Gospel Of Barnabas : Case For

8/14/2019 Gospel Of Barnabas : Case For

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gospel-of-barnabas-case-for 1/52

The road to truth: The case for the Gospel of

BarnabasY.A.Khamissa

Within the framework of reference of Liervik’s article, “History as a

literary weapon: The Gospel of Barnabas in Muslim-Christian

Polemics” is the conspicuous permutation of two contending

forces. On the one side we have James the Just juxtaposed with

Barnabas and the other Apostles and on the opposing side Paul

juxtaposed with the Herodians and the Sanhedrin. There are

materials in the New Testament, early church literature,

Rabbinic literature and Josephus which point towards aconnection between Paul and Herodians.Paul’s pro-Herodian

philosophy is enunciated in Romans 13:

“Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority

exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities

have been put there by God. Whoever opposes the existing

authority opposes what God has ordered; _ _ _ _ _; pay them

your personal and property taxes and show respect and honour for them all.”

Liervik is aware of the prominence of the permutation when he

says, “In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, historians of

religion as well as liberal theologians claimed access to

historical truth about Jesus that ran contrary to Christological

doctrines held by the churches.” He says the starting point is, “In

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, _ _ _ _” when in fact itwas with Paul himself, as he (Paul) spells it out in Romans: 7:1-

4 by use of a nuptial analogy the distinction between Jesus and

“Christ”.

1



In the GoB, normative values are employed as the basis for

deconstructing the components of the opposing camp, namely

the Proluge says: “_ _ _ _many, being deceived of Satan under

pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrines, callingJesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God

forever, and permitting every unclean meat, among whom also

Paul hath been deceived_ _ _.” The doctrinal differences (from

Paul’s side) between the two opposing forces may be

highlighted from Paul’s letters. In his letter to the Galatians he

says, “But when Peter came to Antioch,I opposed him in public

because he was clearly wrong. Before some men who had been

sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with theGentile brothers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and

would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those

who were in favour of circumcising them. The other Jewish

brothers also started acting like cowards along with Peter, and

even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action_ _ _ _

_ I said to Peter in front of them all, “_ _ _ _ How then can you

try to force Gentiles to live like Jews? _ _ _ (Galatians 2:11-14).In his letter to the Corinthians with regards to Paul’s charge on

the Jerusalem “super apostles”.

“_ _ _ _ For you gladly tolerate any one who comes to you

and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and

you accept a spirit and gospel completely different from the

spirit and gospel you received from us. I do not think that I am

the least bit inferior to those very special so called “apostles of

yours!” (2 Corinthians 11: 4-5)

In his letter to the Galatians Paul writes- “_ _ _ _ But those

who seemed to be leaders – I say this because it makes no

difference to me what they were; God does not judge by

2



outward appearances – those leaders_ _ _ _ James, Peter and

John, who seemed to be leaders_ _ _ _” (Galatians 2: 6&9).

Also, Paul says that: - “But I make known to you, brethren, thatthe Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

For I neither received it from man, nor did anyone teach it to me

_ _ _ _” (Galatians 1:11). The words, “I neither received it from

man----” indicate the Gospel used by the Apostles is different

from the Gospel preached by Paul because Paul became a

Christian after Christ was risen from the earth and he would

therefore would have to accept the Gospel given to him by the

Apostles but, as the Apostles of Jesus were men his words, “_ _ _ _ I neither received it from man _ _ _ _” indicate he did not

assent to the Gospel used by the Apostles.

The Gospel used by the Apostles was GOB because Paul wrote

this letter to the Galatians between 54-58 A.D and GOB was

compiled in about 51 A.D. The Gospel of Mark was compiled

between 68-70 A.D. and both the authors of Matthew and Lukegospels obtained their information from Mark who most likely

obtained his information from his uncle or elder cousin (Col.

4:10) Barnabas during his missionary sojourn with him and also

from his(Mark) association with Peter as his interpreter. The

Johannine Gospel was produced post the synoptical Gospels.

Paul had been under suspicion by the Jerusalem church because

of the reports that he sat rather loosely by the Law in his

relations with Jews in the Gentile world (Act xx1:21) teaching

them “to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise or

observe the customs.” To allay this suspicion he consented to

observe a week of a ritual purification. This point marks the

3



anti-climax of Paul’s missionary activity where he puts dirt

(base hypocrisy) into his food (doctrines). I take the liberty to

quote the revealing relevant verses from the Acts of the

Apostles:-“They have been told that you have been teaching all the

Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of

Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or

follow the Jewish customs. They are sure to hear that you

have arrived. What should be done then? This is what we

want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a

vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony

of purification and pay their expenses, then they will beable to shave their heads. In this way, everyone will know

that there is no truth in any of the things that they have

been told about you, but that you yourself live in

accordance with the Law of Moses _ _ _ _ _. So Paul took

the men and the next day performed the ceremony of

purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and

gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of justification, when a sacrifice would be

offered for each one of them”

Paul was a participant in both the Roman intrigue to

exterminate the Jewish Christians opposing Roman rule and the

Jewish high priests’ aim to exterminate the Christians. Paul’s

fervour for this task was sustained and maintained by his

relentless revenge as a rejected suitor for the high priest’s

daughter. For Rome and the high priests appointed by Roman

intervention to exterminate the Christians was very difficult

because their hidden colonies were far and widely interspersed.

Not only that. Many for fear of execution kept their faith

4



hidden. The best alternative for Paul was to convert to their

faith and adopt the strategy of divide and rule. In this ruse he

was very successful because Christians accepted his bona fide

and came to believe that the coming of the kingdom of God

was near at hand and coupled with Rome’s subtle

mechanization led them to revolt against Rome in which -

because they were ill equipped - they were utterly devastated

ending in the suicide of Eleazar, kin of Manahem who directly

started the war by killing Romans at Masada. However, those

who were of the Nazarene party (i.e. the successor to James the

Just – probably, Simeon Cleophas his first cousin - , thesurviving Apostles and their followers) believed the coming of

the Promised Messaih is still afar off (GoB, e.g. chapters 96 &

72) did not join the rebel forces against Rome and therefore

emigrated eastward across the Jordan into the Arabian territory

of Jordan called Decapolis toward a city called Pella (See P.29)

and thereby saved from the miseries of the siege.

From the pinnacle of the Temple James the Just made a

confession about his faith in the Messiaship as spelt out in the

GoB and was thrown down at once and murdered or awarded

death penalty in judicial judgment by Ananus the high priest.

This happened before the siege. Paul died by (contrived)

martyrdom (11 Timothy iv, 6-8) before the revolt and therefore

many Christians must have died prior the revolt due to the

question of successorship to Paul.

Paul obtained entry into the inner circle of the Apostles solely

by the recommendation of Barnabas (Act 9: 26 - 28). Could a

leopard change its spots? In order to promote his doctrines Paul

5



denied this (i.e. his indebtness to Barnabas) when he said to the

Galatians (probably with regard to his separation with

Barnabas), “_ _ _ _ I went to Jerusalem to obtain information

from Peter, and I stayed with him for two weeks. I did not seeany other Apostle except James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians

1: 8 - 19).

The Gentiles believed that the Gods visited the earth in human

form. Thus they regarded Barnabas as Jupiter the Supreme God

and Paul as Mercurius the message carrier of Jupiter. The Bible

says: - “_ _ _ _ _the gods are come to us in likeness of men. And

they called Barnabas, Jupiter and Paul Mercurius _ _ _ _ _” (Act14: 12). In the “Journey through the Bible” by V. Gilbert (Th.D;

Ph.D), Page 369 ,dishonestly, reads:

“Jupiter (Zeus), the chief of the Greek gods, for whom

Paul was mistaken”

The Apostles selected Barnabas as the most suitable person to

spread the truth and teachings of Jesus among the pagans of Antioch (Act 11: 22) and thus Barnabas became the first

missionary in Christian history. Due to his efforts “much people

were added to the Lord” (Act 11: 24) for he was a good man,

and full of the Holy Ghost and faith (Act 11:24). After a year, he

decided the time had come to extend his activity beyond

Antioch. He was sure that Paul would make a good helper and

with this in view he went to Tarsus and brought Paul(Acts

11:25-26)

The cat is let out of the bag during the meeting among Barnabas,

Paul and Mark on the one side with the Roman Consul Paulus

and his sorcerer associate Bar Jesus on the other side.

6



Subsequently,from this point the name change from Saul (Paul’s

former name) to the Roman name Paul takes place, separation

between Barnabas and Paul takes place and Paul becomes the

leader of the team and Silas replaces Barnabas. The separationwas not due simply whether to take Mark with them. Otherwise,

they would have continued bearing in mind the greater end in

view they had, viz to spread the message.

I suggest the Asian Jews who stirred the whole crowd against

Paul were an integral part of a Roman plot. Roman soldiers

arrived in time to save him (Paul) from certain death by the

mob. The Roman tribune ordered him to be bound with twochains. But, before taking him (Paul) away under military escort

to Caesarea for judgment allowed him to speak to defend

himself to the angry mob who few minutes ago would have

killed him.At Caesarea he was first tried by the procurator Felix,

then two years later by Felix’s successor or Festus, who wishing

to show fairness to the Jews, suggested that he might be tried in

Jerusalem. Paul, knowing that certain death faced him if heaccepted this proposal appealed instead to Caesar. Accompanied

by Luke and Aristarchus (Act xxvii, 2) he set sail for Rome. In

11 Timothy 4:16 – 17, “my first defense” and his “rescued from

being sentenced to death” suggest his trail and subsequent

release.

