qur'an as an argument for the work's being genuinely early, into the section on "Islamic Perspectives"; as this bears on the evaluation of the themes of the Gospel, not on the themes themselves. TomHennell 10th May 2005. TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Doesn't appear very neutral. Reads like anti-Islamic propaganda. Most external links are from Anti-Islam site.--Xed 10:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this "Gospel of Barnabas" until George Sale (AD 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur'an (AD 1734), named "Alkoran of Mohammed". Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Not quite true, the earliest unambiguous reference to the current text was by a Morisco Spanish Muslim writer Ibrahim al-Taybili - as is stated in the article - and the earliest scholars to take note of it: Sale and Toland; both considered it a Muslim work. Their writings excited intertest from Muslim polemicists in British India in the mid 19C; and it was this interest that prompted the OUP to commission Lonsdale and Laura Ragg to prepare their scholarly edition and translation.

So some Muslims did know of it, but it would never have been quoted by Islamic scholars in earlier centuries, because of its manifest inconsistencies with the Qur'an (several of which are noted in the article). In this it is similar to the Sacromonte texts, which circulated widely in Morisco circles in Tunisia in the 17th Century, but were then suppressed by the formal Islamic authorities in those countries. In traditional Islamic teaching, there would be no point in quoting from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of the Qur'an, as the corrupt (i.e. a Christian Gospel, however preserved) cannot support the uncorrupt (i.e. the revealed word of Allah). In Islam, the Gospel of Barnabas serves only as a text to confound Christians, and never as a text to instruct Muslims.

So if the Gospel might have originated with a Muslim this cannot have been an orthodox Muslim, but more likely have been a Muslim/Christian - as for instance th 16th Century Morisco forgers of the Sacromonte texts; or a Christian/Muslim - as for instance the 16th Century German, Adam Neuser (Google his name to find out more). TomHennell 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnabas.net

129.116.60.87 I have reverted your relocation of the barnabas.net link; as in the new postion it didn't work (I'm not sure why). However, I am also unsure as to why you would wish to move this link out of the section on "Islamic Perspectives"; when the authors of the site specifically claim to be providing an Islamic viewpoint on the Gospel of Barnabas. Do you not think that this site is properly Islamic? If so, can you state why? TomHennell 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Spurious "confrontation" of Paul and Barnabas

This text sets up a spurious controntation between Paul and this document that has no basis in reality:

"As previously mentioned, the Gospel of Barnabas strongly attacks Paul, as introducing heretical innovations. This has a natural counterpart in Paul's own attacks on Barnabas regarding the reality of Jesus (being God or Prophet) [Paul Message to people of Galatia:1:10]; he also referred to Barnabas as "a hypocrite" who was trying to satisfy the Jews by sticking to their laws especially the law of circumcision [Galatia:2:11-14]." There is no "natural counterpart" operating between 1st century Paul and whatever this document may be. It does attack Paul, but Paul does not attack it, as this anonymous Mohammedan "contributor" would have a reader think. Wikipedia cannot take a stand supporting the historic value of this work. --Wetman 04:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, "Mohammedan" is an insult, and has no place here. Second, the section doesn't set up a "spurious controntation between Paul and this document", as you misleadingly claim; rather, it sets up a rather plausible explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel. - Mustafaa 10:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isn't plausible at all - Galatians does not attack Barnabas, and it does not call him a hypocrite. I quote: 13The other Jews joined him [Peter] in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. It is an attack on Peter, not on Barnabas, who was Paul's buddy in any case. Note "even Barnabas", signifying Paul's respect for him. Graft 19:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Graft We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite". What seems to happen is that Paul was a friend with the disciples like Barnabas but later on, differences started to appear between them according to whether to stick to the law of the Jews or notaaboelela

Well, in any case, Paul does NOT refer to Barnabas as a hypocrite. He refers to the hypocrisy of Peter, and says it caused Barnabas to be "led astray". This passage is meager demonstration of a falling-out between Paul and Barnabas, since the text is obviously respectful and the dispute did not lead to a schism amongst the apostles - it had already been resolved in Paul's favor before this incident. See Acts 11, where Peter describes his reasons for rejecting the covenants of the Old Testament and the new doctrine which was the basis for Paul calling his actions hypocrisy. Graft 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"..it sets up an explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel." Now that would be quite a different thought, if one could honestly derive this reading from the existing text. This is more sensible. Perhaps Mustapha will make the clarifying edit for us all. And now here's a classic Mohammedan thought: "We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite." Astonishing! --Wetman 22:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a rule, not an optional extra. If you are unaware of the offensive nature of the word, I suggest you examine a dictionary. As to the argument, if Barnabas had already accepted Paul's point, then that of course puts a rather different complexion on the matter. - Mustafaa 22:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(In English "Mohammedan" means simply "follower of Mohammed." nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about worshipping anything, not even a stone or the moon. Nothing personal about this linguistic fact, which is most certainly not an attack.) --Wetman 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And "nigger", etymologically, merely means "black" (Latin niger). The literal meaning of a word has no bearing on its offensiveness. - Mustafaa 03:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Nigger" has absolutely nothing to do with "Mohammedan", as this person is cynically aware. A Red herring is a cheap rhetorical trick. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had remembered seeing the Paul issue in non-Muslim sources, and I was right. - Mustafaa 01:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"In this case the name Barnabas may have been added at the same time on the basis of the Epistle of Galatian's portrayal of Barnabas and Paul at odds over the issues of circumcision and unclean meats."[1]

Presumably this reference is to the Epistle to the Galatians —and to the historical Barnabas of the 1st century CE. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Mustafaa - on both counts. To call someone Mohammedan is considered an insult and one should not do it. Wetman, you are out of order. WRT Barnabas - Islamic apologetics towards Christianity have a tendency of searching out real or perceived splits in the early church in order to justify the theory that Christians do not follow the true gospel. SO if - as I presume - the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a medieval muslimic fake, by an author reasonably aware of the New Testament, then to search for a perceived or real spat between the apostles would be a good starting point. It is obviously nonsense to insinuate any continuity between the real Barnabas and a fake several hundreds of years later. But I do not think Mustafaa tried to do thisRefdoc 10:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Please see that Wikipedia doesn't make this falsified connection. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original term "Mohammadan" came about because christians first assumed that Muslims worshipped Muhammad, which we don't. You and everyone else knows that the word is insulting, and dancing around with semantics is sorry indeed...--Venerable Bede 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to pick up issue again and contend that Paul neither calls Barnabas a hypocrite nor do they leave each other on bad terms. The hypocrisy is that Peter used to not insist Gentiles (non Jews) be circumsized and then he started making them upon pressure from some Jews. Two pieces of background: Barnabas had been traveling with Paul among Gentiles who had been circumsized and yet receiving the Holy Spirit (the sign of salvation). Acts 15 records that Barnabas was of the same opinion as Paul in this matter while talking with Peter (the Jerusalem Council). (That makes sense given Barnabas' experience seeing the Holy Spirit in Gentiles and explains Paul's surprise by using the word "even" as noted earlier.) Whatever Paul means by "led astray" is vague but as Barnabas helped convince the Jerusalem Council against circumcision and keeping the Torah, it must not have been very great. Rather, because Paul and Barnabas were together, any flinching by Barnabas would have (and perhaps did) alaram Paul. Also, 1 Corinthians 9.1-6 shows Paul (which is chronologically later) viewed Barnabas as an Apostle on the same level as himself. Besides this, the book of Acts and Paul himself show no one closer to Paul than Barnabas. Blackthirst identifies that if not for Barnabas, Paul would not have had any influence or authority to Christians. If this is correct, Galations has no real support for Hajj Sayed's idea. John Gilchrist writes here

On one other occasion Barnabas was guilty of some religious discrimination with other Jewish Christians in Antioch when they would not eat with the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2.13). Paul censured this strongly but this was also not about a doctrinal matter but one of common fellowship between all Christians no matter what their background. None of these minor disputes had anything to do with the fundamental doctrines Paul and Barnabas so rigidly promoted . . .

He speculates that Barnabas's "led astray"ness is merely that he won't eat with Gentiles by pressure of some Jews while in Jerusalem.

This does not prove that Barnabas did not write GoB, but it shows the New Testament lacks any evidence for it. I'm in favor of throwing out references to Hajj Sayed. His other arguement in the article is also quite weak. Does anyone have any bio info on him or the copy of his work?

As for Blackthirst's idea, it's possible but must neccesitate that the author of GoB knew little of Acts and Paul's books. Unless GoB really was written by Barnabas (and Acts and Paul are lying about him), I see no evidence that the author did know anything on Acts or Paul's books. But Paul's real dispute with Barnabas is in Acts 15.36-41 and that's more likely. Personally, I think the only thing the author knew about Barnabas was that he was most respected disciple in the New Testament after Peter, Paul, John, and James and they already had books in the New Testament.

Before I make any changes, I'll think and little and wait for input from others. --JBJ830726 06:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hajj Sayed?

And to Aabolela: can you provide more detail on "Also Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in Egypt in his new book", like the name of the book and the full name of the author? - Mustafaa 23:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maronite mention?

What, if anything, does the Kitab al-Huda say about the Gospel of Barnabas? Does anyone have a copy?[2] - Mustafaa 01:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which Barnabas?

I've read a little of this book and it was interesting. Is there a consensus between Islamic and Christian scholars on who Barnabas is? Is it the Barnabas found in Acts and the letters or a different Barnabas all together? - Thanks, Hoshie | 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the first words of the Wikipedia article, "The Gospel of Barnabas is a work purporting to be a depiction of the life of Jesus by his disciple Barnabas." --Wetman 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoshie, the Graeco-Roman world was nowhere near as rich in "given" names as are present day English-speaking cultures; and consequently it should never be assumed automatically that the persons designated by very common names (e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Joshua/Jesus, Joseph, Mary) are to be identified. However, the New Testament context appears to make it clear that the persons referred to as Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark in Acts are also to be identified with the persons so designated in the Epistles. The same three persons are also clearly designated in the "Acts of Barnabas" (mid 5th Century). However it cannot be assumed that the person identified as the author of the "Epistle of Barnabas" (probably mid 2nd Century) was intended to be the same individual - if indeed the attribution of that work is primitive; the text is anonymous. The "Barnabas" mentioned in Acts and the Epstles, however, is not described by any ancient witness as a companion of Jesus; whereas in the "Gospel of Barnabas" he also appears as one of the twelve (Thomas apparently losing out). (TomHennell 9th Jan 2006)

Multiple Messiahs

A number of modern Muslims have posited several misnomers about the concept of Messiah. I think this perpetual ambiguity on their part comes from the Qur'an calling Jesus the masih (messiah) while the rest of Islamic belief about Jesus does fit with the first century concept of Messiah, namely that Messiah would restore the Jews to a peaceful Israel. Muslims should decide how to understand masih but the confusion should not spread to the rest of Wikipedia. The word Messiah simpy did not apply to any person who was annointed in the first century or later. (Earlier times, however, were different.) Any person around Jesus' time who was calling himself Messiah was making a significant claim, much day than an ordinary annointed priest or rabbi. I'm open to correction, but I'm quite sure Adam, Noah, and others were never called messiahs.

Further, I can't verify that this "Shamsuddin" has any reputation of scholarship and the site hosting the quote is not reputable either. Thus I've deleted it. --JBJ830726 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

THE ROAD TO TRUTH: THE CASE FOR THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS. Y.A.Khamissa

Within the framework of reference of Liervik’s article, “History as a literary weapon: The Gospel of Barnabas in Muslim-Christian Polemics” is the conspicuous permutation of two contending forces. On the one side we have James the Just juxtaposed with Barnabas and the other Apostles and on the opposing side Paul juxtaposed with the Herodians and the Sanhedrin. There are materials in the New Testament, early church literature, Rabbinic literature and Josephus which point towards a connection between Paul and Herodians.Paul’s pro-Herodian philosophy is enunciated in Romans 13: “Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God. Whoever opposes the existing authority opposes what God has ordered; _ _ _ _ _; pay them your personal and property taxes and show respect and honour for them all.”

Liervik is aware of the prominence of the permutation when he says, “In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, historians of religion as well as liberal theologians claimed access to historical truth about Jesus that ran contrary to Christological doctrines held by the churches.” He says the starting point is, “In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, _ _ _ _” when in fact it was with Paul himself, as he (Paul) spells it out in Romans: 7:1-4 by use of a nuptial analogy the distinction between Jesus and “Christ”.

In the GoB, normative values are employed as the basis for deconstructing the components of the opposing camp, namely the Prologue says: “_ _ _ _many, being deceived of Satan under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrines, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God forever, and permitting every unclean meat, among whom also Paul hath been deceived_ _ _.” The doctrinal differences (from Paul’s side) between the two opposing forces may be highlighted from Paul’s letters and Acts. I believe many of Paul’s letters are unpublished. In his letter to the Galatians he says, “But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public because he was clearly wrong. Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile brothers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favour of circumcising them. The other Jewish brothers also started acting like cowards along with Peter, and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action_ _ _ _ _ I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘_ _ _ _ How then can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?’ _ _ _” (Galatians 2:11-14). In his letter to the Corinthians with regards to Paul’s charge on the Jerusalem “super apostles”. “_ _ _ _ For you gladly tolerate any one who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and gospel completely different from the spirit and gospel you received from us. I do not think that I am the least bit inferior to those very special so called “apostles of yours!” (2 Corinthians 11: 4-5) In his letter to the Galatians Paul writes- “_ _ _ _ But those who seemed to be leaders – I say this because it makes no difference to me what they were; God does not judge by outward appearances – those leaders_ _ _ _ James, Peter and John, who seemed to be leaders_ _ _ _” (Galatians 2: 6&9).

Also, Paul says that: - “But I make known to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor did anyone teach it to me _ _ _ _” (Galatians 1:11). The words, “I neither received it from man----” indicate the Gospel used by the Apostles is different from the Gospel preached by Paul because Paul became a Christian after Christ was risen from the earth and he would therefore would have to accept the Gospel given to him by the Apostles but, as the Apostles of Jesus were men his words, “_ _ _ _ I neither received it from man _ _ _ _” indicate he did not assent to the Gospel used by the Apostles.

The Gospel used by the Apostles was GOB because Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians between 54-58 A.D and GOB was compiled in about 51 A.D. The Gospel of Mark was compiled between 68-70 A.D. and both the authors of Matthew and Luke gospels obtained their information from Mark who most likely obtained his information from his uncle or elder cousin (Col. 4:10) Barnabas during his missionary sojourn with him and also from his(Mark) association with Peter as his interpreter. The Johannine Gospel was produced post the synoptical Gospels.

