Talk:Gospel of Barnabas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Something to Clarify

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that Messiah is Muhammad. Jesus is given that term in the Qur'an [as a title of honor]. (Refer to sura 3:49, 3:45, etc..) and this article http://answering-christianity.org/sami_zaatri/is_isa_god_in_islam.htm

Someone can change this article a bit because the Gospel of Barnabas contradicts Islam's teachings and it is pretty absurd in that part where it said that Jesus said "I am not the Messiah".....

This is not right. Someone should make a sub chapter in the "Muhammad is the Messiah" part to show an islamic perspective about this.

The article is concerned with what the Gospel of Barnabas says about the Messiah; not what may be the orthodox Islamic teaching on the subject, which is covered in Messiah and links. It is surely enough to say that the GoB usage of the term is not consistent with the Qur'an (which indeed is stated more than once in the article). TomHennell 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)



This article is wrong. It´s been long proven that the GoB is a hoax produced by muslims somehwere inthe 15th century. It uses words and phrases of the Quoran and also refers to parties that didn´t even exist at the time of Barnabas. So, it´s a bunch of bull...look up some real scientific resources instead ...

That view has certainly been asserted on polemical sites, but I am not aware of any academic study that can be said to have proved it. Those who hold that the text is Muslim in origin, tend rather to suggest that it is Morisco and late 16th Century. But they then are faced with the question of why the book departs so radically from Quraninc traditions on a number of points. Perhaps you could back up your claims with specific references. TomHennell 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom: If you have any doubts, then you are entitled to them. It does not mean that the Gospel does not 'exist'. Why don't you just say the Quran is fabricated, and put that on the Quran's talk page? And if you don't believe it is fabricated, well, that makes you a believer in the Quran? Or could there be a medium position, whereby you acknowledge it exists, but cast doubt on its authenticity, instead of resorting to phrases such as "it´s a bunch of bull" - as this just makes you seem very unprofessional, and your opinions completely ignored by any sane intellectual reader.

[edit] Section "Muslim perspectives"

Very interesting, this is a new one on me. I would wonder, though, how neutral it is, if indeed there are some (however biased and unreasonable) Muslims who are publishing it as genuine. We can convey the fact that most researchers believe it's fraudulent without committing Wikipedia to probability estimates ("almost certaintly") with which earnest, well-meaning (but almost certainly wrong, it seems) religionists would disagree. --LMS

These concerns have since been addressed by the section "Muslim perspectives." The neutral POV is that of the dispassionate textual analsysis of a non-partisan historical approach, as with any manuscript. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of the people who republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may think it reports on an actual meeting of 19th century people, but it's been proved to be a fabrication. If it is (a) claiming to be an authentic and (b) provably Islamic, then it's not even in the same boat as the 2nd century C.E. gospels. Maybe 'fraudulent' is less neutral than 'fabrication'? --MichaelTinkler

It's very easy to say exactly that, though, or that sort of thing, in the relevant articles, from the neutral point of view. If there is not even any minority dissent on the point, you can simply say it's been proven. If there is only a few wacko nuts, then you can say, "It has been proven that such-and-such, according to virtually all researchers. [insert details]" Then you add, as an afterthought in a sentence or two, something to the effect that there is a small minority of people who believe that the fabrication, or whatever, is genuine. What's wrong with that? It's completely fact-stating. --LMS

That's true. --MichaelTinkler

Omigosh. I decided I wouldn't wait to go by the library this afternoon and get my interlibrary loan books to look in the reference section. Do a google search on Gospel of Barnabas and you poke a hornet's nest. Not fun.--MichaelTinkler

