The Gospel of Barnabas

I could not complete my article “Barnabas,

His Gospel and Its Credibility“[1],

due to some other assignments. Although the article is incomplete, it would be

advisable if you manage to go through both of its installments once again. You

wrote about the ‘Epistle to Hebrews‘. According to modern research

it was not written by Barnabas. Of course Barnabas was a scholarly person and he

composed a “Gospel“, but the attribution of the ‘Epistle to Hebrews‘

to him is not credible. Actually there exists another ‘Epistle of Barnabas‘.

It has been included in “The Ante-Nicene

Fathers, Translations Of

The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325″, Ed.

The Rev. Alexander Roberts & James

Donaldson, WM. B. Eerdmans Pblg. Co., Grand Rapids,

Michigan, Vol. I, pp.133-149. Initially there is a three page

‘Introductory Note’ to it. Necessary footnotes have also been afforded to it.

Its attribution to Barnabas is also doubtful. However, it is a worth-reading

treatise. As regards his Gospel, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

asserts:

Gospel of Barnabas was declared a

rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome

492-96]. According to E. Von Dobschutz, it is a private compilation which was

composed in Italy (but not at Rome) in the early sixth century.[2]

It is strange that a book which is claimed to be ‘composed

in Italy in the early sixth century‘ had been declared a ‘rejected book‘

in the fifth century. So the observation of E. Von Dobschutz, if it has been

truly attributed to him, is absurd and baseless and may be rejected outright. It

is thus clear that “the Gospel of Barnabas” had already been

existing when Pope Gelasius declared it ‘a rejected book’ in fifth century more

than a hundred years earlier than the advent of Islam. As to its date of actually being written, there are reasons

to believe that it had been written even before the ‘Gospel According To

Matthew’ was written. I shall try to elaborate it just a few lines later.

As to the Gospel According to Matthew’s date of

being written, the research of the “New Testament Introduction” claims it to be

ca. A.D. 85-90. It asserts:

(1) Matthew (ca. A.D. 85-90). This gospel

makes use of Mk as well as other traditions about Jesus and collections of

Jesus’ sayings. It was composed in Greek as the reference to Daniel as “the

prophet” in 24:15 implies. (…). Many scholars think that the community that

formed the basis of the Matthean church had come from Palestine and settled in

Syria. Mt 4:24 has the only reference in the gospels of Jesus’ fame spreading

“throughout all Syria.” The community may have been predominantly Christians

of Jewish background, since non-Jews (Gentiles) are referred to as outsiders

(5:47; 6:7,32; 10:5-6, 17-18; 18:17).[3]

The results of the research of the “Oxford

Companion to the Bible” are also of similar nature. It has afforded the

rationale of its conclusion as well. It observes:

It is commonly held that Matthew was written

about 85 or 90 CE by an unknown Christian who was at home in a church located

in Antioch of Syria. A date toward the end of the first century seems probable

because the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE, appears to be

an event that was rapidly receding into the past (22.7). Although the apostle

Matthew may have been active in founding the church in which the gospel story

attributed to him arose (9.9; 10.3), it is unlikely that he was the story’s

author. On the contrary, the author exhibits a theological outlook, command of

Greek, and rabbinic training that suggest he was a Jewish Christian of the

second rather than the first generation (cf. 13.52). Also, Antioch of Syria

commends itself as the place where he may have been at home. Because the

social conditions reflected in his story correspond with those that seem to

have prevailed there: the city was Greek-speaking, urban, and prosperous, and

it had a large population of both Jews and Gentiles.[4]

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible writes:

In the late

first century, after the destruction of the temple, Matthew, Luke-Acts, and

John were written. The mother church of Christianity, the Jerusalem community,

was destroyed in the sack of Jerusalem, so power shifted definitively to the

Gentile communities around the Mediterranean. Followers of Jesus continued to

interpret the Bible to match their evolving understanding of Jesus and new

communal circumstances.[5]

Even the identity of the author of the Gospel of

Matthew is unknown and it is anonymous like the other gospels. The Cambridge

Companion to the Bible notes:

This Gospel is anonymous, like the others.

