the anatomy of pseudo - barnabas' mistakes - by masud masihiyyen

8/4/2019 The Anatomy of Pseudo - Barnabas' Mistakes - By Masud Masihiyyen

1/29

The Anatomy of PseudoBarnabas Mistakes: Part 1

The Curse of the Evangelists: Confusion and contradiction

Masud Masihiyyen

An unknown figure of the medieval period that had his peculiar reasons to betray his

Christian faith decided to devise a new Gospel compatible with the Islamic creed and

tradition and attributed his forgery to the Apostle Barnabas, naming his fake writing the

Gospel of Barnabas. Although we cannot know with certainty the real name of the author,

we know that he had never read the Islamic scripture in his lifetime, but based his partly-Islamic propaganda on the Islamic traditions concerning Christianity and Judaism. While

penning a Gospel that would challenge and rival the canonical scriptures of Christianity and

cast doubt upon the reliability of the Christian creed, fake Barnabas chose a strategy that

would be both beneficial and detrimental to him: using the canonical Gospels and some other

writings of the New Testament as his primary source and framework.

Apart from the cultural and linguistic problems reflecting its anachronistic nature and

medieval environment, some of the errors detected in this forgery are a result of the authorsinevitable dependence on the material drawn from the canonical Christian scripture. We can

liken the author of this forgery to a naughty kid that played with fire and burned himself. All

of the errors that we shall analyze in this article stemmed from Pseudo-Barnabas recklessdistortion of the canonical Gospels. While tampering with the original texts and narratives, he

also tried to unite differing accounts by working them into one single volume, which caused

him more trouble because reconciling some accounts necessitated the deletion or replacement

of some others in accordance with his dream of creating a perfect and Islamic Gospel.

The examination of Pseudo-Barnabas mistakes reveals that his eagerness to counter thecanonical Gospels and make some corrections in them for the sake of his theory impelled him

to make more mistakes. Thus, the very mistakes that stemmed from the correction and

improvement of the supposedly fallacious and weak narratives in the four Gospels depict

Pseudo-Barnabas as a person who was punished by God in return for his tampering with the

original and inspired scriptures. In this respect, there will be nothing wrong with drawing aparallelism between Muhammad and Pseudo-Barnabas, both of whom not only plagiarized

from Christian sources, but also modified the borrowed material during incorporation into

their scripture. In Muhammads case, it was the apocryphal writings of Christianity that werechanged and adapted whilst in Pseudo-Barnabas case the canonical scriptures of Christianity.Both these figures invented new and falsified accounts that aimed to repudiate and replace

basic Christian doctrines while struggling to devise an error-free narrative through the

removal of some parts that seemed troublesome and irreconcilable with their teachings. As

we discussed at length in our article concerning thesource and structure of Surah 19, the

writers of the apocryphal Gospels, figuratively speaking, imposed a curse on Muhammad and

his scripture, which compelled the new Islamic version of the narratives to contain absurdities
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/19mary_apocrypha.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/19mary_apocrypha.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/19mary_apocrypha.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/19mary_apocrypha.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.html


2/29

and errors. The same is valid for Pseudo-Barnabas work, which is replete with errors andanomalies due to the curse imposed on him by the four Evangelists.

Betrayal of textual coherence: The contradiction concerning the route of Jesus mission

While penning his forgery, fake Barnabas sometimes borrowed more than enough materialfrom the canonical Gospels in an effort to convince his reader that his writing was the

original text that the other Evangelists plagiarized from. He had the same motive for

collecting differing accounts from the canonical Gospels and presenting them in a unified

form through the elimination of the differences in details. These were natural things that a

crafty writer would be expected to do while producing a fake copy of the scriptures in order

to make his version seem original. However, this strategy became detrimental to Pseudo-

Barnabas since he did not take into account the significance of textual coherence. The

Evangelists were individually inspired to commit the Gospel to writing in a way peculiar to

them. This is why they gave priority to the textual unity of their writings and tried to apply

coherence within their respective texts before caring about the differences that would occur in

the narration of an incident or worrying about the possibility that another Evangelist wouldrecord the same account in quite a different way.

For example, in the Gospel of Luke the theme of traveling from Galilee to Judea with a

religious motive is dominant even in the accounts of Jesus nativity and infancy. Right afterthe annunciation, Jesus mother departed from Nazareth and went to the hill country of Judeato visit her relative Elizabeth (1:39-40). Likewise, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but

went to Jerusalem on two different occasions to observe religious rituals in the Temple (2:22

and 41-42).

More, in the Gospel of Luke Jerusalem, which is in Judea, is highlighted as Jesus finaldestination more than in the other synoptic Gospels. It is most likely due to this reason that in

Luke, unlike in Matthew, Jesus third and final temptation is said to have taken place inJerusalem (4:1-13, compare this with Matthew 4:1-11).

Similarly, only Luke records the detailed information that during Jesus transfigurationMoses and Elijah talked with Him about His Exodus that would occur in Jerusalem (9:30-31). Again, it is not surprising to see that the pair of Galilee and Jerusalem occurs in Jesuswarnings about the fate of sinners (13:1-4) and that this material is peculiar to Luke.