Paul had been under suspicion by the Jerusalem church because of the reports that he sat rather loosely by the Law in his relations with Jews in the Gentile world (Act xx1:21) teaching them “to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise or observe the customs.” To allay this suspicion he consented to observe a week of a ritual purification. This point marks the anti-climax of Paul’s missionary activity where he puts dirt (base hypocrisy) into his food (doctrines). I take the liberty to quote the revealing relevant verses from the Acts of the Apostles:- “They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs. They are sure to hear that you have arrived. What should be done then? This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses, then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way, everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in accordance with the Law of Moses _ _ _ _ _. So Paul took the men and the next day performed the ceremony of purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of justification, when a sacrifice would be offered for each one of them”

Paul was a participant in both the Roman intrigue to 

exterminate the Jewish Christians opposing Roman rule and the Jewish high priests’ aim to exterminate the Christians. Paul’s fervor for this task was sustained and maintained by his relentless revenge as a rejected suitor for the high priest’s daughter. For Rome and the high priests appointed by Roman intervention to exterminate the Christians was very difficult because their hidden colonies were far and widely interspersed. Not only that. Many for fear of execution kept their faith hidden. The best alternative for Paul was to convert to their faith and adopt the strategy of divide and rule. In this ruse he was very successful because Christians accepted his bona fide and came to believe that the coming of the kingdom of God was near at hand and coupled with Rome’s subtle mechanization led them to revolt against Rome in which - because they were ill equipped - they were utterly devastated ending in the suicide of Eleazar, kin of Manahem who directly started the war by killing Romans at Masada. However, those who were of the Nazarene party (i.e. the successor to James the Just – probably, Simeon Cleophas his first cousin,sic desposyni - , the surviving Apostles and their followers) believed the coming of the Promised Messaih is still afar off (GoB, e.g. chapters 96 & 72) did not join the rebel forces against Rome and therefore emigrated eastward across the Jordan into the Arabian territory of Jordan called Decapolis toward a city called Pella (See P.29) and thereby saved from the miseries of the siege.

         From the pinnacle(raised platform) of the Temple James the Just made a confession about his faith in the Messiah as spelt out in the GoB and was thrown down at once and murdered or awarded death penalty in judicial judgment by Ananus the high priest. This happened before the siege. Paul died by (contrived) martyrdom (11 Timothy iv, 6-8) before the revolt and therefore many Christians must have died prior the revolt due to the question of successorship to Paul. 

         Paul obtained entry into the inner circle of the Apostles solely by the recommendation of Barnabas (Act 9: 26 - 28). Could a leopard change its spots? In order to promote his doctrines Paul denied this (i.e. his thanks to Barnabas for his induction) when he said to the Galatians (probably with regard to his separation with Barnabas), “_ _ _ _ I went to Jerusalem to obtain information from Peter, and I stayed with him for two weeks. I did not see any other Apostle except James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1: 8 - 19).

         The Gentiles believed that the Gods visited the earth in human form. Thus they regarded Barnabas as Jupiter the Supreme God and Paul as Mercurius the message carrier of Jupiter. The Bible says: - “_ _ _ _ _the gods are come to us in likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter and Paul Mercurius _ _ _ _ _” (Act 14: 12). In the “Journey through the Bible” by V. Gilbert (Th.D; Ph.D), Page 369 ,dishonestly, reads:

“Jupiter (Zeus), the chief of the Greek gods, for whom Paul was mistaken”

The Apostles selected Barnabas as the most suitable person to spread the truth and teachings of Jesus among the pagans of Antioch (Act 11: 22) and thus Barnabas became the first missionary in Christian history. Due to his efforts “much people were added to the Lord” (Act 11: 24) for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and faith (Act 11:24). 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(Acts 11:25-26)

The cat is let out of the bag during the meeting among Barnabas, Paul and Mark on the one side with the Roman Consul Paulus and his sorcerer associate Bar Jesus on the other side. Subsequently, from this point the name change from Saul (Paul’s former name) to the Roman name Paul(see namesake of the Roman Consul Paulus,above) takes place, separation between Barnabas and Paul takes place and Paul substitutes Barnabas as the leader of the team and Silas replaces Barnabas. The separation(underestimated in Christian researches) was not due simply whether to take Mark with them. Otherwise, they would have continued bearing in mind the greater end in view they had, viz to spread the message.

I suggest the Asian Jews who stirred the whole crowd against Paul were an integral part of a Roman plot. Roman soldiers arrived in time to save him (Paul) from certain death by the mob. The Roman tribune ordered him to be bound with two chains. But, before taking him (Paul) away under military escort to Caesarea for judgment allowed him to speak to defend himself to the angry mob who few minutes ago would have killed him. At Caesarea he was first tried by the procurator Felix, then two years later by Felix’s successor or Festus, who wishing to show fairness to the Jews, suggested that he might be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, knowing that certain death faced him if he accepted this proposal appealed instead to Caesar. Accompanied by Luke and Aristarchus (Act xxvii, 2) he set sail for Rome. In 11 Timothy 4:16 – 17, “my first defense” and his “rescued from being sentenced to death” suggest his trail and subsequent release.

My hypothesis is that the underpinnings of the doctrines of James the Just and the Apostles is the Gospel of Barnabas. But investigations do not attest the Christian claim that the underpinnings of the doctrines of Paul are the canonical Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Consequently this calls for a critical evaluation of the extant Gospel of Barnabas(attested by the Italian and Spanish manuscripts)using the comparative method, i.e. extant GoB vs. Canonical Gospels in gestalt perspective. In turn, this makes our starting point the comparing of the status of the GoB and the Canonical Gospels.

The extant GoB is a fourfold claimant. They are as follows:- 1) Barnabas himself is the author of the GoB. It is written in the first person. I quote in this connection an excerpt from the prologue of the GoB:- “_ _ _ _ for which cause I am writing that truth which I have seen and heard in the intercourse that I had with Jesus, _ _ _ _”

2) Barnabas was instructed by Jesus to write the Gospel. I quote an excerpt from Chapter 221 of the GOB.

  “And Jesus turned himself to him who writeth, and said: ‘See Barnabas, that by all means thou write my Gospel concerning all that hath happened through my dwelling in the world’”

3) He was an Apostle of Jesus during his (Jesus’) ministry. In comparing the list of Apostles in GOB with that of the synoptical Gospels and the Acts, I come to the conclusion that we have Simon the Zealot or Simon of Canaan in lieu of Barnabas. Judas (not Judas Iscariot) is Thomas.

4) He separates the Pharisees into true and false. In distinguishing between “true Pharisees” and “ false Pharisees” (GoB, chapters 144 et seq & 151) I would add that in terms of GoB “ false Pharisees” in the New Testament are those so identifiable because of an accommodating attitude towards Herodian rule and some of its important ramifications such as Herodian appointments of high priests. In Act 23: 6, Paul says, “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. For Paul to approve of the murder of Stephen because he was Jesus’s witness and “taking care of the cloaks of his (Stephen’s) murderers (Acts 22: 19 - 20) and “to do everything he could against the cause of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26: 9) and to go to Damascus “with authority and orders from the high priests” to persecute the followers of Jesus (Acts 26:12) identifies him in terms of GoB as a “false Pharisee.” He had committed all these atrocious deeds while in his capacity as a Pharisee. The question arises here, why should Jesus introduce radical changes in the religion he preached through the medium of a man who had a deep seated hatred for him (Jesus) and his followers and not use the agency of any of his beloved Apostles for that purpose ?! This question becomes more pertinent when we evaluate the doctrinaire differences on pages10et seq. below.

In the rating of the status of the canonical Gospels and Acts (author of Acts is Luke, Paul’s physician), neither Mark nor Luke are in the lists of Jesus’s Apostles as spelt out in the synoptical Gospels and Acts (Gospel of John does not contain the list of Apostles). With regard to the remaining two Gospel authors, Matthew and John. I would like to point out that: - Matthew did not author the Gospel  of Matthew. Proof: Matthew 9:9 reads:-

“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he rose and followed him.” (Emphasis mine). The words “he” and “him” (underlined) indicate that a third person wrote Matthew. If Matthew wrote the Gospel the words would be “I” and “me” respectively thus: - “_ _ _ _ and he said unto me, Follow me. And I rose _ _ _ _” J.B. Phillips says: - “Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view.”

    The Gospel of John is also not by John. John 19:35 reads: - “And he that saw it bare record, _ _ _  _” John was not there during the Passion Play. Mark 14:50 says, “All his disciples forsook him and fled”

     Next, let us consider the doctrinal differences. In its Prologue, the GoB says that Paul has waived the obligation of circumcision. Paul says:- “Now I, Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” (Galatians 5:12). But the truth is that Christ himself was circumcised. The Bible says: - “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, _ _ _ _” (Luke 2:21). According to Genesis 17 :9 – 13, “circumcision in the flesh of your foreskin” is a perpetual pact with God and in the next verse (14), the uncircumcised to be “cut off”. In chapter 23 of the GoB the rationale of circumcision is provided. It is symbolical of eschewing being a servant of the flesh (evil desires which are rebellious against God’s laws)

In Matthew 15: 25 -26 reads:- “At this the woman came and fell at his feet. ‘Help me, Sir!’ she said. Jesus answered: ‘ It is not good to take the bread from the children’s hands and give it to the dogs.’” How can rational Jesus call a people dogs? The Bible stops short here, because to give the context in which the word dogs was used evinces the necessity for circumcision. In this regard, the GOB gives the context in which the word dogs was used. The corresponding excerpt from GOB, chapter 21, reads; “ ----O son of David have mercy on me’’ Jesus answered: It is not good to take the bread from the children’s hands and give it to the dogs’. And this said Jesus by reason of their uncleanness, because they were of the uncircumcised people.”

    Verse 13of the Gospel of Thomas reports Jesus as saying: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”—clearly, James the Just is substituted for Prophet Mohammed(Gospel of Barnabas—chapter 97).
     James the Just is of the “pro-circumcision” group. Despite the favorable mention of James the Just (quoted above), the Gospel of Thomas dismisses circumcision: 

“His disciples said to him, ‘Is circumcision useful or not?’ He said to them, ‘If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother.”----of course these irrational words is not possible for Jesus to utter especially in view of Genesis17:9—13, quoted above (page 10).

Another charge in the GoB against Paul is his demand for separation from the Laws of Moses. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 21:23 where  it is written that any man crucified on the cross is a cursed person (in ancient language a wooden cross is a symbol of a tree),deemed the Laws of Moses to be a curse. 

Thus Paul preached:- “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Laws by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’”(Galatians 3: 15) But, the instruction Christ gave about the Law is clearly stated in Matthew 5:17 – 19:- “Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teaching of the Prophets, _ _ _ _ Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with – not until the end of all things. So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the kingdom of heaven, on the other- hand, whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven” In Matthew 19: 16 – 17, Jesus also teaches, “to keep the commandments” to obtain salvation. The Christians say that they will obtain salvation without keeping the commandments because Jesus died for their sins. Was there a contract between Father and son for this redemptive sacrifice? From the “call to arms” in the upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for his redeeming blood to be shed to annul the sins of Christians for not keeping the commandments.

The third charge against Paul in the Prologue (and there are three charges mentioned in the Prologue) is that Paul preaches that Jesus is the Son of God. It is important to note that there are no capital letters in Hebrew or Greek language. The translators have been manipulating the usuage of the capital letters, for example as in Son, God and Man, to suit their ulterior ends in view. Of course, this calls for a lengthy discussion but the present is not the proper occasion. It was in the ethos of the era of Jesus to use biological words literally due to the pervasive influence of the Roman and Greek cultures. Consequently, in the GoB (chapter 70) when Jesus rebuked Peter for calling him Son of God, Peter did not excuse himself that he meant figuratively, not literally (mark this!). In Matthew 16:13, when Peter responds to Jesus’s question saying he is the Son of God, Jesus becomes jubiliant that he says to Peter, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,----.” On the contrary, the same scenario in the GoB (chapter 70) when Peter in responding to Jesus’s question about his (Jesus) identification says that he is the Son of God ,Jesus rebukes him with the greatest indignation. This is a very pertinent question not only in the GoB and the Bible but also to the Christian faith. Amazingly, the answer is in the Bible itself when Peter himself says:- “ Ye men of Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God_ _ _ _” (Acts 2:22).

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is the product of “ thirty two scholars of the highest eminence assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating denominations”. It is interesting to note that in this revised version (RSV), the word, “begotten” which appeared in the Authorised Version (AV) has been removed from John 3:16, so it now reads:- “_ _ _ _. That he gave his only son, _ _ _” in lieu of, “_ _ _that he gave his only begotten son, _ _ _”.

John 11: 41 – 42 clearly indicates that Jesus is not “God” nor “Son of God” (i.e. God incarnated himself into man to be the Son of God.) but a messenger of God (i.e. a Prophet). This quotation (i.e. John 11: 41-42 just now referred to above) relates to the episode of Jesus’s miracle of reviving Lazarus from dead, reads:-

“Jesus looked up towards heaven and said ‘Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said that they may believe that thou hast sent me’_ _ _”. Professor Margaret Murray in her book entitled “The splendor that was Egypt’’, says: “It (the pagan cult) is perhaps the most perfect example of that belief which_ _ _, viz that God is incarnate in man (son of God), which belief is usually accompanied by the rite of killing the Divine man_ _ _”. This leaves us with an absurd theology, viz, that if the Son of God (who is God incarnate) died on the cross then God died. God the Holy Ghost makes an odd third.

The usage of figurative language was already in vogue by the medieval centuries – the period during which the opponents say the forgery of the GoB had taken place. If it was the forgery born in the medieval century then there would be reason for the employment of the concept “Father”, especially in view of the diatesseronic precedent, viz, it would be in consonance with the canonical Gospels – e.g. “Lord’s prayer” in GoB begins “ Lord God” in lieu of “O Father” as in the canonical Gospels. Living in the first century, Barnabas as author of the GoB during an era in which the ethos was permeated by Roman and Greek cultures where gods slept with humans and begot children was well motivated not to use the term “Father” because he (Barnabas) maintained that Jesus preached pure monotheism and was fully aware of the biological meaning the word “Father” would take in his (Barnabas) mythological cultural milieu. This is a clear tell sign that the GoB was a product of the first century when “son” had primarily a biological conatation and not in the medievial times (as the opponents wrongly say) when literal and figurative meanings were simultaneously admitted into the prevailing culture.

There were two sets of groups vying to subdue Jesus, namely the Roman soldiers and the high priests with their subordinate priests and scribes. The former representing rank idolatory and the latter representing people who use religion to obtain hegemony over others to secure their ulterior ends.

According to Roman belief Augustus Caesar the first emperor of the Roman Empire and contemporary of Jesus was a descendent of the Supreme God, Jupiter, through Aeneas. Anchises (a human being) slept with the goddess Venus, the daughter of Jupiter, and begot Aeneas. To every Roman is inculculated the belief:- “Thou, O Roman, remember to rule the nations beneath thy sway. These shall be thine arts, to impose the laws of peace, to spare the conquered and to chasten the proud in war.” (Aeneid, vi:853-854 ).

In the GoB, Jesus prevails over his enemies but on the contrary in the canonical version he is subdued by them. In this connection in the GoB, amongst others, two scenarios which are absent in the Biblical version may be presented, viz, one is Jesus’s triumphant encounter with the Roman soldiers (chapter 152); the other is Jesus’s triumphant encounter with the priests(chapter 208).