My hypothesis is that the under pinning of the doctrines of

James the Just and the Apostles is the Gospel of Barnabas. But

investigations do not attest the Christian claim that the

underpinning of the doctrines of Paul are the canonical Gospels

and the Acts of the Apostles. Consequently this calls for a

critical evaluation of the Gospel of Barnabas using the

7



comparative method, i.e. GoB vs. Canonical Gospels in gestalt

perspective. In turn, this makes our starting point the comparing

of the status of the GoB and the Canonical Gospels.

The extant GoB is a fourfold claimant. They are as

follows:-

1) Barnabas himself is the author of the GoB. It is written

in the first person. I quote in this connection an excerpt

from the prologue of the GoB:- “_ _ _ _ for which cause I

am writing that truth which I have seen and heard in the

intercourse that I had with Jesus, _ _ _ _”

2) Barnabas was instructed by Jesus to write the Gospel.

I quote an excerpt from Chapter 221 of the GOB.

“And Jesus turned himself to him who writeth, and said:

‘See Barnabas, that by all means thou write my Gospel

concerning all that hath happened through my dwelling in

the world’”

3) He was an Apostle of Jesus during his (Jesus’)

ministry. In comparing the list of Apostles in GOB with

that of the synoptical Gospels and the Acts, I come to the

conclusion that we have Simon the Zealot or Simon of

Canaan in lieu of Barnabas. Judas (not Judas Iscariot) is

Thomas.

4) In distinguishing between “true Pharisees” and “ false

Pharisees” (GoB, chapters 144 et seq & 151) I would add

that in terms of GoB “ false Pharisees” in the New

Testament are those so identifiable because of an

accommodating attitude towards Herodian rule and some of

8



its important ramifications such as Herodian appointments

of high priests. In Act 23: 6, Paul says, “I am a Pharisee,

the son of a Pharisee. For Paul to approve of the murder of

Stephen because he was Jesus’s witness and “taking care of the cloaks of his (Stephen’s) murderers (Acts 22: 19 - 20)

and “to do everything he could against the cause of Jesus of

Nazareth” (Acts 26: 9) and to go to Damascus “with

authority and orders from the high priests” to persecute the

followers of Jesus (Acts 26:12) identifies him in terms of

GoB as a “false Pharisee.” He had committed all these

atrocious deeds while in his capacity as a Pharisee. The

question arises here, why should Jesus introduce radicalchanges in the religion he preached through the medium of

a man who had a deep seated hatred for him (Jesus) and his

followers and not use the agency of any of his beloved

Apostles for that purpose ?! This question becomes more

pertinent when we evaluate the doctrinaire differences on

pages10et seq. below.

In the rating of the status of the canonical Gospels and Acts(author of Acts is Luke, Paul’s physician), neither Mark nor

Luke are in the lists of Jesus’s Apostles as spelt out in the

synoptical Gospels and Acts (Gospel of John does not contain

the list of Apostles). With regard to the remaining two Gospel

authors, Matthew and John. I would like to point out that: -

Matthew did not author the Gospel of Matthew. Proof:

Matthew 9:9 reads:-

“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man,

named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he

saith unto him, Follow me. And he rose and followed

him.” (Emphasis mine). The words “he” and “him”

(underlined) indicate that a third person wrote Matthew. If

9



Matthew wrote the Gospel the words would be “I” and

“me” respectively thus: - “_ _ _ _ and he said unto me,

Follow me. And I rose _ _ _ _” J.B. Phillips says: - “Early

tradition ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew butscholars nowadays almost all reject this view.”

The Gospel of John is also not by John. John 19:35 reads: -

“And he that saw it bare record, _ _ _ _” John was not

there during the Passion Play. Mark 14:50 says, “All his

disciples forsook him and fled”

Next, let us consider the doctrinal differences. In itsPrologue, the GoB says that Paul has waived the

obligation of circumcision. Paul says:- “Now I, Paul say

to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of

no advantage to you.” (Galatians 5:12). But the truth is

that Christ himself was circumcised. The Bible says: -

“And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised,

he was called Jesus, _ _ _ _” (Luke 2:21). According toGenesis 17 :9 – 13, “circumcision in the flesh of your

foreskin” is a perpetual pact with God and in the next

verse (14), the uncircumcised to be “cut off”.In chapter 23

of the GoB the rationale of circumcision is provided. It is

symbolical of eschewing being a servant of the flesh (evil

desires which are rebellious against God’s laws)

In Matthew 15: 25 -26 reads:-

“At this the woman came and fell at his feet. ‘Help me,

Sir!’ she said. Jesus answered: ‘ It is not good to take the

bread from the children’s hands and give it to the dogs.’”

How can rational Jesus call a people dogs? The Bible

stops short here, because to give the context in which the

10



word dogs was used evinces the necessity for

circumcision.In this regard, the GOB gives the context in

which the word dogs was used. The corresponding excerpt

from GOB, chapter 21, reads; “ ----O son of David havemercy on me’’ Jesus answered: It is not good to take the

bread from the children’s hands and give it to the dogs’.

And this said Jesus by reason of their uncleanness,

because they were of the uncircumcised people.”

Verse 13of the Gospel of Thomas reports Jesus as saying:

“No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just

for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”— clearly,James the Just is substituted for Prophet

Muhammed(Gospel of Barnabas—chapter 97).

James the Just is of the “pro-circumcission” group.

Despite the favourable mention of James the Just (quoted

above), the Gospel of Thomas dismisses circumcision:

“His disciples said to him, ‘Is circumcision useful or

not?’ He said to them, ‘If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their

mother.”----of course these irrational words is not possible

for Jesus to utter especially in view of Genesis17:9—13,

quoted above (page 10).

Another charge in the GoB against Paul is his demand for

separation from the Laws of Moses. Paul, referring to

Deuteronomy 21:23 where it is written that any man

crucified on the cross is a cursed person (in ancient

language a wooden cross is a symbol of a tree),deemed

the Laws of Moses to be a curse.

Thus Paul preached:-

11



“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Laws by

becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is

everyone who is hanged on a tree’”(Galatians 3: 15)

But, the instruction Christ gave about the Law is clearlystated in Matthew 5:17 – 19:-

“Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law

of Moses and the teaching of the Prophets, _ _ _ _

Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the

least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done

away with – not until the end of all things. So then,

whoever disobeys even the least important of the

commandments and teaches others to do the same, will beleast in the kingdom of heaven, on the otherhand,

whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same

will be great in the kingdom of heaven”

In Matthew 19: 16 – 17, Jesus also teaches, “to keep the

commandments” to obtain salvation. The Christians say

that they will obtain salvation without keeping the

commandments because Jesus died for their sins. Wasthere a contract between Father and son for this

redemptive sacrifice? From the “call to arms” in the

upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at

Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to God of

Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about

the contract for his redeeming blood to be shed to annul

the sins of Christians for not keeping the commandments.

The third charge against Paul in the Proluge (and there are

three charges mentioned in the Proluge) is that Paul

preaches that Jesus is the Son of God. It is important to

note that there are no capital letters in Hebrew or Greek

12



language. The translators have been manipulating the

usuage of the capital letters, for example as in Son, God

and Man, to suit their ulterior ends in view. Of course, this

calls for a lengthy discussion but the present is not the proper occasion.It was in the ethos of the era of Jesus to

use biological words literally due to the pervasive

influence of the Roman and Greek cultures. Consequently,

in the GoB (chapter 70) when Jesus rebuked Peter for

calling him Son of God, Peter did not excuse himself that

he meant figuratively, not literally (mark this!).

In Matthew 16:13, when Peter responds to Jesus’s

question saying he is the Son of God, Jesus becomes jubiliant that he says to Peter, “And I will give you the

keys of the kingdom of heaven,----.” On the contrary, the

same scenario in the GoB (chapter 70) when Peter in

responding to Jesus’s question about his (Jesus)

identification says that he is the Son of God ,Jesus rebukes

him with the greatest indignation. This is a very pertinent

question not only in the GoB and the Bible but also to theChristian faith. Amazingly, the answer is in the Bible

itself when Peter himself says:- “ Ye men of Israel hear

these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God_

_ _ _” (Acts 2:22).

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is the product of “

thirty two scholars of the highest eminence assisted by an

advisory committee representing fifty co-operating

denominations”.It is interesting to note that in this revised

version (RSV), the word, “begotten” which appeared in

the Authorised Version (AV) has been removed from John

3:16, so it now reads:-

13



“_ _ _ _. That he gave his only son, _ _ _” in lieu of,

“_ _ _that he gave his only begotten son, _ _ _”.

John 11: 41 – 42 clearly indicates that Jesus is not “God”

nor “Son of God” (i.e. God incarnated himself into man to be the Son of God.) but a messenger of God (i.e. a

Prophet). This quotation (i.e. John 11: 41-42 just now

referred to above) relates to the episode of Jesus’s miracle

of reviving Lazarus from dead, reads:-

“Jesus looked up towards heaven and said ‘Father, I

thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou

hearest me always: but because of the people which stand

by I said that they may believe that thou hast sent me’_ _ _”.

Professor Margaret Murray in her book entitled “The

splendour that was Egypt’’, says:

“It (the pagan cult) is perhaps the most perfect

example of that belief which_ _ _, viz that God is

incarnate in man (son of God), which belief is usually

accompanied by the rite of killing the Divine man_ _ _”.This leaves us with an absurd theology, viz, that if the Son

of God (who is God incarnate) died on the cross then God

died. God the Holy Ghost makes an odd third.

The usuage of figurative language was already in vogue

by the medieval centuries – the period during which the

opponents say the forgery of the GoB had taken place. If it

was the forgery born in the medieval century then there

would be reason for the employment of the concept

“Father”, especially in view of the diatesseronic

precedent, viz, it would be in consonance with the

canonical Gospels – e.g. “Lord’s prayer” in GoB begins “

14



Lord God” in lieu of “O Father” as in the canonical

Gospels. Living in the first century, Barnabas as author of

the GoB during an era in which the ethos was permeated

by Roman and Greek cultures where gods slept withhumans and begot children was well motivated not to use

the term “Father” because he (Barnabas) maintained that

Jesus preached pure monotheism and was fully aware of

the biological meaning the word “Father” would take in

his (Barnabas) mythological cultural milieu. This is a

clear tell sign that the GoB was a product of the first

century when “son” had primarily a biological conatation

and not in the medievial times (as the opponents wronglysay) when literal and figurative meanings were

simultaneously admitted into the prevailing culture.

There were two sets of groups vying to subdue Jesus,

namely the Roman soldiers and the high priests with their

subordinate priests and scribes. The former representing

rank idolatory and the latter representing people who usereligion to obtain hegemony over others to secure their

ulterior ends.

According to Roman belief Augustus Caesar the first

emperor of the Roman Empire and contemporary of Jesus

was a descendent of the Supreme God, Jupiter, through

Aeneas. Anchises (a human being) slept with the goddess

Venus, the daughter of Jupiter, and begot Aeneas. To

every Roman is inculculated the belief:-

“Thou, O Roman, remember to rule the nations

beneath thy sway. These shall be thine arts, to impose the

15



laws of peace, to spare the conquered and to chasten the

proud in war.” (Aenied, vi:853-854 ).

In the GoB, Jesus prevails over his enemies but on thecontrary in the canonical version he is subdued by them.

In this connection in the GoB, amongst others, two

scenarios which are absent in the Biblical version may be

presented, viz, one is Jesus’s triumphant encounter with

the Roman soldiers (chapter 152); the other is Jesus’s

triumphant encounter with the priests(chapter 208).

To my mind, the mentioning in the GoB of these

encounters and the strategy of defense used, and further noticing their absence in the Biblical version, constitutes

one of the greatest proof for the authencity of the GoB. I

believe that (intuitionally)it is an historical reality and

ought to be an historical reality. If the Romans overcame

Jesus then it would mean to the Romans that their gods,

which are mere statues, which cannot even help

themselves or create a fly, are superior. It occurs that thegods ,goddesses and greater gods are not merely punitive

or angry but malevolent on a grand scale(Aeneid).

To the priests for Jesus to be crucified would mean that

he (Jesus) is the cursed one in terms of Deuteronomy 21:

22- 23 – the wooden cross being a symbol in ancient

language a tree. See my emphasis on pages11&12.

Professor Blackhirst in this connection has said :-

“_ _ _ scenes in which Barnabas places a militant and

an uncompromising ‘zealous’ Jesus in an atmosphere of

violence and dissension which is, in fact, closer to the

historical realities of the period than the benign and often

16



pastoral atmosphere depicted in the canonical

accounts_____”

I quote excerpts from the two chapters describing the twoscenarios referred to above with regard to Jesus’s triumph.

Chapter 152 – GoB :- encounter with the Roman

soldiers :-

“_ _ _ _ Jesus said: ‘assuredly, seeing they (i.e. gods

of the Roman soldiers) make not a single fly afresh, I will

not for them for sake that God who hath created

everything with a single word: whose name alone

affrighteth armies’.The soldiers answered: ‘ Now let us see this for we a fain

to take thee,’ and they were fain to stretch forth their

hands against Jesus

Then said Jesus: ‘Adonia Sabaoth’! Whereupon straight

away the soldiers were rolled out of the Temple as one

rolleth casks of wood when they washed to refill them

with wine; in so much that now their head and now their feet struck the ground, and that without anyone touching

them.

And they were so affrighted and fled in such wise that

they were never more seen in Judea.”

In chapter 208 – GoB, encounter with the priests:

“Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried

out: ‘Let us stone this impious fellow (referring to Jesus –

God forbid), for he (Jesus) is an Ishmaelite and hath

spoken blashphemy against Moses (an Isralelite) and

against the law of God (i.e. referring to their unscrupulous

observance of formalities rather than the spiritual).

17



Whereupon every scribe and Pharisee, with the elders of

the people, took up stones to stone Jesus who vanished

from their eyes and went out of the Temple.

And then, through the great desire that they had to slayJesus, blinded with fury and hatred they struck one

another-----”

Now we come to the (main) pivotal issue around which

revolve the other (subsidiary) issues, viz, Muhammed is

the promised seed and the Promised Messiah. Towards an

understanding of the issue in the correct perspective the

following preamble is essential. Abraham’s wife Hajar bore him a child. In Genesis 16:15,

“_ _ _ called his (Abraham) son’s name, which Hajar

bare, Ishmael.” About 14 years later Isaac was born. Isaac

was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis

20:50) while Ishmael was born to Abraham was 86 years

old ( Genesis 16:16). Ishmael was therefore about 14

years older than Isaac. During this period of about 14years Ishmael was the only son of Abraham; at no time

was Isaac the only son of Abraham. To substitute“Isaac”

for Ishmael in order to extol the Jewish nation in Genesis

22:2, “Take your son,” God said, “ your only son,

Isaac_____” is foul play because Ishmael according to

the Bible was the only son for about 14 years and Isaac

was never the only son.

An excerpt from chapter 44 of GoB reads:-

“_ _ _ _How is Isaac first born if when Isaac was born

Ishmael was seven years old? Then said the disciples:

‘Clear is the deception of our doctors. Therefore tell us

thou the truth, because we know that thou art sent from

18



God’. Then answered Jesus: ‘Verily I say unto you, _ _

_’” An excerpt from chapter 96 GoB reads: “_ _ _ God

promised to our father Abraham, saying: ‘In thy seed will

I bless all the tribes of the earth’ _ _ _”In this connection the Bible says:- “Because you did this

(i.e. offering Ishmael for sacrifice – first born) and did not

keep back you only son from me” (Genesis 22:16) “In thy

seed will I bless all the tribes of the earth” (Genesis 22:18)

Another point to note is the descendants of Ishmael are

Arabs and the descendents of Isaac are the Jews. The Holy

Prophet Muhammed (God’s choicest blessing be uponhim) is the direct descendent of Ishmael and therefore an

Arab. The Arabs are the brothers (brethren) of the Jews as

Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, both having Abraham as

their biological father. The prophecy in Deuteronomy

18:18 says that the Prophet (The Promised Messiah) will

be “from among their” (Jews) brethren (Ishmaelites) and

not “from among themselves.” Clearly it is therefore theHoly Prophet Muhammed that is specifically referred to as

the Promised Messiah. The prophecy in Deuteronomy

18:18 reads:-

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their

brethren like unto thee (i.e. Moses), and I will put my

words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all

that I command him.”

It is common knowledge from Muslim history that 27

Ramadan in the cave of Hira that Prophet Muhammed

received his first revealation when the Archangel Gabriel

commanded him to read and he (Prophet Muhammed)

19



responded : I am not learned and the angel commands a

second time: “Read” and he says, I am not learned.” This

scenario fulfils to the hilt the prophecy of the Promised

Messiah in Isaiah, which reads:-“And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned,

saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not

learned.” (Isaiah 29:12).

Also please allow me to mention here a prophecy about

Prophet Muhammed enacted in history citied in the GoB,

chapter 72. In his note 37, to the article, “Barnabas and the

Gospels: Was there an early Gospel of Barnabas”,Professor Blackhirst has said that, “the author knew the

Fourth Gospel well and the hadith of Muhammed not at

all.” Therefore, is it too much to say that an historical

incident predicted in the Gospel of Barnabas is a positive

contribution toward the authencity of the Gospel. More so,

when the learned Professor admits that redaction of

Muslim inspiration is not possible citing for his contentionthe usuage of the word “Messiah” for Muhammed and

that no mention is made of John the Baptist. With regard

to this a verse in chapter 72, page 78, reads: “_ _ _ and so

he will send his messenger, over whose head will rest a

white cloud whereby he shall be known of one elect of

God, _ _ _ ”. It was the Monk Bahira who espied from

afar from his cell in Bassra a cloud over the Prophet’s

head when the Prophet aged 9 was on his way to Syria

accompanying his uncle Abu Talib. Bahira was doubly

certain when he saw the seal of prophecy between his

shoulders – between the shoulders of the Prophet was a

raised piece of flesh with the Arabic words naturally

20



imprinted on it saying that there is only one God, Allah,

and Muhammed is his messenger.