Finally, Luke is the only Evangelist to lay emphasis on the stages of Jesus journey to

Jerusalem, which binds the journey to the mission of salvation (13:31-33). In accordance withthese data peculiar to Luke, we read in Lukes Gospel alone that the crowds provoked by theJewish religious authorities were aware of the stages of Jesus journey and His route, for theysaid:

He incites the people by teaching throughout all Judea. It started in Galilee and ended uphere! (Luke 23:5)1

Although not present in the other canonical Gospels, this particular statement referring to the

starting point of Jesus mission is true and in line with what all the other Evangelistsrecorded. Even John the Apostle, whose Gospel differs from the others because of the

teaching that Jesus had been to Jerusalem a few times before His final entrance into the city
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fn_1


3/29

on the occasion of the Passover, confirmed that Jesus performed His first miracle in Galilee

(2:1-11).

Pseudo-Barnabas, on the other hand, disregarded all these consistent teachings and argued

that Jesus prophetic ministry started and continued in Jerusalem until the time He returned to

Galilee on the occasion of Hisfirstvisit to Nazareth. This is in sharp contrast to the followingdata given in the canonical Gospels:

1. Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River and the Holy Spirit descended on Himin the form of a dove. (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:1-18, John 1: 19-28)

2. Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where He fasted for forty days and wastempted by Satan. (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4: 1-13)

3. Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee when He found out that John the Baptist hadbeen cast into prison. (Matthew 4:12, Mark 1:14)

4. Jesus performed His first miracle by turning water into wine during a wedding inGalilee. (John 2:1-11)

The writer of the medieval forgery tried to replace the chronological data in the canonical

Gospels with his concocted and faulty chronology:

1. Jesus went up to Mount Olives with His mother on the occasion of gathering someolives (what a trivial reason preparing the occasion of the divine manifestation!). (10)

2. The Book of Prophecy descended into Jesus heart in the form of a shining mirror.(10)

3. On His way back from the mount Jesus performed Hisfirstmiracle by healing a leper.(11)

4. Right after healing a leper, Jesus went to the Temple to deliver Hisfirstsermon. (12)5. Jesus was led to Mount Olives by Gabriel for another heavenly vision. (13)6. Jesus left Jerusalem and went to the farther side of Jordan, where He fasted for forty

days and was tempted in the wilderness. (14)

7. At the end of the temptation Jesus returned to Jerusalem and chose the twelve. (14)8. Jesus turned water into wine in Jerusalem. (15)9. Jesus gave His Sermon on the Mount in Jerusalem. (16-19)10.Jesus went to Galilee and visited His hometown (Nazareth). (20)

In short, in the work of Pseudo-Barnabas, Jesus delivered His first sermon and wrought His

first miracle in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee. As a result of a curse imposed on him by

Luke, while re-writing the canonical narratives of Jesus passion and plagiarizing from themfor distortion, fake Barnabas forgot about the vital difference between his forgery and theteachings of the canonical Gospels with regard to the starting po int and route of Jesusministry and produced the following sentences:

Judas answered: I have told you that I am Judas Iscariot, who promised to give into yourhands Jesus the Nazarene; and ye, by what art I know not, are beside yourselves, for ye will

have it by every means that I am Jesus. The high priest answered: O perverse seducer, thouhast deceived all Israel, beginning from Galilee even unto Jerusalem here, with thy

doctrine and false miracles: and now thinkest thou to flee the merited punishment that

befitteth thee by feigning to be mad? (GOB 217)2


4/29

Obviously, the statement uttered by the high priest in Pseudo-Barnabas is the slightly

modified form of the following verse in Luke:

He incites the people by teaching throughout all Judea. It started in Galilee and ended uphere! (Luke 23:5)

As a foolish and careless writer, spurious Barnabas borrowed a sentence recorded by Luke

and incorporated it into his forgery without realizing that it would not be in line with his

peculiar and contradictory teaching concerning the starting point of Jesus ministry. SincePseudo-Barnabas asserted that Jesus began teaching His doctrines and making His miracles in

Jerusalem instead of Galilee, the high priests statement in view seems awkward and makesno sense. Here we see fake Barnabas as a person who suffered from short memory and made

a mistake due to borrowing too much from Luke, being unable to understand that Luke 23:5

would not be compatible with his earlier contention about the spatial peculiarities of Jesusministry.

Combination of different accounts and people: Simon the Pharisee replaced with Simonthe Leper

According to the accounts in the canonical Gospels, Jesus was anointed twice:

a) An unnamed woman of bad reputation anointed Jesus feet in Simon the Pharisees house.(Luke 7:36-50)

b) Lazarus sister Mary anointed Jesus head prior to the week of His passion and death inSimon the Lepers house. (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, John 12:1-8)

Some Christians, however, started to consider these two separate incidents identical or at

least related (sequential) due to the apparent similarities of the elements they contained. In

both cases Jesus was anointed by a woman and in the house of a man named Simon. Despite

the fact that these two narratives employed a totally different theme (the theme of Jesuscompassion in the former versus the theme of Jesus burial in the latter) and theimplausibility of the allegation that a Pharisee would be called a leper, the Church tradition in

the West, unlike that of the Greeks and the other Eastern Churches, tended to identify the

unnamed woman in Luke 7:36-50 as Lazarus sister Mary from Bethany. This process ofcombination and assimilation later involved Mary Magdalene since her name appeared in the

narrative following the story of the sinful woman in Luke:

Some time afterward he went on through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the

good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, and also some women who

had been healed of evil spirits and disabilities: Mary (called Magdalene), from whom seven

demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Cuza (Herods household manager), Susanna,and many others who provided for them out of their own resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