When the church in the second century sought to lend authority to its Gospels,

it assigned each of them to an apostle or an associate of an apostle. About

130, Papias attributed this Gospel to Matthew [stress added] (who seems

also to have been known as Levi; cf. Matt. 9:9 and Mark 2:13) and claimed that

he wrote it in Hebrew. But its author used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a

source [stress added. It means that the ‘Matthew’ was written after

‘Mark’.], and the many scriptural quotations are from Greek translation rather

than directly from the Hebrew Bible. Although we cannot determine who the

author was, careful analysis shows us what his concerns were and on what basis

he modified and expanded the Gospel tradition. The issues that are central for

him reflect the developments described above that were taking place in Judaism

around the years 95-100.[6]

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible also notes at

another place:

The most plausible explanation for the

relationship among the synoptic gospels is that Mark is the original, with

Matthew and Luke drawing on Mark and a second common source (Q) but developing

the details of structure and content independently.[7]

As to the date of the gospel of Mark, the same

authority observes:

(…), and the oldest of the gospels, Mark, dates

from no earlier than the late sixties and was written probably about the time

of the Jewish revolt of 66-70.[8]

The time when the Gospel of Mark was written is

also uncertain. Its concern with the threatened coming of armies to seize

Jerusalem and destroy its temple suggests that it dates from the years after

the Jewish nationalists began their revolt against the Romans but before the

temple was destroyed: that is, between 66 and 70 CE.[9]

The ‘New Testament Introduction’ places it between

AD 68 and 70:

Mark (ca. A.D. 68-70). Our earliest gospel, Mk

has been used by both Mt and Lk. Mk emphasizes the need for Christians to

expect sufferings.[10]

Although some of the scholars purposefully claim

that the Gospel according to Matthew had been written earlier, but it is by no

means safe to assign it a date prior to A.D. 70, as can easily be appreciated

from the evidence recorded above, which assigns it some date around AD 85-90.

Barnabas had died in A.D. 61. He had separated from

Paul in A.D. 49 after a ‘sharp contention’ with him on the question of the

inclusion of his cousin, John Mark, in the Second Missionary Journey (AD 49-52)[11].

He left for Cyprus for good. He might have immediately started composing his

gospel and would have completed it within a year or two, i.e. AD 50 or 51 after

which he started preaching it.

We see, when I Corinthians was written in c. AD 55[12]

or AD 56[13],

Barnabas was still alive, as stated in the New BD:

When I Corinthians was written Barnabas was still

alive, and, like Paul and unlike most of their colleagues, supporting himself

without drawing on the churches (I Cor 9:6 [which reads: ‘Or is it only I

and Barnabas who must work for a living.‘]).[14]

As regards his year of death, it is most probably

AD 61. G. Milligan has concluded in his article ‘Barnabas’ in Hastings DB:

(…), while Col 4.10 has been taken as proving

that by this time (about A.D. 63) Barnabas must have been dead, else Mark

would not have rejoined Paul (cf. 2 Ti: 4.!!, 1P:5.13).[15]

It means that Barnabas must have died shortly

before the Epistle to Colossians was written. So Barnabas’ year of

death can easily be ascertained, if the date of writing of this Epistle is

confirmed. Here are some references to establish the date of this Epistle:

McKenzie’s DB suggests AD 61-63 to be the date of

writing of this ‘Epistle to Colossians’.[16]

William Smith’s DB asserts under the heading of ‘First imprisonment of

St. Paul at Rome. A.D. 61-63‘:

To that imprisonment (…) belongs the noble group

of letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians and to the

Philippians.[17]

The New Bible Dictionary has also assigned the same

date to this ‘Epistle to Colossians’, as can be concluded from the following:

Paul had a stormy sea-voyage and, after being

wrecked, spent the winter on Malta (c. AD 61). He reached Rome in the spring

and spent the next 2 years under house-arrest (…). Most probably Paul was

released in AD 63 (…).[18]

The Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia reports:

Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, written during

Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (ca. 60-64 CE, though scholars are divided as to

the exact dates).[19]

The above evidence makes it clear that ‘Epistle to

Colossians’ was written during the ‘First imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome:

