Does anybody know about Gospel of Barnabas & its Credibility?

Answer 1

The name of Joseph Barnabas has never been strange or unknown to the scholars of the New Testament of the Bible; but his Gospel was scarcely known before the publication of the English Translation of 'The Koran' by George Sale, who introduced this 'Gospel' in the 'Preliminary Discourse' to his translation. Even then it remained beyond the access of Muslim Scholars owing to its non-availability in some language familiar to them. It was only after the publication of the English translation of the Gospel of Barnabas by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg from the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907, that some Muslim scholars could get an approach to it. Since then it has emerged as a matter of dispute, rather controversy, among Muslim and Christian scholars. In this article it would be endeavoured to make an objective study of the subject.
I. BRIEF LIFE-SKETCH OF BARNABAS
Joseph Barnabas was a Jew of the tribe of Levi1 and of the Island of Cyprus 'who became one of the earliest Christian disciples at Jerusalem.'2 His original name was Joseph and 'he received from the Apostles the Aramaic surname Barnabas (...). Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius number him among the 72 (?70) disciples3 mentioned in Luke 10:1. He first appears in Acts 4:36-37 as a fervent and well to do Christian who donated to the Church the proceeds from the sale of his property.4 Although he was Cypriot by birth, he 'seems to have been living in Jerusalem.'5 In the Christian Diaspora (dispersion) many Hellenists fled from Jerusalem and went to Antioch6 of Syria. That Barnabas did not flee is evidence of his good standing in Jerusalem, along with the 'apostles'. (...) he was sent to join the company of workers at Antioch, to preach to Jews, Hellenists, and Greeks (Acts 11:19-22). As the work of the Antioch Church expanded and more workers were needed, Barnabas went over to Tarsus7 and brought back with him Saul (Paul). It seems that Barnabas was the leader of the Antioch Church, and the order which Luke gives, 'Barnabas and Saul,' indicates his pre-eminence. If was 'Barnabas and Saul' who carried relief funds from Antioch to the famine-stricken Jarusalem (Act 11:30). Barnabas was commissioned by the Antioch Church, along with Saul and John Mark, to undertake the missionary journey which led them to Cyprus and later to the provinces of the N. Mainland (...). in the city of Lystra... Barnabas was given the title 'Zeus8, while Paul was only 'Hermes'9 the spokesman (Act 14:12). The men of Lystra must have recognised a comparative dignity in Barnabas... Luke's account of the conference at Jerusalem (Acts:15) again places Barnabas at the front, indicating that Barnabas was in better standing than Paul in Jerusalem. 'Barnabas and Paul' made the report in the conference relating to the work which had been done among the Gentiles10 (Acts 15:12). The document which was sent by the conference recommending 'Barnabas and Paul' to the Syrian and Cilician11 Churches again shows Luke's knowledge of the relative standing of the two men in Jerusalem.
'The separation of Barnabas from Paul and their divergent missionary activity began in Antioch after the Jerusalem Conference. The issue which Luke gives was the taking of John Mark on another journey (Acts 15:36). Marks' defection at Cyprus (Acts 13:13) seemed to Paul to be sufficient grounds for dropping him from the party. But Barnabas was devoted to Mark as a cousin (Col 4:14), and leaving Paul, Barnabas took Mark on a separate mission again to Cyprus. Luke's cryptic words "sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39) are his farewell to Barnabas.'12 The details of this separation have also been given by John Mark himself in his small work 'The Acts of Barnabas'. He tells that after setting sail from Cyprus (during the first missionary journey), they landed in Perga13 of Pamphylia,14 and there he stayed for two months, wishing to sail to the regions of the West; but the Holy Spirit did not allow him. When he returned to Antioch, he found Paul ill, who was much cross on his delay in Pamphylia. 'And I gave repentance on my knees upon the earth of Paul, and he would not endure me.' says John Mark, 'for his great grievance against me was on account of my keeping several parchments in Pamphylia.'15
Barnabas was martyrised at Salamis16 in Cyprus in 61 A D and his corpse was placed in a cave near Salamis. It was discovered safe and sound after about 400 years in the reign of Emperor Zeno (474-491).17 B.M. Ahern, in his article on St. Barnabas in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, says 'According to legend he met a martyr's death there [Cyprus]; his body was later found with his own hand-written copy of Mathew's Gospel over his heart.'18 It may be noted that Barnabas died in 61 A D and 'There is wide agreement that it [the Gospel of Mathew] is later than 70 A D, although the evidence for this is not great; a date after the fall of Jerusalem is favoured by Mt 22:7.'19 How can a man, who dies in 61 A D, copy the book in his own handwriting, which did not exist before 70 A D? It is therefore certain that the gospel which was found 'over his heart' and was 'his own hand written', could only be the 'Gospel of Barnabas'. It might have been taken to the capital of the Empire (Constantinople), where it passed into the possession of the Ottoman Empire, the successor of the Byzantines, and was discovered from a cave in Oloderay, a village of Turkey in 1984.20