As a result, the Roman Church jumped into the conclusion that Mary Magdalene was the

same person as both Lazarus sister and the repentant sinful woman whose salvation isrecorded by Luke in 7:36-50 (source). This tendency to work the three separate women in

view into one single person naturally became so dominant in the medieval era that even

Pseudo-Barnabas included it into his forgery, doing his best to convince the reader that thetwo incidents of Jesus anointing by a woman were sequential and carried out by Mary
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm


5/29

Magdalene, the sister of Lazarus and Martha! To see how fake Barnabas presented a

traditional and speculative teaching of the Roman Church as an indispensable and official

doctrine of apostolic origin, the following passages should be read:

And having said this, Jesus prayed, lifting up his hands to the Lord, and the people said: So

be it! So be it! When he had finished his prayer he descended from the pinnacle. Whereuponthere were brought unto him many sick folk whom he made whole, and he departed from the

temple. Thereupon Simon, a leper whom Jesus had cleansed, invited him to eat bread.

The priests and scribes, who hated Jesus, reported to the Roman soldiers that which Jesus had

said against their gods. For indeed they were seeking how to kill him, but found it not,

because they feared the people. Jesus, having entered the house of Simon, sat down to the

table. And while he was eating, behold a woman named Mary, a public sinner, entered

into the house, and flung herself upon the ground behind Jesus feet, and washed them withher tears, anointed them with precious ointment, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

(GOB 129)

Whereupon, as they sat at meat, lo! Mary, who wept at the feet of Jesus, entered into thehouse of Nicodemus (for that was the name of the scribe), and weeping placed herself at the

feet of Jesus, saying: Lord, thy servant, who through thee hath found mercy with God, hath asister, and a brother who now lieth sick in per il of death. Jesus answered: Where is thyhouse? Tell me, for I will come to pray God for his health. Mary answered: Bethany isthe home of my brother and my sister, for my own house is Magdala: my brother,

therefore, is in Bethany. Said Jesus to the woman: Go thou straightway to thy brothershouse, and there await me, for I will come to heal him. And fear thou not, for he shall not

die. The woman departed, and having gone to Bethany found that her brother had died thatday, wherefore they laid him in the sepulchre of their fathers. (GOB 192)

While Jesus was supping with his disciples in the house of Simon the leper, behold Mary

the sister of Lazarus entered into the house, and, having broken a vessel, poured ointment

over the head and garment of Jesus. (GOB 205)

Evidently, fake Barnabas produced a patchwork by drawing material from different canonical

narratives in a foolish attempt to re-shape the Gospel in accordance with the traditional

teachings of the Roman Church concerning Mary Magdalenes identity and to provide a moreunified and consistent Gospel so as to replace the supposedly contradictory and divided

evangelical accounts. This kind of a reconciliation of the canonical Christian scriptures

compelled spurious Barnabas to claim that Jesus was anointed by the same woman twice in

the same location (Simon the Lepers house). Thus, medieval Barnabas was crafty enough toreplace Simon the Pharisee in the original account of Luke (7:36-50) with Simon the Leper,knowing that the two Evangelists (Matthew and Mark) referred to a leper named Simon, who

was never mentioned by Luke. In his reasoning, Luke made a mistake and caused a

discrepancy when he referred to Simon as a Pharisee rather than a leper, for the relation

between the two incidents of anointing stipulated that they have taken place in the same

persons house.

Luke the Evangelist was definitely unaware of both fake Barnabas expectations and faultyreasoning and the assumptions of the Roman Church regarding the name of the repentant

harlot anointing Jesus since he never intended to associate this particular account with the

accounts of Jesus unction in Bethany recorded by the other Evangelists.3

More to the point,Simon was a very common name in Israel, but the most effective side of the narrative in Luke


6/29

7:36-50 was the set of contrasts stressed by Jesus Himself between Simon and the repentant

harlot on the basis of their love towards Him. Simons being a leper would not make anycontribution to the effectiveness of this story whilst his being a Pharisee would make the

contrasts more meaningful.

Pharisees were generally depicted in the canonical Gospels as religious authoritiesconsidering themselves righteous and criticizing Jesus for His merciful approach to the

sinners. It was by no means a coincidence that Luke had highlighted the same contrast

between Pharisees and sinners with regard to the notion of salvation through repentance

while quoting Jesus discourse on John the Baptist and inserted this account right before thatof the repentant harlots salvation in a Pharisees house:

(Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged Gods justice,

because they had been baptized with Johns baptism. However, the Pharisees and theexperts in religious law rejected Gods purpose for themselves, because they had not been

baptized by John.) (Luke 7:29)

For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, He has ademon! The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, Look at him, a gluttonand a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! But wisdom is vindicated by all herchildren. (Luke 7:33-35)

Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the

Pharisees house and took his place at the table. Then when a woman of that town, who was asinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisees house, she brought an alabaster jar ofperfumed oil. (Luke 7:36-37)

Similarly, the three parables emphasizing the significance of repentance and the salvation of

sinners (the parable of the lost sheep, lost coin, and the prodigal son) are recorded only by

Luke along with the Pharisees objection to Jesus eating with the tax collectors andsinners (Luke 15:1-31). The narrative of the repentant harlot and that of the repentant taxcollector named Zacchaeus, which occur only in Lukes Gospel (19:1-10), may also be linkedto Jesus parable recorded in Matthew 21:28-32, which was meant to rebuke the religiousleaders of Israel for their lack of faith in John the Baptist and highlight the significance of

repentant sinners salvation. Strikingly, this parable bears thematic similarities to Jesusdiscourse and teachings in Matthew 11:7-19 and Luke 7:24-35. One of the major differences

is that in Matthew 21:28-32, Jesus talks particularly of the tax collectors and prostitutes

while referring to two major groups of people that were considered foremost sinners in Israelalthough in the other instances He simply talks of the tax collectors and sinners. This kindof a usage is apparently linked to the repentant womans identification as a sinner in Luke7:37, the narrative containing a few elements that implicitly associate her sins with

prostitution.

These points prove not only that the Gospels were textually coherent both within themselves

and one with another, but also that Simons designation as a Pharisee in Luke 7 was crucialand meaningful for the integrity of the Gospel narratives. Pseudo-Barnabas, on the other

hand, disregarded all these remarkable points and turned Simon the Pharisee into Simon the

Leper in an irrational effort to reconcile and combine independent narratives, failing to

maintain in his forgery the significant contrast between a religious leader and a repentantsinners attitude towards Jesus.


7/29

Finally, replacing Simon the Pharisee with Simon the Leper condemned fake Barnabas to

another serious mistake that undermined his basic allegation concerning the historicity and

apostolic origin of his Gospel. Mary Magdalenes traditional and speculative designation asthe sinful woman in Luke 7:37 in the West dates back to the papal reign of St. Gregory the

Dialogist. Orthodox Wiki provides the following information on Mary Magdalenes

confusion with the other women of the New Testament and ascribes this traditional view toPope Gregory the Great:

Frederica Mathewes-Green writes: She is not Mary of Bethany (a city south of Jerusalem),the sister of Martha and Lazarus, who anointed Jesus head. She is not the prostitute whoanointed Jesus feet and wiped them with her hair. These two understandably get confused,and historically in the West all three women are lumped together under Mary Magdalenesname, a confusion continued in the Last Temptation of Christ, The Da Vinci Code, and other

works. Karen Rae Keck writes: St. Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory the Great) isbelieved to have begun the tradition in the Western Church, not accepted in the Eastern

Church, which identified St. Mary with the sinful woman in the seventh chapter of Luke.(Source)

Pope Gregory the Great (aka Gregory the Dialogist) remained in the papal office from 590 till

his death in 604 (*), and these dates suffice to rebut the basic allegation in the Gospel of

Barnabas that it was penned by Barnabas the Apostle, who lived in the first century. True

Barnabas would not have been aware of a speculative teaching that would come to existence

five centuries after him! This gross example of anachronism is one of the several elements

that cost Pseudo-Barnabas his credibility.

Funnily enough, Pseudo-Barnabas walked in the footsteps of Muhammad, whom he

mistakenly proclaimed the Messiah descended from Ishmael, when he attempted to correct

and reconcile the Christian scriptures by assimilating one account to another on the basis of a

few similarities between them. Muhammad, fake Barnabas false Messiah, had tried to do thesame thing some centuries before the medieval forgery came into existence and struggled to

replace Jesus true Gospel with his new version of the stories about Christ in his Quran.Although Muhammad and spurious Barnabas plagiarized from and distorted different kind of

material (the former drew heavily from non-canonical Christian literature whilst the latter

from canonical Christian writings!), they at the end invented a new version that contained

many mistakes and was inferior to the original. In short, they ironically fell into error and

burned their hands while endeavoring to correct and improve the writings of the Christian

faith.

Falling into error while struggling to reconcile and correct the supposedly inconsistent

accounts: Judas Iscariots conferring with the Jewish leaders

Pseudo-Barnabas thought that some Gospel narratives needed corrections and improvement

and that his forgery would perfectly reconcile the differing accounts and clear all doubts and

questions about them. This he did particularly while talking of Judas Iscariot and his betrayal.

Unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, fake Barnabas taught that Judas conversed with the Jewish

religious figures three times about betraying Jesus and handing Him over to them. The vital

question that must be posed here is what drove Pseudo-Barnabas to make Judas Iscariot

confer with the Jewish priests specifically three times in his medieval forgery and what kind

of absurdities his new version of the story caused.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_Magdalenehttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_Magdalenehttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_Magdalenehttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogisthttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogisthttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogisthttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogisthttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_Magdalene


8/29

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Judas Iscariot went to the Jewish religious figures for

the first time when Jesus fled from Israel after a miracle (142). This particular account, which

is missing from the canonical Gospels, is actually a fabrication devised by Pseudo-Barnabas

in an effort to give information on the motives of Judas Iscariots betrayal with the help of thematerial drawn from Johns Gospel. It is noteworthy that medieval Barnabas mostly made use

of the material about Judas Iscariot in Johns Gospel, who stressed Judas treacherouscharacter more than the other Evangelists by recording Jesus harsh critique of Judas actionseven prior to his treason. For instance, John recorded that Jesus had once identified Judas

Iscariot as the devil:

Jesus replied, Didnt I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil? (Now hesaid this about Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for Judas, one of the twelve, was going to

betray him.) (John 6:70-71)

Judas Iscariots depiction as the devil by Jesus took place at the end of His discourse on theBread of Life (John 6:25-70), which had been preceded by and thematically related to Jesusmiraculously feeding a huge crowd (John 6:1-13). Pseudo-Barnabas plagiarized this accountfrom John not without major modifications. To compare and contrast:

In Johns Gospel:

A large crowd followed Jesus because they witnessed the miraculous signs Hewrought on sick people. (6:2)

Jesus fed the huge crowd miraculously.(6:5-13) Some people from the crowd wanted to appoint Jesus their king because of His latest

miracle, as a result of which Jesus left even His disciples and withdrew to the

mountain. People looked for Him. (6:15, 24)

Jesus went to Capernaum and gave His Sermon on the Bread of Life. (6:26-59) Some of Jesus disciples left Him, but the twelve remained. Jesus implicitly predicted

Judas Iscariots betrayal when He said one of the twelve was the devil. (6:60-71)

In the Gospel of Barnabas

A huge crowd sought and found Jesus because they had no bread after worms hadeaten all the corns. (138) Jesus miraculously caused an abundant harvest through prayer and fasting. (138) The people, having seen the miracle of harvest, wanted to catch and make Jesus their

King, as a result of which Jesus left even His disciples and fled to Damascus (!) (138)

Jesus was re-united with some of His disciples in Damascus. He predicted JudasIscariots betrayal. (He referred to a host ofdevils preparing for Him) (139)

Judas Iscariot conferred with the Jewish priests to betray Jesus because he lost hishope of becoming powerful when Jesus fled and did not want to become a king. (142)


9/29

The amazing links between John (6:1-70) and the medieval Gospel (chapters 138-142) show

that even fake Barnabas inventions lacked originality as he relied heavily on the texts of theEvangelists for supposedly correcting and improving them.

4

According to Pseudo-Barnabas, Judas Iscariot conferred with the Jewish religious authorities

two more times until his supposed substitution for Jesus through a miracle of transformation.The narrative of Judas Iscariots second visitation to the Jewish high priest for betrayingJesus is mostly plagiarized from the Gospel of John (12:1-7) and combined with the Synoptic

accounts of Judas conferring with the Jewish leaders right after Jesus is anointed in thehouse of Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:14-15, Mark 14:10-11).

Everyone ate with fear, and the disciples were sorrowful, because they knew that Jesus must

soon depart from them. But Judas was indignant, because he knew that he was losing

thirty pieces of money for the ointment not sold , seeing he stole the tenth part of all that

was given to Jesus. He went to find the high priest, who assembled in council of priests,

scribes, and Pharisees; to whom Judas spake saying: What will ye give me, and I will

betray into your hands Jesus, who would fain make himself king of Israel? Theyanswered: Now how wilt thou give him into our hand? Said Judas: When I shall know thathe goeth outside the city to pray I will tell you, and will conduct you to the place where he

shall be found; for to seize him in the city will be impossible without a sedition. The highpriest answered: If thou wilt give him into our hand we will give thee thirty pieces of

goldand thou shalt see how well I will treat thee. (GOB 205)

Interestingly, Pseudo-Barnabas said that Judas Iscariot went to the high priest for the third

and last time to get some soldiers and lead them to the place where Jesus was with the eleven

apostles:

Judas, accordingly, knowing the place where Jesus was with his disciples, went to the high

priest, and said: If ye will give me what was promised, this night will I give into your

hand Jesus whom ye seek: for he is alone with eleven companions. The high priestanswered: How much seekest thou?Said Judas, Thirty pieces of gold. Then straightwaythe high priest counted unto him the money, and sent a Pharisee to the governor to fetch

soldiers, and to Herod, and they gave a legion of them, because they feared the people;

wherefore they took their arms, and with torches and lanterns upon staves went out of

Jerusalem. (GOB 214)

Although the canonical Gospels related Jesus arrest by the soldiers who were accompanied

by Judas Iscariot, they did not record the final conversation that occurred between thebetraying apostle and the Jewish leaders unlike fake Barnabas, who produced the account

above by duplicating Matthew 26:14-15 in a careless manner and caused an inconsistency. Of

the four Evangelists, only Matthew stated the precise amount of the money given to Judas

Iscariot by the Jewish authorities in return for his betrayal (26:14-15). Fake Barnabas inserted

this particular detail into his narrative of Judas second visitation to the high priest in 205, butclaimed that the payment was made during Judas third and final conversation.

The comparison of the two dialogs between Judas Iscariot and the Jewish high priest in the

Gospel of Barnabas, however, gives the impression that the high priest suffered from short

memory, for he asked Judas how much money he wanted in 214 although he had previously

determined how much money would be given to Judas in 205! This inconsistency is a resultof fake Barnabas desire to reconcile Matthew 26:14-15 with Luke 22:4-5 through the


10/29

invention of a third account that necessitated Lukes dependence on Matthews text. Asusual, this forceful reconciliation through careless combination betrayed medieval Barnabasefforts to devise an alternative and supposedly improved Gospel.

Omission of the canonical sections and awkward transfers: Circumcision in the Temple

One of the most bizarre and blatant mistakes of fake Barnabas Gospel appears in Jesusinfancy narrative, which, as usual, seems like an edited and suited version of the canonical

accounts. In a quite baffling manner, medieval Barnabas claimed that Jesus was taken by His

parents to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem on the eighth day of His birth for the ritual of

circumcision:

When the eight days were fulfilled according to the law of the Lord, as it is written in the

book of Moses, they took the child and carried him to the temple to circumcise him.

(GOB 5)

This teaching is erroneous as the Book of Moses does not have a precept that obligates thecircumcision of infants in the Temple. The lack of such an obligation enables us to conclude

that Pseudo-Barnabas fabricated a rule and inserted it into the Mosaic Law, trying to distort

the Hebrew Bible with the help of his systematic perversion of the New Testament writings.

A closer analysis of the Torah with regard to the ritual of circumcision reveals that fake

Barnabas did not only invent a religious prescription alien to the Law of the Lord, but also

disregarded the divine commandment that implicitly forbade the circumcision of an infant in

the Temple:

The Lord spoke to Moses: Tell the Israelites, When a woman produces offspring andbears a male child, she will be unclean seven days, as she is unclean during the days of her

menstruation. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin must be circumcised . Then she

will remain thirty-three days in blood purity. She must not touch anything holy and she

must not enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. (Leviticus12:1-4)

In sharp contrast to what fake Barnabas taught, the Law of the Lord considered a woman

ritually unclean and did not allow her to enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification,

which occurred on the 40th

day of the babys birth. How would it be possible for an apostle ofJesus who was chosen and commissioned to write the true Gospel to be ignorant of the

biblical verses above? How could Apostle Barnabas have made such a mistake? This simple

example of ignorance proves that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas was not truly ApostleBarnabas, but someone who abused his name to mislead people.

At this point, it is crucial to ask how come medieval Barnabas could make such a mistake.

What compelled him to contradictorily argue that Mary could go to the Temple to get Jesus

circumcised before the days of her purification? Since Jesus circumcision is related only by Luke, it is easy to understand that Pseudo-Barnabas followed Lukes Gospel while talking ofthe same event:

And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was

called JESUS, which was called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. (Luke

2:21)


11/29

Unlike Pseudo-Barnabas, Evangelist Luke did not say that Jesus was carried by Joseph and

Mary to the Temple for circumcision on the eighth day of His birth, but, in accordance with

the divine commandment in Leviticus 12, related Joseph and Marys journey with baby Jesusto the Temple in Jerusalem for the ritual ofpurification on the 40

thday of the birth:

And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished,they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: As it is written in the law of

the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: And to offer a

sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young

pigeons. (Luke 2:22-24)

Thus, According to Luke, Jesus was carried by His parents to the Temple on the occasion of

His presentation rather than circumcision, and Lukes narrative is perfectly compatible withthe ritual of purification prescribed in the Mosaic Law. Medieval Barnabas, however,

awkwardly replaced the ritual of purification with Jesus alleged circumcision in the Templebecause he chose to omit the narrative of Jesus presentation in Luke due to its heavilyChristian content. Having been bothered by the overt Christian themes and elementsemployed in it (inspiration by the Holy Spirit, a female prophetess, salvation through Jesus

the Messiah, the prediction of Jesus death and Marys sorrow), fake Barnabas simplydecided to get rid of the whole account. Nevertheless, he also felt obliged to refer to the

Temple TWICE in Jesus infancy since Luke the Evangelist, whom he tried to copy andcorrect, originally did so. The solution that spurious Barnabas could find necessitated the

combination of the account of Jesus circumcision with that of His presentation and thetransfer of the setting and some other elements of the second narrative to the first so that the

circumcision could make up for the omission of the presentation.

In addition to transferring the setting of the account of Jesus presentation in Luke (Temple)to that of His circumcision in his forgery, Pseudo-Barnabas copied some sentences from the

same account in Luke and awkwardly attached them to his innovated version. To compare:

And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall

and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted. (Luke

2:34)

Mary and Joseph perceived that the child must needs be for the salvation and ruin of

many. Wherefore they feared God, and kept the child with fear of God. (GOB 5)

The superiority and originality of Lukes Gospel is evident through the comparison of theverses above since Pseudo-Barnabas weird version cannot explain how Joseph and Mary perceived with the help of Jesus circumcision in the Temple that He would be for thesalvation and ruin of many.

CONCLUSION

The unknown writer of the medieval Gospel of Barnabas was an incompetent writer who

wanted to replace the canonical Gospels of Christianity with his forgery. While producing his

fake book, he fell into error quite often not only because he lived in the medieval era instead

of first century, but also because he betrayed the original evangelical accounts and tampered

with them recklessly. When coupled with his aims of perversion, his dependence on the


12/29

narrative style of the canonical Gospels caused him to blunder and undermine his basic

allegations.

Some examples of medieval Barnabas mistakes we chose for analysis in this first articleresulted from his careless and hasty plagiarism from the canonical Gospel accounts, his

disregarding the notion of textual coherence, his weird confusion and replacement of figures,his desire to combine and unify the narratives having similar themes and motifs, and his

omission of certain evangelical accounts that bothered him. In our second article on the GOB

we shall select the foremost geographical mistake of this medieval production along with a

historical blunder and discuss the reasons underlying these major confusions.

APPENDIX

Jesus infancy narrative in Matthew enabled Pseudo-Barnabas to claim that Jesus left Israelbecause some Jews considered Him their King and because this expectation prompted the

religious authorities to get Jesus arrested and killed:

Jesus was found by him who writeth, and by James with John. And they, weeping, said: O

Master, wherefore didst thou flee from us? We have sought thee mourning; yea, all the

disciples seek thee weeping. Jesus answered: I fled because I knew that a host of devils ispreparing for me that which in a short time ye shall see. For, there shall rise against me the

chief priests with the elders of the people, and shall wrest authority to kill me from the

Roman governor, because they shall fear that I wish to usurp kingship over Israel.Moreover, I shall be sold and betrayed by one of my disciples, as Joseph was sold into

Egypt. (GOB 139)

This account, which is peculiar to fake Barnabas, is obviously derived from the repetition of

the narrative in Matthew 2:1-23 with some modifications and replacements. The elements of

Jesus consideration as a king by some visitors after His birth, Herods reaction to thisdesignation, his convening with the elders and scribes, his plot to find and kill infant Jesus,

Josephs taking Mary and Jesus with him and going to a distant country, Jesus staying in adistant country (Egypt) for some time and returning to Nazareth through an angels commandcan be found repeated in Pseudo-Barnabas account of Jesus fleeing to Damascus.

While contending that Jesus consideration as a king by some Israelites caused Him to fleeIsrael in His adolescence in the same way as in His infancy, medieval Barnabas did not forget

to suggest a different place of refuge than Egypt and stated that Jesus fled to Damascus thesecond time He was threatened by His enemies. Why specifically Damascus? The answer to

this significant question can be linked to fake Barnabas habit of borrowing material from theActs of the Apostles, which is the fifth book in the New Testament canon.

5 Interestingly,

Damascus appears in Acts as an important place of Jewish settlement that gains more Biblical

significance with the help of its affiliation with Paul, whose conversion occurs on the way to

Damascus (9:3), who spends some time with the disciples in Damascus (9:19), and who

proves that Jesus is the Christ in Damascus (9:22).

Despite the anti-Pauline tone and elements of his forgery, Pseudo-Barnabas does not shock us

the least when he presents Damascus as an important destination in Jesus life rather tha n in

Pauls, for he sometimes delights in replacing Paul with Jesus by copying material fromPauls writings and ascribing them to Jesus in his book. For example, fake Barnabas teaches


13/29

that Jesus was carried to the third place of heaven when Judas came with the soldiers to arrest

Him:

The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looketh toward the South. They

bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for

evermore. (GOB 215)

Jesus assumption specifically to the third heaven is alien to the Islamic scripture, being ateaching about an unnamed man who was referred to in the New Testament only in one of

Pauls letters:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do

not know, God knows) was caught up to the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2).

According to some scholars and a certain apocryphal text, this unnamed man who was carried

up to the third heaven was no one else than Apostle Paul himself(source1,source2).

This simple example proves that fake Barnabas ascribed to Jesus in his book what had been

ascribed to Apostle Paul in Christian tradition in accordance with the interpretation of a verse

in one of his epistles. Consequently, medieval Barnabas would see nothing wrong with

transferring Damascus from Acts to his forgery as a destination related to Jesus although in

the original text the same place was related to Paul and his conversion.

The insertion of Damascus into Jesus life as a place of refuge displays fake Barnabasincompetence in distortion and fabrication, for the transfer of the Damascus motif from Acts

to the Gospel seems awkward due to the lack of elements that would make Damascus a

crucial place for Jesus temporary settlement. Ironically, all of the elements present in theaccount of Jesus fleeing Israel are thematically compatible with Egypt rather than withDamascus. The miracle of harvest, which prepares the way for Jesus departure, reminds oneof the scarcity of food in Egypt during Josephs time. Likewise, it is by no means acoincidence that fake Barnabas made Jesus associate His betrayal and temporary settlement

in a foreign country with Joseph, who was sold by his brothers and went to Egypt.

Further, Jesus discourse on death, referring to the theme of exile, the disciples mourning allreflect the influence of the infancy narrative in Matthew, which depicts infant Jesus in exile,

recounts the massacre of the infants, and the mourning of their parents. In short, Pseudo-

Barnabas made a mistake when he asserted that Jesus fled to Damascus although he could

never explain why specifically Damascus was chosen as the place of Jesus second exile andwhy in his innovated narrative all the thematic properties pointed at Egypt rather thanDamascus.

Footnotes1All biblical references in this study come from theNET Bible.

2For all the references to the Gospel of Barnabas, Lonsdale & Laura Raggs English

translation (1907) is used. For online availability seeEditions of the Gospel of Barnabas.

3In the Gospel of Barnabas, Simon the Lepers house is located in Jerusalem rather thanBethany since Pseudo-Barnabas does not allow Jesus to leave Jerusalem after His final entry
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/notes5.htmhttp://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/notes5.htmhttp://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/notes5.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1017.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1017.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1017.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_1http://net.bible.org/bible.phphttp://net.bible.org/bible.phphttp://net.bible.org/bible.phphttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_2http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_2http://www.answering-islam.org/barnabas/editions.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/barnabas/editions.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/barnabas/editions.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_3http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_3http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_3http://www.answering-islam.org/barnabas/editions.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_2http://net.bible.org/bible.phphttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_1http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1017.htmhttp://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/notes5.htm


14/29

on the occasion of the Feast of the Passover (Compare 127 and 129 with 200 and 202). This

is most likely related to fake Barnabas attempt to reconcile Matthew 26:6 -13 and Mark 14:3-9 with Johns peculiar chronology concerning thetime of Jesus anointing and His entranceinto Jerusalem.4The analysis of a similar and thematically relevant error can be found in the Appendix.

