Re: Gospel of Barnabas

Posted by james on December 09, 1997 at 11:30:23:

In Reply to: Gospel of Barnabas posted by David on December 09, 1997 at 05:48:36:

: I read on http://www.flash.net/~royal/islam.html about this Gospel. Christians claim that an angry Spanish Muslim was the original author of this Gospel. What is the actual history behind it ? Does it really expose the current Bible as a fake holy book?

Hi, David,

I have never read the Gospel of Barnabus, but here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Printed 1961, Great Britain) says:

"We read in antiquity (e.g. in the Decretum Gelasii) of an apocryphal Gospel of Barnabus. (See Apocryphal Literature.) Traces of it may survive in a later book with this title, probably embodying materials partly Gnostic in character and origin (translated by L.Ragg, Oxford, 1907). It seems "a forgery of the 15th century at the earliest, written in Italian by a renegade from Christianity to Islam" (M.R. James, The Apoc. N.T., p. xxvi.)."

There are two terms here that may need definition:
1) apocryphal:
a) of the Apocrypha;
b) doubtfully authentic or invented.
The Apocrypha is defined as a) Old Testament books not considered canonical (that is, inspired by God) by Jews and Protestants, but accepted by the Roman Catholic church, and b) as early Christian writings excluded from the canon by both Protestants and Catholics. This definition of the word "Apocrypha" is based on the Pocket Oxford Dictionary.

2) Gnostic: referring to the Gnostics, who were people who claimed to have special mystic revelations or knowledge about God. The New Testament declares gnosticism to be a false teaching.

(As an aside, the Gospel of Barnabus should not be confused with other pieces of literature that bear the name Barnabus. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says this about the Epistle of Barnabus: "The epistle is one of ‘The Apostolic Fathers.’ It stands at the end of the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus of the New Testament, in a sort of appendix. This means it once enjoyed quasi-canonical authority, a fact born out by Clement, Origen and Eusebius (H.E. iii. 25). Internal evidence refutes its ascription to Barnabus; nor does the epistle itself make any such claim…" The term Apostolic Fathers refers vaguely to writers that were of the next generation after the 12 Apostles, as stated in the article ‘Apostolic Fathers’ in the same edition of the encyclopaedia. The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA 1988) also refers to a piece of literature called Acts of Barnabus: "The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabus is almost certainly a mid-second-century composition and therefore not from the hand of Barnabus. The apocryphal Acts of Barnabus is from the fifth century and not useful in establishing reliable information on the person of Barnabus.")

So it seems the Gospel of Barnabus is a fake.

Perhaps someone else can point you to a copy of the Gospel of Barnabus on the internet. I gather it has some popularity in South Africa, especially.

With regard to your second question, "Does it really expose the current Bible as a fake holy book?": I guess that depends on one’s definition of fake. The Bible is probably one of the (if not the) most analysed books in history. If a book claims to be something that a person does not agree with, that book could be regarded as ‘fake’. However that person could be wrong in his opinion. The Bible has come under critical attack even by western scholars particularly over the last two centuries and still stands intact; its historicity is not in question. Archaeology has many times over confirmed reports presented in the Bible that were before-hand considered improbable. Also the text of the Bible has been transmitted accurately. Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written before Jesus was born. They include texts that are for all practical purposes the same as ones that were copied more than a thousand years later that were used up until the Dead Sea scrolls were found. There are also thousands of very old fragments of New Testament texts that still exist. A list of the words that are different is printed in the back of The Interlinear Bible, Jay Green, Snr, Hendrickson, 2nd Ed. 1986, USA. Once again, you’d have to agree that there are no significant differences in all these manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts.

Of course, being a fake does not in itself mean that the Epistle of Barnabus is wrong. But it does need to be read as a 15th century document, not a first century one. However in the face of all the criticism of the Bible that I mentioned above, it would seem very strange to me that the Epistle of Barnabus has not been used extensively, especially in the ‘west’, to attempt to discredit the Bible. This suggests to me that there is wide consensus that the epistle is a fake, as stated by the Britannica, or that it does not discredit the Bible. So I would read the Epistle very carefully before believing what it says.

Well, David, that is my personal reaction. I hope others can point us towards the aspects of your questions I have not fully answered. I seem to remember that this topic has been discussed on this web page before. Perhaps you would find something of interest in the archives of the past discussions.

