Free PDF, epub, Kindle ebook. 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. F.P. Cotterell, “The Gospel of Barnabas,” Vox Evangelica 10 (): The Gospel of Barnabas is one of three, or more precisely four, writings associated. Dependence on the Christian Bible: Use of the Canonical Books in Barnabas Dependence betrayed especially in the writer s Harmony of the Gospels No.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Introduction V. Barnabas in the New Testament vii. Pages. 3. Life and Message of Barnabas x. 4. The Gospel of Jesus. 5. How the Gospel of Barnabas Appendix. THE QUESTION: Why don't. Christians recognize the Gospel of. Barnabas? A.Q Jazzin, Lebanon. It has been established that the book known as the Gospel of. Like the Qur an, the Gospel of Barnabas rejects the crucifixion and denies that Jesus was the Son of God; it also portrays Jesus as the herald of the Prophet Mu .
Living in Turkey myself it's a popular source for Muslims to cite in support of their version of history.
But here's the thing—the Muslims citing it are the uneducated variety from the streets and a few whack-job apologists. This does not mean Islam as a whole supports the work of uses it as a reference.
Ask a respected Islamic scholar with an iota of credit in history and they will usually reject the book as being a fraud. While he supports the Islamic version of events including Judas being the one crucified in Christ's place, he rejects the Gospel of Barnabas as valid evidence for such.
Does the year old manuscript find from Turkey include the Gospel of Barnabas? This find is actually old news. If memory serves me it's from and is supposed to be remarkable for its state of preserve, but it does not include the Gospel of Barnabas or any other texts not considered Canonical by modern Christians so it has no particular implications on the content of "The Bible" or our understanding of history.
In fact if it were to have contained any non-canonical sources it would be far more likely to have included what is known as the Epistle of Barnabas English text. That work is something that could have actually existed in the alleged time period, language and location of the find. This would have been interesting esp if it had a complete copy as the extant manuscripts are all missing some of the first chapters of that work. This work is sometimes attributed to the Biblical Barnabas, but as the contents of the text exhibit Gnostic doctrine it's highly probable that it was written by another author, possibly Barnabas of Alexandria.
In any event, the Epistle of Barnabas does not disagree with the canonical Scripture accounts of the historical Jesus' death. Even if it had been included in the manuscript find in Turkey the only thing it would be evidence of is of 5th century Gnostic sects using both canonical and other texts together.
No particularly doubt would be cast on the historicity of the other gospel, only on how mixed up the theology of some groups had gotten.
The only really interesting aspect of the manuscript found in Turkey is that it was an early text in Syriac, a derivative of the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. This makes it an interesting artifact for study—especially for those involved in the Aramaic primacy debate—but again it has no particular implications for the validity of the Bible as we know it.
The manuscript was not very well looked after in the years following it's discovery and changed hands a few times, eventually falling to black-market antiquities dealers. It was eventually recovered in and made waves in the news then. In the last decade or so most of the news articles about it are rehashes of the tabloid style sensationalist statements printed over a decade before and most don't bother dealing with the actual issues or known state of scholarship.
The manuscript you asked about would have been interesting if it has a Syriac version of the Gospel of Barnabas from years before it is thought to have been penned, but it doesn't. In his preface, Sale mentions a Spanish version written by a Mostafa de Aranda, who claimed to have translated it from Italian. It was alleged that an Italian Christian monk, Fra Marino, had stolen it from the library of Pope Sixtus V while the pope was asleep in his library and that Marino became a Muslim after reading it .
This translation has somehow perished, although various fragments of the Spanish text are still available. The Italian version found its way to Holland and was found in in the possession of J. Cramer, a councillor to the King of Prussia Germany. He, in , gave it to Prince Eugene of Savoy and over the next few years it passed from one hand to another until it reached Vienna in and was deposited in the Imperial Library where it stays to this day .
Lonsdale and Laura Ragg were responsible for translating it into English and printing it in with 70 pages of introduction giving convincing reasons why various scholars believed that this was a fake Gospel written in the Middle Ages. In , an Arabic translation with a new introduction was published in Cairo and in two Urdu editions were published, which were based on the Arabic version. Between and , translations of this gospel appeared in many of the languages of the Muslim majority countries.
Their Urdu and English presses promoted it and Muslim religious leaders introduced it as the true Gospel of Jesus . The same year, a new Urdu translation was published by Jamaat-e-Islami, Lahore, with an introduction by the founder of the organisation, Maulana Abul Ala Mawdudi . Both the English and Urdu translations were reprinted several times.
By there were , English copies printed by one publisher alone, Aisha Bahwany, in Pakistan.
The interesting thing is that none of these reprints included the 70 pages of introduction by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, because in their introduction they provide evidence to the effect that the book is a medieval forgery. The facsimile of the original title page, in some of the English editions, gives the misleading impression that one is dealing with the complete text of the original book by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg.
The English translation of the document has now been printed by several Muslim publishers in Britain and America without any acknowledgement to previous publishers or to Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, the translators into English. Sale, George, "Preliminary Discourse to the Koran", pp. Barnabas-Evangeliums, Codex No.
