Postby RamboPreacher » May 28th, 2012, 4:22 am
My notes and discussion from with a friend on facebook:
headline news. this discovery is interesting, but not anything like what the headline makes it out to be (duh). ebionite/gnostic, obviously non-canonical, and 15th century is confirmed (though this mss is 18th! century) Similar to the older Nag Hamadi "library" (that has some dated to middle/late second century). I always am interested in these kinds of finds, but they have nill effect on the Christian faith at all. at best, there may be some things we can learn of context of the group/sect that wrote it or what they wrote about.
It is also important that we not confuse the gospel of Barnabas with the Epistle of Barnabas, a much earlier mss. The Epistle of Barnabas was written in the late 1st century, but probably not by the Barnabas named in the New Testament. As mentioned the pseudo-gospel may have some historical value, neither are conanical in any sens of the word.
The author of the gospel of Barnabas could not have been Barnabas. The real Barnabas was a generous encourager of the early church (Acts 4:36). He was not one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus as the gospel of Barnabas mistakenly claims. Barnabas was the one who persuaded the disciples that the Apostle Paul had changed from a persecutor of the church to a follower of Isa (Acts 9:27). The true Barnabas traveled with Paul to tell the good news of Jesus/Isa (Acts 13:2).
The Gospel of Barnabas has been a popular book in Islam for many years. in fact, by some it is considered the most popular book available. the mss being a few hundred years old is still an awesome find and I would love to study. Sadly, it probably will not happen. though made out to be a first century text in it's (lost) original, there are too many contradictions and linguistic issues for it to even be a first few century's old writing. anachronistic references, and language use that wasn't used or even available till the 1500's. (secular studies, not just "Christian" ones - date it to about the 1500's in origin)
What's interesting is that depending on the Islamic use, as they use it "against" Christianity (like this headline article does), other contradictions can be found against Islam. but of course that part isn't news. and to top it off, if someone in Islam (as I eluded to previously) were to even hint at it that it should have been (Christian) canon, extrapolating means that they are saying that it was inspired by God (and completely against the Quranic writings and tradition - which would mean death to them).
The Gospel of Barnabas, is a Syriac writing(s) based on the Protevangelium and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are part of the story, but even that is based on mss that are already proven to be late and very much of the some of the gnostic origination's. the first one that was translated to Latin (IIRC) was lost, but still had a historical record. The stories similar to the Arabian Nights were probably known by Muhammed, as they appear in other Islamic traditions as well.
kind of off topic, but the Coptic Gospel of Bartholomew (related as there are similarities in reference to Judas, except that in this one, Judas wasn't Jesus' replacement in death, as in the Gospel of Barnabas) - It was Judas' wife that was at fault. She essentially made him embezzle the money that was meant for the poor (reference the alabaster box reference in the NT), and the betrayal monies. thus his sin was equated as the sin of humanity and referenced back to Adam.
Thanks, Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
. Right?
![[amer-ribbon90.gif]](/images/amer-ribbon90.gif "Remember our veterans and troops currently serving today.")