Regards,
James

Follow Ups:

• Re: Gospel of Barnabas Jochen Katz 12/11/97 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 

Subject  : Re: Gospel of Barnabas

Comments:
: 
: :  I read on   http://www.flash.net/~royal/islam.html  about this Gospel.  Christians claim that an angry Spanish Muslim was the original author of this Gospel.  What is the actual history behind it ?  Does it really expose the current Bible as a fake holy book?


: Hi, David,

: I have never read the Gospel of Barnabus, but here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Printed 1961, Great Britain) says:

: "We read in antiquity (e.g. in the Decretum Gelasii) of an apocryphal Gospel of Barnabus. (See Apocryphal Literature.) Traces of it may survive in a later book with this title, probably embodying materials partly Gnostic in character and origin (translated by L.Ragg, Oxford, 1907). It seems "a forgery of the 15th century at the earliest, written in Italian by a renegade from Christianity to Islam" (M.R. James, The Apoc. N.T., p. xxvi.)."

: There are two terms here that may need definition:
: 1)  apocryphal: 
: 	a) of the Apocrypha; 
: 	b) doubtfully authentic or invented. 
: The Apocrypha is defined as a) Old Testament books not considered canonical (that is, inspired by God) by Jews and Protestants, but accepted by the Roman Catholic church, and b) as early Christian writings excluded from the canon by both Protestants and Catholics. This definition of the word "Apocrypha" is based on the Pocket Oxford Dictionary.

: 2) Gnostic: referring to the Gnostics, who were people who claimed to have special mystic revelations or knowledge about God. The New Testament declares gnosticism to be a false teaching.

: (As an aside, the Gospel of Barnabus should not be confused with other pieces of literature that bear the name Barnabus. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says this about the Epistle of Barnabus: "The epistle is one of ‘The Apostolic Fathers.’ It stands at the end of the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus of the New Testament, in a sort of appendix. This means it once enjoyed quasi-canonical authority, a fact born out by Clement, Origen and Eusebius (H.E. iii. 25). Internal evidence refutes its ascription to Barnabus; nor does the epistle itself make any such claim…"  The term Apostolic Fathers refers vaguely to writers that were of the next generation after the 12 Apostles, as stated in the article ‘Apostolic Fathers’ in the same edition of the encyclopaedia. The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA 1988) also refers to a piece of literature called Acts of Barnabus: "The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabus is almost certainly a mid-second-century composition and therefore not from the hand of Barnabus. The apocryphal Acts of Barnabus is from the fifth century and not useful in establishing reliable information on the person of Barnabus.")

: So it seems the Gospel of Barnabus is a fake.

: Perhaps someone else can point you to a copy of the Gospel of Barnabus on the internet. I gather it has some popularity in South Africa, especially.

: With regard to your second question, "Does it really expose the current Bible as a fake holy book?": I guess that depends on one’s definition of fake. The Bible is probably one of the (if not the) most analysed books in history. If a book claims to be something that a person does not agree with, that book could be regarded as ‘fake’. However that person could be wrong in his opinion. The Bible has come under critical attack even by western scholars particularly over the last two centuries and still stands intact; its historicity is not in question. Archaeology has many times over confirmed reports presented in the Bible that were before-hand considered improbable. Also the text of the Bible has been transmitted accurately. Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written before Jesus was born. They include texts that are for all practical purposes the same as ones that were copied more than a thousand years later that were used up until the Dead Sea scrolls were found. There are also thousands of very old fragments of New Testament texts that still exist. A list of the words that are different is printed in the back of The Interlinear Bible, Jay Green, Snr, Hendrickson, 2nd Ed. 1986, USA. Once again, you’d have to agree that there are no significant differences in all these manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts.

: Of course, being a fake does not in itself mean that the Epistle of Barnabus is wrong. But it does need to be read as a 15th century document, not a first century one. However in the face of all the criticism of the Bible that I mentioned above, it would seem very strange to me that the Epistle of Barnabus has not been used extensively, especially in the ‘west’, to attempt to discredit the Bible. This suggests to me that there is wide consensus that the epistle is a fake, as stated by the Britannica, or that it does not discredit the Bible. So I would read the Epistle very carefully before believing what it says.

: Well, David, that is my personal reaction. I hope others can point us towards the aspects of your questions I have not fully answered. I seem to remember that this topic has been discussed on this web page before. Perhaps you would find something of interest in the archives of the past discussions.

: Regards,
: James