ansarthemystic

Some sources:

1. Roberts and J. Donaldson, The ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1951) Vol. VIII, pp. 355, 493-496.
2. Laura and Lonsdale Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Introductions, p. lxxiv. Greek and Latin quotations are from

<a href="http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Barnearly.html" target="_blank">http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Barnearly.html</a>

Dr. Ghulam Jilani Barq writes:

In the light of the Christian rejection (of the Gospel of Barnabas as a genuine Gospel) the contention that this work is genuine can be validated only when a copy of it that antedates the mission of the Prophet has been discovered and brought to light - which thus far has not been possible. (Al-Furqan, Lucknow, August, 1975, prophet,. 48).\

<a href="http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm</a>

In the circles of Muslim polemical writers the anti-Pauline trend in "Barnabas" has revived the claim that Paul perverted the original message of Jesus and Hellenized it by preaching that Jesus was the Son of God. This theme we find already in the works of the Hazm (d. 1064 A.D.), al-Qarafi (d. 1285 A.D.) and Abu Talib (d. 1321 A.D.). These claims, no doubt, originated in Jewish circles and were introduced into Islamic thought with other Jewish material, namely the so-called Israi-liyyat. Modern Muslim thinkers reject these Israiliyyat, considering them to be anti-Islamic. It follows that the insinuations about a Pauline conspiracy against original Christianity should also be rejected along with these other Israiliyyat!
Furthermore:

Nineteenth century Christian "liberalism" has revived this presumed antithesis between the original and simple gospel of Jesus and Paul's speculative Hellenistic theology. This school of thought, however, has completely disappeared, because it was the result of prejudiced and superficial reading of the New Testament sources. The prejudice consisted in explaining the New Testament in purely Hellenistic terms and in forgetting about its Hebrew and Aramaic heritage. Even Jewish theologians agree with this point of view.

1. A.M. Hunter, Interpreting The New Testament (London, S.C.M. Press, 1951) Chapter VI, "St. Paul in the Twentieth Century".
2. Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Jewish Christianity Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), from a Jewish perspective.
3. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London S.P.C.K., 1970).
4. H.N. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus (Philadelphia: Reformed and Presbyterian Publ., 1958).
Prof. E.R.. Hambye in Delhi who wrote in the May 1975 issue of Islam and the Modern Age:

………….a spurious publication of this kind cannot indeed contribute towards a genuine dialogue with Islam…….Pseudo-Barnabas falls in the same category as the mythical, though time and again written about Jesus' grave in Kashmir.

By the way not letting off steam, that would be a sign of frustration and anger. Just seeking opinions in a religious discussion.

peace and blessings

not a theist

The sources which you quote are either neutral or in agreement with my position that the Gospel of Barnabas is spurious. Often, the Gospel of Barnabas becomes confused with the Epistle of Barnabas which is early and just might be genuine.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

ansarthemystic

and I am in agreement with these sources as well to some extent.My full explanation is forthcoming.

But Im leave you with this for now. The Gospel of Barnabas is indeed confused with the Epistle of Barnabas, and is itself a medieval forgery. The definition of a forgery is AN UNAUTHIRIZED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. So where are the sources that the former christian monk who became a muslim used to compile his fake Gospel?

peacs and blessings

Bree

So glad you are an expert!

The word "forgery" can also simply mean "fake" - in this case, the book probably was made up (i.e. faked) and passed off as a real long-lost gospel.

Off to RRP with you...

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>