To my mind, the mentioning in the GoB of these encounters and the strategy of defense used, and further noticing their absence in the Biblical version, constitutes one of the greatest proof for the authencity of the GoB. I believe that (intuitionally)it is an historical reality and ought to be an historical reality. If the Romans overcame Jesus then it would mean to the Romans that their gods, which are mere statues, which cannot even help themselves or create a fly, are superior. It occurs that to the Romans the gods ,goddesses and greater gods are not merely punitive or angry but malevolent on a grand scale(Aeneid).

To the priests for Jesus to be crucified would mean that he (Jesus) is the cursed one in terms of Deuteronomy 21: 22- 23 – the wooden cross being a symbol in ancient language a tree. See my emphasis on page12. Professor Blackhirst in this connection has said :-

“_ _ _ scenes in which Barnabas places a militant and an uncompromising ‘zealous’ Jesus in an atmosphere of violence and dissension which is, in fact, closer to the historical realities of the period than the benign and often pastoral atmosphere depicted in the canonical accounts_____”

I quote excerpts from the two chapters describing the two scenarios referred to above with regard to Jesus’s triumph. Chapter 152 – GoB :- encounter with the Roman soldiers :- “_ _ _ _ Jesus said: ‘assuredly, seeing they (i.e. gods of the Roman soldiers) make not a single fly afresh, I will not for them for sake that God who hath created everything with a single word: whose name alone affrighteth armies’. The soldiers answered: ‘ Now let us see this for we a fain to take thee,’ and they were fain to stretch forth their hands against Jesus Then said Jesus: ‘Adonia Sabaoth’! Whereupon straight away the soldiers were rolled out of the Temple as one rolleth casks of wood when they washed to refill them with wine; in so much that now their head and now their feet struck the ground, and that without anyone touching them. And they were so affrighted and fled in such wise that they were never more seen in Judea.”

In chapter 208 – GoB, encounter with the priests:

“Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: ‘Let us stone this impious fellow (referring to Jesus – God forbid), for he (Jesus) is an Ishmaelite and hath spoken blashphemy against Moses (an Isralelite) and against the law of God (i.e. referring to their unscrupulous observance of formalities rather than the spiritual). Whereupon every scribe and Pharisee, with the elders of the people, took up stones to stone Jesus who vanished from their eyes and went out of the Temple. And then, through the great desire that they had to slay Jesus, blinded with fury and hatred they struck one another-----”

Now we come to the (main) pivotal issue around which revolve the other (subsidiary) issues, viz, Muhammed is the promised seed and the Promised Messiah. Towards an understanding of the issue in the correct perspective the following preamble is essential. Abraham’s wife Hajar bore him a child. In Genesis 16:15, “_ _ _ called his (Abraham) son’s name, which Hajar bare, Ishmael.” About 14 years later Isaac was born. Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 20:50) while Ishmael was born to Abraham was 86 years old ( Genesis 16:16). Ishmael was therefore about 14 years older than Isaac. During this period of about 14 years Ishmael was the only son of Abraham; at no time was Isaac the only son of Abraham. To substitute “Isaac” for Ishmael in order to extol the Jewish nation in Genesis 22:2, “Take your son,” God said, “ your only son, Isaac_____” is foul play because Ishmael according to the Bible was the only son for about 14 years and Isaac was never the only son. An excerpt from chapter 44 of GoB reads:- “_ _ _ _How is Isaac first born if when Isaac was born Ishmael was seven years old? Then said the disciples: ‘Clear is the deception of our doctors. Therefore tell us thou the truth, because we know that thou art sent from God’. Then answered Jesus: ‘Verily I say unto you, _ _ _’” An excerpt from chapter 96 GoB reads: “_ _ _ God promised to our father Abraham, saying: ‘In thy seed will I bless all the tribes of the earth’ _ _ _” In this connection the Bible says:- “Because you did this (i.e. offering Ishmael for sacrifice – first born) and did not keep back you only son from me” (Genesis 22:16) “In thy seed will I bless all the tribes of the earth” (Genesis 22:18)

Another point to note is the descendants of Ishmael are Arabs and the descendents of Isaac are the Jews. The Holy Prophet Muhammed (God’s choicest blessing be upon him) is the direct descendent of Ishmael and therefore an Arab. The Arabs are the brothers (brethren) of the Jews as Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, both having Abraham as their biological father. The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 says that the Prophet (The Promised Messiah) will be “from among their” (Jews) brethren (Ishmaelites) and not “from among themselves.” Clearly it is therefore the Holy Prophet Muhammed that is specifically referred to as the Promised Messiah. The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 reads:- “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee (i.e. Moses), and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him.”

It is common knowledge from Muslim history that 27 Ramadan in the cave of Hira that Prophet Muhammed received his first revealation when the Archangel Gabriel commanded him to read and he (Prophet Muhammed) responded : I am not learned and the angel commands a second time: “Read” and he says, I am not learned.” This scenario fulfils to the hilt the prophecy of the Promised Messiah in Isaiah, which reads:-

“And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.” (Isaiah 29:12).

Also please allow me to mention here a prophecy about Prophet Muhammed enacted in history citied in the GoB, chapter 72. In his note 37, to the article, “Barnabas and the Gospels: Was there an early Gospel of Barnabas”, Professor Blackhirst has  said that, “the author knew the Fourth Gospel well and the hadith of Muhammed not at all.” Therefore, is it too much to say that an historical incident predicted in the Gospel of Barnabas is a positive contribution toward the authencity of the Gospel. More so, when the learned Professor admits that redaction of Muslim inspiration is not possible citing for his contention the usage of the word “Messiah” for Muhammed and that no mention is made of John the Baptist. With regard to this a verse in chapter 72, page 78, reads: “_ _ _ and so he will send his messenger, over whose head will rest a white cloud whereby he shall be known of one elect of God, _ _  _ ”. It was the Monk Bahira who espied from afar from his cell in Bassra a cloud over the Prophet’s head when the Prophet aged 9 was on his way to Syria accompanying his uncle Abu Talib. Bahira was doubly certain when he saw the seal of prophecy between his shoulders – between the shoulders of the Prophet was a raised piece of flesh with the Arabic words naturally imprinted on it saying that there is only one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger.

Coming back to our discussion on the “Promised Messiah.” In Luke, 20: 41-44, under the heading, “The question about the Messiah” (also appearing under the heading, “the question about the Messiah” in Matthew 22: 41-46; Mark 12: 35 – 37 ) there occur the following verses:- “The Question about the Messiah 41 Jesus asked them, ‘How can it be said that the Messiah will be the descendent of David? 42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to My Lord: sit here on my right 43 until I put your enemies as a footstool under your feet.’ 4.4 David called him ‘Lord’ – how then, can the Messiah be David’s descendant?’” All the synoptical gospel authors (passage does not occur in John’s Gospel) stop at this point abruptly!! What has frightened these gospel writers that they discontinue without finishing what is to be said and start to run similar to cowards in the battlefield? Let me now give you the corresponding portion in the GoB, which not only makes the authencity of the Gospel of Barnabas all the more clear but also demonstrates that Prophet Muhammed (God’s choicest blessing be upon him) is the Promised Messiah. Chapter 43 of the GoB reads:- “_ _ _ James answered: ‘O Master, tell us in whom this promise was made; for the Jews say. ‘In Isaac’, and the Ishmaelites say, ‘in Ishmael’ Jesus answered: ‘David whose son was he, and of what lineage?’ James answered: ‘Of Isaac; for Isaac was the father of Jacob and Jacob was the father of Judah, of whose lineage is David.’ Then said Jesus: ‘And the messenger of God when he shall come, of what lineage will he be?’ The disciples answered: ‘Of David’ Whereupon Jesus said: ‘Ye deceive yourselves, for David in spirit calleth him lord; saying thus: ‘God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies?’ If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.’” Prophet Mohammed was the descendent of Ishmael, and the Jewish prophets including Jesus were the descendents of Isaac – God’s choicest blessings be upon all these Prophets.

Is it not a miracle that the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is mentioned by name in ancient scriptures (even in the Hindu Scriptures)? It is significant to note that there was no namesake of Muhammed before his advent and no claimant to Prophet hood with the name Muhammed (calling himself “ Prophet Mohammed”) before and after his advent. In the “Song of Solomon” (5: 16) Muhammed is mentioned by name. The “Song of Solomon” (5:16) in the original Hebrew Bible reads:- “Hikor mumey thakeem ‘Weykhoolo Muhammedim’ zeydodi weyzey rayee beynoth Yerushalayeem” In the word, “Muhammedim”, in Hebrew language “im” is the plural of respect. In the present Bible, “Yea he is called Muhammed” is translated as “Yea he is altogether lovely”

Consider the following excerpt from Gospel of John:- “_ _ _ It is expedient for you that I go: for if I go not away the Comforter will not come _ _ _”.(John 16:7) Thus we see the coming of the Comforter was conditional on Jesus going away. But, that of the Holy Ghost was not because there are numerous instances in the Holy Bible about the coming and going away of the Holy Ghost before the going away of Jesus.

In John 14:26, the Greek word “pneuma” has been translated as “Holy Ghost” which correctly should read “Holy Spirit.” However this has been corrected in the Revised Standard Version, which now reads:- “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit _ _ _” (Jn 14:26). But the same author of Gospel of John in which the concept “Comforter” occurs uses the word “Spirit” synonymously with “Prophet” (1 John 4 :1);therefore “Comforter” which is referred to as the Holy Spirit means “Holy Prophet” i.e. Holy Prophet Muhammed. At the Pentecost, there was only babbling as if “they were drunk” and not fulfillment of the prophecy that the “Comforter” would announce “many truths”. An absurd connection!

Furthermore, the word “Comforter” is the English translation of the Greek word “Periclytos” which in Arabic translates as Ahmad or Mohammed.

A central question related to the “Paraclete” must be raised here, namely, why did the Jews desire to kill Jesus and by what method and why this method? They wanted to kill Jesus because he said that the Messiah (in the Gospel of Barnabas, Paraclete = Messiah) will not be in the lineage of Isaac from whose lineage are the Jews. In this connection they changed their scriptures substituting, Isaac for Ishmael – “_ _ _ take thy only son, Isaac” (Genesis 22:2), see pp18 et seq. According to the Atharva Veda, Atharva (Ishmael) was offered for sacrifice. Chapter 206 (GoB), reads:- “_ _ _ Jesus answered: what is that thing which thou seekest to know about the Messiah? Perchance it is a lie? Assuredly, I will not tell thee the lie. For if I had said the lie I had been adored by thee, and by thy scribes and Pharisees with all Israel: but because I tell you the truth ye hate me and seek to kill me.’ _ _ _” After Jesus was arrested, but before he was brought before Pilate, he was brought before the Sanhedrim tribunal of the Jews. In this regard, Luke 22:66 – 71 says:-

“When the day came, the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the Laws met together, and Jesus was brought before the Council. ‘Tell us’ they said, ‘are you the Messiah?’ (In the canonical Gospels, Messiah = Paraclete). He answered, ‘If I tell you, you will not answer _ _ _” this is continued in chapter 23:1 – 2 which reads:- “The whole group rose up and took Jesus before Pilate, where they began to (falsely) accuse him: ‘We caught this man misleading our people, telling them not to pay taxes to the Emperor and claiming that he himself is the Messiah, asking_ _ _’” It is important to note here that the Promised Messiah is to fulfill both the functions of a spiritual leader and a temporal leader. And Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) fulfilled both these functions par excellence. (Britannica – most successful of religious personalities). It is of no concern to the Romans from whose lineage the Messiah will be.

In all the synoptical Gospels Jesus clearly says that he is not the Promised Messiah because the Promised Messiah will not be from the lineage of Isaac from whose lineage is David, - see pages 21et seq. “ The question about the Messiah.” In consonance with Deuteronomy 21: 22 – 23 the Jews wished to kill Jesus by means of crucifixion – see pages 16 &17 and then pages11& 12.

Paraclete (Ahmad) reminds me of another point that I would like to bring out. In the Quran it says that Jesus prophecised the coming of Ahmad (61: 6). If the author of the extant GoB lived after the coming of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and therefore the GoB a fabrication, the author would have placed the name “Ahmad” at appropriate places in lieu of “Muhammed” or “Messenger of God”.

 Chapter 124 of the Gospel of Barnabas reads:-                  “_ _ _verily I say unto you that if the truth had been erased from the book of Moses, God would not have given David our father the second. And if the Book of David had not been contaminated, God would not have committed the Gospel to me, seeing that the Lord our God is unchangeable, and hath spoken but one message to all men. Wherefore, when the Messenger of God shall come, he shall come to cleanse away all wherewith the ungodly have contaminated my book,_ _ _”

Clearly, the above extract (and continued to the end of the chapter) indicates that the author of the Gospel is unware of the fact that the Quran is committed to memory from the time of its inception to the present time by millions of Muslims so that even a coma cannot be put out of its place. Annually, the Quran is recited in mosques at mass gatherings all over the world by the huffaz (i.e. those who know the Quran by rote) to ensure that the memorization of the Quran is everfresh. In my own small town I would say for every 200 Muslims there is one Muslim who knows the whole Quran by heart (rote). It is therefore always said that if all the books of the world were burnt, the Quran would be reproduced exactly word for word, coma for coma, full stop for full stop as the original was. If the Gospel was a fabrication the author would have pointed out naturally with advantage to his cause that the book given to the Messenger of God would never be liable to change because it would be committed to memory for all times and in that way preserved by God and no further Book will be given.

In chapter 118 of the GoB there occurs an excerpt where Jesus draws an analogy about smoking to his disciples. It reads:- “_ _ _Tell me, then, if one had two pence to buy bread, would he spend it to buy smoke? Assuredly not, seeing that smoke doth hurt to the eyes and giveth no sustenance to the body_ _ _” Clearly these words are spoken in an era where smoking as an exchange value was an anachronism. Many, many centuries after Jesus’ sojourn did we have the discovery of smoking cigarette, cigar, hookah etcetera and thereby command a value in exchange i.e. fetching a price due to its demand. Ponder, and you will see this as a clue for the authencity of the GoB.

With regard to the anachronism of Jubilee as being held once every century, it may be considered that the error was made by the transcriber who read “hundred” and wrote it by mistake. There are catchwords at the bottom of each page of the Italian version, a practice common in manuscript intended to be set up for printing. When we take into consideration the immense knowledge of the compiler of the GoB has of ancient scriptures, it seems difficult to believe that such a scholar would make an error as to set the period of Jubilee as once in a century rather than every fifty years as described in Levitus 25:18 and 27 : 16 – 25.The Christian scholar Dr Sadaat (who is not a friend of the Muslims) says that such error is not possible even from a layman. This may also indicate that 100 years is historically correct as demonstrated from Israelite history by M.A. Youssef in his introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas. Personally, I am convinced that this prophecy refers empirically to the “Lai-la-tul-Qadar” night. GoB, chapter 83, reads:- “_ _ _This night shall be in the time of the Messiah, messenger of God, the Jubilee every year that now cometh every hundred years. Therefore I will not that we sleep, but let us make prayer_ _ _’”. Chapter 97 of the Quran, verse 31 says: “_ _ _ This night of power (i.e. Lai-la-tul-Qadar) is better than a thousand months”. 1000 months when rounded off gives 100 years. Therefore, I feel convinced with further reading on “Lai-la-tul-Qadar” that the reference of the Jubilee year is the “night of power” (“Lai-la-tul-Qadar”) referred to Surah 97 of the Quran. It was introduced in the Prophet’s era as a sign of God’s Mercy to his (Prophet’s) community.