Lahore , 3rd. Jesus receives a book, the Injil from God. He begins his ministry and performs miracles.
He preaches, "I am not the messiah, the messiah will be born of the Ishmaelites". The Roman soldiers worship him as God but Jesus tells them that he is not the son of God. He has come to give the glad tidings of the coming of Muhammad.
A scribe is also mentioned who claims that he saw a secret book of Moses which declares that the "Messiah springeth from Ishmael and not from Isaac". The Jews attempt to stone him but he vanishes.
He is betrayed by Judas. Jesus is taken into heaven and Judas face is made to look like that of Jesus. Judas is mistakenly crucified in place of Jesus. Jesus appears to his friends and his mother and tells them that he was not crucified. He charges Barnabas to write the gospel Injil after which he returns to heaven. The message of this gospel Muslims value this gospel highly because it teaches against the doctrine presented in the New Testament.
The following are the main points of this gospel which may affirm some of the Muslim beliefs but contradicts the teaching of the New Testament: 1. Jesus is a servant and only a messenger of God Barnabas, chapter He is not God, nor the Son of God, nor a god Barnabas, chapters 53 and Jesus predicts the coming of the Messiah who is Muhammad Barnabas, chapters He himself refuses to be a messiah but gives this title to Muhammad.
It was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed, not Isaac Barnabas, chapter Jesus ascended to heaven before the crucifixion and Judas was made to look like Jesus Barnabas, chapter Jesus did not die on the cross Barnabas, chapter It was Judas Iscariot who died on the cross Barnabas, chapter The disciples stole the body of Judas and claimed that Jesus was risen.
Many of the disciples have taught this deception, including Paul.
The Writer Was Barnabas the writer of this gospel? Muslims say, "yes" to this question and call upon the book of Acts for evidence where Barnabas is mentioned. However, our investigation reveals that the Barnabas of Acts and the Barnabas of this gospel are two different people who lived at different times. According to the New Testament, Barnabas was not present during the ministry of Jesus.
He is first mentioned in Acts after the church was already established. He, like other disciples, sold his property to raise money for distribution to the poor Acts 4. He was a Jew from Cyprus named Joseph whom the apostles called Bar-nabas, which means "son of encouragement". Acts According to the document in question, however, Barnabas was an apostle of Jesus and known by this name throughout Jesus' ministry.
On many occasions Jesus is reported to have called him Barnabas instead of Joseph. This weakens the credibility of this gospel because Barnabas was never called to be an apostle by Jesus, according to all the available lists in the other Gospels. The Barnabas of this gospel rejects the deity of Christ.
Jesus is alleged to have denied being equal with God and to have claimed that he was only a messenger and servant of God. However, in the New Testament in Acts, Barnabas was the one who introduced Paul to the apostles at Jerusalem and encouraged them to trust him. The first thing Paul had preached after his conversion was that Jesus was the Son of God Acts and no doubt Barnabas was well aware of it.
If Paul was preaching something unacceptable would Barnabas not have called for him to be silenced rather than fighting for his acceptance as a preacher of Gods word? This Gospel denounces the teaching of Paul regarding circumcision, the crucifixion, the death and resurrection of Jesus. However, the book of Acts shows that Paul and Barnabas had a joint ministry for one full year. They both preached the same thing concerning Jesus resurrection and his deity Acts Here, Barnabas along with Paul can be seen in debate with some who insisted on circumcision.
This debate was not between Paul and Barnabas but between the people from Judea on one side and Paul and Barnabas on the other Acts Thus it is illogical to accept that the Barnabas of the New Testament is responsible for a document that rejects the very teachings he proclaimed and defended. Muslims quote from Galatians and Acts as proof that there was a disagreement on doctrinal matters between Paul and Barnabas. According to the first reference Barnabas was reprimanded for religious discrimination.
Just to avoid offending some Jewish Christians, Barnabas and Peter did not sit at a meal with gentile converts. Paul censured this behaviour. Acts shows that Peter and Barnabas later realised their error and accepted Pauls argument. Muslims may ask, "Was not the root problem an issue of doctrine, namely, justification by faith, not by observing the works of the law, as the rest of Galatians chapter 2 reveals?
Also, I Corinthians which was written after the split, shows that Paul and Barnabas were back on good terms again. We should appreciate that the split reported in Galatians chapter 2 was only momentary. The case in Acts relates how Paul did not want to take John Mark with them on their next journey because he remembered how John Mark had abandoned them in Pamphilia in the middle of the first journey Acts ; Paul was concerned that John Mark might do the same again and cause further problems.
Later, however, the same Paul commends John Mark in his letters and expresses his need for him in his ministry Colossians ; II Timothy The evidence reveals that the dispute here was a personal matter and not doctrinal. There is no evidence that Paul and Barnabas had split because of a doctrinal clash. In fact investigation in this case reveals the unity that was between these two men rather than discord.
So why should Barnabas suddenly change his belief? Muslims offer rather fanciful explanations. A favourite theory, for example, is offered by Rahim, who tried his best to propagate this gospel with great zeal in Pakistan and wrote about the life of Jesus as portrayed in this gospel.