Coming back to our discussion on the “PromisedMessiah.” In Luke, 20: 41-44, under the heading, “The

question about the Messiah” (also appearing under the

heading, “the question about the Messiah” in Matthew 22:

41-46; Mark 12: 35 – 37 ) there occur the following

verses:-

“The Question about the Messiah

41 Jesus asked them, ‘How can it be said that the Messiah

will be the descendent of David?42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,

‘The Lord said to My Lord: sit here on my right 43

until I put your enemies as a footstool under your

feet.’

4.4 David called him ‘Lord’ – how then, can the Messiah

be David’s descendant?’”

All the synoptical gospel authors (passage does not occur in John’s Gospel) stop at this point abruptly!! What has

frightened these gospel writers that they discontinue

without finishing what is to be said and start to run similar

to cowards in the battlefield? Let me now give you the

corresponding portion in the GoB, which not only makes

the authencity of the Gospel of Barnabas all the more

clear but also demonstrates that Prophet Muhammed

(God’s choicest blessing be upon him) is the Promised

Messiah.

Chapter 43 of the GoB reads:-

21



“_ _ _ James answered: ‘O Master, tell us in whom

this promise was made; for the Jews say. ‘In Isaac’, and

the Ishmaelites say, ‘in Ishmael’

Jesus answered: ‘David whose son was he, and of what lineage?’

James answered: ‘Of Isaac; for Isaac was the father of

Jacob and Jacob was the father of Judah, of whose lineage

is David.’

Then said Jesus: ‘And the messenger of God when he

shall come, of what lineage will he be?’

The disciples answered: ‘Of David’

Whereupon Jesus said: ‘Ye deceive yourselves, for Davidin spirit calleth him lord; saying thus: ‘God said to my

lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies

thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall

have lordship in the midst of thine enemies?’ If the

messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of

David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for

verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael,not in Isaac.’” Prophet Muhammed was the descendent of

Ishmael, and the Jewish prophets including Jesus were the

descendents of Isaac – God’s choicest blessings be upon

all these Prophets.

Is it not a miracle that the advent of the Holy Prophet

Muhammed (peace be upon him) is mentioned by name in

ancient scriptures (even in the Hindu Scriptures)? It is

significant to note that there was no namesake of

Muhammed before his advent and no claimant to

Prophethood with the name Muhammed (calling himself “

Prophet Muhammed”) before and after his advent.

22



In the “Song of Solomon” (5: 16) Muhammed is

mentioned by name. The “Song of Solomon” (5:16) in the

original Hebrew Bible reads:-

“Hikor mumey thakeem ‘Weykhoolo Muhammedim’zeydodi weyzey rayee beynoth Yerushalayeem”

In the word, “Muhammedim”, in Hebrew language “im”

is the plural of respect. In the present Bible, “Yea he is

called Muhammed” is translated as “Yea he is altogether

lovely”

Consider the following excerpt from Gospel of John:-“_ _ _ It is expedient for you that I go: for if I go not away

the Comforter will not come _ _ _”.(John 16:7)

Thus we see the coming of the Comforter was conditional

on Jesus going away. But, that of the Holy Ghost was not

because there are numerous instances in the Holy Bible

about the coming and going away of the Holy Ghost

before the going away of Jesus.

In John 14:26, the Greek word “pneuma” has been

translated as “Holy Ghost” which correctly should read

“Holy Spirit.” However this has been corrected in the

Revised Standard Version, which now reads:-

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit _ _ _”

(Jn 14:26). But the same author of Gospel of John in

which the concept “Comforter” occurs uses the word“Spirit” synonymously with “Prophet” (1 John 4 :

1);therefore “Comforter” which is referred to as the Holy

Spirit means “Holy Prophet” i.e. Holy Prophet

Muhammed. At the Pantecost, there was only babbling as

23



if “they were drunk” and not fulfillment of the prophecy

that the “Comforter” would announce “many truths”. An

absurd connection!

Furthermore, the word “Comforter” is the English

translation of the Greek word “Periclytos” which in

Arabic translates as Ahmad or Muhammed.

A central question related to the “Paraclete” must be

raised here, namely, why did the Jews desire to kill Jesus

and by what method and why this method? They wanted

to kill Jesus because he said that the Messiah (in theGospel of Barnabas, Paraclete = Messiah) will not be in

the lineage of Isaac from whose lineage are the Jews. In

this connection they changed their scriptures substituting,

Isaac for Ishmael – “_ _ _ take thy only son, Isaac”

(Genesis 22:2), see pp18 et seq. According to the Atharva

Veda, Atharva (Ishmael) was offered for sacrifice.

Chapter 206 (GoB), reads:- “_ _ _ Jesus answered: what isthat thing which thou seekest to know about the Messiah?

Perchance it is a lie? Assuredly, I will not tell thee the lie.

For if I had said the lie I had been adored by thee, and by

thy scribes and Pharisees with all Israel: but because I tell

you the truth ye hate me and seek to kill me.’ _ _ _” After

Jesus was arrested, but before he was brought before

Pilate, he was brought before the Sanhedrim tribunal of

the Jews. In this regard, Luke 22:66 – 71 says:-

“When the day came, the elders, the chief priests and

the teachers of the Laws met together, and Jesus was

brought before the Council. ‘Tell us’ they said, ‘are you

the Messiah?’ (In the canonical Gospels, Messiah =

24



Paraclete). He answered, ‘If I tell you, you will not answer

_ _ _” this is continued in chapter 23:1 – 2 which reads:-

“The whole group rose up and took Jesus before

Pilate, where they began to (falsely) accuse him: ‘Wecaught this man misleading our people, telling them not to

pay taxes to the Emperor and claiming that he himself is

the Messiah, asking_ _ _’” It is important to note here that

the Promised Messiah is to fulfill both the functions of a

spiritual leader and a temporal leader. And Prophet

Muhammed (peace be upon him) fulfilled both these

functions par excellence. (Britannica – most successful of

religious personalities). It is of no concern to the Romansfrom whose lineage the Messiah will be.

In all the synoptical Gospels Jesus clearly says that he is

not the Promised Messiah because the Promised Messiah

will not be from the lineage of Isaac from whose lineage is

David, - see pages 21et seq. “ The question about the

Messiah.” In consonance with Deuteronomy 21: 22 – 23the Jews wished to kill Jesus by means of cruxcifixion –

see pages 16 &17 and then page 11&12.

Paraclete (Ahmad) reminds me of another point that I

would like to bring out. In the Quran it says that Jesus

prophecised the coming of Ahmad (61: 6). If the author of

the extant GoB lived after the coming of the Prophet

Muhammed (peace be upon him) and therefore the GoB a

fabrication, the author would have placed the name

“Ahmad” at appropriate places in lieu of “Muhammed” or

“Messenger of God”.

25



Chapter 124 of the Gospel of Barnabas reads:-

“_ _ _verily I say unto you that if the truth had been erased

from the book of Moses, God would not have given David

our father the second. And if the Book of David had not been contaminated, God would not have committed the

Gospel to me, seeing that the Lord our God is

unchangeable, and hath spoken but one message to all men.

Wherefore, when the Messenger of God shall come, he

shall come to cleanse away all wherewith the ungodly have

contaminated my book,_ _ _”

Clearly, the above extract (and continued to the end of the

chapter) indicates that the author of the Gospel is unware of the fact that the Quran is committed to memory from the

time of its inception to the present time by millions of

Muslims so that even a coma cannot be put out of its place.

Annually, the Quran is recited in mosques at mass

gatherings all over the world by the huffaz (i.e. those who

know the Quran by rote) to ensure that the memorization of

the Quran is everfresh. In my own small town I would sayfor every 200 Muslims there is one Muslim who knows the

whole Quran by heart (rote). It is therefore always said that

if all the books of the world were burnt, the Quran would

be reproduced exactly word for word, coma for coma, full

stop for full stop as the original was. If the Gospel was a

fabrication the author would have pointed out naturally

with advantage to his cause that the book given to the

Messenger of God would never be liable to change because

it would be committed to memory for all times and in that

way preserved by God and no further Book will be given.

26



In chapter 118 of the GoB there occurs an excerpt where

Jesus draws an analogy about smoking to his disciples. It

reads:-

“_ _ _Tell me, then, if one had two pence to buy bread,would he spend it to buy smoke? Assuredly not, seeing that

smoke doth hurt to the eyes and giveth no sustenance to the

body_ _ _”

Clearly these words are spoken in an era where smoking as

an exchange value was an anachronism. Many, many

centuries after Jesus’ sojourn did we have the discovery of

smoking cigarette, cigar, hookah etcetera and thereby

command a value in exchange i.e. fetching a price due to itsdemand. Ponder, and you will see this as a clue for the

authencity of the GoB.