In chapter 20 we read: “Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth, _ _ _”. Apparently this is a geographical incongruity, but the Nazareth spoken here is not the city which today bears that name but of a community of Nazarenes living near the lake Galilee. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Professor Blackhirst says the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable. In this same chapter, “city of Nazareth” is equated at two places very broadly to “ a country” (chapter 20). The present day town of Nazareth is in lower Galilee in Israel on the border of the plain Esdraelon, 1600 ft above sea level. According to the 4th century theologian Epihanius, the Nazarenes was an Ebionite sect which consisted of Jewish Christians who left Jerusalem for Pella, on the other side of Jordan, just before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 (see page 5). Bagatti,the principal archaeologist at the site in Nazareth ,provided evidence that there was no city of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

According to GoB, Jesus was born during the rule of Pontius Pilate. This apparent anachronism may be explained by the fact Pontius Pilate ruling Judea from about 7 BC for the legate of Syria who was controlling Judea, and on 26 A.D. Pontius Pilate was officially appointed as ruler of Judea.

The metaphor, “as one rolleth casks of wood when they washed to refill them with wine” is so very apt and effective that if it was an anachronism then it is an interpolation(in good faith) by the translator. The onus is on the opponents to prove it to be an anachronism. From a reading of Vergil’s Aeneid one would not consider wine being stored in wooden casks in the 1st century as an anachronism. Wine is put into casks when judged ready; and wine improves with age---in early times sophisticated wooden ships were built ,therefore I see no reason to doubt the existence of wooden casks in the 1st century. Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence that wooden casks were not in usuage in the 1st century. ( see chapter 152 (GoB)for context in which the metaphor is applied.)

The discrepancies between Quranic versions and the GoB versions indicate that the GoB chronologically preceded the Quran.The contradictions are not its weaknesses but provide instances of strength because no fabricator would undermine his forgery deliberately with inconsistencies. The difference between the Quranic version of God asking the angels to make obeisance to Adam when he was already a living being and whose superiority over the angels has already been established in respect of conceptual knowledge in contrast to the version in the GoB where God asks the angels to make reverence to Adam who at that stage is still an inanimate clay may be explained by the fact that the Quran is direct revealation of God and the GoB is the product of human capacity though divinely inspired. Subtle differences between the Quran and the G9oB may also be due to the fact that the Quran is a direct revealation of God and the GoB is a product of a human being who was divinely inspired. Let us look at the announcing of the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). In the encounter between the Holy Spirit (angel Gabriel) who appeared as a man and Mary the Gospel of Barnabas (chapter 1) says, “_ _ _ being one day alone, there entered into her chamber the angel Gabriel (appearing as a man), and he saluted her saying, ‘ God be with thee, O Mary.’ The virgin was affrighted at the appearance of the angel_ _ _”. In the Quran her spontaneous response was in response to her religious consciousness, viz. “_ _ _I take refuge from you to (Allah), Most Gracious_ _” (19:18). This is exactly the behaviorial condition of a God conscious person. In this regard the Bible says:- “In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (of John the Baptist) God sent angel Gabriel _ _ _ He had a message _ _ _Mary was deeply troubled by the Message _ _ _” (Luke 1: 26 - 29). Continuing further down to verse 35, “The angel answered, ‘The Holy Ghost will come on you (God forbid!) and God’s power will rest upon you. For this reason the holy child will be called the Son of God’_ _ _”. In Matthew 1:20 we read:-“ _ _ _ She (Mary) was found with the child of the Holy Ghost.” In Matthew1:18, we read, “_ _ -for that which is conceived in her (Mary) is by the Holy Ghost.” So the Bible rendering should be, “only begotten son of the Holy Ghost”, and not, “only begotten son of God”. (King James or Authorised version).

Some incongruence between the Quran and GoB may be explained by the evolutionary stages taken to make certain phenomena prohibitive e.g. drinking of wine, slavery, etcetera. The angel instructs Mary not to give him (Jesus) wine (GoB, chapter 1). This instruction was for Jesus and not applicable to the community. Thus at the wedding at Cana when his mother asks him to provide wine for the guests he reminds her that he has nothing to do with wine as far as his consumption of it is concerned but because it was not promulgated as a law for his people he converted the six casks of water into wine. Subsequently, the Quran suggested that the sin for drinking wine is greater than the benefit derived from drinking it; that is at this stage no laws were passed against the drinking of wine (for the community). Next, the Quran disallowed prayer to be said in a drunken state. Eventually the Quran prohibits the drinking of wine at anytime and at any place. In an Islamic state the person guilty of drinking wine is to be punished by eighty lashes. Thus viewed evolutionary over a period of space and time the contradiction of the permissibility of taking wine in the GoB and its prohibition in the Quran becomes automatically cleared.

Similar is the story with slavery in evolutionary terms to explain the incongruency between the Quran and the GoB here in. The great philosopher, Aristotle regarded slavery as a natural institution i.e. slaves are predisposed by their nature to be slaves. In the Biblical era during the Old Testament period we read:- “And ye shall take them (the slaves) for a possession; they shall be your bondmen (slaves) for ever_ _ _” (Leviticus 25:46). According to the GoB slavery was also entrenched. But in the Quranic era in the first instance trafficking of slaves was prohibited. Next, the freeing of slaves was encouraged and certain sins could only be expatiated by the freeing of slaves. Slaves could purchase their freedom by providing elementary tuition to the children of their masters. Certain amount of money is to be set aside by the state for the sole purpose of freeing slaves. It has been acutely remarked in a letter by Sir Joseph Thomson to “Times” London (14 Nov. 1887) as follows:-

“I unhesitatingly affirm and I speak from a wider experience of Eastern Central Africa than any of your correspondents possess that if the slave trade thrives it is because Islam has not been introduced in these regions_ _ _.”

The Christian polemicists rehearse that the author of the GOB borrowed from Dante’s(1265-1321) Divina Commedia or Divine Comedy, the greatest Christian poem. It is interesting to note that the author(Vergil) of the Aeneid( which is actually a textbook of idolatry blaspheming God in the superlative) is the guide and mentor of Dante in his Divine Comedy.

I hypothesize that the errors in the Gospel of Barnabas may be,inter alia, attributed to the translator who translated in good faith the original Aramaic Hebrew Gospel of Barnabas lodged in the Vatican library into the Italian language. The Christian polemicists in their implacable anxiety to prove the Gospel of Barnabas a fabrication of the medieval century have ignored this hypothesis in toto. In the substantiation of the hypothesis there are three contributory factors: (1) In the Aramaic Hebrew language usage and terminology there are many variants as in the classical Arabic; (2) The translator was very barely acquainted with the Islamic literature; (3) The translation took place in the medieval century.

Having explained a number of the apparent anachronisms in the GoB and apparent incongruencies between the Quran and the GoB, I would now like to point out how the GoB explains certain of the anomalies in the Bible.

The GoB has cleared the way for a serious anomaly obtained in the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of John 2:4 describing the marriage feast at Cana, we are told that Jesus behaved insolently towards his mother. He calls her “woman” and he crowns it with arrogance when he is made to say – “what have I to do with thee?”

The verse reads:- “_ _ _, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her ‘woman, what have I to do with thee?’ _ _ _” (John 2: 4) This is how the GoB clears the way:- Chapter one of the GoB reads:- “ _ _ _ whom thou shalt name Jesus: and thou (Mary) shalt keep him (Jesus) from wine and from strong drink and every unclean meat, because the child is an holy one of God,_ _ _” Now, the verse corresponding to John 2:4 in chapter 15 of the GoB, reads:- “_ _ _His mother accosted Jesus, saying: ‘They have no wine’. Jesus answered: ‘What is that to me, mother mine?’_ _ _”

The latter part of chapter 42 in the GoB and in the Bible, Matthew 17:1 – 8; Like 9:28-36 and Mark 9:2 - 8 deal with the subject of transfiguration. In the GoB the name of the mount is Tabor whilst it is significant to note that in the Bible no information is provided about the name of the mount. Those who ascended the mount with Jesus are Peter, James and John his brother, and Barnabas according to the GoB, but according to the Bible Peter, James and his brother John are said to ascend the mount – the name of Barnabas is omitted. According to Matthew 17: 3 and Mark 9:4 the three disciples saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus contradicted by Luke 9:32, “Peter and his companions were sound asleep, _ _ _” In the GoB, Moses and Elijah spoke “with Jesus concerning all that needs must come upon our holy city.” What Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus is not mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but Luke says they, “talked with Jesus about the way in which he would soon fulfill God’s purpose by dying in Jerusalem” (Luke 9: 31). Now, this verse (Luke 9:13) raises a vital question viz.,:- If Jesus was aware “ of God’s purpose by dying in Jerusalem”, then why did he cry “tears of blood” at Gethsemane asking God to save him and when on the cross according to the Bible he said “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46) when it would be appropriate to say something like Lord Nelson said, “Thank God, I have done my duty” while dying. Furthermore, according to the canonical Gospels, John is the only eyewitness of the four supposed Gospel authors, but it is interesting to note that this incident is not mentioned in the Gospel of John but mentioned in the Gospel of the other three who were not present. On the contrary, according to GoB, Barnabas was here an eyewitness and gives his eyewitness account. Jesus according to the GoB said to his disciples being “filled with fear”:- “Fear not, for God loveth you, and hath done this in order that you may believe on my words.” On the contrary, in the Bible no rationale is provided about this incident but in its place (in lieu of) the following words are said:- “As they came down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, ‘Don’t tell any one what you have seen until the son of man has risen from death’” (Matt 17:9). Why should the three disciples (four according to the GoB) not tell the remaining of the disciples and others about this when its purpose is to strengthen the conviction of the disciples and others in their faith in Jesus’s preaching and especially in the same scenario according to the Biblical version, “_ _ _and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my own dear son with whom I am pleased – listen to him!’” (Matthew 17:5). In the GoB the corresponding portion reads, “_ _ _ and they heard a voice saying:- ‘Behold my servant in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.’” (Chapter 42), and continues in chapter 43, “Jesus went down to the eight disciples who were awaiting him below. And the four narrated to the eight all that they had seen _ _ _”. In the Bible, the scenario ends with the answer to the question put forward by the disciples to Jesus:- “Why do the teachers of the Law say that Elijah has come first? His answer was, ‘Elijah is indeed come first_ _ _’ then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist” (Matthew 17:11 - 13). This contradicts John the Baptist (John 1:21) when he (John the Baptist) says that he is not Elijah. The corresponding portion in the Gospel of Barnabas for which Matthew 17:11 – 13 was substituted reads:- “Then said Andrew: Thou hast told us many things of the Messiah (in terms of GoB, Messiah = Messenger of God = Muhammed) therefore of thy kindness tell us clearly all.’_ _ _” (Chapter 43). Of course, the substitution for this corresponding verse in the canonical Gospels is to circumvent the reference to Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and in doing so Jesus’s statement clashes with John the Baptist’s statement (God forbid). The whole scenario of the transfiguration is an illustration pointing out that the emergence of anomalies in the canonical Gospels are due to the interpolations by the early redactors on the teachings of Jesus as manifested in the GoB which clearly seems to be the “Quella” source for the canonical (not only the synoptic) Gospels.

I would like to point out another anomaly in the canonical Gospels when the authors try to obliterate the reference to Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him). First, let us see what the corresponding version in GoB says:- chapter 42 of the GoB reads:- “_ _ _ Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: Who art thou?’ Jesus confessed and said the truth: I am not the Messiah.’ They said: ‘art thou Elijah or Jeremiah or any of the ancient Prophets?’ Jesus answered: ‘no’. Then said they: ‘who art thou? Say, inorder that we may give testimony to those who sent us.’ Then said Jesus: I am a voice that crieth through all Judea and crieth: ‘Prepare ye the way for the messenger of the Lord even as it is written in Isaiah, ‘_ _ _ (the messenger of God) who was made before me and shall come after me’_ _ _” In the parallel periscope found in the canonical Gospels the above verses are associated with John the Baptist in lieu of Jesus. John 1:19 – 26 reads:- “19. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem sent some priests and Levites to John to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ 20. John did not refuse to answer, but spoke out openly and clearly saying: ‘ I am not the Messiah’ 21. Who are you then? They asked. ‘Are you Elijah?’ ‘No, I am not,’ John answered.’ ‘Are you that Prophet?’ they asked, ‘no’ , he replied 22. ‘Then tell us who are you?’, they said. ‘We have to take an answer back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ 23. John answered by quoting the Prophet Isaiah: ‘I am the voice of someone shouting in the desert: make a straight path for the Lord to travel!’ _ _ _ 27. _ _ _ ‘He is coming after me. _ _ _’” In the above quotation of the Bible, John clearly says he is not Elijah (1:21). But in Matthew 17: 11 – 13, Jesus says that John is Elijah. Thus in their attempt to eliminate the reference to Prophet Muhammed a lie is foisted on Jesus and John the Baptist. This is just too much! Also, in the above quotation (1:27), “_ _ _ ‘He is coming after me,’ _ _ _” does not refer to Jesus, because Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist (Luke 1:26), but refers to Prophet Muhammed who came after John. Thus the Gospel of Barnabas has rightly associated the above quotation to Jesus and the questions being posed to Jesus and not to John the Baptist.

Next, I would like to say that the Gospel of Barnabas is logical when it say that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of Gold (chapter 214) rather than 30 pieces of Silver (= ± 30 pennies/cents) (Matt.26:15) because he could obtain far more as a purser of Jesus by pinching one-tenth part of the receipt (John 12:6). Again, the GoB says that Judas was hired to show them where Jesus was (chapter 214), but the canonical version to say that Judas was hired to identify Jesus (the Judas kiss) is illogical because the Bible testifies to the fact that Jesus was known among Jews – he used to preach and deliver sermons in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (Matt 26:25).Again, the Biblical version(Matt.2:16) that Herod realized the deceit of the magi two years later defies sanity; in this regard a sane view is presented in the GOB wherein Herod becomes aware soon after their departure(chapter 8). Again I believe the canonical gospels assertion of a night trial by Pontius Pilate is fiction and a daylight trial by Pontius Pilate as alluded to in the GOB(chapter 217) is historical.