The hyperlink in the article is broken. Darn. --Branden

Hyperlink now restored - now incorporates a speculative theory of the origins of the surviving manuscripts, in the bitter internal rivalries within the Papal Curia in the late 16th century. TomHennell 26 Apr 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the above, I have added a para pointing to the published views of David Sox regarding the possibility of the manuscripts representing a forensic falsification. TomHennell 2nd Jun 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further a para added outlining variant theories for the place of origin of the known manuscripts. TomHennell 11th July 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Further a para added outlining the "true Pharisee": "false Pharisee" polemic that is prominent in the text. TomHennell 8th Sept 2005 TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Merbúb ibn Javed, I have moved your useful observation that some Muslim scholars regard the inconsistencies between GOB and the Qur'an as an argument for the work's being genuinely early, into the section on "Islamic Perspectives"; as this bears on the evaluation of the themes of the Gospel, not on the themes themselves. TomHennell 10th May 2005. TomHennell 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't appear very neutral. Reads like anti-Islamic propaganda. Most external links are from Anti-Islam site.--Xed 10:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this "Gospel of Barnabas" until George Sale (AD 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur'an (AD 1734), named "Alkoran of Mohammed". Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Not quite true, the earliest unambiguous reference to the current text was by a Morisco Spanish Muslim writer Ibrahim al-Taybili - as is stated in the article - and the earliest scholars to take note of it: Sale and Toland; both considered it a Muslim work. Their writings excited intertest from Muslim polemicists in British India in the mid 19C; and it was this interest that prompted the OUP to commission Lonsdale and Laura Ragg to prepare their scholarly edition and translation.
So some Muslims did know of it, but it would never have been quoted by Islamic scholars in earlier centuries, because of its manifest inconsistencies with the Qur'an (several of which are noted in the article). In this it is similar to the Sacromonte texts, which circulated widely in Morisco circles in Tunisia in the 17th Century, but were then suppressed by the formal Islamic authorities in those countries. In traditional Islamic teaching, there would be no point in quoting from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of the Qur'an, as the corrupt (i.e. a Christian Gospel, however preserved) cannot support the uncorrupt (i.e. the revealed word of Allah). In Islam, the Gospel of Barnabas serves only as a text to confound Christians, and never as a text to instruct Muslims.
So if the Gospel might have originated with a Muslim this cannot have been an orthodox Muslim, but more likely have been a Muslim/Christian - as for instance th 16th Century Morisco forgers of the Sacromonte texts; or a Christian/Muslim - as for instance the 16th Century German, Adam Neuser (Google his name to find out more). TomHennell 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnabas.net

129.116.60.87 I have reverted your relocation of the barnabas.net link; as in the new postion it didn't work (I'm not sure why). However, I am also unsure as to why you would wish to move this link out of the section on "Islamic Perspectives"; when the authors of the site specifically claim to be providing an Islamic viewpoint on the Gospel of Barnabas. Do you not think that this site is properly Islamic? If so, can you state why? TomHennell 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious "confrontation" of Paul and Barnabas

This text sets up a spurious controntation between Paul and this document that has no basis in reality:

"As previously mentioned, the Gospel of Barnabas strongly attacks Paul, as introducing heretical innovations. This has a natural counterpart in Paul's own attacks on Barnabas regarding the reality of Jesus (being God or Prophet) [Paul Message to people of Galatia:1:10]; he also referred to Barnabas as "a hypocrite" who was trying to satisfy the Jews by sticking to their laws especially the law of circumcision [Galatia:2:11-14]." There is no "natural counterpart" operating between 1st century Paul and whatever this document may be. It does attack Paul, but Paul does not attack it, as this anonymous Mohammedan "contributor" would have a reader think. Wikipedia cannot take a stand supporting the historic value of this work. --Wetman 04:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First, "Mohammedan" is an insult, and has no place here. Second, the section doesn't set up a "spurious controntation between Paul and this document", as you misleadingly claim; rather, it sets up a rather plausible explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel. - Mustafaa 10:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't plausible at all - Galatians does not attack Barnabas, and it does not call him a hypocrite. I quote: 13The other Jews joined him [Peter] in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. It is an attack on Peter, not on Barnabas, who was Paul's buddy in any case. Note "even Barnabas", signifying Paul's respect for him. Graft 19:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dear Graft We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite". What seems to happen is that Paul was a friend with the disciples like Barnabas but later on, differences started to appear between them according to whether to stick to the law of the Jews or notaaboelela
Well, in any case, Paul does NOT refer to Barnabas as a hypocrite. He refers to the hypocrisy of Peter, and says it caused Barnabas to be "led astray". This passage is meager demonstration of a falling-out between Paul and Barnabas, since the text is obviously respectful and the dispute did not lead to a schism amongst the apostles - it had already been resolved in Paul's favor before this incident. See Acts 11, where Peter describes his reasons for rejecting the covenants of the Old Testament and the new doctrine which was the basis for Paul calling his actions hypocrisy. Graft 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"..it sets up an explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel." Now that would be quite a different thought, if one could honestly derive this reading from the existing text. This is more sensible. Perhaps Mustapha will make the clarifying edit for us all. And now here's a classic Mohammedan thought: "We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite." Astonishing! --Wetman 22:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a rule, not an optional extra. If you are unaware of the offensive nature of the word, I suggest you examine a dictionary. As to the argument, if Barnabas had already accepted Paul's point, then that of course puts a rather different complexion on the matter. - Mustafaa 22:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(In English "Mohammedan" means simply "follower of Mohammed." nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about worshipping anything, not even a stone or the moon. Nothing personal about this linguistic fact, which is most certainly not an attack.) --Wetman 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And "nigger", etymologically, merely means "black" (Latin niger). The literal meaning of a word has no bearing on its offensiveness. - Mustafaa 03:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Nigger" has absolutely nothing to do with "Mohammedan", as this person is cynically aware. A Red herring is a cheap rhetorical trick. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had remembered seeing the Paul issue in non-Muslim sources, and I was right. - Mustafaa 01:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"In this case the name Barnabas may have been added at the same time on the basis of the Epistle of Galatian's portrayal of Barnabas and Paul at odds over the issues of circumcision and unclean meats."[1]
Presumably this reference is to the Epistle to the Galatians —and to the historical Barnabas of the 1st century CE. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Mustafaa - on both counts. To call someone Mohammedan is considered an insult and one should not do it. Wetman, you are out of order. WRT Barnabas - Islamic apologetics towards Christianity have a tendency of searching out real or perceived splits in the early church in order to justify the theory that Christians do not follow the true gospel. SO if - as I presume - the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a medieval muslimic fake, by an author reasonably aware of the New Testament, then to search for a perceived or real spat between the apostles would be a good starting point. It is obviously nonsense to insinuate any continuity between the real Barnabas and a fake several hundreds of years later. But I do not think Mustafaa tried to do thisRefdoc 10:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Please see that Wikipedia doesn't make this falsified connection. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The original term "Mohammadan" came about because christians first assumed that Muslims worshipped Muhammad, which we don't. You and everyone else knows that the word is insulting, and dancing around with semantics is sorry indeed...--Venerable Bede 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to pick up issue again and contend that Paul neither calls Barnabas a hypocrite nor do they leave each other on bad terms. The hypocrisy is that Peter used to not insist Gentiles (non Jews) be circumsized and then he started making them upon pressure from some Jews. Two pieces of background: Barnabas had been traveling with Paul among Gentiles who had been circumsized and yet receiving the Holy Spirit (the sign of salvation). Acts 15 records that Barnabas was of the same opinion as Paul in this matter while talking with Peter (the Jerusalem Council). (That makes sense given Barnabas' experience seeing the Holy Spirit in Gentiles and explains Paul's surprise by using the word "even" as noted earlier.) Whatever Paul means by "led astray" is vague but as Barnabas helped convince the Jerusalem Council against circumcision and keeping the Torah, it must not have been very great. Rather, because Paul and Barnabas were together, any flinching by Barnabas would have (and perhaps did) alaram Paul. Also, 1 Corinthians 9.1-6 shows Paul (which is chronologically later) viewed Barnabas as an Apostle on the same level as himself. Besides this, the book of Acts and Paul himself show no one closer to Paul than Barnabas. Blackthirst identifies that if not for Barnabas, Paul would not have had any influence or authority to Christians. If this is correct, Galations has no real support for Hajj Sayed's idea. John Gilchrist writes here

On one other occasion Barnabas was guilty of some religious discrimination with other Jewish Christians in Antioch when they would not eat with the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2.13). Paul censured this strongly but this was also not about a doctrinal matter but one of common fellowship between all Christians no matter what their background. None of these minor disputes had anything to do with the fundamental doctrines Paul and Barnabas so rigidly promoted . . .

He speculates that Barnabas's "led astray"ness is merely that he won't eat with Gentiles by pressure of some Jews while in Jerusalem.

This does not prove that Barnabas did not write GoB, but it shows the New Testament lacks any evidence for it. I'm in favor of throwing out references to Hajj Sayed. His other arguement in the article is also quite weak. Does anyone have any bio info on him or the copy of his work?

As for Blackthirst's idea, it's possible but must neccesitate that the author of GoB knew little of Acts and Paul's books. Unless GoB really was written by Barnabas (and Acts and Paul are lying about him), I see no evidence that the author did know anything on Acts or Paul's books. But Paul's real dispute with Barnabas is in Acts 15.36-41 and that's more likely. Personally, I think the only thing the author knew about Barnabas was that he was most respected disciple in the New Testament after Peter, Paul, John, and James and they already had books in the New Testament.

Before I make any changes, I'll think and little and wait for input from others. --JBJ830726 06:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hajj Sayed?

And to Aabolela: can you provide more detail on "Also Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in Egypt in his new book", like the name of the book and the full name of the author? - Mustafaa 23:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maronite mention?

What, if anything, does the Kitab al-Huda say about the Gospel of Barnabas? Does anyone have a copy?[2] - Mustafaa 01:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which Barnabas?

I've read a little of this book and it was interesting. Is there a consensus between Islamic and Christian scholars on who Barnabas is? Is it the Barnabas found in Acts and the letters or a different Barnabas all together? - Thanks, Hoshie | North Carolina flag 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the first words of the Wikipedia article, "The Gospel of Barnabas is a work purporting to be a depiction of the life of Jesus by his disciple Barnabas." --Wetman 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hoshie, the Graeco-Roman world was nowhere near as rich in "given" names as are present day English-speaking cultures; and consequently it should never be assumed automatically that the persons designated by very common names (e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Joshua/Jesus, Joseph, Mary) are to be identified. However, the New Testament context appears to make it clear that the persons referred to as Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark in Acts are also to be identified with the persons so designated in the Epistles. The same three persons are also clearly designated in the "Acts of Barnabas" (mid 5th Century). However it cannot be assumed that the person identified as the author of the "Epistle of Barnabas" (probably mid 2nd Century) was intended to be the same individual - if indeed the attribution of that work is primitive; the text is anonymous. The "Barnabas" mentioned in Acts and the Epstles, however, is not described by any ancient witness as a companion of Jesus; whereas in the "Gospel of Barnabas" he also appears as one of the twelve (Thomas apparently losing out). (TomHennell 9th Jan 2006)

[edit] Multiple Messiahs

A number of modern Muslims have posited several misnomers about the concept of Messiah. I think this perpetual ambiguity on their part comes from the Qur'an calling Jesus the masih (messiah) while the rest of Islamic belief about Jesus does fit with the first century concept of Messiah, namely that Messiah would restore the Jews to a peaceful Israel. Muslims should decide how to understand masih but the confusion should not spread to the rest of Wikipedia. The word Messiah simpy did not apply to any person who was annointed in the first century or later. (Earlier times, however, were different.) Any person around Jesus' time who was calling himself Messiah was making a significant claim, much day than an ordinary annointed priest or rabbi. I'm open to correction, but I'm quite sure Adam, Noah, and others were never called messiahs.

Further, I can't verify that this "Shamsuddin" has any reputation of scholarship and the site hosting the quote is not reputable either. Thus I've deleted it. --JBJ830726 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page versus Article Page

I must regret Aaboelela that I have reverted much of your recent additions; where they consisted of questions, passages copied en-bloc from controversialist sites, material directly contradicting matters stated and referenced by previous editors and restatements of points already made.

You may well think that there are equivalent passages left in the article, should by the same standard be removed (and I would not dispute this). If so, state your reasons and references in this discussion page, and I am confident that agreement can be reached on what should stay and what should go. Wikipedia is not there to argue one point of view or the other.

The proper forum for such material is this discussion page. This will allow you to refine your particular additions in the light of the debate of other Wikipedians, and to reach agreed conclusions as to how the article may change. The article itself should not be employed as the forum for debate.

Of course, if there are straight errors of fact, there is no reason not to correct them (and note the sources for your facts).

particular points:

  • I note your view that it would have been more logical for the Cretan church to have discovered the Gospel of Barnabas, rather than the Gospel of Matthew. But history is not logical. Wikipedia should state what the best contemporary witnesses say happened, not what we now think ought to have happened. (and the Acta Sanctorum quote you provided was wrong, please check your sources in the original, not on controversialist sites)
  • Following your helpful comments I have changed "Harbinger" to "witness" in respect of the Qur'an and John the Baptist
  • Note that the Gospel of Barnabas differs in the list of the twelve disciples in that Barnabas replaces Thomas. Simon and Thaddeus are commonly thought to refer to the same person.
  • I have also filled in a little more detail about cooperage in the Roman period.
  • I have checked in the Mishnah, and a Jewish forty days fast is nowhere mentioned there that I can see. If you disagree, please refer to the tractate where your views are supported.

TomHennell 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible Mistakes

Wow! This is the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia and not just bc it's a run on sentence:

... some Muslim scholars believe that those differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and the belief of Paul might be the reason that the Gospel of Barnabas and other Gospels were not added to the Bible, and were condemned to be burned at the time of Constantine, when the question of Jesus' nature became a political issue in the Roman Empire, finally resolved by the formerly pagan Romans in favor of the Pauline belief of the Trinity, contrasting with the Qur'an which stated that God is One and that He has no sons.
  • There is no evidence that gospels were ever burned. This is lie that Muslims have fallen prey to. Google "burned gospels" and you'll find only Muslim pages and a little from the DaVinci Code (also bad scholarship).
  • The "time of Constantine" refers to the Council of Nicea in 325.The supposed differences between Paul and Barnabas would be whether Gentiles should become Jews. After the Council in Jerusalem, very few Christians thought they should especially bc most Christians were soon Gentiles, not Jews. Those that disagreed were mostly Ebionites who used the Gospel of Matthew. Again, a Muslim misunderstanding.
  • Jesus' nature never became a political issue. Constantine was the first Christian emperor and no emperor before him cared about Jesus' nature.
  • The Romans didn't decide anything at Nicea. It was a meeting of Christian bishops. Again, another Muslim myth that Constantine decided what Christians should believe.
  • The Trinity is not the "Pauline" belief. Paul wrote a lot, but only wrote about Jesus' divinity once. John wrote of it much more often and Peter was probably the first to realize it. Again, a Muslim myth.

I'm all for citing Muslim beliefs, but not when it is so obviously historically false and no one clarifies what is belief and what is history. --JBJ830726 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic text

Why this should be categorized as an Islamic text? being accepted by some muslims doesn't bring it into the level of Quran or hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), I removed the category from the article as it doesn't make sense and gives the impression like it has been written by a muslim or so --Mido 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not a Christian text for the same reason. I vote it be categorized as either Christian or Islamic heretical text. Upon looking at the Category:Christian texts, it looks to need some better organization.--JBJ830726 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
does the stating of shahada in writing make the GoB an Islamic text? In the same way that stating the shahada in speech makes a person a Muslim. Some (including me) consider that the GoB is based on a core Christian text - which was assimilated to Islamic teaching at a late date. Others posting on this board appear to consider the Muhammad elements - including the shahada - as primitive (and pre-muslim); subsequently corrupted by Christian copyists. I presume that those who take the latter view would consider it an islamic text. TomHennell 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Bismillaah. Salaam / Peace, All. Granted, that this gospel is rife with discrepancies. But what of the truths therein. I've never seen the truth of this gospel confirmed while condemning discrepant inferences. It is quite easy to call it a medieval forgery. But why would a real forgery contain more true entries than false? Abdul
I hear your point Abdul, even though I cannot regard it as conclusive. But in recognition of your opinion that the GoB states Islamic truths, I have re-instated it as an Islamic text. TomHennell 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Bismillaah. Salaam / Peace, All. Much thanks. I've been giving some insight into what I feel this gospel is all about: http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=670 ~ Its a pretty lengthly review, but I believe that in the long run it will prove to be worthwhile. Abdul

[edit] Some points on Islamic belief

This is in many parts an impressive article. However, I wanted to point out a few things:

  • The Islamic belief that Jesus was raised up is very different from the docetist view.
  • Not sure what's in the GB, but the Islamic view is that Mary's labor pains were miraculously stopped.
  • Orthodox (Ash`ari and Maturidi) Islamic belief is that salvation is based on faith, that sins may or may not be punished, but in the end, believers are saved and unbelievers are lost. This faith and this salvation come purely from the mercy of Allah, not through our own deeds, though these deeds may exalt the ranks of the saved. Further, our deeds are created by Allah, though we acquire responsibility for them of our own will. Last, that the identities of the saved and the lost are pre-eternally known to Allah (as He is the creator of space and time, and thus beyond the confines of both) and were recorded before the creation of the Earth. This is still in contradiction to what is in the Gospel of Barnabas, but is different from what is mentioned in the article, which is the view of the Mu`tazilites and some modernists and 20th century fundamentalists.
  • To call Rashid Rida and Abu'l-Ala Mawdudi Islamic scholars is misleading. "Muslim thinkers," perhaps. "Ideologues of political Islam," definitely. But Islamic scholars makes them sound like ulama, which they most definitely were not.

216.164.23.6 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)AG

thanks for all of these points;

  • I agree that the cross reference between docetism and Islamic belief is misleading and should be removed.
  • there is a clear difference between the Qur'an and GoB on the labour pains of Mary (on which the canonical gospels are silent) - not that important in itself, but for that reason not something that would be expected were the author of Gob to have been a medieval muslim.
  • The principle that the identity of the saved and lost are not known in advance - even to Almighty God - is fundamental to the GoB. It is made clear that even Satan could be saved were he to renounce his pride. It would be very helpful if you are able to formulate a better summary of how orthodox medieval Islamic teaching difffers on this point.
  • points taken - again I agee the edit should be made as you say

TomHennell 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic text again

Hello, at first, I define (and I think that's mostly true), Islamic text is what mentioned in Quran, Hadith, books explaining either of them. in the case of Gospel of Barnabas. it was fully written by christians and is not to be studied by Muslims as they do with Islamic texts to learn more about our religion. some Muslims believe that the Gob has some true statements about Muhammad (PBUH) and about Jesus himself while others don't and in either cases, they don't have it as an Islamic text. I hope I have clarified my point here to remove the category, Islamic text. Best regards. --Mido 11:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnosticism??

I've added a "Gnosticism" box to this article, recognizing that there are arguments both ways (for and against) on whether this Gospel is considered Gnostic (meaning 'secret knowledge') Many of the non-canonized pseudepigraphical Gospels are considered "Gnostic", though the Gnostic community themselves are having a hard time defining what Gnosticism is exactly, as you can tell from the Gnosticism article.

This Gospel in particular, is problematic because its origin is so late, nonetheless, there are some who argue it was based upon earlier text and treat it as 'secrect knowledge' though I personally accept its origin as having been inspired by Islam. I guess we'll have to see what others say about it.

I'm not going to be particularly dogmatic about keeping the box, if the community doesn't feel it appropriate for this article - I can certainly understand why.

LinuxDude 13:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; I am a little unhappy with this, bearing in mind that "Gnostic" is sometimes used as a term of abusive dismissal by Christian scholars for any non-canononical gospel materials (including in particular, the references to Jesus in the Qur'an). I would prefer to reserve the term "Gnostic" for texts in which secret knowledge is imparted, whose possession gives the knowledge-seeker a privileged assurance of grace. In that sense, the GoB with its radically Pelagian insistence that God's salvation is offered equally to all, cannot be considered Gnostic. TomHennell 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic does not mean "secret knowledge". Apocrypha means "secret". Gnosis just means "knowledge" - as in "agnostic" (literally meaning "Don't know").