With regard to the anachronism of Jubilee as being held

once every century, it may be considered that the error was

made by the transcriber who read “hundred” and wrote it

by mistake. There are catchwords at the bottom of each page of the Italian version, a practice common in

manuscript intended to be set up for printing. When we

take into consideration the immense knowledge of the

compiler of the GoB has of ancient scriptures, it seems

difficult to believe that such a scholar would make an error

as to set the period of Jubilee as once in a century rather

than every fifty years as described in Levitus 25:18 and 27 :

16 – 25.The Christian scholar Dr Sadaat (who is not a

friend of the Muslims) says that such error is not possible

even from a layman. This may also indicate that 100 years

is historically correct as demonstrated from Israelite history

by M.A. Youssef in his introduction to the Gospel of

27



Barnabas. Personally, I am convinced that this prophecy

refers empirically to the “Lai-la-tul-Qadar” night. GoB,

chapter 83, reads:-

“_ _ _This night shall be in the time of the Messiah,messenger of God, the Jubilee every year that now cometh

every hundred years. Therefore I will not that we sleep, but

let us make prayer_ _ _’”. Chapter 97 of the Quran, verse

31 says: “_ _ _ This night of power (i.e. Lai-la-tul-Qadar) is

better than a thousand months”.

1000 months when rounded off gives 100 years. Therefore,

I feel convinced with further reading on “Lai-la-tul-Qadar”

that the reference of the Jubilee year is the “night of power”(“Lai-la-tul-Qadar”) referred to Surah 97 of the Quran. It

was introduced in the Prophet’s era as a sign of God’s

Mercy to his (Prophet’s) community.

In chapter 20 we read: “Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee,

and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of

Nazareth, _ _ _”. Apparently this is a geographicalincongruity, but the Nazareth spoken here is not the city

which today bears that name but of a community of

Nazarenes living near the lake Galilee. Nazareth is not

mentioned in the Old Testament. Professor Blackhirst says

the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable. In

this same chapter, “city of Nazareth” is equated at two

places very broadly to “ a country” (chapter 20). The

present day town of Nazareth is in lower Galilee in Israel

on the border of the plain Esdraelon, 1600 ft above sea

level. According to the 4th century theologian Epihanius,

the Nazarenes was an Ebionite sect which consisted of

Jewish Christians who left Jerusalem for Pella, on the

28



otherside of Jordan, just before the destruction of Jerusalem

in A.D.70 (see page 5). Bagatti,the principal archaeologist

at the site in Nazareth ,provided evidence that there was no

city of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

According to GoB, Jesus was born during the rule of

Pontius Pilate. This apparent anachronism may be

explained by the fact Pontius Pilate ruling Judea from about

7 BC for the legate of Syria who was controlling Judea, and

on 26 A.D. Pontius Pilate was officially appointed as ruler

of Judea.

The metaphor, “as one rolleth casks of wood when they

washed to refill them with wine” is so very apt and

effective it is difficult to consider it an anachronism. The

onus is on the opponents to prove it to be an anachronism.

From a reading of Vergil’s Aenied one would not consider

wine being stored in wooden casks in the 1st century as an

anachronism. Wine is put into casks when judged ready;and wine improves with age---in early times sophisticated

wooden ships were built ,therefore I see no reason to doubt

the existence of wooden casks in the 1st century.

Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence that

wooden casks were not in usuage in the 1st century.

Alternatively, it could be a garbling bonafide of a concept

by the translator to bring it (i.e. the concept) closer home,

see chapter 152 (GoB)for context in which the metaphor is

applied.

The incongruencies between Quranic versions and the GoB

versions indicate that the GoB chronologically preceded the

29



Quran. The difference between the Quranic version of God

asking the angels to make obeisance to Adam when he was

already a living being and whose superiority over the angels has

already been established in respect of conceptual knowledge incontrast to the version in the GoB where God asks the angels to

make reverence to Adam who at that stage is still an inanimate

clay may be explained by the fact that the Quran is direct

revealation of God and the GoB is the product of human

capacity though divinely inspired. Subtle differences between

the Quran and the GoB may also be due to the fact that the

Quran is a direct revealation of God and the GoB is a product of

a human being who was divinely inspired. Let us look at theannouncing of the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). In the

encounter between the Holy Spirit (angel Gabriel) who appeared

as a man and Mary the Gospel of Barnabas (chapter 1) says, “_ _

_ being one day alone, there entered into her chamber the angel

Gabriel (appearing as a man), and he saluted her saying, ‘ God

be with thee, O Mary.’ The virgin was affrighted at the

appearance of the angel_ _ _”. In the Quran her spontaneousresponse was in response to her religious consciousness, viz. “_

_ _I take refuge from you to (Allah), Most Gracious_ _” (19:18).

This is exactly the behaviorial condition of a God conscious

person. In this regard the Bible says:- “In the sixth month of

Elizabeth’s pregnancy (of John the Baptist) God sent angel

Gabriel _ _ _ He had a message _ _ _Mary was deeply troubled

by the Message _ _ _” (Luke 1: 26 - 29). Continuing further

down to verse 35, “The angel answered, ‘The Holy Ghost will

come on you (God forbid!) and God’s power will rest upon you.

For this reason the holy child will be called the Son of God’_ _

_”. In Matthew 1:20 we read:-“ _ _ _ She (Mary) was found

with the child of the Holy Ghost.” In Matthew1:18, we read, “_

30



_ -for that which is conceived in her (Mary) is by the Holy

Ghost.” So the Bible rendering should be, “only begotten son of

the Holy Ghost”, and not, “only begotten son of God”. (King

James or Authorised version).

Some incongruencies between the Quran and GoB may be

explained by the evolutionary stages taken to make certain

phenomena prohibitive e.g. drinking of wine, slavery, etcetera.

The angel instructs Mary not to give him (Jesus) wine (GoB,

chapter 1). This instruction was for Jesus and not applicable to

the community. Thus at the wedding at Cana when his mother

asks him to provide wine for the guests he reminds her that hehas nothing to do with wine as far as his consumption of it is

concerned but because it was not promulgated as a law for his

people he converted the six casks of water into wine.

Subsequently, the Quran suggested that the sin for drinking wine

is greater than the benefit derived from drinking it; that is at this

stage no laws were passed against the drinking of wine (for the

community). Next, the Quran disallowed prayer to be said in adrunken state. Eventually the Quran prohibits the drinking of

wine at anytime and at any place. In an Islamic state the person

guilty of drinking wine is to be punished by eighty lashes. Thus

viewed evolutionary over a period of space and time the

contradiction of the permissibility of taking wine in the GoB and

its prohibition in the Quran becomes automatically cleared.

Similar is the story with slavery in evolutionary terms to

explain the incongruency between the Quran and the GoB here

in. The great philosopher, Aristotle regarded slavery as a natural

institution i.e. slaves are predisposed by their nature to be slaves.

31



In the Biblical era during the Old Testament period we read:-

“And ye shall take them (the slaves) for a possession; they shall

be your bondmen (slaves) for ever_ _ _” (Leviticus 25:46).

According to the GoB slavery was also entrenched. But in theQuranic era in the first instance trafficking of slaves was

prohibited. Next, the freeing of slaves was encouraged and

certain sins could only be expatiated by the freeing of slaves.

Slaves could purchase their freedom by providing elementary

tuition to the children of their masters. Certain amount of money

is to be set aside by the state for the sole purpose of freeing

slaves. It has been acutely remarked in a letter by Sir Joseph

Thomson to “Times” London (14 Nov. 1887) as follows:-

“I unhesitatingly affirm and I speak from a wider

experience of Eastern Central Africa than any of your

correspondents possess that if the slave trade thrives it is

because Islam has not been introduced in these regions_ _ _.”

The Christian polemicists rehearse that the author of the GOB borrowed from Dante’s(1265-1321) Divina Commedia or

Divine Comedy, the greatest Christian poem.It is interesting to

note that the author(Vergil) of the Aeneid( which is actually a

textbook of idolatory blashpheming God in the superlative) is

the guide and mentor of Dante in his Divine Comedy.

I hypothosize that the errors in the Gospel of Barnabas may

be ,inter alia, attributed to the translator who translated in good

faith the original Aramaic Hebrew Gospel of Barnabas lodged in

the Vatican library into the Italian language. The Christian

polemicists in their anxiety to prove the Gospel of Barnabas a

fabrication of the medievial century have ignored this

32



hypothesis in toto. In the substantiation of the hypothesis there

are three contributory factors: (1) In the Aramaic Hebrew

language usage and terminology there are many variants as in

the classical Arabic; (2) The translator was very barelyacquainted with the Islamic literature; (3) The translation took

place in the medeivial century.

Having explained a number of the apparent anachronisms in the

GoB and apparent incongruencies between the Quran and the

GoB, I would now like to point out how the GoB explains

certain of the anomalies in the Bible.

The GoB has cleared the way for a serious anomaly obtained in

the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of John 2:4 describing the

marriage feast at Cana, we are told that Jesus behaved insolently

towards his mother. He calls her “woman” and he crowns it with

arrogance when he is made to say – “what have I to do with

thee?”

The verse reads:-“_ _ _, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine.

