The Trinity is a Pagan Doctrine.

Dear Suleyman,

I am responding to your questions regarding the Gospel of Barnabas.  It is considered a medieval forgery in my Church.  And it certainly shouldn't be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas.  It actually contradicts Muslim beliefs and the Qu'ran. 

The Gospel of Barnabas (GB) is a well known late-medieval forgery (most likely 15th or 16th Century Spain) which purports to be a lost or suppressed gospel by the apostle Barnabas.  

Books describing the Gospel of Barnabas are probably only of interest for serious students of religious apologetics and religious history. Despite claims that GB is not, nor has it ever been, recognized as a legitimate historic text by main stream scholars, it does, however, have some appeal for the insight it provides into popular apologetics.

Perhaps the GB's most interesting aspect is its enduring appeal as an apologetic tool. Undoubtably historic texts can make effective evangelizing tools - the GB, however, appears to be poorly suited for this role. It is a clearly an inauthentic document and exposes a message contrary to the religion it professes to support.

With regard to authenticity its challenges are numerous:
- it refers to jubilees occurring every 100 years rather than every fifty as was the case in the early Christian epoch (changed to 100 years intervals in 14th century)
- uses the fourth century Latin vulgate translation of the Bible (challenging for first century author)
- claims that Jesus was born when Pilate was governor (26 or 27 A.D.)
- claims that Nazareth is a seashore or lakeshore village
- despite the editors apparent attempt to confuse GB with the first century Epistle of Barnabus or the fifth century apocryphal Acts of Barnabas there is no reference to this text by either Christian or Islamic writers prior to approximately 1600

Despite its fabricated nature, perhaps what makes its use as an apologetic tool even more surprising is its heretical theology: 
- contrary to the Quran Mohammad is portrayed as a Christ-like entity - the world was created for Muhammad
- Muhammad is an intercessor between God and man
- Contradicts Quran claim that Jesus is the Messiah

Overall, GB is an interesting read for students of religious apologetics. I cannot recommend the text for a broader audience - it is replete with misrepresentation and fabrication. Readers seeking a more serious examination of GB can see David Sox's the Gospel of Barnabas. Those interested in a discussion of GB within the genre of religious forgies may find J. Slomp's work helpful (some available for free on net). Those interested in serious comparative apologetics may wish to look at a series of public debates between Shabir Ally and William Craig.  You must read it with the understanding that it is a 16th century forgery.  But if you can keep that it mind, you may find it interesting.

Blessings to you.

GOSPEL OF BARNABAS/WIKIPEDIA

Analysis

This work bears strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahada (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet and not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor � miraculously transformed � was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs. Other passages however conflict with the text/teachings of the Qur'an; as for instance in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain; or as in Jesus's ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy. Narrative themes, and some highly distinctive phraseology, are shared with the Divine Comedy of Dante (Ragg). If (as most students surmise) the Gospel of Barnabas is seen as an attempted synthesis of elements from both Christianity and Islam, then sixteenth and seventeenth century parallels can be suggested in Morisco and anti-Trinitarian writings; but there are no known earlier precursors.

The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text.

Religious themes

The Gospel of Barnabas was little known outside academic circles until recent times, when a number of Muslims have taken to publishing it in order to argue against the orthodox Christian conception of Jesus. It resonates better with existing Muslim views than with Christianity in several respects: it foretells the coming of Muhammad by name; rather than describing the crucifixion of Jesus, it describes him being raised up into heaven, similar to the description of Elijah in 2 Kings, Chapter 2; and it calls Jesus a "prophet" whose mission was restricted to the "house of Israel". However, it differs from Islamic conceptions in at least two important respects; it reports that Muhammad, not Jesus, was the Messiah, whereas the Qur'an and Hadith both describe Jesus as the Messiah, and no orthodox variety of Islam calls Muhammad the Messiah. In addition, it explictly denies the Islamic (and Christian) doctrines of God's absolute judgment and foreknowledge � in asserting that, in the matter of salvation: "Our God waits for man to be penitent" (Chapter 114); such that the souls of the wicked in Hell could nevertheless be saved at the end times, if they become converted to penitence (Chapter 113); whereas the righteous �even the saints and prophets� cannot be safe from the fear of damnation; as the possibility cannot be excluded that they might at some future time, through over-confidence in their own righteousness, fall into pride (Chapter 112).