In Jesus and his encounter with the Samaritan woman, in Chapter 81 of the GoB we read:- “_ _ _ ‘Lord, hereby perceive I that thou art a Prophet, therefore tell me, I pray: the Hebrews make prayer on Mount Sion in the temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, and say that there and nowhere else (men) find grace and mercy of God. And our people worship on these mountains, and say that only on the mountains of Samaria ought worship to be made. Who are the true worshippers?’_ _ _”. Continuing into chapter 82, we read:- “_ _ _ and turning to the woman he (Jesus) said: - ‘_ _ _ But believe me, a time will come that God will give his mercy in another city, and in every place it will be possible to worship him in truth. And in every place will have accepted true prayer in mercy.’_ _ _. Said the woman: ‘O Lord, thou perchance art the Messiah.’ Jesus answered : ‘I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a Prophet of salvation, but after me shall come the Messiah, sent of God to all the world; _ _ _ _’”.The following is the garbled version of the above citations of the Gospel of Barnabas to circumvent the reference to Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) in the Biblical version. The corresponding Biblical version reads:- John 4: 19. ‘ I see you are a Prophet Sir, the woman said. 20 ‘My Samaritan ancestors worshipped God on this mountain, but the Jews say that Jerusalem is the place where we should worship God’ (who are the true worshippers?). 21 Jesus said to her, Believe me, woman, the time will (future tense) come when people will (future) not worship the Father either in this mountain or in Jerusalem’ (but believe me, a time will come that God will give his mercy in another city, and in every place it will be possible to worship him in truth.) _ _ _ 23. But the time is coming and is already here (contradiction, future is not present), when by the power of God’s spirit people will worship the Father as he really is’ (i.e. in every place it will be possible to worship Him in truth). 25. The woman said to him. ‘I know that the Messiah will come, and when he comes, he will tell us everything (In John 14:26 says that the Comforter, who is distinct from him (Jesus) will tell everything - ‘How be it when he the Comforter of truth shall tell thee everything’) 26. Jesus answered, ‘I am he, I who am talking with you’”. From the above Biblical extract and other verses in John 4, about Jesus and the Samaritan woman, it is clear that the Messiah will come to all nations. But, Jesus was sent (in the context of the extract “is sent”) to the lost tribe of Israel (Matthew 15:24), but Prophet Muhammed to all mankind (Quran 34:28). Also it was clearly seen above that the “Comforter” of the 4th Gospel is “Prophet Muhammed”. What is bred (as when a hen broods over her eggs) in the bone will come out (i.e. hatch) in the flesh is aptly relevant to our discussion on Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. Can you see?

In Matthew 21:9 (The triumphant entry into Jerusalem) reads, “The crowd (the large crowd of disciples – Luke 19:37) began to shout, ‘Praise to David’s son! God bless him_ _ _’.In Luke 19:14 reads, “Jesus answered, ‘ I tell you that if they (the large crowd of disciples) keep quiet, the stones themselves will start shouting’” The words, ‘ Praise be David’s son’ (Matthew 21:9) indicate that the Messiah is not Jesus because Matthew 22:45 reads, “ if, then David called him ‘Lord’, how can the Messiah be David’s Son” - see pp21 et seq – “The question about the Messiah” Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem is dealt in GoB chapter 200, Matthew 21:1 – 11; Mark 11:1- 11; John 12:12 -19 and with more canonical details in Luke 19: 28 -40. In Luke 19:39 – 40 (not mentioned in the other canonical narratives) reads: “Then some of the Pharisees in the crowd spoke to Jesus: ‘Teacher’, they said, command your disciples to be quiet!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you that if they keep quiet, the stones themselves will start shouting’ _ _ _” In the corresponding chapter 200 of the GoB (the additional words in the GoB not found in any of the canonical gospels I have underlined) reads:- “The Pharisees rebuked Jesus, saying: - ‘seest thou not what these say? Cause them to hold their peace!’ Then said Jesus: ‘As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, if men should hold their peace, the stones would cry out against the unbelief of the malignant sinners’. And when Jesus had said this all the stones of Jerusalem cried out with a great noise: ‘Blessed be he who comes to us in the name of the Lord God!’. Never theless the Pharisees remained still in their unbelief, and having assembled themselves together took counsel to catch him in his talks”.

In the scenario, “woman caught in adultery” (John 8:4 - 11) and (GoB, Chapter 201) please note the extra words (not mentioned in the Biblical narrative) in the Gospel of Barnabas, viz:- “Thereupon Jesus stooped down and with his finger made a mirror on the ground where in everyone saw his own iniquities. As they still pressed for the answer, Jesus lifted himself and pointing to the mirror with his finger, said: _ _ _” The woman was probably a Gentile, other wise the Law of Moses would be applied. In chapter 192 in GoB we read:- “_ _ _ Mary answered: Bethany is the home of my brother and my sister, for my own house is Magdala _ _ _”.In John 11:1 we read, “a man named Lazarus, who lived in Bethany was ill. Bethany was the town where Mary and her sister Martha lived.”Thus in terms of GoB, chapter 192, quoted above, Mary of Bethany in John 11:1, quoted above, is the same Mary of Magdala which the canonical gospels identify as two separate persons – i.e. Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdalene. The canonical gospels Matthew (26:6 – 13) (Simon’s house); Mark 14:3 -9 (Simon’s house) and John 12:3 (Lazarus’ house) tell us that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus of which act Jesus held in high esteem. This same Mary in the Gospel of Barnabas is referred to as Mary of Magdalene saying she lives in Magdala. Now, Mary of Magdalene went alone according to John 20:1 to anoint Jesus because previously Jesus highly praised and approved of her anointing. Thus I come to the conclusion that Mary (Martha’s and Lazarus’ sister) lived in Magdala as told to us in the GoB and not in Bethany as given to us in the canonical Gospels. Professor R. Schippers of the University of Amsterdam concurs. Schippers says that, in an early tradition, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same person or atleast that stories about them were interchangeable.

Also the GoB (chapter 209) tells us that Mary Salome is Jesus’ mother’s sister. In Semite terminology, cousin means sister also. Note that, nowhere in the Bible is disclosed Salome is Jesus’ mother’s sister. Within the framework of Biblical reference, it means that Mary Salome is the mother of James the Just. James the Just is also called the Lord’s brother. The exact nature of this relationship implied has been the subject of much discussion. Jerome’s view (de vir 111.2) is that the “brother” was in reality cousin, “son of Mary the sister of the Lord’s brother”.

Now, I come to the passion version of my discussion, viz, events leading to the crucifiction, the crucifiction and its aftermath. In chapter 213 of the GoB it is written, “_ _ _ _ ‘ verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me, in so much that I shall be sold like a sheep – but woe to him, for he shall fulfill all that our further David said of such an one, that ‘ he shall fall into the pit which he had prepared for others’ (Pa 7:15) _ _ _”. I regard this statement as the crux of the matter with regard to crucifiction. As the events unfold, as narrated both in the canonical gospels and the GoB, it is this statement of David (Psalms 7:15) that makes the account spelt out in the GoB so very logical. It shows the ingenuity of God to foil a nefarious plot against a messenger of God engineered by his hypocritical disciple, and subsequently the humiliating and painful punishment is inflicted on the traitor (who rightly deserved it) in lieu of the holy Master. Remember a hypocrite is more evil than an openly avowed enemy because the former is in secrecy in his destructive planning. Therefore rationally I think it is most befitting a punishment accorded to the base and ungrateful Judas as told to us in the GoB.

Time and again we read in the GoB and in the canonical Gospels that the Jewish Priests, Sadducees & Pharisees pose questions to Jesus to humiliate him, but in each of the instances Jesus answers bring home to the questioners their stupidity. In chapter 152 of the GoB is an interesting account how Jesus subdues the violent Roman soldiers not withstanding their military prowess and in chapter 208 also he outwits the violent priests. It is the height of ridicule that finally Jesus is humiliated by these same persecutors to such an extent that further humiliation can never be imagined, and we are reminded here of Jesus praying in Gethsemane with tears of blood requesting God to prevent this misery happening to him. Imagine the unprecedented mockery scene enacted at the Sanhedrin hall, emperor Herod’s house, governor Pilate’s palace and finally and fatally to show that Jesus is the accursed one (God forbid) in terms of Deuteronomy 21:22 he is crucified. This really smacks of the ultimate of colloquial illogic and stupidity. The person most fitted for this treatment is two faced Judas, bearing in mind that the help of God is always at hand for the God conscious and this characteristic Jesus remarkably possessed .We are aware of the faith of Jesus in God – a mountain can be moved but not Jesus and his faith in God. For Jesus to say, “_ _ _ Eli, Eli lema sabachthani?” which means “ My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is unbecoming and makes no sense. Therefore, I believe, the GoB is the correct record, reading:- “_ _ _ Judas truly did nothing else but cry out: ‘God, why hast thou forsaken me, seeing the malefactor hath escaped and I die unjustly?’ _ _ _” (chapter 217). “_ _ _ the voice, the face and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus _ _ _’’(chapter 218). Earlier in chapter 216 of the GoB it is written: “Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, in so much that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he having awakened us (compare it with the caricature in the Biblical version:- Mark the contrast!!) was seeking where the master was. Whereupon we marveled, and answered: Thou Lord, art our master, hast thou forgotten us?’ And he, smiling said: ‘Now are ye foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!’ And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas because he was in every way like to Jesus _ _ _”. Thus the merciless traitor fell into his own trap that he engineered against Jesus!

The following verdict in the Gospel of Barnabas seems to me to be correct:- “Those disciples who did not fear God went by night and stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading a report that Jesus was risen again, whence great confusion arose.” This is my motivation:-It was on the second day that Mary of Magdalene was at the tomb of “Jesus” (John 20:1 – the first day of the week). According to the Bible, she was there to anoint the body. Probably, Mary of Magdalene could not anoint the body on Friday night and the day of Saturday because it was the Sabath day, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. The body was wrapped with 100 pounds of ointment and was buried just before sunset of the Friday. Mary Magdalane was probably absent. When Mary of Magdalene reaches the tomb on the first day of the week she found that the stone had already been rolled away (John 20:1). Why was the stone moved away? Because it would be impossible for any tangible material body to be taken out with the stone blocking the opening. John 20:2 continues, “She went running to Simon Peter and the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and told them, they have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put (i.e. hid) him!’” Further down we read in John 20:15, “_ _ _ she thought he was the gardener, so she said to him, ‘if you took him away, sir, tell me where you have put him, _ _ _” This account is contrary to what we are told in Matthew 28:1 – 5, which reads, “_ _ _ as Sunday morning was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. Suddenly there was a violent earthquake; an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled the stone away, and sat on it. (in John 20:1, the stone had already been moved away anonymously) _ _ _ The angel spoke to the women, ‘you must not be afraid,’ he said. ‘I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified, _ _ _ while the women went on their way, some of the soldiers guarding the tomb went back to the city and told the chief priests what had happened _ _ _ they (i.e. the chief priests) gave a large sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘you are to say that his disciples came during the night and stole his body while you were asleep’_ _ _”.Of course, the contradictions in the canonical gospel accounts does indicate that there was no collusion among the authors of the canonical Gospels, but it does reflect a deeper dispositional symptom: namely, the likehood that the truth is posited in a diatessaronic approach that certain disciples took the body (of Judas) at night and hid it, spreading the rumour that the Jesus had risen. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said that he would rise after three days and three nights being in the womb of the earth for that duration as Jonah was in the belly of the whale (Matthew 12:40). But arithmetically it is: Friday- one night; Saturday – one day and one night; Sunday – nil; which equals one day and two nights. Mary Magdalane was absent on the day of the burial. Therefore, she goes to the tomb on the 1st day of the week when the Sabath day has passed. GoB correctly says (chapter 217) that Mary, mother of Jesus, was present when the body was buried just before Sabath hour heavily wrapped in ointment. Mary thinks the disguised gardener as Jesus, when the gardener called out her name “Mary”. Subsequently, Mary wants to hug him but he says, “Touch me not!”. Why does he not want her to touch him? I suggest he realised that the aggrieved Mary was under the mistaken impression that he (the gardener) was Jesus. Probably he was one of the 72 disciples of Jesus who hid the body and spread the rumour that Jesus had risen and he intonated her name “Mary” to indicate his close acquaintance with Jesus. Further more, by saying, “for I am not yet ascended unto my Father’” (John 20:17) he means that he is not “Jesus” who has already “ascended unto my Father.” (i.e. “Jesus” had risen from the dead as his (“Jesus”) body is not in the tomb). In connection with the empty tomb, this would have led crowds to come to it to venerate it. But this did not occur. The Gospel of Barnabas in chapter218 depicts a situation from which we infer the reason for the absence of this phenomena and I venture to say all other records fail and thus do not provide defensibility against the case for the empty tomb----this is a proof for the authencity of the GoB.The relevant excerpt in the GoB reads: “The high priest then commanded, under pain of Anathema, that no one should talk of Jesus of Nazareth. And so there arose a great persecution, and many were stoned and many beaten, and many banished from the land, because they could not hold their peace on such a matter.” The rationale provided by the Christians for the crucifiction flies straight on their face when they boast that their God is a God of love. Christian theology asserts that Adam sinned and the sin of Adam became an integral and inheritable endowment of human nature; every child is born a sinner, even good actions and pure lives cannot wash away that hereditary taint, nothing but belief in Christ’s incarnation and vicarious suffering and death as the great ransom and atonement can avail; without this all souls will perish as damned as they were born damned. How could such a horrible doctrine be consistent with the belief in a loving God is beyond comprehension! God first damned humanity to the end of time ordaining ineradicable sin for countless children yet unborn, and then conceiving as the only means of their salvation that his only son should suffer and be sacrificed to atone for the sins, which neither he or others had committed. Such a doctrine cuts at the root of all true religion and makes life a very cruel bargain. It is such an absurd belief which degrades both God and man and explodes the entire basis of moral law. It makes life a very cruel bargain.

Would it not obviously be convenient for the fabricator to pose the work as “Gospel of Matthew” in lieu of “Gospel of Barnabas” because Matthew is listed in the synoptical Gospels and in the Acts as one of the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus and Barnabas is not mentioned in these lists of Jesus’ Apostles and the hypothesis that the original Aramaic Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew was destroyed and replaced by the present Greek version? In this connection, though Professor Blackhirst’s hypothesis about the emergence of the extant GoB is not capable of proof still no other explanations better explain the combination of points raised on the emergence of the extant GoB. Professor Blackhirst’s hypothesis that the preface to the Spanish version was a plot engineered by Santario against Marcantio and Ascanio Colonna, implicitly I think, presupposes willy nilly, the existence of an original Gospel of Barnabas (the most potent heretical text) in the Vatican’s library and of which the participants in the Papal conclave of 1592 were (it is to be presumed) aware of. In fact, I think it was empirically discussed for it to be mentioned easily accessible to “Fra Marino”. The pre-existence of this explosive heterodox text in the Vatican’s library is a prerequisite to render Santorio’s plot effective and worthwhile. A hoax will not work but fail badly.

From an open minded study of the Gospel of Barnabas it can be clearly seen that its author possesses an immense knowledge of early scriptures, a superlative quality of God-consciousness, untiring zeal to practice and preach morality, religious fervourness, and a very logical mind – with these qualities could he out of expediency resort to impostership?! Certainly not!!. I am intuitionally and rationally convinced that the extant Italian version of the GOB is a faithful translation of the original Aramaic Hebrew version of the GOB written in good faith by Saint Barnabas whom I believe was one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus. It is this hypothesis that I set out to prove in this dissertation.

