The Book Of Gospel Of Barnabas Chapter One / One Of Many Books Remove

[gnostic]

The Gospel of Barnabas was "not remove" from the Bible, because it didn't exist to be "remove" since it is a late medieval pseudepigrapha text, written probably in medieval Spain or Italy.

There is a lot of discrepencies, which including

• being geographically incorrect about a couple of locations of cities;
• it talks of trees grown in Judaea, which doesn't exist anywhere except in Spain and Italy;
• the use of wooden wine barrel (chapter 152, "cask of wood"), which is medieval invention. The ancient world never used wooden barrels for storage of wine. They were made out of pottery or use wine-skin.

Even the way it was written, where it uses terminology that only exist in medieval period, make it more likely that this "gospel" is bogus.

The is no gospel with Barnabas' name on it among the NT Aprocrypha literature, but there is "The Acts of Barnabas", which is totally different writing to the so-called Gospel of Barnabas.

The other problem is with this text seemed to be the Muslim gospel, which even mentioned Muhammad by name (Chapters 39, 41, 45, 54, 55, 97, 112, 136, 163, 220). This clearly shows that a Muslim had written the gospel in the 16th century.

Adam was supposedly mention Muhammad being a "Messenger of God" strikes a little odd, since there were no such thing as prophet back then or any need for prophet yet. Sure God does speak to Adam, but it doesn't make him a prophet.

The Gospel of Barnabas is interesting, but only because it is downright silly in its attempt of being genuine....and failing miserably at that.

So you want to add this gospel into the Bible, TehuTi?

 

[TehuTi]

The Gospel of Barnabas was "not remove" from the Bible, because it didn't exist to be "remove" since it is a late medieval pseudepigrapha text, written probably in medieval Spain or Italy.

There is a lot of discrepencies, which including

• being geographically incorrect about a couple of locations of cities;
• it talks of trees grown in Judaea, which doesn't exist anywhere except in Spain and Italy;
• the use of wooden wine barrel (chapter 152, "cask of wood"), which is medieval invention. The ancient world never used wooden barrels for storage of wine. They were made out of pottery or use wine-skin.

Even the way it was written, where it uses terminology that only exist in medieval period, make it more likely that this "gospel" is bogus.

The is no gospel with Barnabas' name on it among the NT Aprocrypha literature, but there is "The Acts of Barnabas", which is totally different writing to the so-called Gospel of Barnabas.

The other problem is with this text seemed to be the Muslim gospel, which even mentioned Muhammad by name (Chapters 39, 41, 45, 54, 55, 97, 112, 136, 163, 220). This clearly shows that a Muslim had written the gospel in the 16th century.

Adam was supposedly mention Muhammad being a "Messenger of God" strikes a little odd, since there were no such thing as prophet back then or any need for prophet yet. Sure God does speak to Adam, but it doesn't make him a prophet.

The Gospel of Barnabas is interesting, but only because it is downright silly in its attempt of being genuine....and failing miserably at that.

So you want to add this gospel into the Bible, TehuTi?

Here something for you :bible:

 

[EiNsTeiN]

The other problem is with this text seemed to be the Muslim gospel, which even mentioned Muhammad by name (Chapters 39, 41, 45, 54, 55, 97, 112, 136, 163, 220). This clearly shows that a Muslim had written the gospel in the 16th century.

Why would a muslim care writing a gospel??
No evidences for this I guess...

I couldn't understand what is Nag Hammadi doing with the Barnaba gospel?
Is'nt Nag Hammadi in Egypt, or what?

 

[wizanda]

You missed my favourites off the list Maccabees 3 and 4 released in 1977, where the daily sacrifice is taken away and explained……??

 

[gnostic]

Why would a muslim care writing a gospel??

Some Muslims do care.

Just like some Muslims also like to use so-called prophecies in regarding to Muhammad in the OT and NT books. Some like to prove Muhammad's existence in prophecy before Muhammad's time, even if it meant using a fake gospel.

The topic on Barnabas' gospels were repeatedly started up by Muslims at islam dot com on the gospel of Barnabas, to prove Muhammad was in old books (eg Deuternomy and Isaiah in OT, or gospel of John in the NT). These Muslims who use this gospel, to prove that the other gospels are fake, and this one is real.

I have only come across this topic twice, here at RF, including this one (mehrosh started this one, titled Gospel of Barnabas). mehrosh and Ibrahim Al-Amin obviously believe Barnabas to be a real gospel, even though it was written over thousand years later.