He says: Paul was a Roman citizen. He must have learned the language of Rome. He probably spoke Greek as it was the official language of the area in which he was born. The epistles he later wrote to the Christian communities in Greece must have been written in their native language. This meant he could travel in Greece and probably Italy without any language difficulty.
Barnabas, on the other hand spoke neither of the two languages. John Mark, who spoke Greek, had accompanied him on the first missionary journey into Greece, to act as his interpreter.
If Barnabas was to go there by himself, he would not be able to make himself understood. Thus Pauls refusal to travel with Mark may have been a round about way of ensuring that Barnabas would refuse to travel with him.
The conclusion cannot hope to be valid on such defective premises. It is also inconsistent with the statement in the same book that Barnabas was born in Cyprus. His native tongue would therefore have been Greek and the argument is rendered invalid by his own words.
Also, Rahim says that Paul and Barnabas were fellow students under Gamaliel. If such was the case, this would mean that both were educated men who had learned the teaching of the Old Testament and the traditions. If it was so important that there was a need for a translation into Greek three hundred years before Barnabas and Paul, how much greater would be the need of the Greek-speaking Jewish scholars who lived in CE? Evidently then, being an educated Jew, Barnabas would not need an interpreter.
He would have fully understood what Paul and the other apostles were preaching. Hence there would be no conflict or misunderstanding regarding the deity of Christ, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.
Almost every book of the New Testament is mentioned and quoted in the writings of the early Christians but no reference whatever is made to the gospel of Barnabas. However, Muslims claim a long, colourful history for this manuscript going back to Irenaeus For example Rahim says that Irenaeus "quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity". On examination one finds that Irenaeus in his writings quoted from the Epistle of Barnabas and not from what Rahim calls the Gospel of Barnabas.
An 'Epistle' is a letter and usually explains doctrine, while a 'Gospel' is an account of Jesus' life. Rahim claimed that during Emperor Zeno's rule in , the remains of Barnabas were discovered, and a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas, written by his own hand, was found on his breast. However, the record actually says that a copy of the gospel according to Matthew, copied by Barnabas himself, written in his own hand, was found on his breast. This deliberate alteration of the record reflects little credit on Rahim's integrity.
He omitted the words "according to Matthew, copied by Barnabas himself" and instead inserted "Gospel of Barnabas". Evidence from Muslim History Since the evidence from Christian history is sometimes rejected by some Muslims, we must also look at the evidence from Islamic history. The study of Muslim traditions and Muslim historical accounts suggest that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had good relations with the Christian ruler at Najran. At the time of Muhammad's birth, Arabs were in contact with Christians in Abyssinia, and also with the three major sections of the Church in the Middle East i.
Byzantine, Nestorian and Jacobite-Monophysites. The Nestorians exercised the most influence over the Arabs. Muslim traditions tell us about various Christian delegations that came to visit Muhammad for discussion. On one occasion, a group of sixty people headed by Abd al-Masih, bishop of the Najran Christians, met Muhammad in the mosque at Madina to discuss the deity of Christ.
Muhammad related to them that Jesus was not God. The incident is said to be recorded in the Qur'an Surah Here was an excellent opportunity to mention the gospel of Barnabas as evidence against the Christian' claim, if it was in existence, but not so.
Neither did Allah reveal to Muhammad any verse with regard to it. John of Damascus d. Mansur, the son of a civil servant who had been a treasurer to Caliph Muawiya and Abdul Malik, wrote on many subjects including the deity of Christ. Surely he would have also mentioned this gospel if it had been in existence then? Bishop Timotheos d. Discussions were held not only in defence of what was held to be Islamic orthodoxy against free thinkers and heretics, but also about the four gospels.
However, according to the transcripts, nobody mentioned the gospel of Barnabas. Muslim scholars debated the Godhead and the person of Jesus, yet they never mentioned this gospel. Caliph Jafar al-Mutawakal , who abolished the right of religion and the construction of churches and introduced discriminating laws against Christians and Jews , held debates in his court with people like Bishop Elijah.
However, again, no one suggested the gospel of Barnabas as a reference. The book Al-Fihrist of Abu al-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nadim , which is claimed by Muslims to deal with every phase of medieval culture, has long lists of books and authors. He gives a list of all the books that are part of the Bible but nowhere mentions the gospel of Barnabas . For several centuries Muslims ruled Spain CE and there were many dialogues between Muslims and Christians, yet no Muslim ever presented this gospel as evidence against orthodox Christian belief.
In this period there were Muslim writers, historians and philosopher like al-Farabi d. However not one of them mentioned this document. Furthermore, in none of the commentaries on the Quran, prior to CE can any reference to this gospel be found.
Therefore it is extremely difficult to believe that this gospel could possibly have been in existence before the fourteenth century, as discussed below. Evidence from the document The physical appearance of the manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas in existence today suggests, in terms of its binding, the style of writing and its language, that it was written between and Let us consider first the evidence within the text.
In the Torah, God ordered the Israelites to observe a Jubilee year. However the gospel of Barnabas mentions this Jubilee but gives the interval of one hundred years Barnabas, chapter Where did the author get this figure from?