The Gospel of Barnabas is a human output, though divinely inspired, and therefore not free from subjectivity. Idem can be said of the canonical Gospels with the added proviso that they have been interpolated at the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. where Athanius carried the day. Paul preached that the Laws of Moses were to be done away with because of Christ’s accursed (Deut. 21:22 - 23) death on the cross. In Matthew (5:19), Jesus says: “_ _ _ Whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the kingdom of heaven.” In accordance with this ruling, Paul is “least in the kingdom of heaven” because he is advocating the alienation of the Laws of Moses.

.I would like to talk about the episode of Zacchaeus dealt only in Luke in the Bible and to compare its treatment in the GOB (chapters 143 to 146). In the first place , Luke says this incident took place in Jericho. Immediately before entering Jericho, Jesus heals a blind man ( Luke says ,”as Jesus was coming near to Jericho----“Luke 18:35). However in a relevant incident in Matthew 20:29 and Mark10:46,Jesus was leaving Jericho, hence this incident did not occur in Jericho. The GOB says the incident took place in Nazareth in Galilee. Also ,the Bible version say, “So he (Zacchaeus) ran ahead of the crowd and climbed a sycamore tree to see Jesus who was going to pass that way”( Luke19:4). In the GOB (chapter143) it is written : “_____climbed to the top of the sycamore, and there waited for Jesus to pass that place when he went to the synagogue.” Now ,we come to the very significant differences. The Biblical version says: “All the people who saw it started grumbling, ------”.(Luke19:7). The GOB ( chapter143) reads, “The Pharisees murmured , saying to Jesus’ disciples----”. Jesus responds( GOB) by going into an in-depth discussion and sustained arguments even citing scriptural evidence from the “Book of Elijah”. This incident ,inter alia, provides proof for my observation that the canonical gospels have their sources of information from the GOB and furthermore ,where complicate issues are handled, of course logically, and in-depth discussion occur they are left out by the Gospel writers of the Bible. Without any mention of the Pharisees and Jesus’ comments on them’ abruptly comes Zacchaeus last words: “Listen, Sir! I will give half my belongings to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone ,I will pay him back four times as much.” In the GOB ( chapter146) the last words of Zacchaeus ,which naturally and logically lead to this point ,are: “ Then said Zacchaeus : ‘Sir, behold I will give ,for the love of God, fourfold all that I have received by way of usury.’” The Pharisees on account of their vested interest were relentless in their efforts of persecuting Jesus .But ,on the other hand the people on account of the benefit of being healed by Jesus were always adoring and gathering around their benefactor( Jesus) . So, clearly the words in Luke19:7, “ All the people who saw it started grumbling---” is a misplacement of the words , “The Pharisees murmured, saying to Jesus’ disciples--”as adopted in the GOB (CHAPTER143).

In chapter 221, we read as follows: “__and Jesus turned himself to him who writeth, and said: ‘See, Barnabas that by all means thou write my gospel concerning all that hath happened through my dwelling in the world. And write in like manner that which hath fallen Judas, in order that the faithful may be undeceived, and everyone may believe the truth.’ Then answered he who writeth: ‘All will I do, if God will, O Master, but how it happened to Judas, I know not, for I saw not all’. Jesus answered: Here are John and Peter, who have seen all, and they will tell you that has passed.’ ”.

The above indicates that eyewitness accounts by disciples were also a source used in the compilation of the GoB; and by logical extension these verses sanction Barnabas the latitude (which he exercises) to incorporate in his work relevant bona fide material he deems fit.

Ancient scriptures were also used as source. But, their counterpart narratives in the Quran clearly indicate that the author of the GoB was far and away(and chronologically too) from the usuage of the Quran as a source of material. For instance, the Bible records (Exodus 14 : 28) and also in the GoB (chapter 68) that in the story of Moses, Pharaoh(identified as Ramesis II) drowned, but the Quran goes further (i.e. not mentioned either in the Bible or GoB) saying that God saved the body of Pharaoh after drowning him as a reminder to future nations (check mummies of pharaohs in pyramids). In both the Bible (Genesis 37) and GoB (chapter 99) Jacob believed Joseph to be dead. In the Quran, Jacob in his capacity as Prophet of God is aware that Joseph is alive and is certain about meeting him, but suffers severely the pangs of separation from his dear beloved son.Again,in both the Biblical version and the Barnabean version(Chapter115) the Deluge is global in contrast to the Quran which situates it locally(and archaeological findings confirms that the Noah’s flood was limited to his communities). In the three instances given above, Barnabas(adopting an eclectic method) is guided by the Bible for his source of information.

In evaluating the GOB it is of paramount importance to note that its data may be divided into two broad categories,viz. empirical and normative. At the time of its writing Barnabas’s memory may have dimmed of what Jesus actually uttered; subjective elements may have entered(eg.,an hungry man when asked two plus two replies four loaves bread!);personal impressions; etcetera-----all these I would classify as normative. In the empirical or existential data information was verifiable by the senses,eg.Jesus healed a man born blind; Jesus raised to life the late Lazarus; Judas was crucified in lieu of Jesus; Jesus did not say that he was God; etcetera.(see pp.8,9&10,above.).  

Finally, for one to accept the authencity of the GoB becoming a problem is because one chooses it to be so, asking (of course, mala fide) unanswerable and ridiculous questions. Yes, otherwise there is no problem! – provided one is prepared to honour logic in a means-ends analysis chain. The rationalist Enlightenment deist John Toland had made the following reference to the Italian version of the Gospel Barnabas:- “After this mature examination I could safely say, that this Gospel might in the main be the ancient Gospel of Barnabas_ _ _” J. Toland, Tolandymus (London 1720) 148

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • THE END **************** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.244.122.15 (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion page versus Article Page

I must regret Aaboelela that I have reverted much of your recent additions; where they consisted of questions, passages copied en-bloc from controversialist sites, material directly contradicting matters stated and referenced by previous editors and restatements of points already made.

You may well think that there are equivalent passages left in the article, should by the same standard be removed (and I would not dispute this). If so, state your reasons and references in this discussion page, and I am confident that agreement can be reached on what should stay and what should go. Wikipedia is not there to argue one point of view or the other.

The proper forum for such material is this discussion page. This will allow you to refine your particular additions in the light of the debate of other Wikipedians, and to reach agreed conclusions as to how the article may change. The article itself should not be employed as the forum for debate.

Of course, if there are straight errors of fact, there is no reason not to correct them (and note the sources for your facts).

particular points:

• I note your view that it would have been more logical for the Cretan church to have discovered the Gospel of Barnabas, rather than the Gospel of Matthew. But history is not logical. Wikipedia should state what the best contemporary witnesses say happened, not what we now think ought to have happened. (and the Acta Sanctorum quote you provided was wrong, please check your sources in the original, not on controversialist sites)

• Following your helpful comments I have changed "Harbinger" to "witness" in respect of the Qur'an and John the Baptist

• Note that the Gospel of Barnabas differs in the list of the twelve disciples in that Barnabas replaces Thomas. Simon and Thaddeus are commonly thought to refer to the same person.

• I have also filled in a little more detail about cooperage in the Roman period.

• I have checked in the Mishnah, and a Jewish forty days fast is nowhere mentioned there that I can see. If you disagree, please refer to the tractate where your views are supported.

TomHennell 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrible Mistakes

Wow! This is the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia and not just bc it's a run on sentence:

... some Muslim scholars believe that those differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and the belief of Paul might be the reason that the Gospel of Barnabas and other Gospels were not added to the Bible, and were condemned to be burned at the time of Constantine, when the question of Jesus' nature became a political issue in the Roman Empire, finally resolved by the formerly pagan Romans in favor of the Pauline belief of the Trinity, contrasting with the Qur'an which stated that God is One and that He has no sons.

• There is no evidence that gospels were ever burned. This is lie that Muslims have fallen prey to. Google "burned gospels" and you'll find only Muslim pages and a little from the DaVinci Code (also bad scholarship).

• The "time of Constantine" refers to the Council of Nicea in 325.The supposed differences between Paul and Barnabas would be whether Gentiles should become Jews. After the Council in Jerusalem, very few Christians thought they should especially bc most Christians were soon Gentiles, not Jews. Those that disagreed were mostly Ebionites who used the Gospel of Matthew. Again, a Muslim misunderstanding.

• Jesus' nature never became a political issue. Constantine was the first Christian emperor and no emperor before him cared about Jesus' nature.

• The Romans didn't decide anything at Nicea. It was a meeting of Christian bishops. Again, another Muslim myth that Constantine decided what Christians should believe.

• The Trinity is not the "Pauline" belief. Paul wrote a lot, but only wrote about Jesus' divinity once. John wrote of it much more often and Peter was probably the first to realize it. Again, a Muslim myth.

I'm all for citing Muslim beliefs, but not when it is so obviously historically false and no one clarifies what is belief and what is history. --JBJ830726 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic text

Why this should be categorized as an Islamic text? being accepted by some muslims doesn't bring it into the level of Quran or hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), I removed the category from the article as it doesn't make sense and gives the impression like it has been written by a muslim or so --Mido 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not a Christian text for the same reason. I vote it be categorized as either Christian or Islamic heretical text. Upon looking at the Category:Christian texts, it looks to need some better organization.--JBJ830726 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

does the stating of shahada in writing make the GoB an Islamic text? In the same way that stating the shahada in speech makes a person a Muslim. Some (including me) consider that the GoB is based on a core Christian text - which was assimilated to Islamic teaching at a late date. Others posting on this board appear to consider the Muhammad elements - including the shahada - as primitive (and pre-muslim); subsequently corrupted by Christian copyists. I presume that those who take the latter view would consider it an islamic text. TomHennell 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismillaah. Salaam / Peace, All. Granted, that this gospel is rife with discrepancies. But what of the truths therein. I've never seen the truth of this gospel confirmed while condemning discrepant inferences. It is quite easy to call it a medieval forgery. But why would a real forgery contain more true entries than false? Abdul

I hear your point Abdul, even though I cannot regard it as conclusive. But in recognition of your opinion that the GoB states Islamic truths, I have re-instated it as an Islamic text. TomHennell 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismillaah. Salaam / Peace, All. Much thanks. I've been giving some insight into what I feel this gospel is all about: http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=670 ~ Its a pretty lengthly review, but I believe that in the long run it will prove to be worthwhile. Abdul

Some points on Islamic belief

This is in many parts an impressive article. However, I wanted to point out a few things:

• The Islamic belief that Jesus was raised up is very different from the docetist view.
• Not sure what's in the GB, but the Islamic view is that Mary's labor pains were miraculously stopped.
• Orthodox (Ash`ari and Maturidi) Islamic belief is that salvation is based on faith, that sins may or may not be punished, but in the end, believers are saved and unbelievers are lost. This faith and this salvation come purely from the mercy of Allah, not through our own deeds, though these deeds may exalt the ranks of the saved. Further, our deeds are created by Allah, though we acquire responsibility for them of our own will. Last, that the identities of the saved and the lost are pre-eternally known to Allah (as He is the creator of space and time, and thus beyond the confines of both) and were recorded before the creation of the Earth. This is still in contradiction to what is in the Gospel of Barnabas, but is different from what is mentioned in the article, which is the view of the Mu`tazilites and some modernists and 20th century fundamentalists.
• To call Rashid Rida and Abu'l-Ala Mawdudi Islamic scholars is misleading. "Muslim thinkers," perhaps. "Ideologues of political Islam," definitely. But Islamic scholars makes them sound like ulama, which they most definitely were not.

216.164.23.6 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)AG

thanks for all of these points;

• I agree that the cross reference between docetism and Islamic belief is misleading and should be removed.

• there is a clear difference between the Qur'an and GoB on the labour pains of Mary (on which the canonical gospels are silent) - not that important in itself, but for that reason not something that would be expected were the author of Gob to have been a medieval muslim.

• The principle that the identity of the saved and lost are not known in advance - even to Almighty God - is fundamental to the GoB. It is made clear that even Satan could be saved were he to renounce his pride. It would be very helpful if you are able to formulate a better summary of how orthodox medieval Islamic teaching difffers on this point.

• points taken - again I agee the edit should be made as you say

TomHennell 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic text again

Hello, at first, I define (and I think that's mostly true), Islamic text is what mentioned in Quran, Hadith, books explaining either of them. in the case of Gospel of Barnabas. it was fully written by christians and is not to be studied by Muslims as they do with Islamic texts to learn more about our religion. some Muslims believe that the Gob has some true statements about Muhammad (PBUH) and about Jesus himself while others don't and in either cases, they don't have it as an Islamic text. I hope I have clarified my point here to remove the category, Islamic text. Best regards. --Mido 11:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism??

I've added a "Gnosticism" box to this article, recognizing that there are arguments both ways (for and against) on whether this Gospel is considered Gnostic (meaning 'secret knowledge') Many of the non-canonized pseudepigraphical Gospels are considered "Gnostic", though the Gnostic community themselves are having a hard time defining what Gnosticism is exactly, as you can tell from the Gnosticism article.

This Gospel in particular, is problematic because its origin is so late, nonetheless, there are some who argue it was based upon earlier text and treat it as 'secrect knowledge' though I personally accept its origin as having been inspired by Islam. I guess we'll have to see what others say about it.

I'm not going to be particularly dogmatic about keeping the box, if the community doesn't feel it appropriate for this article - I can certainly understand why.

LinuxDude 13:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I am a little unhappy with this, bearing in mind that "Gnostic" is sometimes used as a term of abusive dismissal by Christian scholars for any non-canononical gospel materials (including in particular, the references to Jesus in the Qur'an). I would prefer to reserve the term "Gnostic" for texts in which secret knowledge is imparted, whose possession gives the knowledge-seeker a privileged assurance of grace. In that sense, the GoB with its radically Pelagian insistence that God's salvation is offered equally to all, cannot be considered Gnostic. TomHennell 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic does not mean "secret knowledge". Apocrypha means "secret". Gnosis just means "knowledge" - as in "agnostic" (literally meaning "Don't know").

The Gospel of Barnabas is really nothing like Gnosticism. Its also mediaeval, while the Gnostics were predominantly from the early days of Christianity. Clinkophonist

Samuel Green, Dante and Ten Heavens

apologies to Mohammad ihs

I have reverted from the article the discussion below concerning the numbers of the heavens in Dante, as it bears no relation to the text of the Gospel of Barnabas as such; but rather is a refutation (which may well be correct) of the Christian controversialist Samuel Green, and his theories on Dante. The stated number of heavens in the Gospel of Barnabas is nine - and since this number conforms with common Neo-platonist formulations of late antiquity( e.g. the Hierarchy of angels), it cannot of itself be used as an argument against the possible antiquity of the Gospel of Barnabas. But the contrary is nowhere stated in the article as it stands.

The argument therefore stands much more properly on this discussion page.

TomHennell 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. The article from which it's adopted was meant as a refutation to claims made against the Gospel of Barnabas and certain claims for it anyways, so it deals more with individuals and their allegations about the GoB rather than the GoB itself. And since Dante wasn't even mentioned, that section would be out of place anyways. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work in removing the vandalism --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx.

