Intro
The Gospel of Barnabas is inaccurate, it is not a credible source of info. MGA began quoting it in 1898 (See “Raze Haqiqat” in terms of his unique Jesus in India=Yuz Asaf theory).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The data
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam_ahmadiyya/comments/no290o/mga_makes_utterly_false_claims_about_the/
One thing more worth attention is that in the Gospel of Barnabas, which should be available in the London library, it is written that he was not put on the cross, nor did he die thereupon. We could very well point out that though this book is not included in the Gospels and has been rejected
summarily, but there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and was written at the same time as the other Gospels.
Page 22-23, online PDF edition “Jesus in India.”
In trying to argue for the Ahmadi case, he talks about the Gospel of Barnabas, and how it is proof that the point he is making is correct. He claims that the Gospel of Barnabas is “an ancient book” and “written at the same time as the other Gospels.” It has long been established, through various means, that the Gospels were all written from 65 CE to the last one, John, written around 110 CE. The Gospel of Barnabas, however, was written around 1400 CE, at the start of the Renaissance period — hardly “ancient,” and hardly “written at the same time as the other Gospels.” It is confirmed to be a forgery, and likely of Muslim origin (since sometimes includes details that vindicate the Islamic narrative of Jesus, which is why MGA cited it), because it contains several anachronistic terms which betray its claims of being from Jesus’ time by virtue of using language that only existed starting in 1400 CE. This is like if I was pretending to write a “lost book of the Tanakh” and talked about Moses having an iPhone — a reader 1000 years from now could see that I’m talking about iPhones and must be dated to 2006 at the earliest.
Here’s a post from Catholic Answers describing why it’s a fake with several examples of what I just said:
Within this period, the date can only be fixed on the basis of the contents of the writing. While much of what is told in Barnabas is more or less atemporal, the few details that can be related to a precise period point to the fourteenth century. The strongest evidence is the mention of the centennial jubilee in chapters 82 and 83. Since the Christian Jubilee was shortened in 1349 to 50 years (and later to 25), the notion of a centennial jubilee points to the first half of the fourteenth century. Although it is routinely dismissed by scholars who prefer a later date, this piece of evidence has never effectively been countered. (The Date and Provenance of the Gospel of Barnabas)
In addition to Jooten’s example of the Christian Jubilee, there exist other anachronisms in the manuscripts, including:
Chapter 152 describing wine being stored in wooden casks, which were not widely used in the Roman empire until about 300 years after the time of Jesus.
Chapter 91 refers to the “40 Days” as an annual fast, but fasting for 40 days during Lent cannot be traced back further than 325.
Quotes from the Old Testament correspond to the readings in the Latin Vulgate, which Saint Jerome did not even begin work on until 328.
These are only a few examples. There are many more
If the Gospel of Barnabas had indeed been written by the apostle as it claims, then it should not contain so many egregious errors.
And of course Wikipedia, citing George Sale:
The Muhammadans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to saint Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Muhammad has followed in his Quran. Of this Gospel the Moriscoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish; and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a manuscript of some antiquity, containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel, made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. This book appears to be no original forgery of the Muhammadans, though they have no doubt interpolated and altered it since, the better to serve their purpose; and in particular, instead of the Paraclete or Comforter, they have, in this apocryphal gospel, inserted the word Periclyte, that is, the famous or illustrious, by which they pretend their prophet was foretold by name, that being the signification of Muhammad in Arabic; and this they say to justify that passage in the Quran where Jesus Christ is formally asserted to have foretold his coming under his other name Ahmed, which is derived from the same root as Muhammad and of the same import.[9
MGA claimed to be a prophet — a Divine office — and yet he doesn’t even know which scriptures are fake and which are actually from God? Especially when the religious scripture Ahmadis consider Divine — the Qur’an — says that one of the greatest crimes is to fabricate something and say it’s from God (6:93)? In this context, this is an inexcusable offense that invalidates his claims to prophethood, Divinity, and all of that — another one added to a long list. And the most embarrassing part is that even low-level Bible scholars, both Christian and Muslims, have long known that this was a fabricated “gospel” — so that makes this gaffe even worse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyat #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #ahmadiyyatrueislam
Leave a Reply