It contains an extended polemic against the doctrine of predestination (Chapter 164), and in favour of justification by faith; arguing that the eternal destination of the soul to Heaven or Hell is neither pre-determined by God's grace (as in Calvinism), nor the judgement of God, in his mercy, on the faith of believers on Earth (as in orthodox Islam). Instead it states that all those condemned at the last judgment, but who subsequently respond in faith, who demonstrate unfeigned penitence, and who make a free choice of blessedness, will eventually be offered salvation (Chapter 137). Only those whose persistent pride prevents them from sincere repentance will remain forever in Hell. Such radically Pelagian beliefs in the sixteenth century were found amongst the anti-Trinitarian Protestant traditions later denoted as Unitarianism. Some sixteenth century anti-Trinitarian divines sought to reconcile Christianity, Islam and Judaism; on the basis of very similar arguments to those presented in the Gospel of Barnabas, arguing that if salvation remains unresolved until the end times, then any one of the three religions could be a valid path to heaven for their own believers. The Spaniard, Michael Servetus denounced the orthodox Christian formulation of the Trinity (demonstrating the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament to be a later interpolation); and hoped thereby to bridge the doctrinal divide between Christianity and Islam. In 1553 he was executed in Geneva under the authority of John Calvin, but his teachings remained very influential amongst Italian Protestant exiles. In the late sixteenth century many anti-Trinitarians, persecuted both by Calvinists and by the Inquisition, sought refuge in Transylvania; then under Turkish overlordship and with close links to Istanbul. (Christopher J. Burchill:The Heidelberg Antitrinitarians Bibliotheca Dissidentium: vol XI, Baden-Baden 1989,308p).

Included in chapter 145 is "The little book of Elijah"; which sets out instructions for a righteous life of ascetisim and eremetic spirituality. Over the succeeding 47 chapters, Jesus is recorded as developing the theme that the ancient prophets, specifically Obadiah, Haggai and Hosea, were holy hermits following this religious rule; and contrasting their followers - termed "true Pharisees" - with the "false Pharisees" who lived in the world, and who constituted his chief opponents. The "true Pharisees" are said to congregate on Mount Carmel. This accords with the teaching of the medieval Carmelites, who lived as an eremetic congregation on Carmel in the 13th century; but who claimed (without any evidence) to be direct successors of Elijah and the Old Testament prophets. In 1291 the Mamluk advance into Syria compelled the friars on Carmel to abandon their monastery; but on dispersing through Western Europe they found that Western Carmelite congregations - especially in Italy - had largely abandoned the eremetic and ascetic ideal, adopting instead the conventual life and mission of the other Mendicant orders. Some students consider that the ensuing 14th-16th century controversies can be found reflected in the text of the Gospel of Barnabas.

The Gospel also takes a strongly anti-Pauline tone at times, saying in the Italian version's beginning: "many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived."

Prediction of Muhammad

The Gospel of Barnabas claims that Jesus predicted the advent of Muhammad, thus conforming with the Qur'an which mentions:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, this is evident sorcery!" (Sura 61:6)

(Ahmad is another name of Muhammad.) More traditionally, Muslim scholars regard the New Testament's mentions of the Paraclete (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) as referring to Muhammad. The Greek word "paraclete" is translated "Counsellor" and refers to the Holy Spirit. This similar to the Greek "periklutos" which can be translated as "admirable one"; or in Arabic, "Ahmad".

The name of "Muhammad" is frequently mentioned verbatim in the Gospel of Barnabas, as in the following quote:

"Jesus answered: `The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.' Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: `O God, send us thy messenger: O Admirable One, come quickly for the salvation of the world!'" Barnabas 97:9-10. The Italian manuscript replaces "Admirable One" with "Muhammad" [4].

However, while there are many passages where the Gospel of Barnabas sets out alternative readings to parallel pericopes found in the canonical gospels, none of the references to Muhammad by name occurs in such a synoptic passage; and in particular, none of the "Muhammad" references in Barnabas corresponds to a "Paraclete" reference in canonical John. There is only one instance where the Gospel of Barnabas might be understood as "correcting" a known canonical pericope, so as to record a prophecy by Jesus of the (unnamed) Messenger of God:

Then Jesus said: "I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias." They said: "If you be not the Messiah nor Elijah, or any prophet, wherefore do you preach new doctrine, and make yourself of more account than the Messiah?" Jesus answered: "The miracles which God works by my hands show that I speak that which God wills; nor indeed do I make myself to be accounted as him of whom you speak. For I am not worthy to unloose the ties of the hosen or the ratchets of the shoes of the Messenger of God whom you call "Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words of truth, so that his faith shall have no end." (Chapter 43):

This passage corresponds closely with the canonical John 1:19-30, except that in that passage, the words are spoken by John the Baptist (in the Qur'an; Yahya ibn Zakariya) and refer to Jesus.