Cutting and pasting unattributed material from controversialist sites (the vandalism was a straight lift from "answeringislam"), is not only contrary to the Neutral Point of View priciples of Wikipedia; it also is a clear breach of copyright. The same would (of course) equally apply in respect of counterpart Islamic sites. If people think that another site presents an argument that readers might be interested in consulting, the correct practice is to insert a link into the relevant reference list. TomHennell 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dante's Ten Heavens

• There is certainly chance that a more a ancient Gospel of Barnabas existed and that some anachorisms are unduly placed on the already acheing back of GoB's credibility. One of these is propogated by Samuel Green amongst others and trys to associate Dante's Divine Comedy to The Gospel of Barnabas. There is a few small problems with this so called "anachrosim" though. The first problem is that the concept of ten heavens was mentioned well before the 15th century, during the time of the Prophet Mani:

“All the Powers of the Abyss he spread out to the ten Heavens and to eight Earths […]”

(Psalm CCXXIIII of the Manichaean Bema Psalms)

“And how do you know that there are eight continents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up the world, and that it hangs from the great world-holder, and innumerable things of the same kind?”

(Part of Augustin: Contra Faustum Book XXXII: 19)

The psalms quoted are thought to date from 340 AD. But that still goes to show that this idea of ten heavens comes well before the time of Dante and it further goes to show that if in fact the Gospel of Barnabas' author was plagerizing anyone or writing inaccuratly, the Dante connection wouldn't be enough alone to place the Gospel of Barnabas as a 14th century forgery. The second text is highly critical of the prophet Mani. It is also highly critical of Manichean writings and is quite lengthy in its criticisms. Nevertheless, it is further verification of mainly two things which are of importance. It proves the existence of ten heavens well before the 14th century and it reaffirms the first quote it’s legitimacy (and that these Manichean Psalms actually existed in case that be brought into question as well).

• The second issue is that according to this anachorism there is a tie between Dante's ten heavens and the Heavens according to the Gospel of Barnabas. Samuel Green asserts at the same time that because the Gospel of Barnabas is talking about nine heavens, it must be a forgery from the fourteenth century since Dante speaks of ten heavens. Samuel Green quotes the Gospel of Barnabas as having said the following:

Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Verily I say unto thee that the heavens are nine, among which are set the planets, that are distant one from another five hundred years journey for a man ... and Verily I say unto thee that paradise is greater than all the earth and heavens together

From this it can be established that the Dante anachorism used against the Gospel of Barnabas, if anything, Dante stole from Mani! As for the Gospel of Barnabas, with it's heavy Islamic influence, it would make more sense that the idea of nine heavens is a misconstruction of the Islamic concept of seven heavens.

Relgious Themes

I have reverted the removal of material relating to the Gospel of Barnabas and divine foreknowlege. It would be helpful if contributors outline their reservations about existing material in the article here on the discussion page before removing it - no doubt this section can be improved, but this is best done collaboratively. TomHennell 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Periklutos

This page and Paraclete contradict each other on what "periklutos" means -- besides which, neither one seems to be right. Periklutos means "heard of all around"; i.e. "famous" -- not "comforter" or "advocate" or "admirable one". Besides, the similarity in consonants between the two words does not imply any relation (as it would in a Semitic language such as Arabic). 71.82.214.160 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue for this article is not what "periklutos" means; but what Muslim tradition asserts that it means. It is not stated on this article (or I believe in Paraclete ) that "periklutos" can be interpreted as meaning "comforter" or "advocate". Those are the meanings that Christian exegetes tend to attach to "paraclete". The Muslim case is that the Greek "perklutos" and the Arabic "ahmad" generally have an overlapping range of meanings; exactly what those meanings are is not that important. Nor does this Islamic tradition assert that "parclete" and "periklutos" are cognate - rather that the first is a corruption of the second.

As it happens, the interpretation; periklutos = ahmad appears relatively late in the Islamic tradition. The earliest Muslim contraversialists linked "Muhammad" with the Syriac gloss of "paraclete" (though I am afraid I am not up demontrating the point textually). But none of this affects the point at issue. The Gospel of Barnabas records Jesus as predicting the Messenger of God (i.e. Muhammad), and appears to be aware of the Muslim tradition that the term "paraclete" is a distorted Muhammad reference; but the GoB clearly avoids reworking any canonical "paraclete" text as a Muhammad prediction. TomHennell 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have reverted the blanket edit of the itro para. This certainly need improving, (and inline citations added), but I am not aware which of the statements made misrepresents the scholarly debate. If you know better, please indicate it here. TomHennell (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of an Ishmaelite Messiah

So far as I can see, this new section has nothing to do with the Gospel of Barnabas - in that it is about Jesus, whereas Barnabas's reference to an Ishmaelite Messiah denotes Muhammad. TomHennell (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

removed text given below TomHennell (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of an Ishmaelite Messiah

• Jesus of Nazareth, as he is known, was born in Nazareth, which is "situated inside a bowl atop the Nazareth ridge north of the Jezreel valley, Nazareth was a relatively isolated village in the time of Jesus with a population less than two hundred. Today Nazareth is home to more than 60,000 Israeli Arabs, and Upper Nazareth is home to thousands more Jewish residents" (http://www.bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm). (This citation is of a religious source, but could be looked up in any geographical encyclopedia.) In other words, Jesus could have very well been Arab or Ishmaelite by ethnicity. Also, there are several accounts in the Bible where Jesus gives a "run-around" approach to questions of his being the Messiah or the son of God. One goal of his that was mentioned in the Gospel books is that he did not want to outright say that he was, because doing so would be a death sentence from the prominent Pharisees that could control members of the Roman government, such as Pilate. Therefore, even the denial of his role can be interpreted as a mere slide from the question, rather than an outright admittance to not being the messiah.

Text from the Gospel of Barnabas, Chapter 191:

---

"The scribe then said: 'Pardon me, O master, for I have sinned.'

Said Jesus: 'God pardon thee; for against him hast thou sinned.'

Whereupon said the scribe: 'I have seen an old book written by the hand of Moses and Joshua (he who made the sun stand still as thou hast done), servants and prophets of God, which book is the true book of Moses. Therein is written that Ishmael is the father of Messiah, and Isaac the father of the messenger of the Messiah. And thus saith the book, that Moses said: "Lord God of Israel, mighty and merciful, manifest to thy servant the splendour of thy glory. Whereupon God showed him his messenger in the arms of Ishmael, and Ishmael in the arms of Abraham. Nigh to Ishmael stood Isaac, in whose arms was a child, who with finger pointed to the messenger of God, saying: "This is he for whom God hath created all things." 'Whereupon Moses cried out with joy: "O Ishmael, thou hast in thine arms all the world, and paradise! Be mindful of me, God's servant, that I may find grace in God's sight by means of thy son, for whom God hath made all.'"------

---

Ishmael was a person in the Bible. Oftentimes, the authors of Biblical books would call someone the father or son of another, in a relative was. This is the same way one might say "the father of modern science," and is not to be taken literally. Saying Ishmael is the father of the Messiah could simply mean that the Messiah was of Ishmael's decent or of the same house of beliefs.

Paul and Barnabas

(I removed the following section from the main page as it does not appear to refer to the Gospel of Barnabas in any way) TomHennell (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The view that Barnabas and Paul remained to the end in disagreement over the fundamentals of the faith is impossible to hold. For one thing, by the time of Acts 13 they were working together as missionaries (this after the dispute in Acts 9 above). Note how, after opposition from certain Jews, we read:

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium. ([Acts 13:46-51][3])

Note how they speak together (verse 46), turn to the Gentiles together, are persecuted together, driven out together and symbolically shake off their feet together. These are not the actions of men divided over fundamental doctrines such as whether Jesus is the Son of God or whether circumcision is necessary to salvation.

Further, in [Acts 15:2][4], it is Barnabas together with Paul who disagrees strongly with the Judaisers.

Paul and Barnabas do disagree over what to do with John Mark (Acts 15:36-41) but there is no suggestion in Paul's epistles or the Acts that their disagreement was ever over fundamental Christian doctrine.

In-text citations

Unless there is a consensus of dissent, I intend to edit the article to include in-text citations. This may, however, create difficulties in respect of the sections giving the Islamic perspective - as the references as they stand tend to be unspecfic. So I would be grateful if anyone with access to scholarly Islamic works on the subject could help in referencing some of these passages. I am particularlu interested in the books of MA Yusseff, and of 'Ata ur-Rahim. TomHennell (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

not having had a response on this, I am inclined to press ahead anyway. I do have a copy of "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by 'Ata ur-Rahim, so I may try to pin statements of Islamic perspectives to page references in that work. Not being myself a Muslim, I am not altogether sure of what is the range of opinion of the Gospel of Barnabas in Islamic scholarship (and the remarks on this page have been so heavily redacted and re-edited from various viewpoints as not to be much help). However, I am inclined to assume that the general Islamic assessment of the GoB it has no isnad as a Muslim text, and cannot be a source of Islamic hadith concerning Jesus/Isa. Hence it can be quoted negatively (to confound or refute Christian claims), but not positively (to establish true Islamic teaching). Is this a fair summary? TomHennell (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the latter part of the article tends to respond most to Islamic perspective (and to quote Islamic authorities). The treatment does need clarifying though. May I suggest the following observations as to a general approach?

Prediction of Muhammad. This section justifiably links a chapter in GoB with a saying attributed to Jesus son of Mary in the Qur'an.

Muhammand as Messiah. This section needs rather fuller treatment; the point is that GoB not only identfies Muhammand as Messiah, but also records Jesus denying that he is the Messiah. The views of Wiegers need to be included.

Ishmaelite Messiah. This is undoubtedly an important theme in GoB, and reflects the Islamic view that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that Abraham led to sacrifice.

Jesus not God or Son of God. There is, I think, too much quotation in this section, and inadaquate explanation. The important section is from chapter 69, where the identification of Jesus as Son of God is said to have originated with Roman soldiers.

Paul and Barnabas. as it stands this section is unsatisfactory. The Spanish Preface to the Gospel of Barnabas is explicitly anti-Pauline, but the Gospel itself is not; it calls Paul "the deceived" not "the deceiver". Islamic readings of the Christian Bible tend to locate the corruption of the true Gospel/Injil as arising out of the reported quarrel in Galatians ch 2; with Paul being the main culprit. But van Koningsveld has pointed out that the GoB takes a different view, with the corruption being due to Roman soldiers in the time of Jesus.

non-Canocical differences. I am not sure of the value of this section, and am inclined to delete it altogether

Anachronsims. I am not convinced of the value of having this section, but am inclined to retain it, in so far as such lists are commonplace in Christian evaluations of the GoB.

Islamic Perspectives. This does need expanding from the knowledge of someone with a grasp of recent Islamic views. As noted above, I am inclined to say that the GoB is accepted as valid for controversialist purposes, but not as an authoritative statement of faith. But does anyone know of a Muslim scholar who would quote the GoB alongside traditonal Islamic statemens of the teachings of Jesus/Isa.

Bible and Qur'an. Controversialists (both Muslim and Christian) tend to work within the assumption that one book as now known must be "right" and the other "corrupt". It is assumed by both parties that the writer of the GoB took this view too - i.e. that if he rejected orthodox Christianity, he must neccessarily accept the truth of the Qur'an if he knew it. An alternative view, however, was advanced in the sixteenth century by Servetus; who argued that both the Christian and Islamic scriptures had been corrupted (and indeed the Jewish Talmud too) This, I think, is the view of the Gospel of Barnabas - in that the writer asserts that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, he does not assert that the Qur'an perfectly preserves that message. Hence it cannot be asserted that he did not know the Qur'an simply because he contradicts it.

But are there other opinions? TomHennell (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Pespectives

I have restored the section below, which had been removed by editor SuaveArt, as the article does need to outline the range of Islamic opinions on this controversial text. Neverthless, the section does need to be more rigourous (and preferably sourced). It might be best if a Muslim editor were to be able to contribute; but if not, any other suggestions are more than welcome. TomHennell (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Muslim religious organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; in particular, the 19th century Muslim religious thinkers Rashid Rida in Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan have given it qualified acceptance (though the latter rejects its naming of Muhammad as an interpolation). While some Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time, others believe that Barnabas himself wrote the Gospel, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by followers of Paul long after the events they describe, and that therefore the Gospel of Barnabas is more authentic than the other Gospels. Some Muslims take a position between these poles, suggesting that, while the work contains "Muslim interpolations"[5], it nonetheless consists mainly of early material that contradicts Christian traditions and confirms Muslim beliefs.

Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as supporting the genuineness of this gospel, by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas may have arisen through textual corruption (which Muslims consider a characteristic of the known texts of the Christian Bible), but that the Gospel of Barnabas may not be as corrupt as other Christian religious works; and these scholars note that, whatever its other inconsistencies, the Gospel of Barnabas still aligns with the Qur'an in reporting Jesus as not having been crucified, and in not being God or son of God.

Anwar Awlaki Sited

Someone cited Anwar Awlaki to support Islamic opinions on the Gospel of Barnabas. This is obviously an attempt to use the opinion of a non-credible person in order to weaken the Islamic view point of the Gospel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladeeb (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening reads like original research, preaching

"The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters), with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity."

COmmon, this is so blatant. Who is checking this page? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What "preaching" tendencies do you detect in that passage? Seems pretty factual to me... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blogs

Self published on-line blogs are not reliable sources, however eminent the blog author or posters. The only blogs that are acceptable are those hosted by news organisations, and subject to their editorial overview. TomHennell (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since the writers are Biblical language experts with high positions at Cambridge and Oxford they should be acceptable.--Rafy talk 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

written in 1585!

from the article: Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.

but there was "The Real" Gospel of Barnabas in AD 400! (which was different from the one that was written in 1585!) Böri (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There probably was; but the article is about the gospel text that is preserved in the Vienna and Sydney manuscripts. Unless these latter texts are descended in some degree from the gospel known in late antiquity (which is an open question, since we have no indicatoin of its contents), there is not much more that can be said concerning the latter. What is not in doubt is that both the surviving Italian manuscript and the lost Spanish manuscript, date from no earlier than the late 16th century. TomHennell (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul and Banabas

I have reverted the paragraph below:

"However, against this inference is the understanding that the reproved action of Peter, which Barnabas had followed, was not one of doctrinal opposition but one of weakness, being in contradiction to the gospel of grace which James, Peter and John had just formally affirmed, (Galatians 2:11–14) as well as to Peter's own previous action and to his words in the ecumenical council of (Acts 15:7–11). The only other dispute between Paul and Barnabas did not concern accommodation of Jewish law, but was due to Paul's disallowance of John Mark, nephew to Barnabas, ((Colossians 4:10) who had once abandoned a previous mission, (Acts 13:13) to accompany them on their next mission. No other conflict is revealed between the two missionary partners, with Barnabas being the one who dared to bring the newly converted, zealous Paul into the fellowship of the church, (Acts 9:26–27) and again in Acts 11:25–26, and who were later formally commissioned as a team, and worked together as fellow apostles to the Gentiles, (Acts 14:14–14)) preaching the gospel of the grace of God on Paul's first missionary journey."