This topic is obviously not started by a Muslim. I don't know what religion is Tehu-ti's background. I still wish he wouldn't "Capitalised" every word when he is commenting. He quote a lot through cutting-and-pasting, but is not very good at writing his own actual reply.

I couldn't understand what is Nag Hammadi doing with the Barnaba gospel?

Actually, the Nag Hammadi Library has nothing to do with Barnabas' gospel whatsoever. There is no writing of Barnabas. There is mention of Barnabas, but he is not the writer, found in polemaic writings.

Is'nt Nag Hammadi in Egypt, or what?

Yes, it is.

This is where a collection of Gnostic writings were uncovered in 1945. It was mostly written in Coptic, and most these texts were translated from the original Greek. The gospel of Barnabas was not one of them.

 

[James the Persian]

The Gospel of Barnabas was "not remove" from the Bible, because it didn't exist to be "remove" since it is a late medieval pseudepigrapha text, written probably in medieval Spain or Italy.

There is a lot of discrepencies, which including

• being geographically incorrect about a couple of locations of cities;
• it talks of trees grown in Judaea, which doesn't exist anywhere except in Spain and Italy;
• the use of wooden wine barrel (chapter 152, "cask of wood"), which is medieval invention. The ancient world never used wooden barrels for storage of wine. They were made out of pottery or use wine-skin.

Even the way it was written, where it uses terminology that only exist in medieval period, make it more likely that this "gospel" is bogus.

The is no gospel with Barnabas' name on it among the NT Aprocrypha literature, but there is "The Acts of Barnabas", which is totally different writing to the so-called Gospel of Barnabas.

The other problem is with this text seemed to be the Muslim gospel, which even mentioned Muhammad by name (Chapters 39, 41, 45, 54, 55, 97, 112, 136, 163, 220). This clearly shows that a Muslim had written the gospel in the 16th century.

Adam was supposedly mention Muhammad being a "Messenger of God" strikes a little odd, since there were no such thing as prophet back then or any need for prophet yet. Sure God does speak to Adam, but it doesn't make him a prophet.

The Gospel of Barnabas is interesting, but only because it is downright silly in its attempt of being genuine....and failing miserably at that.

So you want to add this gospel into the Bible, TehuTi?

Darn, you beat me to it. Quite right and frubals. It's absolutely impossible that the 'Gospel' of Barnabas was written anywhere other than western Europe, there's no chance its author was even familiar with Greek (he makes an error which only comes about through using the Vulgate translation, for instance), he clearly was unfamiliar with middle eastern geography - and the list of flaws goes on.

You're also right in that it appears to be an attempt to convince Christians of the truth of Islam (and most likely it was composed in Moorish Spain, which would explain that), although the author also makes errors with regards to Muslim belief. Anyway, just about the only people in the world who are not utterly convinced this 'Gospel' is a forgery are the few Muslims with vested interests who like to argue that it is the original Gospel.

James

 

[James the Persian]

You missed my favourites off the list Maccabees 3 and 4 released in 1977, where the daily sacrifice is taken away and explained……??

Where did you get this 'information'? 3 and 4 Maccabees are in the Orthodox canon and always have been (albeit that 4 Maccabees is usuallly in an appendix). I have a Bible printed well before 1977 that contains both books, so could you please explain what on earth you mean? The See of Rome did not have those books in its Latin canon, this is true, but they've been in the Greek canon from time immemorial as they are part of the Septuagint.

James

 

[gnostic]

Darn, you beat me to it. Quite right and frubals. It's absolutely impossible that the 'Gospel' of Barnabas was written anywhere other than western Europe, there's no chance its author was even familiar with Greek (he makes an error which only comes about through using the Vulgate translation, for instance), he clearly was unfamiliar with middle eastern geography - and the list of flaws goes on.

I may not know much about religions and their respective scriptures as most people do, but I know enough about literature in general, to recognise when something are not right about the literature (ie scripture).

So I agreed with you James that there are too many anarchonism in the Gospel of Barnabas.

Muhammad's name in this gospel is the most obvious flaw. It is this that gives the game away that this was written by Muslim or Muslims.

The other flaws are harder to tell, unless you know something about geography and history of between the ancient and medieval worlds. The reference to the 9 heavens before Paradise (chapter 178) it was taken straight from Dante's The Divine Comedy (14th century). So the writing must be written either in the 15th century at the earliest or early 16th century.