Muhammad as the Messiah

According to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas:

'Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" {Jesus answered} "Muhammed is his blessed name" ' (ch. 97).

and

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah." (ch. 42:2)

As mentioned above, these pronouncements appear to contradict Islamic belief. However, the well-known Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat argues that, since "Messiah" merely means "anointed", it can be attributed to any prophet, and Jesus would have meant Muhammad was anointed by God.

However, regarding messiah as synonymous with anointed is inconsistent with the complex connotations of messiah by the Jews of the first century. See Messiah. Messiah referred to an individual; two people could not both be the Messiah. The Messiah would be a Jewish leader, fighting with the Jews to restore them to a secure nation. Islam does not attribute any of this to Muhammad.

If the author of the Gospel of Barnabas had experience in a Christian community, he would understand the meaning of messiah differently. In Christendom, it has taken the connotation of a prophecied ruler who saves believers from damnation. This description fits well with Muslims' view of Muhammad. (Note that Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a savior the way Christians believe Jesus to be; Muhammad reveals the Qur'an which allows Muslims to escape hell.)

Ishmaelite Messiah

According to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming rather that the Messiah would be Ishmaelite (ie Arab):

"Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'" (Barnabas 43:10)

Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:

"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" (Matthew 22:42-46)

According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was the "son" (descendant) of David; thus, Hajj Sayed argues that this statement confirms the Gospel of Barnabas' point.

The idea of the Messiah as an Arab is also found in another chapter of Gospel of Barnabas:

"If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God.

The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God." (Barnabas 208:1-2)

Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad).

Jesus not God or Son of God

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification:

And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: "Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God" (53:6)

And having said this Jesus went out of the Temple. And the common people magnified him, for they brought all the sick folk whom they could gather together, and Jesus having made prayer gave to all their health: whereupon on that day in Jerusalem the Roman soldiery, by the working of Satan, began to stir up the common people, saying that Jesus was the God of Israel, who was come to visit his people." (69:6)

Jesus answered: "And you; what say you that I am?" Peter answered: "You are Christ, son of God". Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him, saying: "Begone and depart from me, because you are the devil and seek to cause me offences" (70:1)

Jesus said again: "I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries" (94:1)

Then answered the priest, with the governor and the king, saying: "Distress not yourself, O Jesus, holy one of God, because in our time shall not this sedition be any more, seeing that we will write to the sacred Roman senate in such wise that by imperial decree none shall any more call you God or son of God." Then Jesus said: "With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father." (97:1)

This conforms entirely with Muslim belief, according to which Jesus is a prophet and will come back to earth in the future and declare to the world that he is "a Servant of God". According to Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki in his audio lessons Lives of the Prophets, the first thing that prophet Jesus said when he was in the cradle "I am a servant of God", and the first thing that Jesus will say when he will come back to earth will be the same "I am a servant of God". According to the Qur'an:

At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah (God). He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah (God) that He beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (Mary:27-35)

Paul and Barnabas

Hajj Sayed argues that Galatians's description of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas supports the idea that the Gospel of Barnabas existed at the time of Paul. Blackhirst has suggested, by contrast, that Galatian's account of this argument could be the reason the gospel's writer attributed it to Barnabas.[5] Paul writes in (Galatians Chapter 2):

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." (Galatians 2:11-14)

Paul was attacking Peter and Barnabas for "trying to satisfy the Jews" by sticking to their laws, such as circumcision. This shows that, at that point, Barnabas was following Peter and disagreeing with Paul. Some feel it also suggests that the inhabitants of Galatia at his time were using a gospel or gospels disagreeing with Paul's beliefs, which Gospel of Barnabas could be one of them (although the Gospel of Peter would seem a more natural candidate, as in the light of the second letter.) To Galatian's account we may compare the Introductory Chapter of Gospel of Barnabas, where we read:

"Dearly beloved the great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived of Satan, under presence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief; for which cause I am writing that truth which I have seen and heard, in the intercourse that I have had with Jesus, in order that ye may be saved, and not be deceived of Satan and perish in the judgment of God. Therefore beware of every one that preacheth unto you new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that ye may be saved eternally." (Introduction To Gospel of Barnabas)

In this context, supporters also note that Peter was from the original 12 disciples of Jesus, and Barnabas was one of the early disciples of Jesus, while Paul, a Roman, hadn't lived with Jesus, and had been accustomed to persecute his followers before his conversion.

