Trolling for Truth But Finding None: The Gospel of Barnabas

I seem to have forgotten to post this from my Yahoo 360 blog. Posted Sept 13th ....

I sometimes troll for Christians or interesting people on the Yahoo 360. Some times I run across an interesting person or something that peaks my interest. This happened as I was looking at a friend of one of my Yahoo 360 friends. Here is an excerpt from the blog of a friend of a friend,

...
There is a Gospel known by the name the Gospel of Barnabas, which the church banned in 492 AD by the order of Pope Gelasius. It was confiscated everywhere. But there was still a copy of that Gospel in the library of Pope Sixtus V. Fortunately a certain Roman Monk called Framarino managed to bring it out. He had found the letters of Ireneus, where the came upon the name of the Gospel of Barnabas mentioned as a reference. His curiosity urged him to look for that gospel. When he became a close friend to Pope Sixtus V, he got that copy of the gospel and found in it that there would come a time when it would be claimed that Jesus is Allah’s son, and this misconception would continue till Muhammad, Allah’s Messenger comes, to set things right.

In the Gospel of Barnabas, (220:4), we read: “And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Muhammad the Messenger of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who believe in God’s Law.”

Framarino was converted to Islam and published among people this Gospel, which the church had opposed.
...

Wow! If this is true, I mean a true gospel, then the above quote of the Gospel of Barnabas, 220:4, would be remarkable proof of the validity of Islam. If it was written around 492 AD, then it is prophetic in nature, mentioning Muhammad by name more than 100 years before he was born. And this would be even more remarkable if Irenaeus had actually commented on this 'gospel', since he lived between 120 and 200 AD. And if you know me just a little, you know that it was this comment about Irenaeus that caught my eye, and peeked my interest.

There are many more 'interesting' statements in this person's blog, but I'll limit my comments to this short excerpt. I then run across this,

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had 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.

Again, if true, this is quite remarkable! This article traces the history of this 'gospel' from its origins to today. It did take a little bit of work to determine who wrote this article and who is sponsoring the site, but I wasn't surprised when I found that it is really a Muslim site. Still, if true, this could be life changing.

Don't worry, I'm not that gullible. But I do have to be an honest inquirer of all things. I never want to be so closed minded, as Muslims are, that I cannot entertain an unbeliever's questionings, even if the person asking the question really doesn't want an answer. As I have always said, Christianity is the only faith that invites questions from inside and outside the church, and provides legitimate answers. It is unfortunate that there are so many closed-minded Christians, who seem determined to demonstrate the opposite of what I'm saying right now. But it is Christians that have nothing to fear, they are the ones that have the truth on there side (and, they don't have to kill anyone to prove it, as Muslims seemly have to do). Only those with something to fear issue fatwa's at anyone that does not conform to their close-minded beliefs. And only those with nothing to fear can allow some one to walk away from the Truth. True Christianity does not need to force others to believe anything. The Truth of the Gospel shared by those who live it out in love, sincerity and grace, compels others to seek it out.

So, what about the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB)? Well, if there ever was a GoB, it is most certainly not the one that first appeared in the early 18th century. The current GoB first appeared in Holland in 1709, and later in Spain (however the original manuscript was apparently lost, although an 18th century copy was found in 1970). If this was really an historical manuscript, it would have been written in Greek or Latin, not in Italian and supplied with footnotes in poorly written Arabic. The source of this so-called "Gospel" is unknown, but is currently being preserved in the Imperial Museum in Vienna.

But is it historical? Well, let's find out. From a very good Wikipedia article;

The earliest mention of a Barnabas text which is generally agreed to refer to the one found in the two known manuscripts, is reported to be contained in Morisco manuscript BNM MS 9653 in Madrid, written about 1634 by Ibrahim al-Taybili in Tunisia. While describing how, in his opinion, the Bible predicts Muhammad, he speaks of the "Gospel of Saint Barnabas where one can find the light" . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas)

1634? Yep! That appears to be the earliest mention of the Spanish version. But, there is more.

Its main difference from the Italian manuscript is that the surviving transcript does not record a substantial number of chapters—which had, however, still been present in the Spanish original when it was examined by George Sale. The Spanish text is preceded by a note claiming that it was translated from Italian by Mustafa de Aranda, an Aragonese Muslim resident in Istanbul. (Ibid)

So, he copied it from an original which was written in Italian. And the surviving Italian version did not have a large number of chapters that the Spanish version had. So, our traceability to the original source is beginning to have some problems. Again from the Wikipedia article,

The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text. (Ibid)

Now for the translation. So just what are “paleographic inconsistencies”? How about these: (once again from the Wikipedia article – these have also been independently validated with other sources)

• The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,
  
• There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.
  
• Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That would date it much later than Irenaeus. (Ibid)

There is one last rather damning “paleographic inconsistency.” A handwriting analysis of the manuscript was done comparing Fra Marino’s handwriting and that of the Gospel of Barnabas and the findings showed that they could have easily come from the same person, according Sox (p.70).

These problems, in and of themselves, create enough to cause more than a considerable amount of doubt as to the authenticity of this manuscript as being produced prior to the 1300's. It is much like the Book of Mormon talking about horse as existing in the Americas between 800 and 1200 AD. Horses were introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century. Its a detail which destroys the credibility of the entire book. And the three items above do the same thing to this so called 'gospel'.

Want some more? You didn't actually think I would stop there, did you? This so called 'gospel' has a number of discrepancies with both the Bible and the Koran - here are just a few:

• Jesus is not the Messiah. ch.83; ch.97; ch.42 (Jesus is called the Messiah/Christ in Suras 5:75; 5:17 (2x), 3:45; 4:157, 171, 172, 9:30)
  
• The Messiah is Mohammed. ch.97 God created all things for the Messiah. ch.191
  
• Without faith in Mohammed, none will be saved. (Most Muslims do not believe you should have saving faith in Mohammed.) ch.192
  
• Ishmael was the ancestor of the Messiah. ch.190; ch.191; ch.208; ch.43
  

Here are some additional contradictions with the Bible:

• Jesus is a voice in the wilderness. ch.42
  
• Angels "rolled" the soldiers away for Jesus. ch.153
• Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus. ch.83, ch.88, ch.19, ch.72
  
• God gave Jesus bad consequences because others called Jesus God. ch.112

And finally, some additional contradictions with the Koran:

• Faithful Muslims who do not have works will be in Hell for 70,000 years. ch.137
• Mohammad will go to Hell and be terrified as he beholds the punishment of others ch.135
• Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain ch.3
  
• Unlawful to hate anything except sin. ch.86

And if all of the above is not enough, here are some additional general technical errors the manuscript makes:

• Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ch.20 (Nazareth is inland.)
  
• Romans said the idols were almighty. ch.152
  
• Rome has 28,000 gods. ch.152
  
• There was a great famine in Israel in Jesus’ time. ch.138
  
• Israel says Jesus was God or the Son of God. ch.138

Put this all together and you have a completely unreliable document. Never mind the historical nature of the document, there is too much wrong with it to be anything more than a fraud. It reminds me of the static generated by the so-called 'gospel of Thomas'. Reading the last section of the document should have been enough for everyone to reject it out right – a woman must become a man to gain eternal life? How utterly idiotic! Just like all of the rest of the crap found in that cave in Qumran Egypt. Gnostic 'gospels' are not gospels at all, anymore than this so-called gospel of Barnabas.

And what about Irenaeus' comments about the GoB? Some Muslim sources state boldly that Irenaeus not only spoke highly of the GoB, he also opposed the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Of the preserved historical writings we have from him, Irenaeus, there is no mention at all of the GoB, nor was there ever. There was an Epistle of Barnabas but not a GoB, and the Epistle doesn't say anything even remotely close to what the GoB says. There is a mention of a GoB in the Gelasian Decree, but the only thing that that proves is that it was rejected as heretical long after the Canon of the NT was assembled and established. The above discrepancies with the Bible would have been enough to do that! And what “thinking” Muslim can accept the GoB when it clearly contradicts their “holy” book. Although it was mentioned in the late 5th century, there is no evidence that the GoB of Gelasian's day was anything remotely like the current 16th century version.

It should also be completely understood that Irenaeus never had any issues with Paul's teachings. As a matter of fact, he recognized Paul's writings as inspired, meaning he understood that Paul's writings were God breathed “Scripture”, and claimed that the current four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were the only ones ever given by God.

And if all that wasn't enough, an extensive research was conducted by Laura and Lonsdale Ragg into the claims of the GoB when they translated it into English in 1907. They provide both internal and external evidence demonstrating that the document was nothing more than a Medieval forgery. Muslim sources conveniently omit any mention of that.

So, now the real question is why was this forged document written in the first place? Of that we cannot be absolutely sure, but one reason would seem to be to promote Islam, which would explain the text referenced above by Muslim sources.

But one of the prime reasons was to refute the Trinity. How, you say? Well, look at what we've seen so far. Who is Jesus in this so-called gospel? He's not the Messiah, He's not the Son of God, He's not the Incarnate God. Who is He then? He's simply a prophet, less than Mohammad, but greater than Isaiah or Jeremiah. That is an attack on the Deity of Christ, and therefore an attack on the Trinity.

Is Jesus who He says He is? Or are we persuaded by arguments like those for the GoB? Or are you persuaded by the "religion of Peace's" persuasive arguments.

Research notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm
http://www.muslimhope.com/ForgeryOfTheGospelOfBarnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/marino.html
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Barnmain.html
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/barn.shtml
http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/barnabas.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
http://www.chrislages.de/barnarom.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm