From: Jorge Batista Subject: the Gospel of Barnabas Here I will quote profusely from Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. 1984. The Raggs are Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, translators of the Gospel of Barnabas. The Raggs present a general opinion that the Italian manuscript was probably " a deliberate forgery of the latter half of the sixteenth century". That date could be established on evidence of the paper used itself. It is described as ' a somewhat course and stout "cottonpaper"... with a water-mark no oriental paper ever bore'. An expert the Raggs consulted noted the anchor within a circle as being distinctly Italian, and the particular form it took on these leaves clearly belonged to the second half of the sixteenth century. The handwriting tries to present an archaic flavour to the document, and suggests a style a century earlier. Italian scholars who analysed the writing noted an intermingling of Tuscan and North Italian characteristics and wre inclined to believe it to be a Tuscan original copied by a Venetian scribe or perhaps the other way around. The many Arabic marginal notes throughout the text were also of interest and were filled with mistakes, giving the appearance of a European attempting to translate Italian phrases into an imperfect Arabic. The purpose of the marginal glosses is 'somewhat mysterious' to the translators, and in an article before the publication of the book, Lonsdale Ragg quotes F.C. Burkitt's remark that 'their function may have been to protect the MS from destruction at the hands of Moslems ignorant of western languages'. A decisive point in placing the manuscript in the Middle Ages is a tell-tale error the writer made concerning the Jewish Year of Jubilee, which was celebrated every fifty years in biblical times. It was a year when Jewish slaves regained their freedom and land reverted to its former owners (Leviticus 25). Barnabas makes the celebration a centenary event, and the mistake seemed to reveal an interesting possibility. Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed the first jubilee year for the Roman Catholics in 1300, which brought thousands of pilgrims to Rome. Owing to that financial success, Clement VI altered Boniface's intention of having the celebration every hundred years, and shortened the period: the next jubileee was celebrated in 1350. This indicated to the Raggs the writer must have lived after 1300 but before 1350, which would have made him a contemporary of Dante Alighieri. That conveniently meshed with a Dantesque colouration in the gospel. The Raggs conclude: '[This] internal evidence ... would point, then, to an Italian original of AD 1300-1350: unless, indeed, the "Jubilee" passage is capable of another explantation.' Yet much else about the manuscript points to its having been written at least a century or two later. The 'Jubilee' passage in Chapter 82 of Barnabas reads: 'And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place.' In 1978, Jan Slomp offered another explanation. He stressed the word 'reduced' in the passage because the reduction to 1350 did not stop there. In 1470, the year of the jubilee became every twenty-five years. When Sixtus V (the pope of the Fra Marino story) ascended the throne in 1585, he started his reign with a jubilee, thus giving the impression that the holy father could name every or any year to be one of jubilee (1983-84 was declared an extraordinary jubilee by John Paul II). This tempts Slomp to suggest 1585 as the exact date for the 'Jubilee' passage. Though about a third of the material in Barnabas has been derived from other sources the four canonical Gospels were shown by the Raggs to form the fundamental substratum of the manuscript. Curiously, there are no direct quotations from the Koran, and the writer is far more conversant with Christian than with Muslim scriptures. There is, however, a large amount of distinctly Muslim material, often in the from of long discourses put into the mouth of Jesus. The magical transformation of Judas and his arrest, trial and Crucifixion in place of Jesus are the the translators 'developments of hints in the Koran'. The Raggs felt that 'Barnabas performs the part of a commentator - unless indeed he has been working up a separate document now lost to us'. This suggestion has been entertained by others, as we have seen. Barnabas is at variance with the Koran on a number of important and minor points. First, it states that Mary experienced the birth of Jesus without pain, which contradicts the Koran. The Raggs think this passage may constitute 'a trace of apocryphal gospel', but indicate that the birth without pain was also 'an accepted tradition of Latin medieval Christianity'. A variety of Gnostic-style parables, miracles and stories are included in the gospel, yet certain well-known accounts which have clear Gnostic literary parallels, such as those of Jesus speaking from the cradle, the appearance of a miraculous spring for mother and child in the desert and the infant Jesus' creation of birds from clay, are not to be found there. Not only does Jesus foretell the coming of Muhammad in Barnabas, but the Prophet is the promised Messiah. It does not occur to the writer that the appellation 'Christ' is the Greek word for 'Messiah' , and he seems equally unaware that in the Koran Jesus is 'al Masih' (Messiah). (The Arabic and first Urdu translations of Barnabas tried to hide the contradiction by writing Masiya instead of al Masih!) The Gospel role of John the Baptist as Jesus' forerunner is eliminated in Barnabas, and that position is given to Jesus. Neither John nor his father, Zechariah, who are both mentioned several times in the Koran, ever appears in Barnabas. The gospel makes Muhammad to be the Messiah in no uncertain terms, and the Raggs ask if he also is accorded the title of Paraclete, as Sale had suggested. 'Paraclete' is the Gospel of John's epithet for the Holy Spirit and has been traditionally translated 'comforter'. The Latin Vulgate translation is 'advocate', which is preferred by many modern commentators. Scholars have noted the affinity of a Koranic reference to the Paraclete of St. John's Gospel, which has: 'But when your Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father ... he will bear witness to me' (John 15.26). Sura 61.6 of the Koran presents Jesus as saying to the 'Israelites': 'I am sent forth to you by Allah to confirm the Torah already revealed and to give news of an apostle that will come after me whose name is Ahmad.' That last word has usually been interpreted as being another name for Muhammad. In Barnabas, the proclamation that Jesus is 'giving news of an apostle' who will follow him is not veiled. The name Muhammad is repeatedly used, but whether a precise identification between the Christian Paraclete and Muhammad is presented in Barnabas, the Raggs say, 'No more ... and no less than does the Qoran itself'. Further evidence for accepting the gospel as a medieval creation is the sometimes incredible ignorance it shows of first-century Palestine: no gospel writer of the first centuries would make those mistakes. Arch-enemies Herod, Pilate and the Jewish high priest Caiaphas are frequently found hobnobbing together. Caiaphas begs Pilate to procure a decree from the Roman senate making it a capital offence to call Jesus 'God' or 'Son of God' - and this decree is posted up in the temple, engraved on copper! There are a number of geographical errors: the writer is apparently of the opinion that one can sail by boat to Nazareth. The Raggs note a considerable medieval colouring to the gospel. The picturesque description of the summer season in Palestine is far more suggestive of la bella Italia than of first-century Palestine: there are references to stone quarries, ships, sailors, wine casks and feudal-sounding land division which are redolent of someone living in medieval Italy. Jesus' friends Mary, Martha and Lazarus are presented as proprietors of whole villages as if they had been feudal lords and ladies. These touches are especially interesting to Lonsdale Ragg as an expert on Dante. He considers the description of the pains and cries of the damned in the gospel 'strongly reminiscent' of the Italian poet; the picture of hell in Barnabas is remarkably similar to that in the master's Inferno. Despite this, the translators make the observation that 'occasional inaccuracies are outweighed by a very general and intelligent knowledge alike of the Old Testament and the New'. Undoubtedly the writer was well versed in the Latin Vulgate and, like the Koran, his gospel 'contains much beautiful teaching on the subject of prayer'. The final point in the introductory notes returns to the question of a Gnostic Gospel of Barnabas behind the Italian manuscript. The Raggs say: 'Assuming, ... for the sake of an argument, that an original Gnostic Barnabas or a Latin version of the same, fell into the hands of a Christian renegade of the fourteenth or fifteenth century - it would give him at once a title for his great missionary pamphlet, and a vast amount of material to work on'. The translators take note, as have Muslim polemicists, of the 'prefatory and valedictory denunciations of St. Paul' in the gospel. These accusations give Barnabas the air of an apology by a convert seeking to justify his claims. It is an irony that the 1907 publication of the Vienna manuscript had the effect of a death-blow to scholarly regard in the West; and yet in the Muslim world it initiated a strong polemical interest which has continued down to the present. For Western scholars the matter was settled: Barnabas was a forgery, devoid of any value. The Raggs' critical introduction was practically ignored by Muslim writers, but their English translation became the basis of a 1908 Arabic translation which was reprinted many times. The bottom line is: if you do not accept the Bible because you believe it has been corrupted, when even the harshest scholarly critics agree the Bible is significantly historical, then you should not accept the Gospel of Barnabas which has little, if anything, that is historically, or geographically, or culturally, or linguistically, or textually accurate. It does not even agree with the Qur'an. From kilroy@copland.rowan.edu Wed Aug 2 19:31:34 1995 Return-Path: kilroy@copland.rowan.edu Received: from gboro.rowan.edu (gboro.rowan.edu [150.250.1.1]) by aramis.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA10089 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:31:29 -0400 Received: by gboro.rowan.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA26032; Wed, 2 Aug 95 19:31:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by copland.rowan.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id TAA23714; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:31:21 -0400 To: christian@cs.rutgers.edu Subject: the (moslem) Gospel of Barnabas Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 19:31:20 -0400 Message-Id: <23712.807406280@copland.rowan.edu> From: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" [ Written by James Kiefer. ] (to the moderator: If you think this too long for a post, you might consider it as a FAQ.) ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS Since the subject of the GOSPEL OF BARNABAS has come up, I propose to supply a little background. Barnabas was a prominent member of the Christian community in Jerusalem and a companion of Paul. He is mentioned in the New Testament in Acts 4,9,11-15 and in I Corinthians 9, Galatians 2, and Colossians 4. Whether he was a follower of Jesus before the Resurrection is not stated (he is not mentioned in the Gospels.) Several books have been attributed to him, but most modern scholars are quite sure that he did not write any of them (except conceivably the first). 1) THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, found in the New Testament, is anonymous, and various guesses have been made as to its authorship, including Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, and others. 2) THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS, written sometime between 70 and 135 AD, was highly regarded by many early Christians and included in some early lists or collections of New Testament books, presumably because readers supposed that the Barnabas who wrote it was the companion of Paul. The work comes in two parts. One is general advice to Christian congregations on church affairs. The other deals with the question: "Are Christians bound to keep the Jewish food laws, etc.?" The author's answer is that the food laws were never intended to be understood literally in the first place, and that they all have symbolic meanings. The command not to eat the flesh of the weasel means that we are not to imitate the behavior of the weasel. (His theology, his zoology, and his account of Jewish ceremonial practice all leave much to be desired.) 3) THE JOURNEYS OF BARNABAS is an account of Barnabas's life, supplementing the account in Acts. It is considered to be a fifth-century forgery. 4) THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS is a work mentioned by name in a sixth-century (I think) list of books rejected as forgeries. Nothing else is known about it. In particular, it is not known whether it has anything in common with the work next mentioned other than the name. 5) THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS is also the name of a work (hereafter abbreviated GOB) surviving in a single Latin manuscript from Italy in the sixteenth century. It is (by my very rough estimate) about half the length of the entire New Testament, and is divided into 222 chapters plus a prologue (chapter 0). The general opinion is that it was written in the fourteenth (or possibly thirteenth) century by an Italian convert from Christianity to Islam. The author calls himself Barnabas, and claims to be one of the original Twelve Apostles (his list of the Apostles, besides including Barnabas, lists as separate persons both Jude-not-Iscariot and Thaddeus, generally supposed to be the same person, and omits Thomas and Simon Zelotes to make room for them). An English translation by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg was published in 1907 by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and is now available for $4.95 (1972 price) from the Unity Publishing Company, PO Box 521, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406, or from the Islamic Center 2551 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008 Telephone (202) 745 0409. CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS Much of the work consists of material also found in the Four Gospels, but with variations that suggest (at least to this reader) a copyist who cannot resist elaborating his original. Thus, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem, his followers cry (Luke 19:37-40), "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" At this, some of the Pharisees tell Jesus, "Teacher, silence your disciples." Jesus replies, "If they were to keep silent, the stones would cry out!" In the GOB 200 version, at this point every stone in Jerusalem does cry out: "Blessed be he who cometh to us in the name of the Lord God!" Sometimes the variations are such as to make GOB say something quite contrary to the Four Gospels. For example, In Matthew 16:13-23, we have (in substance) the following exchange: Jesus: "Who do men say that I am?" Disciples: "John the Baptist, or Elijah..." Jesus: "Who do you say that I am?" Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus: "Blessed are you, for God has shown you this.... But understand that as the Christ, I am appointed to suffer and to be put to death." Peter: "Never, Lord! This shall not happen to you." Jesus: "Get away from me, you agent of Satan. You are a snare in my path." In GOB 70 we read: [H]e asked his disciples, saying: "What do men say of me?" They said: "Some say that thou art Elijah, others Jeremiah, and others one of the old prophets." Jesus answered: "And ye; what say ye that I am?" Peter answered: "Thou art Christ, son of God." Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him, saying: "Begone and depart from me, because thou art the devil and seekest to cause me offense!" The author's outlook appears to be Gnostic or Dualist (Spirit = Good; Matter = Evil). Thus, in GOB 23 he tells us that the body is the source of all sin, and that circumcision must be practiced in order to punish the body for leading the soul astray. GOB VERSUS THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS If GOB is genuine, then the Epistle of Barnabas is not, since GOB states (chapters 0,22,23) that circumcision and the Jewish food laws are of universal and perpetual obligation, while the Epistle of Barnabas takes the completely opposite position. Moreover, GOB teaches that Jesus was not crucified, while the Epistle of Barnabas is emphatic in stating that we find our salvation in the cross of Jesus. GOB VERSUS SCIENCE Jesus is quoted as saying (GOB 167) that the body of man is composed of the four elements -- earth, air, fire, and water, and that, although a single stone cannot float in water, the whole earth is resting on the top of the water. GOB VERSUS HISTORY In GOB 91 the writer speaks of a Jewish religious observance which he calls the Forty Days. This is a mistake. The Jews did not have such an observance at the time of Jesus, or at any other time. The writer is confused, and is referring to Lent, which is a Christian observance. In GOB 91-98, we are told that the people of Israel were divided into three factions, some saying that Jesus was God, some that he was the Son of God, and some saying that he was a Prophet of God, and that each raised an army with 200,000 soldiers, so that civil war threatened. Accordingly, Pilate, Herod and Caiaphas all went to Jesus to ask him who he was. Caiaphas tried to worship him, but Jesus prevented him, and plainly declared that he was neither God nor the Son of God, but only a man, and that he was a prophet but not the Messiah, that the Messiah would come from the south, would be named Mohammed, and would be the last of the prophets. After this (GOB 98) "the priest prayed the governor to write unto Rome to the Senate the whole matter, which thing the governor did; wherefore the Senate had compassion on Israel, and decreed that on pain of death none should call Jesus the Nazarene, prophet of the Jews, either God or son of God. Which decree was posted up in the temple, engraved upon copper." GOB 157 tells us that the Senate had decreed that no one might contend FOR Jesus, on pain of death. GOB 210 makes it explicit that there were two separate decrees, one that no one might call Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet of the Jews, either God or Son of God, and the second that no one might contend CONCERNING him, both on pain of death. Leaving aside the question of whether the Jews of Israel at that time were physically capable of putting armies totalling 600,000 men in the field, I ask the reader whether it is likely that they could have done so without being bloodily suppressed by the Roman authorities, and more generally whether all the events as thus described, including the decree of the Senate, could have taken place without being mentioned by any historian, Christian, Jewish, or pagan, aside from the author of the GOB. It is always possible, of course, to argue that after the Christians seized power they wiped out all records that contradicted their views and forged others to replace them. But this amounts to saying that we can never know any history at all. On these grounds, one might just as easily argue that there was never an American Civil War at all, but that the Republicans made up the whole story in order to win elections by discrediting the Democrats as disloyal. Why shouldn't they? In 1870, as all historians are agreed, the Republicans were in complete control of the government. They could easily alter official records, school textbooks, graveyard incriptions, and the like. Ridiculous? Yes. Disprovable? Not very easily. Someone who supposes that everyone in power is part of a conspiracy to put across some lie has a ready-made explanation for any evidence that appears to contradict his theory. GOB AND JOHN THE BAPTIST In John 1:19-28 we read that John the Baptist called himself the herald of the Messiah (Jesus). In GOB 42, Jesus, in almost identical words, calls himself the herald of the Messiah (Mohammed). GOB never mentions John the Baptist. In particular, whereas the Four Gospels all tell us that Jesus' public ministry began with his baptism by John in the Jordan, GOB says that it began when he climbed the Mount of Olives, and there prayed, and the angel Gabriel descended and placed in his heart a book, a revelation of all the things that God had commissioned him to proclaim. If we think that GOB is accurate, we must suppose that John the Baptist never existed, or that if he did, he had no connection with Jesus. This theory immediately gets us into three difficulties. (1) This theory contradicts Christian teaching and the Four Canonical Gospels of the New Testament, as well as the Book of Acts. They all five speak of Jesus' ministry beginning with his baptism by John. (2) This theory contradicts Islam. The Koran is explicit about John the Baptist, and his role as a herald of the coming of Jesus. (3) This theory contradicts common sense. It requires us to suppose that John the Baptist, or at least his connection with Jesus, in particular his baptism of Jesus, is a Christian invention. But the early Christians had no conceivable motive for inventing such a story. It would have been more natural for them to suppress it. Since in Christian circles, baptism was associated with cleansing from sin, the natural interpretation of the event was that Jesus, by asking to be baptised, was acknowledging himself a sinner, and was also acknowledging John as his spiritual superior. This argument was in fact used against the Christians in early disputes with the Jews. To suppose that the Christians invented John, or his connection with Jesus, is to suppose that they went out of their way to create difficulties for themselves for no reason. JESUS AS MESSIAH In the time of Jesus, the Jews were expecting a deliverer sent from God, a descendent of David, sent to restore the throne of David, and called the Annointed One, which in Hebrew is Messiah (Mashiach) and in Greek is Christ (Christos). The word "Christians" originated as a term for those who acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Christ. Now according to GOB, Jesus repeatedly said that he was not the Messiah (42,82,206), sometimes adding that Mohammed was coming and was the Messiah (96,97). In saying this, the author contradicts every Christian writer, orthodox and heretical alike, for they all call Jesus the Christ. He contradicts the Koran, for it says plainly that Jesus is the Messiah (3:45), a title that it never bestows on Mohammed. He also contradicts himself, for in his opening paragraph (GOB 0) he speaks of "His [God's] prophet Jesus Christ". GOB AND ISLAM The relation of GOB to Islam is a curious one. On the one hand, a number of passages in the GOB are very explicitly pro-Islamic. In GOB 17 Jesus predicts the coming of Mohammed (but not by name). In GOB 42, Jesus declares himself to be the precursor of the Messiah, in language almost identical with the words of John Baptist in John 1:19-28. In GOB 163, Jesus again predicts Mohammed by name, and in glowing terms. In GOB 39 the creation of Adam is described: "Adam, having sprung up on his feet, saw in the air a writing that shone like the sun, which said: 'There is only one God, and Mohammed is the messenger of God.'" On the other hand, the GOB is often anti-Islamic, in the sense of directly contradicting the Koran. For example, GOB 35 tells us that many angels joined Satan in his rebellion, but the Koran states in several places (especially 15:30-31 and 38:73-74, but also 2:34; 7:11; 17:61; 18:50; and 20:116) that none did. Again, the Koran plainly teaches that John the Baptist was the herald of the coming of Jesus. The GOB omits all mention of John, and and this can hardly be accidental. If we believe the GOB, we will conclude that John certainly did not baptize Jesus, that he almost certainly played no significant role in the life and work of Jesus, and that he probably never existed. The GOB and the Koran cannot both be reliable guides on this matter. Again, as already noted, the Koran refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but GOB quotes him as repeatedly denying that he is. These are a few contradictions that I could not help noticing, and I have only a very limited acquaintance with the Koran, and have read the GOB from cover to cover only once. If I were a devout Moslem, thoroughly steeped in the Koran, so that I noticed immediately any discrepancy between its teachings and what I was reading, and if I were to read the GOB several times on that basis, I have no doubt that the short list just given could be multiplied many times. But for our purposes, even one contradiction is enough. In logic, if we find that a certain statement A can be used to prove that B is true, and also proved that B is false, we say that A implies a contradiction, and therefore A must be false. The GOB implies a contradiction, in that one can use it to show that Islam is true, and also to show that Islam is false. Thus, no Moslem can consistently believe in the GOB, since it contradicts the Koran at many points, and no non-Moslem can consistently believe in the GOB, since it proclaims the truth of Islam many times. Therefore, no one, Moslem or non-Moslem, can consistently believe in the GOB. I conclude that the GOB is a late forgery by someone intending to promote the cause of Islam, but by someone not very familiar with the Koran. Since the Islamic passages are not woven into every verse of the text by any means, it is quite possible that the forger made use of some pre-Moslem document (very possibly called The Gospel of Barnabas), into which he inserted pro-Islamic sections. This document in its turn is probably