Thanks for sharing ...mehrosh said:
As I said: inordinantly silly!mehrosh said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gospel of Barnabas
- Thread starter mehrosh
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
mehrosh, I have come across this sort of debate before in islam.com. This is nothing more than medieval forgery. That a Muslim would bring this argument up, over and over again, I can only admire Muslim persistence of clear propaganda agenda, but not their illogical argument.
I have read it before, and there are too many clues that are left in the text that indicate it is clearly medieval pseudepigrapha literature.
There is a clear indication that Barnabas and Paul were friends and travelling companions, but in this gospel it showed strong denunication against Paul.
But that's not what make it a forgery.
It is clear in the bible that he was really named Joseph, but the apostles named him Barnabas after Jesus' ascension (Acts 4:6). But in the gospel of Barnabas, he was among Jesus' apostles several years before his ascension and that Jesus had called him by the name "Barnabas" instead of "Joseph", is not really credible.
There are discrepencies found in the so-called gospel that indicated that it is fake.
The gospel says that the jubilee happened every 100 years, but throughout the Jewish history, and recorded in Leviticus 25.11, jubilee only happened every 50 years.
Only Pope Boniface (I don't which Boniface; sorry I don't keep track of number), around 1300, had decreed a 100-year jubilee, before Pope Clemens (don't know his number too) had reverted the jubilee back to 50-year. So this gospel could be written at this period.
The gospel also mention some objects that didn't exist at that period, and could only have come from medieval time, such as the wooden wine barrel or cask. Such thing is medieval invention. Wine were store in ceramic jars or wineskins in ancient times.
The other things is that the gospel allude to feudal towns, when Barnabas speaks of Larazus and his sisters.
The climate is also wrong for this region in Palestine, and wrong about the geography too.
I may not know as much about the bible as many people here do, but I know enough about ancient and medieval history.
I have read it before, and there are too many clues that are left in the text that indicate it is clearly medieval pseudepigrapha literature.
There is a clear indication that Barnabas and Paul were friends and travelling companions, but in this gospel it showed strong denunication against Paul.
But that's not what make it a forgery.
It is clear in the bible that he was really named Joseph, but the apostles named him Barnabas after Jesus' ascension (Acts 4:6). But in the gospel of Barnabas, he was among Jesus' apostles several years before his ascension and that Jesus had called him by the name "Barnabas" instead of "Joseph", is not really credible.
There are discrepencies found in the so-called gospel that indicated that it is fake.
The gospel says that the jubilee happened every 100 years, but throughout the Jewish history, and recorded in Leviticus 25.11, jubilee only happened every 50 years.
Only Pope Boniface (I don't which Boniface; sorry I don't keep track of number), around 1300, had decreed a 100-year jubilee, before Pope Clemens (don't know his number too) had reverted the jubilee back to 50-year. So this gospel could be written at this period.
The gospel also mention some objects that didn't exist at that period, and could only have come from medieval time, such as the wooden wine barrel or cask. Such thing is medieval invention. Wine were store in ceramic jars or wineskins in ancient times.
The other things is that the gospel allude to feudal towns, when Barnabas speaks of Larazus and his sisters.
The climate is also wrong for this region in Palestine, and wrong about the geography too.
I may not know as much about the bible as many people here do, but I know enough about ancient and medieval history.
Or what ... you'll pout?mehrosh said:
The transliteration of the word in question is 'machmadim', the plural form of 'machmad'.
To see "Muhammad ... camouflaged in the Translation" makes about as much sense as discovering Muhammad camouflaged in every reference to 'milk maids' and 'macadamia nuts' - something you might well wish to consider.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What is it you think I'm trying to "help" by stating that something is a mystery? Does our salvation depend upon being able to explain everything?mehrosh said:
Of course the Bible has changed (in a sense.) Texts were edited, redacted, embellished, translated. That affects things how?
What do you mean "go back to the Bible? I've not gone away from the Bible...ever. I have always found the Bible to lead me to truth.
I have studied (and still continue to study) the Bible in depth. I haven't found it to be nearly as convoluted as you present it here.
Maybe it would help if I took hallucinogens while I studied the Bible...
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
Maybe my words came across wrong, but I'm actually agreeing with you on this subject. Aside from that, you bring up a valid point: if the authenticity of the gospels do not hinge on authorship, how can we be assured of their validity?sojourner said:
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
Fascinating stuff. Just curious, what does "machmad" mean?Jayhawker Soule said:Or what ... you'll pout?
The transliteration of the word in question is 'machmadim', the plural form of 'machmad'.
To see "Muhammad ... camouflaged in the Translation" makes about as much sense as discovering Muhammad camouflaged in every reference to 'milk maids' and 'macadamia nuts' - something you might well wish to consider.
Object of desire.Ibrahim Al-Amin said:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, you didn't come across wrong. I find this sort of scholarly debate fascinating. The authenticity of the gospels does not hinge on authorship, because we can't prove authorship. The authenticity is found in the style of writing, in the continuity of style and message, and in the cogency and relativity of the writings to each other.Ibrahim Al-Amin said:
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
I understand. But with the authenticity being found in style, continuity, cogency, and relativity, it brings up the next question, regarding "Q." If the language in Mark and Luke can be traced to "Q," and the language of Matthew being a product of Mark, it seems as though there's really only one author of the 3 synoptic gospels. This is something that's always puzzled me as a layperson; I certainly am not an expert. So, maybe the question should be directed into a new thread, but I wonder, how do Christians reconcile the written "evidence" that there's possibly only one "synoptic" gospel?sojourner said:
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
Cool, thanks. :jam:Jayhawker Soule said:
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
Thanks. I may be remembering it wrong, but I could swear Mark used Q, and unfortunately I am two days away from my library so I can't verify my thoughts. In any case, as you wrote above, even if Matthew and Luke used Q, then really it's only two sources: Q and Mark. What am I missing? Is it the "original material" you reference? If so, I understand, but the majority of and most important aspects to each story still centers on the "Q" portion, which makes it appear that, without the Q relationship, we would have entirely unrelated stories of Jesus.sojourner said:
Ibrahim Al-Amin
Member
Well, that's the most confounding part. There are the three synoptic gospels with so much in common that it is believed that they originate from nearly the same source. Then there's John, which as a whole is significantly different, with a few related stories.gnostic said:
So in all, there's a scattering of fragmented stories that make up the 4 Gospels, on which the entire religion is based, written by two different authors decades apart.
It is called the Two Source Hypothesis for two reasons:sojourner said:
- it postulates two primary sources, and
- it is an hypothesis, not a fact.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Except that both Matthew and Luke do incorporate original material, not found in either Mark or Q.Jayhawker Soule said:
No. It's not a fact, but it's the best tool we've got, and it serves the purposes of criticism very, very well. There has been some disagreement since it was formulated, but most noted scholars agree on its veracity.