A.D. 61-63′. Thus we can almost exactly ascertain his year of death. It can be

located somewhere between AD 55 and 63. Most probably Barnabas might have died

in AD 61.[20]

The New Age Encyclopaedia reports:

Barnabas is supposed to have been martyred at

Salamis in Cyprus in 61 AD,[21]

Merit Students Encyclopedia asserts:

Barnabas, Saint, an Apostle of Christ. Born

Joseph, 1^st century A.D. died about 60 A.D. (…). St. Barnabas is

ranked as an Apostle even though he was not one of the 12 Apostles.[22]

Everyman’s Encyclopaedia has also stated that

Barnabas was martyred in Cypriot city of Salamis in AD 61.[23]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia has also expressed the similar views:

Death apparently came to him after Paul wrote of

him, as though still alive, in I Corinthian 9.6 [in AD 55 or 56], and before

Paul wrote to the Colossians [between AD 60 and 63] that Mark was now his

colaborer (Col 4.10).[24]

It has thus been made clear that Barnabas died in

ca. AD 61 whereas the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ was written decades of years

after it: ca AD 85-90; but not before AD 70. Even the ‘Gospel According to

Mark’, which is considered to be the source of Matthew’s Gospel, was written

years after the death of Barnabas.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica writes:

Barnabas’ reputed tomb, was discovered in 488, is

near the Monastery of St Barnabas, in the Cypriot city of Salamis, whose

Christian community was founded by Paul and Barnabas.[25]

The 1907 edition of Britannica has recorded the

name of the Byzantine Emperor, during whose reign the dead body of Barnabas was

discovered, as Zeno (Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire from AD 474 to 491).[26]

New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

(…); his body

was later found with his own hand-written copy of Matthew’s Gospel over his

heart.[27]

We have another report by ‘Acta Sanctorum‘

that the manuscript discovered from his tomb was the gospel of Barnabas written

with his own hand.[28]

It has been reported in the “Life of St. Barnabas”

that the body of Barnabas was placed in a cave 1½ mile from Salamis. The

manuscript of the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’, written with the author’s own

hand, was found on his bosom. The dead body was recovered intact during the

reign of Emperor Zeno with the Gospel on its chest. The manuscript of the

‘Gospel according to Matthew’, written by the author in his own handwriting, was

sent to Constantinople to be placed in the Emperor’s Library. It was destroyed

among other valuables during the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.[29]

A Turkish journal, ‘Ilime ve Sanat Dergisi’, had

published a write-up regarding the discovery of a ca. 19 centuries old Aramaic

manuscript of this Gospel. It was written by Dr. Hamzah Piktash and was

published in its issue of March-April, 1986. According to it a voluminous book

was found by some people in a cave near the Turkish town of Hakari in 1984. They

tore a leaf from it to get some information about it. They contacted Dr. Piktash

to identify the manuscript. It had been written in the Aramaic language in

Syriac script. It was written on Papyrus. Its dating revealed that it was

written circa 19 centuries back. On perusal it came to be the Gospel of Barnabas

written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. The discoverers left the

photocopy of its only one leaf with Dr. Piktash. They disappeared; and were

later arrested by the police while trying to smuggle it out. The manuscript was

given in the custody of the Govt. Dr. Piktash states that the text with him was

concordant with the English and Arabic translation of the Gospel of Barnabas to

a great extent.[30]

We have seen above that the ‘Gospel According to

Matthew’ was written many years after the death of Barnabas. How can it be

possible that he wrote a book (Gospel According to Matthew) with his own hands

which had actually been written many a year after his death and how can it be

got buried with him in his grave? Actually the Gospel found from his grave lying

over his heart was, and could only be, his own gospel, the Gospel of Barnabas,

written with his own hand.