So far as I can see, this has no relevance in discussion of the Gospel of Barnabas; which is the subject of the article. There is no doubt that the GoB presents a conflict between Paul and Barnabas on the subject of conformity to Jewish laws and customs. This is consistent with one historical interpretation of the passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians. How that passage is interpreted in current scholarship may be a proper issue for presentation in Wikipedia; but not, I suggest, in this article. TomHennell (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What about this discovery?

What about this discovery? The following article, published this May 2012, says "Iran’s Basij Press is claiming a purported Gospel of Barnabas, discovered in 2000...".

WND EXCLUSIVE IRAN: DISCOVERY WILL COLLAPSE CHRISTIANITY Says Turkish 'Bible' has Barnabas forecasting Muhammad's coming Published: 7 days ago http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/iran-discovery-will-collapse-christianity/

Is this the same or different from these other manuscripts?

And where can we find out more about it?

Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See the section on 'Possible Syriac Manuscripts'; the Iranian story is clearly derived from those Turkish stories, TomHennell (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much space for speculation?

The present shape of the entry gives a bit too much space to speculations about GoB being connected to an old text. Basically the presentation is sound. I don`t know if it is because of readactions that we have these numerous references to "some Muslims", "some scholars", "few academics" -mostly without showing sources- which do not help to make the entry clearer. As far as I can see, the only Islamic scholarly contributor is Blackhirst (cf. http://www.theabodeofpeace.com/author.html); I cannot see the qualification of other mentioned authors like Abbas el-Akkad, Rashid Rida or Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi as having any relevance to the question of dating the text or it being "genuine". Blackhirst is very clear that his assumptions are based on speculation (sound speculation, though, as he argues carefully and is clear about his limits). Mixing this with wide realm of unsound allegations (as it stands: usuallly from Muslim popagandists) obfuscates the picture for the reader who wants an overwiev.

I would strongly speak in favour of removing all unreferenced (and if: those not relevant) "some" people and restoring (or: redacting towards the originally intended?) clearer structure of a) established facts (i.e. age and content of the manuscripts) b) scholarly interpretations c) use in extrascholarly discourse.Kipala (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, several non-Muslim scholars have speculated that one of the sources of the Gospel of Barnabas may have been an old gospel "harmony" (broadly similar in nature to the Diatessaron but not the diatessaron) -- though this would not have contained any historically valid information that is not also contained in the standard Greek canonical Gospels. AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful, but why mention something like this if it cannot be referenced? It maes it really difficult to get the point as information and speculation is a bit mixed.

Some unreferenced "Somes" from the present article

• Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original.

• Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.

• Some Muslim scholars[citation needed] argue that the Gospel of Barnabas has been modified, thus inconsistency is observed.

• Also, some may argue that the word "Messiah" can be a formal title for Jesus Christ, but the meaning "anointed" can be attributed to others, such as King David, anointed to kingship, and his son Solomon.

• Some Muslim scholars[citation needed] state that this references the Mahdi,

• Some feel it also suggests that the inhabitants of Galatia at his time were using a gospel or gospels disagreeing with Paul's beliefs, which Gospel of Barnabas could be one of them

• Some Muslim religious organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus

Proposal: Either reference these or thorow them out altogehter; and separate information from speculation or hypothesis

Kipala (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, if a statement in an article happens to lack a scholarly citation, the proper action is to supply one; not to delete the statement itself. Of course, if you know of a published scholarly citation that contradicts a statement in the article (e.g. were a scholar to have stated "no Moslem considers the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original") but I am fairly clear that no scholar has made such a claim; which would in any case be transparently false. There are a number of Islamic texts in English easily accessible that can be quoted as substantiating most of the 'some' assertions that Kipala objects to; albeit that none appear that scholarly - but then most Islamic writing that poperly aspires to scholarship is in Arabic anyway; and citing these is scarcely going to help most readers of English Wikipedia. I will see what I can find in that respect.

However, on the wider point, speculation as to a possible ancient source is the prime issue of public and scholarly interest; if we cut out all such references, the article ceases to be informative on the chief matters in respect of which the general reader is likely to be coming to Wikipedia for help. There is certainly a recent tradition that sees the current text as entirely a Mosisco fabrication; specifically as a contemporary counterpart to the clearly fabricated Lead Books of Sacromonte. The problem is that the Gospel of Barnabas is entirely unlike the Lead Books, and indeed is very difficult to relate to the specific concerns of the 16th century Morisco community. But otherwise most current commentators - Joosten for example - appear to recognise that the 16th century author most likely drew on a text that transmitted an account of the ministry of Jesus that was independent of the Vulgate Latin. TomHennell (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My main proposal is to organize confirmed information separately from hypothesis / speculation. Else this article as it stands has an unusual high number of unqualified references to "some" ... . This has to be reduced. Surely there has to be a paragraph on "possible sources of the GoB" . Kipala (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with your suggestion on distinguishing confirmed information from speculation; and indeed the article at one time was much more systematic in that respect. But editors (especially those with a confessional agenda) will always put their contributions where they want. And, as I say, the article does need to be able to inform inquiry and discussion on the points of most interest; which in the case of this subject focusses heavily on speculation and opinion (e.g. the section on claimed anachronisms, which I would happily lose entirely).

not sure how far we can get on sources though. 'Barnabas' is a concsciouly literary work, which re-orders its source material much more than does other harmony texts (e.g. compare a passage in Baranabas with a corresponding passage in the Tuscan Haromony; the Harmony often simply recasts the Latin into Tuscan, whereas the Barnabas passage will be much more of a paraphrase - and generally reads much better). What is not at all clear is how far a Latin tradition other than the Vulgate lies behind the passages that correspond to pericopes in the canonical gospels. On this see Joosten and (contra) Ulrich Schmid http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/11467/1/fulltext.pdf. Schmid's point (I think) is that until we have fully collated all 10,000 surving medieval Vulgate bibles, and determined the historical location of each at all points in the medieaval period, we cannot claim of any New Testament reading that it differs from one of the many possible 'Vulgate' traditions current at the place and time when a harmony text may have been composed. TomHennell (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bible versions and translations

I reverted again the insertion of "Category:Bible versions and translations" The reason for this is that this gospel is not a 'bible version' or 'translation,' but a non-canonical gospel at best. Moreover, none of the other non-canonical gospels are put in that category, so why should this one be in it? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The category might apply to the old "gospel harmony" which may have been one of the sources of Barnabas, but not to Barnabas itself... AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Syriac Manusript.

There has been some too-ing and fro-ing on this matter; but so far as I can ascertain, nothing has been published on the record in respect of the anomalous Ankara manuscript since the original news reports based on an acknowledgement of its being in the possession of the Ethnography Museum. Everything else - both pro and anti - is speculation. There is a time limit as to how far news reports and internet speculation can remain relevant to consideration on Wikipedia; and in my view this issue has passed that limit. Hence, I would suggest, a simple reference to the Turkish ministry of Culture statement; and leave the rest until someone who has actually examined the manuscript is willing to publish their findings. TomHennell (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, just make a proposal to show what you are thinking of. And as far as I know, all media reports on that book can be seen as 'speculation.'Jeff5102 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing to revert the last two edits, as they are essentially old news reports and the authorities quoted have not examined the purported manuscript. So far as I can see; the only established fact about the manuscript is that it has been depositied in the Ethnography Museum by the Turkish police authorities. Everything else (including the claim that it contains the Gospel of Barnabas) is ungrounded speculation. TomHennell (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, this wasn't the kind of edit I expected. You kept in the Al-Arabiya link, which states that a " 1,500-year-old Bible reportedly states that Jesus was a mortal human and was never crucified..." Actually, it is unsure if this book is 1500 years old, and if this book states that Jesus never was crucified. Furthermore, it suggests that the main source of the article (a Y-Jesus-blog) has translated the found book, while it only quotes the already known text. I cannot accept this version as it is right now.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What is needed is a citation for the statement from the Turkish Minister to the effect that the manuscript in question is being conserved at the Ethnography Museum. That link seems to be the most complete reference that I can find. No doubt the official original press release (if there was one) is in Turkish, and thus is a tad tricky for those like me with no expertise in the language to track down. And then, of course, it would need translating for English language Wikipedia readers. But can you suggest a better link to the key facts? TomHennell (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is difficult. Most articles keep in outrageous claims, like the assertion that you can become a millionaire by selling a photocopy of it. I think that this article keeps out the most sensational claims, but keeps in the key facts you wish for. Can we agree to include that source? Jeff5102 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do we insist on adding this piece of information knowing it originated from yellow journalism. If there is no academic sources to support this claim then the alleged discovery should not be mentioned in he first place. If it HAS to be included then we should also include those scholars and experts who blogged about the discovery. An expert blog is much more reliable than a sensational article.

By the way I don't think that the Y-Jesus-blog translated the manuscript. Firstly the blogger doesn't claim to have been able to acquire a translation of that particular 5th century book. Don't forget that Syriac is an archaic dead language, translating a book from 5th century Syriac will require huge efforts and will consume months if not years.

The xinhuanet piece is very sketchy. How was "Yan" able to browse the book and check the pictures? And why would a book that denies crucifixion contain pictures showing this particular event?--Kathovo talk 10:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

agree Jeff; that is a much better reference than the dodgy one in the article at the moment. As it happens, if the Syriac manuscript is compete, and has only 52 pages, it can't be the Gospel of Barnabas; (albeit that counts as original research). The full text would require at least 200 manuscript pages.

Kathovo, this is a tricky issue; as you say there is no published academic source for any of this story - so (on Wikipedia principles) none of the speculative assertions should be in the article. But there is an 'official' statement of sorts, which ties the story to a bona fide academic institution. So I can't see that it can be entirely ignored. Moreover, if there is nothing in the article; then the wild assertions of various controversialist sites stand without the possibility of correction.

That said, it is worth keeping in mind that there is, on the face of it, nothing inherently unlikely in finding a 16th century Syriac text of the Gospel of Barnabas; and if one were found, it would indeed be a scholarly discovery of great importance. But you are quite right that nothing that has been circulated about the Ethography Museqaum manuscript indicates that anyone has been able to access to text for the purpose of translation. What are found on various sites are simply the familiar Ragg translation of the Italian text.

But none of this discussion is relevant to the article itself, as it is all entirely supposition. As too are the blogged comments of Syriac language experts based on photographs of the binding (it is not at all impossible that a genuing medieval text would have been provided with a modern binding). TomHennell (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the attached from the lede para:

And interest in the Gospel has been resurrected after Turkish police found a manuscript allegedly 1500 years old from a smuggling ring in 2000 and made it public in 2010, which is in the language the Jesus spoke - Aramaic [5]

Firstly, although the Turkish ministry of culture has acknowledged receipt of a smuggled manuscript, they have said nothing about its content. It is pure speculation to suggest that it could be the Gospel of Barnabas. Secondly, the sources for the speculation seem to have asserted that that the smuggled manuscript is 500 years old; not 1500. Either way, it has no place in the lede until something more specific comes from the Ankara museum or the ministry of culture. Wikipedia is not a forum for perpetuating ill-informed press speculation, especially when the referenced story is now over two years old. TomHennell (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. By the way, what do you think of the images I inserted?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson (and not George Sale), by Gilbert Stuart

I lke them; though perhaps we could do with something more directly relevant. Do you know of an usable image of George Sale for example? Even better, a usable image of the Italian manuscript. 16:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)~

A portrait of the right George Sale can be found here: [6]. Will you upload it, or shall I do it? Jeff5102 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

if you can (and it isn't copyright) please do. TomHennell (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have second thoughts on it, since the picture of George Sale in my link resembles Thomas Jefferson a bit too much. My guess is that the website took the wrong portrait. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cyprus connection

Regarding the Cyprus connection edit, Assad Sauma, a Syriac scholar who has edited and published a number of Syriac manuscripts, mentioned that he was approached by Vatican scholars enquiring about an "ancient Syriac gospel" they were willing to acquire in 2007, after examining the gospel he concluded that it was a modern forgery written in a modern Aramaic colloquial. He recognised the same gospel as the one found in Cyprus in 2009. He was later approached by an acquaintance who enquired about a certain ancient Syriac manuscript that he wanted to buy, to his surprise it was nothing but that very forged gospel. It was this gospel, according to Sauma, that has resurfaced for the fourth time as the Barnabas Gospel in 2012. Sauma is certainly an authority in Syriac manuscripts, unfortunately his article is in Arabic.--Kathovo talk 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Kathovo, and it all sounds very convincing. Unforunately however, unless Sauma has published this, the whole matter counts as 'original research'; and should not be in the article. I must say, I was very much suspecting something like this from the absence of any further news out of the Ethnography Museum; if the document is indeed a modern forgery, they would probably prefer quietly to forget it. However, even a 'forgery' may be interesting if its source matter is old; so it would still be useful to know whether the 'gospel' that Sauma exampined presented the text of the Gospel of Barnabas? On the face of it, if the Cyprus manuscript is only 52 pages long, it simply could not be long enough to present a version of the same text found in the Syndey or Vienna manuscripts. TomHennell (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually he did publish an article in an Arabic language website. According to him the text is composed of verses of the gospels and sayings found typically in Incantation bowl, but for the most part it contains incoherent sentences made up of mixed Classical Syriac and Neo-Aramaic words. The orthography was so bad that he concluded it was either that the writer had no experience or that it was made so intentionally to confuse the reader. He found nothing to suggest it was the Gospel of Barnabas or even made to resemble it.--Kathovo talk 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks even more; running the article through Google-translate does seem to give a broad impression of his conclusions. In general, citations to a blog or website are not good Wikipedia references; as they tend to break. And we only have Sauna's word for it that the Ethnography Museum manuscript is the same as the one he was asked to advise prospective purchasers on - so I would not be inlcined to make too much of his assessment of it as a fake. But it maybe worth adding to the article a statement to the effect that a Syriac language expert who claims to have examained the text, reports it not to be that of the Gospel of Barnabas? TomHennell (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) the redesign of the Ankawa website means the link to the Assad Sauma article no longer find Assad Sauma's article. I have trawled back to 2012 (using the English version of the site) and have not found it there. Can anyone give a current link (or even better, a translation). TomHennell (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One way around this is to link to an http://archive.org copy of the old URL. AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks; I have now inserted the archived page. TomHennell (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

" was incorporate."

help me. Cannot be checked in the original citation as the link is broken. So, is it "incorporated" or [sic] from the original.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

'incorporate' is in the Ragg's English translation - original reads 'inchorporati' TomHennell (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Muhammad and Qur'an

This article had two different spellings of Muhammad/Mohammed and Qur'an/Koran. I tweaked it to use only Muhammad and Qur'an which Wikipedia has had established for several years. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but please do not change quotes while doing this. That would vandalize the quotes. Luckily, I found a link to the version of the quote you altered with Muhammad and Quran in the right spots, so the changes can stay. Anyway, we now have a better verifiable reference, which is a gain anyway.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)