Jesus saith unto her ‘woman, what have I to do with thee?’ _ _

_” (John 2: 4)

This is how the GoB clears the way:-

Chapter one of the GoB reads:- “ _ _ _ whom thou shalt name

Jesus: and thou (Mary) shalt keep him (Jesus) from wine and

from strong drink and every unclean meat, because the child is

an holy one of God,_ _ _”

Now, the verse corresponding to John 2:4 in chapter 15 of the

GoB, reads:- “_ _ _His mother accosted Jesus, saying: ‘They

have no wine’.

33



Jesus answered: ‘What is that to me, mother mine?’_ _

_”

The latter part of chapter 42 in the GoB and in the Bible,Matthew 17:1 – 8; Like 9:28-36 and Mark 9:2 - 8 deal with the

subject of transfiguration.

In the GoB the name of the mount is Tabor whilst it is

significant to note that in the Bible no information is provided

about the name of the mount. Those who ascended the mount

with Jesus are Peter, James and John his brother, and Barnabas

according to the GoB, but according to the Bible Peter, James

and his brother John are said to ascend the mount – the name of Barnabas is omitted. According to Matthew 17: 3 and Mark 9:4

the three disciples saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus

contradicted by Luke 9:32, “Peter and his companions were

sound asleep, _ _ _” In the GoB, Moses and Elijah spoke “with

Jesus concerning all that needs must come upon our holy city.”

What Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus is not mentioned in

Matthew and Mark, but Luke says they, “talked with Jesus aboutthe way in which he would soon fulfill God’s purpose by dying

in Jerusalem” (Luke 9: 31). Now, this verse (Luke 9:13) raises a

vital question viz.,:- If Jesus was aware “ of God’s purpose by

dying in Jerusalem”, then why did he cry “tears of blood” at

Gethsemane asking God to save him and when on the cross

according to the Bible he said “My God, My God, why have you

forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46) when it would be appropriate to say

something like Lord Nelson said, “Thank God, I have done my

duty” while dying. Furthermore, according to the canonical

Gospels, John is the only eyewitness of the four supposed

Gospel authors, but it is interesting to note that this incident is

not mentioned in the Gospel of John but mentioned in the

34



Gospel of the other three who were not present. On the contrary,

according to GoB, Barnabas was here an eyewitness and gives

his eyewitness account. Jesus according to the GoB said to his

disciples being “filled with fear”:- “Fear not, for God lovethyou, and hath done this in order that you may believe on my

words.” On the contrary, in the Bible no rationale is provided

about this incident but in its place (in lieu of) the following

words are said:-

“As they came down the mountain, Jesus ordered

them, ‘Don’t tell any one what you have seen until the son of

man has risen from death’” (Matt 17:9).

Why should the three disciples (four according to the GoB) nottell the remaining of the disciples and others about this when its

purpose is to strengthen the conviction of the disciples and

others in their faith in Jesus’s preaching and especially in the

same scenario according to the Biblical version, “_ _ _and a

voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my own dear son with whom

I am pleased – listen to him!’” (Matthew 17:5). In the GoB the

corresponding portion reads, “_ _ _ and they heard a voicesaying:- ‘Behold my servant in whom I am well pleased; hear

ye him.’” (Chapter 42), and continues in chapter 43, “Jesus went

down to the eight disciples who were awaiting him below. And

the four narrated to the eight all that they had seen _ _ _”. In the

Bible, the scenario ends with the answer to the question put

forward by the disciples to Jesus:- “Why do the teachers of the

Law say that Elijah has come first? His answer was, ‘Elijah is

indeed come first_ _ _’ then the disciples understood that he was

talking to them about John the Baptist” (Matthew 17:11 - 13).

This contradicts John the Baptist (John 1:21) when he (John the

Baptist) says that he is not Elijah.

35



The corresponding portion in the Gospel of Barnabas for which

Matthew 17:11 – 13 was substituted reads:-

“Then said Andrew: Thou hast told us many things of the

Messiah (in terms of GoB, Messiah = Messenger of God =Muhammed) therefore of thy kindness tell us clearly all.’_ _ _”

(Chapter 43). Of course, the substitution for this corresponding

verse in the canonical Gospels is to circumvent the reference to

Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and in doing so

Jesus’s statement clashes with John the Baptist’s statement (God

forbid). The whole scenario of the transfiguration is an

illustration pointing out that the emergence of anomalies in the

canonical Gospels are due to the interpolations by the earlyredactors on the teachings of Jesus as manifested in the GoB

which clearly seems to be the “Quella” source for the canonical

(not only the synoptic) Gospels.

I would like to point out another anomaly in the canonical

Gospels when the authors try to obliterate the reference to

Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him). First, let us see whatthe corresponding version in GoB says:- chapter 42 of the GoB

reads:-

“_ _ _ Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of

the scribes to question him, saying: Who art thou?’

Jesus confessed and said the truth: I am not the Messiah.’ They

said: ‘art thou Elijah or Jeremiah or any of the ancient

Prophets?’ Jesus answered: ‘no’. Then said they: ‘who art thou?

Say, inorder that we may give testimony to those who sent us.’

Then said Jesus: I am a voice that crieth through all Judea and

crieth: ‘Prepare ye the way for the messenger of the Lord even

as it is written in Isaiah, ‘_ _ _ (the messenger of God) who was

made before me and shall come after me’_ _ _”

36



In the parallel periscope found in the canonical Gospels the

above verses are associated with John the Baptist in lieu of

Jesus.

John 1:19 – 26 reads:-“19. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem sent some priests and

Levites to John to ask him, ‘Who are you?’

20. John did not refuse to answer, but spoke out openly and

clearly saying: ‘ I am not the Messiah’

21. Who are you then? They asked. ‘Are you Elijah?’ ‘No, I am

not,’ John answered.’ ‘Are you that Prophet?’ they asked, ‘no’ ,

he replied

22. ‘Then tell us who are you?’, they said. ‘We have to take ananswer back to those who sent us. What do you say about

yourself?’

23. John answered by quoting the Prophet Isaiah: ‘I am the voice

of someone shouting in the desert: make a straight path for the

Lord to travel!’ _ _ _

27. _ _ _ ‘He is coming after me. _ _ _’”

In the above quotation of the Bible, John clearly says he isnot Elijah (1:21). But in Matthew 17: 11 – 13, Jesus says that

John is Elijah. Thus in their attempt to eliminate the reference to

Prophet Muhammed a lie is foisted on Jesus and John the

Baptist. This is just too much! Also, in the above, quotation

(1:27), “_ _ _ ‘He is coming after me,’ _ _ _” does not refer to

Jesus, because Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist

(Luke 1:26), but refers to Prophet Muhammed who came after

John. Thus the Gospel of Barnabas has rightly associated the

above quotation to Jesus and the questions being posed to Jesus

and not to John the Baptist.

37



Next, I would like to say that the Gospel of Barnabas is logical

when it say that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of Gold

(chapter 214) rather than 30 pieces of Silver (= ± 30

pennies/cents) (Matt.26:15) because he could obtain far more asa purser of Jesus by pinching one-tenth part of the receipt (John

12:6). Again, the GoB says that Judas was hired to show them

where Jesus was (chapter 214), but the canonical version to say

that Judas was hired to identify Jesus (the Judas kiss) is illogical

because the Bible testifies to the fact that Jesus was known

among Jews – he used to preach and deliver sermons in the

Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (Matt 26:25).Again, the

Biblical version(Matt.2:16) that Herod realized the deceit of themagi two years later defies sanity;in this regard a sane view is

presented in the GOB wherein Herod becomes aware soon after

their departure(chapter 8). Again I believe the canonical gospels

assertion of a night trial by Pontius Pilate is fiction and a

daylight trial by Pontius Pilate as alluded to in the GOB(chapter

217) is historical.

In Jesus and his encounter with the Samaritan woman, in

Chapter 81 of the GoB we read:-

“_ _ _ ‘Lord, hereby perceive I that thou art a Prophet,

therefore tell me, I pray: the Hebrews make prayer on Mount

Sion in the temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, and say that

there and nowhere else (men) find grace and mercy of God. And

our people worship on these mountains, and say that only on the

mountains of Samaria ought worship to be made. Who are the

true worshippers?’_ _ _”. Continuing into chapter 82, we read:-

“_ _ _ and turning to the woman he (Jesus) said: - ‘_ _ _ But

believe me, a time will come that God will give his mercy in

another city, and in every place it will be possible to worship

38



him in truth. And in every place will have accepted true prayer

in mercy.’_ _ _. Said the woman: ‘O Lord, thou perchance art

the Messiah.’ Jesus answered : ‘I am indeed sent to the house of

Israel as a Prophet of salvation, but after me shall come theMessiah, sent of God to all the world; _ _ _ _’”.The following is

the garbled version of the above citations of the Gospel of

Barnabas to circumvent the reference to Prophet Muhammed

(Peace be upon him) in the Biblical version. The corresponding

Biblical version reads:- John 4: “19. ‘ I see you are a Prophet

Sir, the woman said. 20 ‘My Samaritan ancestors worshipped

God on this mountain, but the Jews say that Jerusalem is the

place where we should worship God’ (who are the trueworshippers?). 21 Jesus said to her, Believe me, woman, the

time will (future tense) come when people will (future) not

worship the Father either in this mountain or in Jerusalem’ (but

believe me, a time will come that God will give his mercy in

another city, and in every place it will be possible to worship

him in truth.) _ _ _ 23. But the time is coming and is already

here (contradiction, future is not present), when by the power of God’s spirit people will worship the Father as he really is’ (i.e.

in every place it will be possible to worship Him in truth). 25.

