On my FaceBook wall I had this intereting post.
With the following link:
And the poster stated: “We will all be damned for reading this one.” Only if you believe! I still wonder why non-believers try so hard to disprove what it is they don’t believe in to start with. But let us start with a Bing search for Gospel of Barnabas and you get: 872,000 results. Then filter the search a little and try Gospel of Barnabas Hoax and you get: 871,000 results. So only about 1,000 listings believe it might be true. Somewhat over whelming evidence there but some individuals would rather believe what they want to than the truth so let us explore some of the available information.
First was Barnabas ever a disciple or an apostle of Jesus Christ: http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html#ixzz3Affnhdq5
Question: “Who were the twelve (12) disciples / apostles of Jesus Christ?” Answer: The word “disciple” refers to a learner or follower. The word “apostle” means “one who is sent out.” While Jesus was on earth, His twelve followers were called disciples. The twelve disciples followed Jesus Christ, learned from Him, and were trained by Him. After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus sent the disciples out to be His witnesses (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). They were then referred to as the twelve apostles. However, even when Jesus was still on earth, the terms “disciples” and “apostles” were used somewhat interchangeably. The original twelve disciples/apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2-4, “These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.” The Bible also lists the twelve disciples/apostles in Mark 3:16-19 and Luke 6:13-16. Not an original disciple but described in the Bible as an apostle according to these folks : http://www.biblepath.com/barnabas.html
“Although not one of the original Twelve Apostles, Barnabas was referred to as an apostle by the early Christian Church (Acts 14:14.) There is also a Church tradition which says that Barnabas was “first of the Seventy disciples of our Lord,” however, this cannot be proven.
Having been ordained along with the apostle Paul for their first missionary journey by the church in Antioch, both Barnabas and Paul enjoyed the title and dignity of Apostles from that time forward. This took place around 45AD. Barnabas’ and Paul’s missionary journey was confined to Cyprus and Asia Minor. It is well documented in the New Testament book of Acts.
On Barnabas’ second missionary journey, he and his nephew John Mark returned to Cyprus, his native island; the Church of Cyprus had been founded by the apostles Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey”
One of the reasons people doubt the authenticity of this so called ‘gospel’ is taken from the context of the writing and related writings from the time frame of that era:
But alas, this extraordinary discovery is probably a hoax, the work of a forger who, according to some, could have been a European Jewish scholar from the Middle Ages. The most factual criticisms have come from the Syriacs. Indeed, anyone who speaks modern Assyrian (also known as neo-Aramaic) will find the inscription on the so-called ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ easy to read. However errors are just as easy to make out. Apparently, the main inscription, in a modern transliteration, reads: ‘b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b’sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran’. This apparently means: ‘In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord.’ There is not enough space here to go through the grammatical and conceptual errors in detail, but experts in modern Assyrian assure us that they are obvious and quite significant. Apart from anything else, the inscription says ‘book’, but one never refers to a bible in Assyrian with the word ‘book’. The Bible is either referred to as New or Old Testament, or Holy Book. It is quite unlikely that monks could have made such obvious mistakes.
The above according to” http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/bibbia-bible-biblia-13182/
It seems that the “Gospel of Barnabas” is pushed mainly by proponents of Islam, probably because it takes the deity away from Jesus Christ, making him nothing more than a prophet of ‘god’ who prophesies about the prophet of ‘Allah’, Muhammad.
http://answering-islam.org/Barnabas/ has some interesting points:
Ever so often, Muslims mention the “Gospel of Barnabas”. What are the reasons that nearly everybody, who has studied it (including many Islamic scholars), believe that the is a forgery from the Middle ages? The below references should give you enough material to ponder if you don’t believe it.
The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states: As regards the “Gospel of Barnabas” itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet “the Messiah”, which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha’Allah are of the Koran. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64
The main issue in the Muslim-Christian controversy is the question whether the GoB is an authentic document from the first century by an actual disciple of Jesus. Since it is clearly not, we can learn little from the document about the actual person and teaching of Jesus and the GoB loses all propaganda value for Muslims. However, it is an interesting document about history of the Muslim-Christian interaction in the Middle Ages. Rodney Blackhirst’s studies The Medieval Gospel of Barnabas might be of interest to some in this regard.
And these folks: http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/05/hoax-gospel-goes-viral/ seem to believe otherwise: “Two manuscripts of this work have existed, but both date to the late 16th century and are written respectively in Italian and in Spanish, not in Syriac. I repeat, there is no version of the Gospel of Barnabas written in Syriac. Finally, there is not one source from any journal of Near Eastern Religions or History that makes any reference to such a find. Why? Because it’s all some giant conspiracy?
No. Sorry, but religious scholars are largely secular historians, not religious believers. We would delight at such a find, no matter how controversial it’s context. We certainly did with the Gospel of Judas. The reason why no one is talking about this “discovery” is because it was made up by bloggers. Plain and simply, it doesn’t exist.