Ramadan: Have you read the Gospel of Barnabas (important, please read all)?

It would appear you have valid points & valid reasons for doubting Paul's writings... & I also applaud you for reading the Bible. I Do believe in Paul's writings... it's late here & perhaps I'll be able to make time to discuss this very interesting question sometime later...

I think it's a worthy subject to discuss... & I like the logic you bring to the table, so I hope I'll have the opportunity to discuss this one with you also...

Well, I have to get up early, so for now, good night Rume & God bless you.

Ok, I’ve begun looking into this work, I've found it’s written in Italian, dated to the late sixteenth century. At first glance, although it may contain some truth, for the most part, one can't base or derive their authority of understanding on such fickle works.

For example:

Barnabas (or the Author) appears not to realize that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as "Jesus Christ" yet claiming that 'Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah"' (ch. 42).

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.

Adam and Eve eat an apple (ch. 40); whereas the traditional association of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis: 2) with the apple, rests on the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, where both 'apple' and 'evil' are rendered as 'malum'.

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

In Chapter 91, the "Forty Days" is referred to as an annual fast. This corresponds to the Christian tradition of fasting for forty days in Lent; a practice that is not witnessed earlier than the Council of Nicaea (325). Nor is there a forty days fast in Judaism of the period (see Mishnah, Tractate: Taanith "Days of Fasting")

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.

Ch. 91 records three contending Jewish armies 200,000 strong at Mizpeh, totalling 600,000 men, at a time when the Roman army across the entire Empire had a total strength estimated as 300,000.

Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time

It’s considered by the majority of academics, Christians and Muslims to be late and pseudepigraphical; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam, perhaps Gnostic or Ebionite or Diatessaronic.

Few academics argue the text, in its present form, dates back any earlier than the 14th–16th centuries; although a minority see it as containing portions of an earlier work, and almost all detect the influence of earlier sources—over and above the Vulgate text of the Latin Bible. Consequently most students would concur with a stratification of the surviving text into at least three distinct layers of composition:

an editorial layer dating from the 1590s; and comprising, at the least, the Spanish preface and the Arabic annotations,

a layer of vernacular narrative composition, either in Spanish or Italian, and dating from no earlier than the mid 14th century,

a layer derived from earlier source materials, almost certainly transmitted to the vernacular author/translator in Latin; and comprising, at the least, those extensive passages in the Gospel of Barnabas that closely parallel pericopes in the canonical gospels; but whose underlying text appears markedly distinct from that of the late medieval Latin Vulgate (as for instance in the alternative version of the Lord's Prayer in chapter 37, which includes a concluding doxology, contrary to the Vulgate text, but in accordance with the Diatessaron and many other early variant traditions);

Much of the controversy and dispute concerning the authenticity can be re-expressed as debating whether specific highly transgressive themes (from an orthodox Christian perspective) might already have been present in the source materials utilised by a 14th–16th century vernacular author, whether they might be due to that author himself, or whether they might even have been interpolated by the subsequent editor. Those students who regard these particular themes as primitive, nevertheless do not generally dispute that other parts of the Gospel may be late and anachronistic; while those students who reject the authenticity of these particular themes do not generally dispute that other parts of the Gospel could be transmitting variant readings from antiquity.

The manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas date back to the middle ages. The two manuscripts which the Gospel is written in is in Spanish and Italian. Seeing as there is no Greek or Hebrew manuscript for the Gospel, what makes you think that there was a copy of the Gospel at the Council of Nicaea?

If there is no manuscripts of the Gospel which date back to Jesus' time, then the Gospel loses it claim for authenticity.

Proving that the 4 Gospels in the Bible are more reliable than this Gospel because their manuscripts are the closest to the time of Jesus.

Also the Gospel claims Joseph as Mary's husband, while in the Quran her husband is not mentioned and her only protector is Zechariah.

Email me if you have any further questions.

I'll read them tomorrow, Sholam!

Are you referring to "The Epistle of Barnabas" (written between 70 - 139 AD). This writing was highly regarded by many within the early church. It was not a part of the canon due to its uncertain authorship, and because of a lack of evidence that it ever held the same status as other canonical writings. There was a "Gospel of Barnabas", but experts believe that the copy we have today is merely a forgery bearing its name.

Have you ever read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Do you know what they say? Over and over again Jesus says in them that he is not Allah. They do not support the trinity concept.

There is a statement of son, but it needs to be understood properly as metaphorical and in understanding the places where Jesus confirms reincarantion and clues from Qur'an (Adam is vicegerent for earth, Jesus is vicegerent for earth, oh, that must mean, they are the same).

Everything you have said about Barnabus does not in any way negate what is in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation. I strongly suggests reading those books to see what they actually say instead of believing what you have been told about them.

The corrupted church couldn't get away with suppressing all the true Gospels, but they could get away with keeping a small number and putting some slight corruptions to them.

There are other books of course besides Baranabus'. Btw, Book of Mormon confrms suppression of additional Gospels.

Paul changed his name from Saul, he was a persecutor of Christians and never walked or talked or followed Jesus during his ministry. The story goes, Saul was responsible for the death of Stephen, an early Christian martyr who while he was dying, prayed to Allah to forgive the people who were stoning him to death. Saul witnessed this death he was responsible for and it haunted him. A few days later while traveling he had a vision of Issa where Issa asked him why he was causing so many problems for his followers. Then Saul went blind for three days until a Christian touched him and regained sight. Of course he converted and changed his name to signal being a new person, then he went on to establish a bunch of churches and write a bunch of stuff that corrupted the Gospel of Christ but that fit in nicely with what a corrupted church later wanted. Also he had to go Rome where he was put under house arrest for two years and no one really knows what happened to him after that. That's the way the story goes anyhow, don't know how much of it has been changed.

Oh yes I did. And honestly, I would not recommend you to consider it a "Godly book". Believe me, it complelely goes against Islam as well - unless you're ready to believe Mohammed is the Messiah.

And besides, there are vast evidence that it is not a Christian scripture, nor was it written by Barnabas himself. Although I haven't made enough research towards it, I do know this was written neither by a Muslim (or atleast, a sunni or a shia Muslim) nor by a Christian.

@ Crusader: Noted with much thanks and love brother.

Did you read the link that "Me" posted? It's considerably shorter than 222 chapters (like, 1 page). Check it out.

I've not read Barnabas, but I agree the whole council of Nicaea puts everything into a circumspect light.

BTW, I updated my question (slightly). I find it extremely strange that no one ever tried to find correlations and put it into a book.

I've read it a couple of years after taking my shahadah. Very interesting book. Read it with my ex wife, who, as a Christian, didn't care too much for subject matter that went against the doctrine she believes in.

I have read parts of it. The parts that were included in the book titled "Jesus: Prophet of Islam". Have you read this book? I found it really good.

I haven't read it. Though I had made plans to do so this winter break and hopefully I'll start it sometime next week. This is an excellent question. Thanks so much for sharing that link. :)

Jazaki Allah 5air. :)

Inshallah when i get a chance i will go over it.

good night Rume