There is

evidence which shows that the Gospel of Barnabas, which would have been written

by AD 51, had become commonly known in Christian community of NW. According to

McKenzie St. Paul wrote the Letter to the Galatians in AD 54.[31]

W. Smith says,

When he left Antioch, he “went over all the

country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples,”

(…). It is probable that the Epistle to the Galatians was written soon after

this visit¯A.D. 56-57.[32]

The 7^th Day Adventist BD, under the

entry ‘Galatians, Epistle to the’ says, ‘(…), the date of writing would be the

winter of A.D. 57-58, and the place of writing doubtless Corinth.’[33]

According to the New American Bible,

If it is addressed to the Galatians in the north,

the letter was probably written around A.D. 54 or 55, most likely from Ephesus

after Paul’s arrival there for a stay of several years on his third missionary

journey.[34]

A New Catholic Commentary writes,

Nevertheless,

because of certain similarities of mood and tone and parallels in phraseology

with I Cor and Rm, many commentators with Benoit, ascribe Gal to a date about

the same as Rm, i.e. c. A.D. 56.[35]

It is thus clear that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to

the Galatians sometime between AD 54 and 58, whereas the Gospel of Barnabas had

been written in c.51. Paul writes in Galatians:

I am amazed that you are changing so soon from

the one who called you by means of (Christ’s) grace, to a different gospel

which is not another one, only there are some unsettling you and willing to

pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven were to

proclaim the gospel [to you] differently than how we proclaimed the gospel to

you, let that one be anathema [accursed]. As we have just said, and as I now

say once again: If anyone should proclaim the gospel to you contrary to what

you have received, let him be anathema![36]

A footnote has been inserted to these verses

saying:

Paul is declaring in the strongest manner that

the gospel he preaches is the one and only way to salvation, and that to

preach another gospel is to nullify the death of Christ. Paul’s curse reminds

the readers of the absolute truth of his gospel.[37]

Obviously Paul is pointing to some other “gospel”

in these verses of the Epistle to the Galatians. This Epistle to the Galatians

was not written before ca. AD 54 to 58. There did not exist any of the 4 gospels

by that time. Therefore the word “gospel” here means the doctrines which Paul

had designed and was preaching. On the other hand the Gospel of Barnabas had

already been compiled in ca. AD 51. It was only Barnabas who was preaching some

“gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s. It can thus be appreciated that Paul

indicated to the “Gospel of Barnabas” in his Epistle to the Galatians. It makes

quite clear that there existed the “Gospel of Barnabas” prior to AD 54-58,

before any of the 4 gospels had been compiled.

All the above discourse makes it abundantly clear

that:

1. Barnabas had died in ca. AD 61.

2. The ‘Gospel According to Matthew’, The ‘Gospel

   According to Mark’, and all the other Gospels, were written after his death.

   None of the Gospels had been written during the lifetime of Barnabas.

3. The dead body of Barnabas was discovered in AD

   488 from the Cypriot city of Salamis.

4. A manuscript of a Gospel was found in his tomb

   lying on his heart. Scholars identify it in three different ways: (a) that it

   was the Gospel of Barnabas written with his own hand [as stated in the ‘Acta

   Sanctorum‘]. (b) that it was the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ written by

   Matthew himself with his own hand [as stated in the “Life of St. Barnabas”].

   (c) that it was the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ written by Barnabas [as

   stated in the “New Catholic Encyclopedia”].

5. As regards the options (b) and (c) above, they

   are absolutely impossible as the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was written

   many years after the death of Barnabas.

6. It could naturally have been the Gospel of

   Barnabas and none other than it. It may have been in the Aramaic language, the

   language used by Jesus Christ.

7. This manuscript was sent to Constantinople

   (Istanbul of today) to be preserved in the Emperor’s Library.

8. An Aramaic Manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas

   dating to the first century AD was discovered in a Turkish town, Hakari in AD

   1984.

9. Most probably it may have been the same MS. found

   from the tomb of Barnabas in AD 488 near the Cypriot city of Salamis or some

   manuscript copied from it.

10. Paul has referred to some “gospel” in his Epistle

    to the Galatians and this Epistle was written ca. AD 54-58. None of the 4

    gospels had been written by that time. Paul could have naturally pointed only

    to the “Gospel of Barnabas”, which according to him, preached some “gospel”

    contrary to his own teachings.