Answer 2

Are you touching on "The Epistle of Barnabas" (written between 70 - 139 ad). This writing become exceedingly known through many interior the early church. It become no longer component of the canon as a results of its uncertain authorship, and thanks to a lack of evidence that it ever held a similar status as different canonical writings. there turned right into a "Gospel of Barnabas", yet experts have self belief that the replica we've on the prompt's purely a forgery bearing its call.

Answer 3

I have the lost books of the bible and the forgotten books of Eden and the Epistle of Barnabas is in there.
Since it isn't in the KJB I know that means there are some that don't hold it as being credible.I do though.

Answer 4

The so called “Gospel of Barnabas” is a forgery written in the 14th or 15th century.

If this writing was authentic, it would be reasonable to expect that the author would be familiar with the basic facts of Jewish life at this time. However the author of the so called “Gospel of Barnabas” did not understand the language, history or geography of 1st century Israel.

1.) Geography
In the first half of chapter 20 we find “Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth” and after Jesus calmed the storm “arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought”.

It would be impossible to embark a ship and sailed to the city of Nazareth. Nazareth is 25 km inland from the Sea of Galilee and more than 500m higher in altitude and situated on a ridge half way between Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. You cannot sail a ship to city of Nazareth.

2.) Christ / Messiah
The word “Christ” is the Greek translation for the Hebrew word “Messiah”. Both these words when translated into English mean the Anointed One or the Chosen One. This word is not an obscure or rarely used word, on the contrary it is one of the most famous words in the Jewish and Christian religions. There is no doubt that if the author had been a disciple of Jesus, he would have been very familiar with this word.

However in the very opening of the book we find Jesus announced as God’s “prophet Jesus Christ”. And later in chapter 24 “Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.'” It is clear that the author did not understand the language spoken by Jesus and the 1st century Jews

3.) History
In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth: “here reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor.”

This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D.[3] The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?

4.) Ancient Evidence
There is absolutely no ancient evidence for the book. There is nothing to even suggest that this book even existed prior to the 14th century.

5.) Internal Evidence
The internal evidence of the book suggests it was written in the 14th or 15th century, and there are Muslim scholars who agree with this dating. The Gospel of Barnabas contains quotations from Dante Alighieri, references to an edict from Pope Boniface, and descriptions of feudalism and lots of other discrepancies. Therefore, scholars place the date of authorship around the fifteenth century.



For other anachronisms (things that show that this “gospel” was written at a much later time in history) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms

The so called “Gospel of Barnabas” is not an authentic Gospel of Jesus. The book is a rewrite of the Biblical Gospel most likely by a Muslim around the 14th or 15th century who wanted to portray Jesus as a Muslim who taught Islam and predicted the coming of Muhammad.

(Note: It’s important that we not confuse the Gospel of Barnabas with the Epistle of Barnabas. These are two separate documents with two very different authors - the Epistle of Barnabas was written A.D. 70–90).

Answer 5

I only know it was accepted in the canon until 325 C.E. that does give it a lot of credibility.

Answer 6

Here is some information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

Answer 7

Rubbish. If it had the truth in it, it would be in the Bible.