Talk:Gospel of Barnabas

Paul and Barnabas

(I removed the following section from the main page as it does not appear to refer to the Gospel of Barnabas in any way) TomHennell (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The view that Barnabas and Paul remained to the end in disagreement over the fundamentals of the faith is impossible to hold. For one thing, by the time of Acts 13 they were working together as missionaries (this after the dispute in Acts 9 above). Note how, after opposition from certain Jews, we read:

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium. ([Acts 13:46-51][1])

Note how they speak together (verse 46), turn to the Gentiles together, are persecuted together, driven out together and symbolically shake off their feet together. These are not the actions of men divided over fundamental doctrines such as whether Jesus is the Son of God or whether circumcision is necessary to salvation.

Further, in [Acts 15:2][2], it is Barnabas together with Paul who disagrees strongly with the Judaisers.

Paul and Barnabas do disagree over what to do with John Mark (Acts 15:36-41) but there is no suggestion in Paul's epistles or the Acts that their disagreement was ever over fundamental Christian doctrine.

In-text citations

Unless there is a consensus of dissent, I intend to edit the article to include in-text citations. This may, however, create difficulties in respect of the sections giving the Islamic perspective - as the references as they stand tend to be unspecfic. So I would be grateful if anyone with access to scholarly Islamic works on the subject could help in referencing some of these passages. I am particularlu interested in the books of MA Yusseff, and of 'Ata ur-Rahim. TomHennell (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

not having had a response on this, I am inclined to press ahead anyway. I do have a copy of "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by 'Ata ur-Rahim, so I may try to pin statements of Islamic perspectives to page references in that work. Not being myself a Muslim, I am not altogether sure of what is the range of opinion of the Gospel of Barnabas in Islamic scholarship (and the remarks on this page have been so heavily redacted and re-edited from various viewpoints as not to be much help). However, I am inclined to assume that the general Islamic assessment of the GoB it has no isnad as a Muslim text, and cannot be a source of Islamic hadith concerning Jesus/Isa. Hence it can be quoted negatively (to confound or refute Christian claims), but not positively (to establish true Islamic teaching). Is this a fair summary? TomHennell (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the latter part of the article tends to respond most to Islamic perspective (and to quote Islamic authorities). The treatment does need clarifying though. May I suggest the following observations as to a general approach?

Prediction of Muhammad. This section justifiably links a chapter in GoB with a saying attributed to Jesus son of Mary in the Qur'an.

Muhammand as Messiah. This section needs rather fuller treatment; the point is that GoB not only identfies Muhammand as Messiah, but also records Jesus denying that he is the Messiah. The views of Wiegers need to be included.

Ishmaelite Messiah. This is undoubtedly an important theme in GoB, and reflects the Islamic view that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that Abraham led to sacrifice.

Jesus not God or Son of God. There is, I think, too much quotation in this section, and inadaquate explanation. The important section is from chapter 69, where the identification of Jesus as Son of God is said to have originated with Roman soldiers.

Paul and Barnabas. as it stands this section is unsatisfactory. The Spanish Preface to the Gospel of Barnabas is explicitly anti-Pauline, but the Gospel itself is not; it calls Paul "the deceived" not "the deceiver". Islamic readings of the Christian Bible tend to locate the corruption of the true Gospel/Injil as arising out of the reported quarrel in Galatians ch 2; with Paul being the main culprit. But van Koningsveld has pointed out that the GoB takes a different view, with the corruption being due to Roman soldiers in the time of Jesus.

non-Canocical differences. I am not sure of the value of this section, and am inclined to delete it altogether

Anachronsims. I am not convinced of the value of having this section, but am inclined to retain it, in so far as such lists are commonplace in Christian evaluations of the GoB.

Islamic Perspectives. This does need expanding from the knowledge of someone with a grasp of recent Islamic views. As noted above, I am inclined to say that the GoB is accepted as valid for controversialist purposes, but not as an authoritative statement of faith. But does anyone know of a Muslim scholar who would quote the GoB alongside traditonal Islamic statemens of the teachings of Jesus/Isa.

Bible and Qur'an. Controversialists (both Muslim and Christian) tend to work within the assumption that one book as now known must be "right" and the other "corrupt". It is assumed by both parties that the writer of the GoB took this view too - i.e. that if he rejected orthodox Christianity, he must neccessarily accept the truth of the Qur'an if he knew it. An alternative view, however, was advanced in the sixteenth century by Servetus; who argued that both the Christian and Islamic scriptures had been corrupted (and indeed the Jewish Talmud too) This, I think, is the view of the Gospel of Barnabas - in that the writer asserts that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, he does not assert that the Qur'an perfectly preserves that message. Hence it cannot be asserted that he did not know the Qur'an simply because he contradicts it.

But are there other opinions? TomHennell (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Pespectives

I have restored the section below, which had been removed by editor SuaveArt, as the article does need to outline the range of Islamic opinions on this controversial text. Neverthless, the section does need to be more rigourous (and preferably sourced). It might be best if a Muslim editor were to be able to contribute; but if not, any other suggestions are more than welcome. TomHennell (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Muslim religious organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; in particular, the 19th century Muslim religious thinkers Rashid Rida in Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan have given it qualified acceptance (though the latter rejects its naming of Muhammad as an interpolation^{[citation needed]}). While some Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time, others believe that Barnabas himself wrote the Gospel, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by followers of Paul long after the events they describe, and that therefore the Gospel of Barnabas is more authentic than the other Gospels. Some Muslims take a position between these poles, suggesting that, while the work contains "Muslim interpolations"[3], it nonetheless consists mainly of early material that contradicts Christian traditions and confirms Muslim beliefs.

Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as supporting the genuineness of this gospel, by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas may have arisen through textual corruption (which Muslims consider a characteristic of the known texts of the Christian Bible), but that the Gospel of Barnabas may not be as corrupt as other Christian religious works; and these scholars note that, whatever its other inconsistencies, the Gospel of Barnabas still aligns with the Qur'an in reporting Jesus as not having been crucified, and in not being God or son of God.

Anwar Awlaki Sited

Someone cited Anwar Awlaki to support Islamic opinions on the Gospel of Barnabas. This is obviously an attempt to use the opinion of a non-credible person in order to weaken the Islamic view point of the Gospel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladeeb (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)