The Gospel of Barnabas is really nothing like Gnosticism. Its also mediaeval, while the Gnostics were predominantly from the early days of Christianity. Clinkophonist

[edit] Samuel Green, Dante and Ten Heavens

apologies to Mohammad ihs

I have reverted from the article the discussion below concerning the numbers of the heavens in Dante, as it bears no relation to the text of the Gospel of Barnabas as such; but rather is a refutation (which may well be correct) of the Christian controversialist Samuel Green, and his theories on Dante. The stated number of heavens in the Gospel of Barnabas is nine - and since this number conforms with common Neo-platonist formulations of late antiquity( e.g. the Hierarchy of angels), it cannot of itself be used as an argument against the possible antiquity of the Gospel of Barnabas. But the contrary is nowhere stated in the article as it stands.

The argument therefore stands much more properly on this discussion page.

TomHennell 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. The article from which it's adopted was meant as a refutation to claims made against the Gospel of Barnabas and certain claims for it anyways, so it deals more with individuals and their allegations about the GoB rather than the GoB itself. And since Dante wasn't even mentioned, that section would be out of place anyways. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Good work in removing the vandalism --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx.
Cutting and pasting unattributed material from controversialist sites (the vandalism was a straight lift from "answeringislam"), is not only contrary to the Neutral Point of View priciples of Wikipedia; it also is a clear breach of copyright. The same would (of course) equally apply in respect of counterpart Islamic sites. If people think that another site presents an argument that readers might be interested in consulting, the correct practice is to insert a link into the relevant reference list. TomHennell 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dante's Ten Heavens

  • There is certainly chance that a more a ancient Gospel of Barnabas existed and that some anachorisms are unduly placed on the already acheing back of GoB's credibility. One of these is propogated by Samuel Green amongst others and trys to associate Dante's Divine Comedy to The Gospel of Barnabas. There is a few small problems with this so called "anachrosim" though. The first problem is that the concept of ten heavens was mentioned well before the 15th century, during the time of the Prophet Mani:
“All the Powers of the Abyss he spread out to the ten Heavens and to eight Earths […]”

(Psalm CCXXIIII of the Manichaean Bema Psalms)

“And how do you know that there are eight continents and ten heavens, and that Atlas bears up the world, and that it hangs from the great world-holder, and innumerable things of the same kind?”

(Part of Augustin: Contra Faustum Book XXXII: 19)

The psalms quoted are thought to date from 340 AD. But that still goes to show that this idea of ten heavens comes well before the time of Dante and it further goes to show that if in fact the Gospel of Barnabas' author was plagerizing anyone or writing inaccuratly, the Dante connection wouldn't be enough alone to place the Gospel of Barnabas as a 14th century forgery. The second text is highly critical of the prophet Mani. It is also highly critical of Manichean writings and is quite lengthy in its criticisms. Nevertheless, it is further verification of mainly two things which are of importance. It proves the existence of ten heavens well before the 14th century and it reaffirms the first quote it’s legitimacy (and that these Manichean Psalms actually existed in case that be brought into question as well).

  • The second issue is that according to this anachorism there is a tie between Dante's ten heavens and the Heavens according to the Gospel of Barnabas. Samuel Green asserts at the same time that because the Gospel of Barnabas is talking about nine heavens, it must be a forgery from the fourteenth century since Dante speaks of ten heavens. Samuel Green quotes the Gospel of Barnabas as having said the following:
Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Verily I say unto thee that the heavens are nine, among which are set the planets, that are distant one from another five hundred years journey for a man ... and Verily I say unto thee that paradise is greater than all the earth and heavens together

From this it can be established that the Dante anachorism used against the Gospel of Barnabas, if anything, Dante stole from Mani! As for the Gospel of Barnabas, with it's heavy Islamic influence, it would make more sense that the idea of nine heavens is a misconstruction of the Islamic concept of seven heavens.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/s/Talk%7EGospel_of_Barnabas_e055.html"