a reworking of material from the Four Canonical Gospels, with additions and alterations intended to support the viewpoint of its author. GOB AND THE CLOSE OF JESUS' PUBLIC LIFE When Jesus was before Caiaphas (BOG 208), he was asked whether he claimed to be God, or the Son of God, or the Messiah, or a king. He answered no to all four, and therefore could not be charged for such claims. Caiaphas then asked him about the son that Abraham was ready to sacrifice to God -- was it Isaac or Ishmael? Jesus answered that it was Ishmael and that the Jewish Scriptures have been falsified on this point (the correct Moslem answer), and for this he was found guilty of blasphemy and condemned. When Judas led the soldiers to arrest Jesus (GOB 216-7), God snatched Jesus away to safety at the last moment, and miraculously caused Judas to look exactly like Jesus, so that he was seized and crucified instead, in fulfilment of Psalm 9:15-16. Afterwards (GOB 218), "Those disciples who did not fear God stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading a report that Jesus was risen again; whence great confusion arose. ... The news reached Nazareth.... Whereupon he that writeth (Barnabas) prayed the mother of Jesus that she would be pleased to leave off weeping because her son was risen again." This directly contradicts an earlier passage (GOB 112), where Jesus tells Barnabas that he is not going to be crucified, that it is Judas who will be, and commands Barnabas to tell Mary the truth when the crucifixion takes place, so that she may be comforted. The motive of those who stole the body is not clear. Presumably they believed that Jesus was dead, and that it was his body. Did they afterwards learn the truth (that he had not died at all)? Whether they did or not, they must have known that in pointing to the empty tomb and asserting that Jesus had risen, they were telling a lie. And yet some of them were put to death for sticking to that lie. Men will be martyrs, some of them, for what they believe to be the truth, but are less likely to be martyrs for what they know to be false. Did they believe that they were serving God or Jesus by spreading this lie? We are told that they did not fear God. I can make no sense of this. Strangely, although the text (GOB 164) repudiates the doctrine of predestination on the grounds that it would be monstrous for God to hold men to account for things over which they had no control, we are several times told that God will hold Jesus responsible for the fact that men call him God, even though he has done his best to prevent this. In GOB 52, speaking of the Last Judgement, Jesus says: "I tremble because by the world I shall be called God, and for that I shall have to render an account." In GOB 112 Jesus says: "Believe me, Barnabas, that I cannot weep as much as I ought. For if men had not called me God, I should have seen God here as he will be seen in paradise, and should have been safe not to fear the day of judgement. But God knoweth that I am innocent, because never have I harbored thought to be held more than a poor slave. Nay, I tell thee that if I had not been called God I should have been carried into paradise when I depart from the world, whereas now I shall not go thither until the judgement. Now thou seest if I have cause to weep. [When Judas betrays me,] God shall take me up from the earth, and shall change the appearance of the traitor so that everyone shall believe him to be me; nevertheless, when he dieth an evil death, I shall abide in that dishonor a long time in the world. But when Mohammed shall come, the sacred messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away." In GOB 220, Jesus says: "Though I have been innocent in the world, since men have called me 'God' and 'Son of God', God, in order that I be not mocked of the demons on the day of judgement, hath willed that I be mocked of men in this world by the death of Judas, making all men to believe that I died upon the cross. And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Mohammed...." However, in GOB 221 we read, "And he reproved many who believed him to have died and risen again, saying: 'Do ye then hold me and God for liars? for God hath granted to me to live almost unto the end of the world, even as I said unto you. Verily I say unto you, I died not, but Judas the traitor. Beware, for Satan will make every effort to deceive you, but be ye my witnesses in all Israel, and throughout the world, of all things that ye have heard and seen.' ... Then before their eyes the four angels carried him up into heaven." I find 220 difficult to reconcile with 221. In 220 we are told that God explicitly decreed that (because Jesus had been thought by some to be God) the belief should be universal, until the coming of Mohammed, that Jesus had been crucified. Moreover, God does not simply permit this view, but actively promotes it by giving men the illusion that the crucified Judas is really Jesus. On the other hand, in 221 we are told that this belief is a deception of Satan, and the disciples are commanded to preach against it. CONCLUDING REMARK To all Moslem readers I say: I urge you to abandon all suport for the Gospel of Barnabas. Thinking it to be genuine is not part of the Islamic Faith. By repudiating it, you will not be disloyal to Islam. On the contrary, those who present this work in support of Islam do their cause an injury by making it appear foolish. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** APPENDIX ON THE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION The edition of the GOB that I have in hand has an introduction that I will comment on, for the benefit of those who may read the same edition. The introduction gives a brief account of the early history of the Christian church, explaining how what he regards as the true belief was supplanted by present-day Christian doctrine. The editor says that the rift between Paul and Barnabas described in the book of Acts was over the necessity of circumcision. Not so. Acts implies solid agreement between Paul and Barnabas on that point. It gives a completely different reason for their parting. They undertook a missionary journey, bringing with them Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, and partway through the journey Mark headed for home, for reasons not given. Later, when a second journey was proposed, Barnabas wanted to bring Mark again, and Paul was unwilling, so Barnabas and Mark set out together on one route and Paul and Silas on another (Acts 15:36-41). There is no hint that either Paul or Barnabas thought of this as anything that should reduce their mutual affection and esteem. If one were looking for disagreement between Paul and Barnabas on the question of imposing the Jewish law on Gentile converts, the passage to quote would be Galatians 2:7-14, where Paul represents Peter and Barnabas as agreeing with him completely on the principle, but showing a regrettable temporary willingness to compromise under pressure. The editor assumes two forms of Christianity in the first few centuries: the distorted view spread by Paul, which taught that Jesus had died and risen, and that he was (the Son of) God; and the true view, spread by Barnabas, that Jesus was a prophet, but no more than man, and that he had neither been crucified nor raised from the dead. As his chief example of the Barnabas school, he cites Arius (250-336 AD). But Arius is not a good example for his purposes. He would have been outraged to be told that he was not of the Pauline party. He called Jesus the Son of God. He believed in the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, and that Jesus was the Logos (the Word of God) made flesh. He disagreed with the orthodox party by teaching that the Logos, although older than the physical universe, older than angels or jinn, older than Time itself, was not absolutely eternal, and hence was not fully God, equally with the Father. This is a view unacceptable to Christians, but (for opposite reasons) it is perhaps even more unacceptable to Moslems. The account that follows of the massacre of Arians by the Emperor Constantine is pure fiction. The statement about Pope Honorius shows a complete misunderstanding. The controversy in which Honorius was involved did not concern "one mind" (as opposed to three) in God at all, but rather "one metaphysical energy" in Christ (as opposed to two -- one divine and one human). The editor (p xv) goes on to say that the GOB was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in Alexandria until 325 AD. He must be thinking of the Epistle of Barnabas, which is a completely different document, and disagrees sharply with the GOB, so that no one can accept one without totally rejecting the other. He says that Irenaeus (130-200 AD) opposed Paul and quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas. On the contrary, Irenaeus argues explicitly that the faith taught by Paul is identical with that of the original Apostles, which is identical with the teaching of Christ. He also says that there are four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and that it is impossible that there should be more. This makes it impossible that he should quote from any other Gospel, and I think the editor is confusing GOB with EOB again. The editor goes on: "In 325 AD, the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that anyone in possession of these Gospels will be put to death." The editor is correct as far as "was held," but goes completely haywire after that. If the council had referred to such documents, it would probably have had in mind the Diatessaron of Tatian, an attempt to blend the four Gospels into a single continuous narrative, found in Aramaic Bibles of that era. It survived quite nicely for some time after Nicea, although it has now been replaced by the Four Gospels written out separately -- in Aramaic. St. Jerome, the great translator who produced the Latin Vulgate Bible, reports having studied a copy of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew. He does not seem to be aware of doing anything illegal or dangerous. In short, the editor has done a little reading in a subject (early Christian history) in which he has absolutely no background. He has therefore radically misunderstood much of what he has read, and has uncritically repeated statements that a reader more familiar with the material would have recognized at once as obviously erroneous. His introduction is unreliable throughout.