It is now unto the reader himself to draw a

reasonable conclusion from the above data.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical

Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list

of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas”

has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38]

It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity

and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It

was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the

Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing

about this “Gospel of Barnabas” until George Sale (AD 1697-1736)

mentioned it[39]

in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur’an (AD

1734), named “Alkoran of Mohammed“.[40]

Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English

translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before

its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no

approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of

any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely

quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it:

simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals[41]

and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam

by his very name in unequivocal terms. There might be some later alterations,

adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the

Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the

writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be

denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive

material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its

presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel

of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that

they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge.

Here are some excerpts regarding only the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (sws), from

Lonsdale & Laura Ragg’s “The Gospel of Barnabas (although there

are so many other valuable themes in it which ought to be brought to light to

benefit the reader of today, but it may be a theme of a separate and independent

article.):

Some

Prophecies about Muhammad (sws)

in the

Gospel of Barnabas

But after me shall come the Splendour[42]

of all the prophets and holy ones, and shall shed light upon the darkness of

all that the prophets have said, because he is the messenger of God.[43]

Verily I say unto you, that every prophet when he is come

hath borne to one nation only the mark of the mercy of God. And so their words

were not extended save to that people to which they were sent. But the

messenger of God, when he shall come[44]

[stress added] God shall give him as it were the seal of His hand, insomuch

that he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that

shall receive his doctrine.[45]

He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry,[46]

insomuch that he shall make Satan confused; for so promised God to Abraham,

saying: “Behold, in thy seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as

thou hast broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham, even so shall thy seed do.”

James answered: ‘O master, tell us in whom this promise was made; for the Jews

say “in Isaac,” and the Ishmaelites say “in Ishmael.” ‘ (…). Believe me, for

verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac [For

it is a fact that no prophet from the progeny of Isaac can be claimed ever to

have broken in pieces the idols as Abraham had broken them in pieces].[47]

I therefore say unto you that the messenger of

God is a splendour that shall give gladness to nearly all that God hath made,

for he is adorned with the spirit of understanding and of counsel, the spirit

of wisdom and might, the spirit of fear and love, the spirit of prudence and

temperance; the spirit of justice and piety, the spirit of gentleness and

patience,[48]

(…). O blessed time, when he shall come to the world![49]

(…). And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying: “O

Mohammed, God be with thee.[50]

Jesus answered: ‘(…). As for me, I am now come to

the world to prepare the way for the messenger of God, who shall bring

salvation to the world. (…).’ Then said Andrew: ‘Master, tell us some sign,

that we may know him.’ Jesus answered: ‘He will not come in your time, but

will come some years after you, when my gospel shall be annulled insomuch that

there shall be scarcely thirty faithful.[51]

At that time God will have mercy on the world, and so he will send his

messenger, (…). He shall come with great power against the ungodly, and shall

destroy idolatry upon the earth[52].

And it rejoiceth me because that through him our God shall be known and

glorified, and I shall be known to be true; and he will execute vengeance

against those who shall say that I am more than man. Verily I say to you that

the moon shall minister sleep to him in his boyhood,[53]

and when he shall be grown up he shall take her [the moon] in his hands.[54]

(…). He shall come with truth[55]

more clear than that of all the prophets, (…); and so when idolatry shall be

seen to fall to the ground and confess me a man like other men, verily I say

unto you the messenger of God shall be come.[56]

Jesus answered: ‘The name of the Messiah is

admirable[57],

for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it

in a celestial splendour. God said: “Wait Mohammed; (…). When I shall send

thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy

word shall be true[58],

insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail but thy faith shall never fail.”

Mohammed is his blessed name.’[59]

Whereupon I am sure that he who shall sell me[60]

shall be slain in my name, for that God shall take me up from the earth, and

shall change the appearance of the traitor[61]

so that everyone shall believe him to be me; nevertheless, when he dieth an

evil death, I shall abide in that dishonour[62]

for a long time in the world. But when Mohammed shall come, the sacred

messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away. And this shall God do

because I have confessed the truth of the Messiah; who shall give me this

reward, that I shall be known to be alive and to be a stranger to that death

of infamy.’[63]