The woman said to him. ‘I know that the Messiah will come,

and when he comes, he will tell us everything (In John 14:26

says that the Comforter, who is distinct from him (Jesus) will

tell everything - ‘How be it when he the Comforter of truth shall

tell thee everything’) 26. Jesus answered, ‘I am he, I who am

talking with you’”. From the above Biblical extract and other

verses in John 4, about Jesus and the Samaritan woman, it is

clear that the Messiah will come to all nations. But, Jesus was

sent (in the context of the extract “is sent”) to the lost tribe of

Israel (Matthew 15:24), but Prophet Muhammed to all mankind

39



(Quran 34:28). Also it was clearly seen above that the

“Comforter” of the 4th Gospel is “Prophet Muhammed”. What

is bred (as when a hen broods over her eggs) in the bone will

come out (i.e. hatch) in the flesh is aptly relevant to our discussion on Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. Can

you see?

In Matthew 21:9 (The triumphant entry into Jerusalem) reads,

“The crowd (the large crowd of disciples – Luke 19:37) began to

shout, ‘Praise to David’s son! God bless him_ _ _’.In Luke

19:14 reads, “Jesus answered, ‘ I tell you that if they (the large

crowd of disciples) keep quiet, the stones themselves will startshouting’” The words, ‘ Praise be David’s son’ (Matthew 21:9)

indicate that the Messiah is not Jesus because Matthew 22:45

reads, “ if, then David called him ‘Lord’, how can the Messiah

be David’s Son” - see pp21 et seq – “The question about the

Messiah”

Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem is dealt in GoB

chapter 200, Matthew 21:1 – 11; Mark 11:1- 11; John 12:12 -19and with more canonical details in Luke 19: 28 -40. In Luke

19:39 – 40 (not mentioned in the other canonical narratives)

reads: “Then some of the Pharisees in the crowd spoke to Jesus:

‘Teacher’, they said, command your disciples to be quiet!’ Jesus

answered, ‘I tell you that if they keep quiet, the stones

themselves will start shouting’ _ _ _”

In the corresponding chapter 200 of the GoB (the additional

words in the GoB not found in any of the canonical gospels I

have underlined) reads:-

“The Pharisees rebuked Jesus, saying: - ‘seest thou not

what these say? Cause them to hold their peace!’ Then said

Jesus: ‘As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, if

40



men should hold their peace, the stones would cry out against

the unbelief of the malignant sinners’. And when Jesus had said

this all the stones of Jerusalem cried out with a great noise:

‘Blessed be he who comes to us in the name of the Lord God!’. Never theless the Pharisees remained still in their unbelief, and

having assembled themselves together took counsel to catch him

in his talks”.

In the scenario, “woman caught in adultery” (John 8:4 - 11) and

(GoB, Chapter 201) please note the extra words (not mentioned

in the Biblical narrative) in the Gospel of Barnabas, viz:-

“Thereupon Jesus stooped down and with his finger made a mirror on the ground where in everyone saw his own

iniquities. As they still pressed for the answer, Jesus lifted

himself and pointing to the mirror with his finger, said: _ _ _”

The woman was probably a Gentile, other wise the Law of

Moses would be applied.

In chapter 192 in GoB we read:-

“_ _ _ Mary answered: Bethany is the home of my brother andmy sister, for my own house is Magdala _ _ _”.In John 11:1 we

read, “a man named Lazarus, who lived in Bethany was ill.

Bethany was the town where Mary and her sister Martha

lived.”Thus in terms of GoB, chapter 192, quoted above, Mary

of Bethany in John 11:1, quoted above, is the same Mary of

Magdala which the canonical gospels identify as two separate

persons – i.e. Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdalene.The

canonical gospels Matthew (26:6 – 13) (Simon’s house); Mark

14:3 -9 (Simon’s house) and John 12:3 (Lazarus’ house) tell us

that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus of which act Jesus held in

high esteem. This same Mary in the Gospel of Barnabas is

referred to as Mary of Magdalene saying she lives in Magdala.

41



Now, Mary of Magdalene went alone according to John 20:1 to

anoint Jesus because previously Jesus highly praised and

approved of her anointing. Thus I come to the conclusion that

Mary (Martha’s and Lazarus’ sister) lived in Magdala as told tous in the GoB and not in Bethany as given to us in the canonical

Gospels. Professor R. Schippers of the University of Amsterdam

concurs. Schippers says that, in an early tradition, Mary of

Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same person or atleast

that stories about them were interchangeable.

Also the GoB (chapter 209) tells us that Mary Salome is Jesus’

mother’s sister. In Semite terminology, cousin means sister also. Note that, nowhere in the Bible is disclosed Salome is Jesus’

mother’s sister. Within the framework of Biblical reference, it

means that Mary Salome is the mother of James the Just. James

the Just is also called the Lord’s brother. The exact nature of this

relationship implied has been the subject of much discussion.

Jerome’s view (de vir 111.2) is that the “brother” was in reality

cousin, “son of Mary the sister of the Lord’s brother”.

Now, I come to the passion version of my discussion, viz, events

leading to the crucifiction, the crucifiction and its aftermath.

In chapter 213 of the GoB it is written,

“_ _ _ _ ‘ verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me,

in so much that I shall be sold like a sheep – but woe to him, for

he shall fulfill all that our further David said of such an one, that

‘ he shall fall into the pit which he had prepared for others’ (Pa

7:15) _ _ _”. I regard this statement as the crux of the matter

with regard to crucifiction. As the events unfold, as narrated

both in the canonical gospels and the GoB, it is this statement of

David (Psalms 7:15) that makes the account spelt out in the GoB

42



so very logical. It shows the ingenuity of God to foil a nefarious

plot against a messenger of God engineered by his hypocritical

disciple, and subsequently the humiliating and painful

punishment is inflicted on the traitor (who rightly deserved it) inlieu of the holy Master. Remember a hypocrite is more evil than

an openly avowed enemy because the former is in secrecy in his

destructive planning. Therefore rationally I think it is most

befitting a punishment accorded to Judas as told to us in the

GoB.

Time and again we read in the GoB and in the canonical Gospels

that the Jewish Priests, Saducees & Pharisees pose questions toJesus to humiliate him, but in each of the instances Jesus

answers bring home to the questioners their stupidity. In chapter

152 of the GoB is an interesting account how Jesus subdues the

violent Roman soldiers not withstanding their military prowess

and in chapter 208 also he outwits the violent priests. It is the

height of ridiculity that finally Jesus is humiliated by these same

persecutors to such an extent that further humiliation can never be imagined, and we are reminded here of Jesus praying in

Gethsemane with tears of blood requesting God to prevent this

misery happening to him. Imagine the unprecedented mockery

scene enacted at the Sanhedrin hall,emperor Herod’s house,

governor Pilate’s palace and finally and fatally to show that

Jesus is the accursed one (God forbid) in terms of Deuteronomy

21:22 he is crucified. This really smacks of the ultimate of

colloquial illogic and stupidity. The person most fitted for this

treatment is Judas the traitor, bearing in mind that the help of

God is always at hand for the God conscious and this

characteristic Jesus remarkably possessed .We are aware of the

faith of Jesus in God – a mountain can be moved but not Jesus

43



and his faith in God. For Jesus to say, “_ _ _ Eli, Eli lema

sabachthani?” which means “ My God, my God, why have you

forsaken me?” is unbecoming and makes no sense. Therefore, I

believe, the GoB is the correct record, reading:-“_ _ _ Judas truly did nothing else but cry out: ‘God,

why hast thou forsaken me, seeing the malefactor hath escaped

and I die unjustly?’ _ _ _” (chapter 217). “_ _ _ the voice, the

face and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus_____''

(chapter 218). Earlier in chapter 216 of the GoB it is written:

''Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence

Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping.

Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, in so muchthat Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus

that we believed him to be Jesus. And he having awakened us

(compare it with the caricature in the Biblical version:- Mark the

contrast!!) was seeking where the master was. Whereupon we

marveled, and answered: Thou Lord, art our master, hast thou

forgotten us?’ And he, smiling said: ‘Now are ye foolish, that

know not me to be Judas Iscariot!’ And as he was saying this thesoldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas because he was

in every way like to Jesus _ _ _”. Thus the merciless traitor fell

into his own trap that he engineered against Jesus!

The following verdict in the Gospel of Barnabas seems to me to

be correct:-

“Those disciples who did not fear God went by night

and stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading a report that

Jesus was risen again, whence great confusion arose.” This is

my motivation:-It was on the second day that Mary of

Magdalene was at the tomb of “Jesus” (John 20:1 – the first day

of the week). According to the Bible, she was there to anoint the

44



body. Probably, Mary of Magdalene could not anoint the body

on Friday night and the day of Saturday because it was the

Sabath day, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. The body

was wrapped with 100 pounds of ointment and was buried just before sunset of the Friday. Mary Magdalane was probably

absent. When Mary of Magdalene reaches the tomb on the first

day of the week she found that the stone had already been rolled

away (John 20:1). Why was the stone moved away? Because it

would be impossible for any tangible material body to be taken

out with the stone blocking the opening. John 20:2 continues,

“She went running to Simon Peter and the other disciples whom

Jesus loved, and told them, they have taken the Lord from thetomb, and we don’t know where they have put (i.e. hid) him!’”