Acts 9:26-27: "And when Saul [Paul] was come to Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"

From the previous passages, we can also infer that in the beginning, Paul and Barnabas were getting along with each other; however, at the end, they started to depart in their beliefs.

In conclusion, some Muslim scholars believe that those differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and the belief of Paul might be the reason that the Gospel of Barnabas and other gospels were not added to the New Testament.

Other non-canonical differences

• According to the following quote, Jesus talked to Barnabas and gave him a "secret":

Jesus, weeping, said: "O Barnabas, it is necessary that I should reveal to you great secrets, which, after that I shall be departed from the world, you shall reveal to it." Then answered he that writes, weeping, and said: "Suffer me to weep, O master, and other men also, for that we are sinners. And you, that are a holy one and prophet of God, it is not fitting for you to weep so much."

Jesus answered: "Believe me, Barnabas that I cannot weep as much as I ought. For if men had not called me God, I should have seen God here as he will be seen in paradise, and should have been safe not to fear the day of judgment. But God knows that I am innocent, because never have I harboured thought to be held more than a poor slave. No, I tell you that if I had not been called God I should have been carried into paradise when I shall depart from the world, whereas now I shall not go thither until the judgment. Now you see if I have cause to weep.

Know, O Barnabas, that for this I must have great persecution, and shall be sold by one of my disciples for thirty pieces of money. Whereupon I am sure that he who shall sell me shall be slain in my name, for that God shall take me up from the earth, and shall change the appearance of the traitor so that every one shall believe him to be me; nevertheless, when he dies an evil death, I shall abide in that dishonour for a long time in the world. But when Muhammad 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."

• Also according to GoB, Jesus charged Barnabas to write the gospel:

Jesus turned himself to him who writes, and said: "Barnabas, see that by all means you write my gospel concerning all that has happened through my dwelling in the world. And write in a similar manner that which has befallen Judas, in order that the faithful may be undeceived, and every one may believe the truth."

Anachronisms

Some readers have noted that the Gospel of Barnabas contains a number of apparent anachronisms and historical incongruities:

• It has Jesus sailing across the Sea of Galilee to Nazareth - which is actually inland; and from thence going "up" to Capernaum - which is actually on the lakeside (chapters 20-21); though this is contested by Blackhirst, who says that the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable).

• Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26.

• Barnabas appears not to realize that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as "Jesus Christ" yet claiming that 'Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah"' (ch. 42).

• There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.

• Adam and Eve eat an apple (ch. 40); whereas the traditional association of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (Genesis: 2) with the apple, rests on the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, where both 'apple' and 'evil' are rendered as 'malum'.

• The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,

• In Chapter 91, the "Forty Days" is referred to as an annual fast. This corresponds to the Christian tradition of fasting for forty days in Lent; a practice that is not witnessed earlier than the Council of Nicaea (325). Nor is there a forty days fast in Judaism of the period (see Mishnah, Tractate: Taanith "Days of Fasting")

• Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

• Ch. 91 records three contending Jewish armies 200,000 strong at Mizpeh, totalling 600,000 men, at a time when the Roman army across the entire Empire had a total strength estimated as 300,000.

Other readers point out that the four gospel texts recognised as canonical are themselves not without anachronisms (as in Luke 2:3, where Quirinius's governorship of Syria overlaps unhistorically with the reign of Herod the Great); nor are they without comparable incongruities (as in the account of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which both state this as taking place - unhistorically - on the night of the Passover festival).

Islamic perspectives

Some Islamic organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; in particular, the noted Muslim thinkers Rashid Rida in Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan have given it qualified acceptance (though the latter rejects its naming of Muhammad as an interpolation). While some Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time, others believe that Barnabas himself wrote the Gospel, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by followers of Paul long after the events they describe, and that therefore the Gospel of Barnabas is more authentic than the other Gospels. Some Muslims take a position between these poles, suggesting that, while the work contains "Muslim interpolations"[6], it nonetheless consists mainly of early material that contradicts Christian traditions and confirms Muslim beliefs.

Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as evidence of the genuineness of the gospel by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas are signs of textual corruption (which Muslims already ascribe for a majority of the Bible.) The difference is that the Gospel of Barnabas is not as corrupt as other religious works, and still maintains the truth about Jesus not being crucified and not being God or son of God.