Gospel of Barnabas?

BaBaBluesheep

oh dear...I was starting to think that christianity was a load of old cobblers since the bible and it's instructions have been reworked so many times, might have to leave the flock now..even the vatican have requested a viewing(!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149227/Gospel-Barnabas-cause-Christianitys-collapse-Iran-claims.html#comments

Slav

It does not look good.

Even a quick look at the photos, the "font" used by the writer, leaves it no chance to be an early Syriac writing.

Those familiar with the language are not too impressed either: http://aina.org/news/2012022916569.htm - a 19th century forgery at best and a pretty lame one.

So for an Islamic Gospel I would still stick with the earlier forgeries of the Gospel of Barnabas: the Italian and the Spanish manuscripts.

BaBaBluesheep

well the jury is out for me until it's analysed properly and by that I don't mean by the church itself..I wouldn't resort to christian propaganda sites either slav as that's just as bad..it's not so unusual for ancient texts to maintain their integrity so well this seems to be leather and the font is something an expert would know about who isn't connected to the church,..I happen to think more and more that Islam is a natural progression on from christianity so this was an eye opener this morning..will be watching with interest

gimmebroadband

A snippet from the linked article below.

Let us briefly go through the history of Barnabas in the Bible. He only appears among the apostles after the ascension of Jesus to heaven when the early Christian Church was taking root in the land of Palestine. As a gesture of faith and love towards his brethren, he sold a field he owned and gave the proceeds to the apostles for distribution at their discretion to those who were in need among the brethren. This gesture of kindness was a great source of encouragement to the believers and the apostles accordingly named him "Bar-nabas", which means "Son of encouragement". Before this he had been known only by his common name Joseph (Acts 4.36).

The author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes his first serious blunder for he suggests throughout his book, not only that Barnabas was actually one of the twelve disciples of Jesus during his ministry on earth, but also that he was known by this name "Barnabas" throughout that period of ministry. On more than one occasion in the book we find that Jesus allegedly addressed him by name and the first occasion, which comes particularly early in the book, is this one:

Jesus answered: 'Be not sore grieved, Barnabas; for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish' (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.21).

Now we have here a patent anachronism which destroys the possibility that this book was really written by the Apostle Barnabas. The apostles only gave him the name "Barnabas" (Son of encouragement) after the ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had heartened the spirits of the early Christians. But the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus call him by this name some three years before he ascended to heaven. This is a serious - in our view fatal - objection to the claim that this book was written by the Apostle Barnabas.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm

Slav

BaBaBluesheep wrote: »

well the jury is out for me until it's analysed properly

Well, I'm afraid you'll be waiting for the jury to come back for quite a long time, because they are not out yet and actually there is no jury (I doubt there will ever be). Expecting it to be analysed properly would be the same as expecting the scientific world to come up with a proper appraisal of another perpetuum mobile.

and by that I don't mean by the church itself

I know, but the quality of the forgery leave it very little chance to be of any interest for either Christian Churches or for any historical study.

I wouldn't resort to christian propaganda sites either slav

How come AINA a Christian propaganda site?

Run_to_da_hills

I would take St Pauls advice on this one .

BaBaBluesheep

I know, but the quality of the forgery leave it very little chance to be of any interest for either Christian Churches or for any historical study.



and you've already established this?how

Slav

By following pretty much the same logic as you, if presented with a perpetual motion machine design, would use to conclude that it would not work without studying its drawings. Obvious things are obvious. Have you ever seen early Middle East manuscripts?

Run_to_da_hills

Here it in full.

http://www.barnabas.net/component/poll/15-i-think-the-gospel-of-barnabas-is-true-gospel-of-jesus.html

philologos

This thread is a perfect example of confirmation bias. The OP clearly is starting off their investigation looking for any reason even a 1600's forgery to claim that Christianity is wrong rather than looking at it without preconceived notions.

The OP says that the forgery deserves the benefit of the doubt and the Iranian Government who similarly have an agenda to present Christianity as false although for different reasons. The OP however doesn't seem to keen in giving the Gospel and Jesus Christ their consideration.

That's tragic.

HamletOrHecuba

BaBaBluesheep wrote: »

well the jury is out for me until it's analysed properly and by that I don't mean by the church itself..I wouldn't resort to christian propaganda sites either slav as that's just as bad..it's not so unusual for ancient texts to maintain their integrity so well this seems to be leather and the font is something an expert would know about who isn't connected to the church,..I happen to think more and more that Islam is a natural progression on from christianity so this was an eye opener this morning..will be watching with interest

Not an entirely false view. Islam most probably has its roots in Ebionite Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites .

philologos

OP: Could you also explain what reasoning you have to suggest the Bible was reworked many times?

Fanny Cradock

And I thought the OP was being sarcastic in the opening post.

Onesimus

they already claim its from the 5th century. problem solved. There aint no way Barnabas lived till he was 500 years old after Christs Ascension. Muslim religion came out in 5th- 6th century as a Christian heresy and it's no wonder they would have coughed something like this up alright.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

they already claim its from the 5th century. problem solved. There aint no way Barnabas lived till he was 500 years old after Christs Ascension. Muslim religion came out in 5th- 6th century as a Christian heresy and it's no wonder they would have coughed something like this up alright.

Yes but it was a heresy of a heresy so to speak. The lines between Judaism (we are talking about a very different Judaism to the Rabbinic Talmudism of our day- I always have to laugh at "Messanic Christians" who think by mixing the modern day "Evangelical" theology with Rabbinic Talmudism they are restoring Christianity to its earliest roots, the actual Jewish Christians of the first centuries of our era were very different from both) and the Christianity that we are talking about are very hazy. You could as easily say that Islam is a purified form of Judaism adapted the post-Temple era, that is how I see it anyway.

HamletOrHecuba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism:_The_Making_of_the_Islamic_World

This book is worth checking out, even if it in some places presses conclusions further than the evidence will allow.