Further down we read in John 20:15, “_ _ _ she thought he was

the gardener, so she said to him, ‘if you took him away, sir, tell

me where you have put him, _ _ _” This account is contrary to

what we are told in Matthew 28:1 – 5, which reads, “_ _ _ as

Sunday morning was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other

Mary went to look at the tomb. Suddenly there was a violentearthquake; an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, rolled

the stone away, and sat on it. (in John 20:1, the stone had

already been moved away anonymously) _ _ _ The angel spoke

to the women, ‘you must not be afraid,’ he said. ‘I know you are

looking for Jesus, who was crucified, _ _ _ while the women

went on their way, some of the soldiers guarding the tomb went

back to the city and told the chief priests what had happened _ _

_ they (i.e. the chief priests) gave a large sum of money to the

soldiers and said, ‘you are to say that his disciples came during

the night and stole his body while you were asleep’_ _ _”.Of

course, the contradictions in the canonical gospel accounts does

indicate that there was no collusion among the authors of the

45



canonical Gospels, but it does reflect a deeper dispositional

symptom: namely, the likehood that the truth is posited in a

diatessaronic approach that certain disciples took the body (of

Judas) at night and hid it, spreading the rumour that the Jesushad risen. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said that

he would rise after three days and three nights being in the

womb of the earth for that duration as Jonah was in the belly of

the whale (Matthew 12:40). But arithmetically it is: Friday- one

night; Saturday – one day and one night; Sunday – nil; which

equals one day and two nights. Mary Magdalane was absent on

the day of the burial. Therefore, she goes to the tomb on the 1st

day of the week when the Sabath day has passed. GoB correctlysays (chapter 217) that Mary, mother of Jesus, was present when

the body was buried just before Sabath hour heavily wrapped in

ointment. Mary thinks the disguised gardener as Jesus, when the

gardener called out her name “Mary”. Subsequently, Mary

wants to hug him but he says, “Touch me not!”. Why does he

not want her to touch him? I suggest he realised that the

aggrieved Mary was under the mistaken impression that he (thegardener) was Jesus. Probably he was one of the 72 disciples of

Jesus who hid the body and spread the rumour that Jesus had

risen and he intonated her name “Mary” to indicate his close

acquaintance with Jesus. Further more, by saying, “for I am not

yet ascended unto my Father’” (John 20:17) he means that he is

not “Jesus” who has already “ascended unto my Father.” (i.e.

“Jesus” had risen from the dead as his (“Jesus”) body is not in

the tomb).

The rationale provided by the Christians for the crucifiction flies

straight on their face when they boast that their God is a God of

love. Christian theology asserts that Adam sinned and the sin of

46





willy nilly, the existence of an original Gospel of Barnabas (the

most potent heretical text) in the Vatican’s library and of which

the participants in the Papal conclave of 1592 were (it is to be

presumed) aware of. In fact, I think it was empirically discussedfor it to be mentioned easily accessible to “Fra Marino”. The

pre-existence of this explosive heterodox text in the Vatican’s

library is a prerequisite to render Santorio’s plot effective and

worthwhile. A hoax will not work but fail badly.

From an open minded study of the Gospel of Barnabas it can be

clearly seen that its author possesses an immense knowledge of

early scriptures, a superlative quality of God-consciousness,untiring zeal to practice and preach morality, religious

fervourness, and a very logical mind – with these qualities could

he out of expediency resort to impostership?! Certainly not!!. I

am intutionally and rationally convinced that the extant Italian

version of the GOB is a faithful translation of the original

Aramaic Hebrew version of the GOB written in good faith by

Saint Barnabas whom I believe was one of the twelve Apostlesof Jesus. It is this hypothesis that I set out to prove in this

dissertation.

The Gospel of Barnabas is a human output, though divinely

inspired, and therefore not free from subjectivity. Idem can be

said of the canonical Gospels with the added provisio that they

have been interpolated at the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. where

Athanius carried the day. Paul preached that the Laws of Moses

were to be done away with because of Christ’s accursed (Deut.

21:22 - 23) death on the cross. In Matthew (5:19), Jesus says: “_

_ _ Whoever disobeys even the least important of the

commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least

48



in the kingdom of heaven.” In accordance with this ruling, Paul

is “least in the kingdom of heaven “because he is advocating the

alienation of the Laws of Moses.

.I would like to talk about the episode of Zacchaeus dealt only

in Luke in the Bible and to compare its treatment in the

GOB( chapters 143 to 146). In the first place , Luke says this

incident took place in Jericho. Immediately before entering

Jericho, Jesus heals a blind man ( Luke says ,”as Jesus was

coming near to Jericho----“Luke 18:35). However in a relevant

incident in Matthew 20:29 and Mark10:46,Jesus was leaving

Jericho, hence this incident did not occur in Jericho. The GOBsays the incident took place in Nazareth in Galilee. Also ,the

Bible version say, “So he (Zacchaeus) ran ahead of the crowd

and climbed a sycamore tree to see Jesus who was going to pass

that way”( Luke19:4). In the GOB (chapter143) it is written :

“_____climbed to the top of the sycamore, and there waited for

Jesus to pass that place when he went to the synagogue.”

Now ,we come to the very significant differences. The Biblicalversion says: “All the people who saw it started grumbling,

------”.(Luke19:7). The GOB ( chapter143) reads, “The

Pharisees murmured , saying to Jesus’ disciples----”. Jesus

responds( GOB) by going into an indepth discussion and

sustained arguments even citing scriptural evidence from the

“Book of Elijah”. This incident ,inter alia, provides proof for my

observation that the canonical gospels have their sources of

information from the GOB and furthermore ,where complicate

issues are handled, of course logically, and indepth discussion

occur they are left out by the Gospel writers of the Bible.

Without any mention of the Pharisees and Jesus’ comments on

them’ abruptly comes Zacchaeus last words: “Listen,Sir! I will

49



give half my belongings to the poor, and if I have cheated

anyone ,I will pay him back four times as much.” In the GOB

( chapter146) the last words of Zacchaeus ,which naturally and

logically lead to this point ,are: “ Then said Zacchaeus : ‘Sir, behold I will give ,for the love of God, fourfold all that I have

receieved by way of usury.’” The Pharisees on account of their

vested interest were relentless in their efforts of persecuting

Jesus .But ,on the otherhand the people on account of the

benefit of being healed by Jesus were always adoring and

gathering around their benefactor( Jesus) . So, clearly the words

in Luke19:7, “ All the people who saw it started grumbling---”

is a misplacement of the words , “The Pharisees murmured,saying to Jesus’ disciples--”as adopted in the

GOB( CHAPTER143).

In chapter 221, we read as follows: “__and Jesus turned himself

to him who writeth, and said: ‘See, Barnabas that by all means

thou write my gospel concerning all that hath happened through

my dwelling in the world. And write in like manner that whichhath fallen Judas, in order that the faithful may be undeceived,

and everyone may believe the truth.’ Then answered he who

writeth: ‘All will I do, if God will, O Master, but how it

happened to Judas, I know not, for I saw not all’.

Jesus answered: Here are John and Peter, who have seen all, and

they will tell you that has passed.’ ”.

The above indicates that eyewitness accounts by disciples were

also a source used in the compilation of the GoB; and by logical

extension these verses sanction Barnabas the latitude (which he

exercises) to incorporate in his work relevant bona fide material

he deems fit.

50



Ancient scriptures were also used as source. But, their

counterpart narratives in the Quran clearly indicate that the

author of the GoB was far and away from the usuage of the

Quran as a source of material. For instance, the Bible records(Exodus 14 : 28) and also in the GoB (chapter 68) that in the

story of Moses, Pharaoh(identified as Ramesis II) drowned, but

the Quran goes further (i.e. not mentioned either in the Bible or

GoB) saying that God saved the body of Pharaoh after drowning

him as a reminder to future nations (check mummies of

pharaohs in pyramids). In both the Bible (Genesis 37) and GoB

(chapter 99) Jacob believed Joseph to be dead. In the Quran,

Jacob in his capacity as Prophet of God is aware that Joseph isalive and is certain about meeting him, but suffers very, very

severely the pangs of separation from his dear beloved son. In

both the instances given above, Barnabas is guided by the Bible

for his source of information.

Finally, for one to accept the authencity of the GoB becoming a

problem is because one chooses it to be so, asking (of course,mala fide) unanswerable and ridiculous questions. Yes,

otherwise there is no problem! – provided one is prepared to

honour logic in a means-ends analysis chain. The rationalist

Enlightenment deist John Toland had made the following

reference to the Italian version of the Gospel Barnabas:-

“After this mature examination I could safely say, that

this Gospel might in the main be the ancient Gospel of

Barnabas_ _ _” J. Toland, Tolandymus (London 1720) 148

****************THE END ****************

51



Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	junaid412
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Gospel Of Barnabas : Case For

Documents