5

One of the best examples illustrating fake Barnabas borrowing some material peculiar toActs and blending it with the Evangelical accounts can be found in the 156th chapter of his

book. While recounting the story of the man born blind, Pseudo-Barnabas mostly followed

the narrative in Johns Gospel (9:1-12), but additionally said that the man was blind from hismothers womb and that the people knew him as the man sitting at the Beautiful Gate ofthe Temple. These details were actually copied by fake Barnabas from Acts 3:1 -10, whereLuke narrated Peter and Johns healing a man who was lame from his mothers womb andrecorded that the people witnessing this miracle recognized the healed man as the one sittingand begging at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple.

The Anatomy of Pseudo-Barnabas' Mistakes: Part 2

The Curse of the Evangelists: Historical and Geographical Errors

Masud Masihiyyen

As we discussed at length and illustrated with the help of a few examples in thefirst partof

our analysis, Pseudo-Barnabas supposed that maintaining the style of the canonical Gospels

and changing only their content through the insertion of some basic Islamic teachings would

gain his forgery credibility, but this strategy became fatal to him and produced a patchworkfull of mistakes. While penning his false Gospel, fake Barnabas mostly combined originally

independent Gospel narratives in a careless manner along with the mistake of hasty

generalization, avoided some accounts, and misplaced certain elements of such accounts, all

of which gave testimony for his dependence on the canonical Gospels and his willingness to

replace them through falsification. In short, his disregarding the peculiar writing style of the

Evangelists imposed on Pseudo-Barnabas a curse that condemned his forgery to several

mistakes and inconsistencies although his aim was to produce a supposedly corrected and

improved version of the canonical accounts.

Most of the mistakes in the Gospel of Barnabas, however, are a direct result of its authors

medieval origin and the relevant negative effects of anachronism. The absurdities containedin this forgery are of different nature and generally categorized by scholars into thematic

sections. Of these, historical and geographical anomalies take the lead as they depict fake

Barnabas as a person who did not live with Christ in the same era and who lacked basic

knowledge of the region where Jesus spent His life.

Accordingly, Pseudo-Barnabas fallacious claims concerning the time of Pontius Pilatesreign and the location of Nazareth are generally presented as hard evidence of his ignorance

and prevalent examples of his historical and geographical confusions. Although both these

mistakes suffice to expose fake Barnabas incompetence and send his work to the dustbin,their closer analysis reveals that they came into existence as a result of the reckless authors

wish to rewrite the original narratives in the canonical Gospels so as to bring them in linewith the Islamic teachings he obtained through hearsay. His aim to correct and improve the
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_4http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_4http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_5http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_5http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/contact.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_5http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html#fnr_4


15/29

canonical accounts ended in failure thanks to his confusion and hasty distortion, which gave

birth to a forgery replete with gross mistakes. When the mysterious source of these errors is

figured out, fake Barnabas is once more proven to be a man that was cursed by the

Evangelists in return for tampering with Christs Gospel and striving to replace it withfalsehood.

Historical Mistake: The Time of Pilates Reign

Walking in the footsteps of Luke the Evangelist, who provided detailed information on the

historic settings of Jesus era, Pseudo-Barnabas wrote the following verses in the infancynarrative of his Gospel:

There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was

governor in the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. Wherefore, by decree of Augustus, all the

world was enrolled; wherefore each one went to his own country, and they presented

themselves by their own tribes to be enrolled. Joseph accordingly departed from Nazareth, a

city of Galilee, with Mary his wife, great with child, to go to Bethlehem (for that it was hiscity, he being of the lineage of David), in order that he might be enrolled according to the

decree of Caesar. (GOB 3)1

Despite the similarities with the material in Lukes Gospel, this particular section in theGospel of Barnabas contains a gross historical mistake that contradicts both secular and

religious data about the time of the Roman governor Pontius Pilates coming to power inJudea. For instance, in his comprehensive analysis on the Gospel of Barnabas, Dr. Campbell

helps readers who are not knowledgeable about the political structure of Jesus era detect thegross mistake in the section quoted above:

When we look at secular history we find that Pilate did not become governor until 26 AD and

that he held this position from 26 to 36 AD. In other words he was governor when Jesus

started preaching, as Luke says correctly in Chapter 3 of his Gospel; but notat time of Jesusbirth in 4 BC, as Barnabas incorrectly says. (Source)

Actually, this is a twofold mistake as it inaccurately implies that Herod and Pilate ruled at the

same time in the same territory:2

In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus birth:There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was

governor. This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time.Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D

(source).

Possible objections to this gross historical mistake in the Gospel of Barnabas should be

evaluated before we can start questioning why Pseudo-Barnabas fell into such a manifest

error. The only plausible solution that could be worked to evade or conceal this mistake may

be based on the weak assumption that Pontius Pilate was a name used by different governors

in exactly the same way as the name Herod.3Secular history and the Evangelists testify to the

fact that there were a few rulers who were named Herod as a result of their descent from the

same royal line. For instance, Matthew makes it clear that Herod the King of Judea died when

infant Jesus was in Egypt with His family (2:19) and that his son Archelaus came to power inhis fathers place (2:22). Luke records in his Gospel (3:1) that at the time when John the
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_1http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_2http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_2http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_2http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_3http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_3http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_3http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_3http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_2http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_1


16/29

Baptist started his prophetic ministry, two of Herods three sons ruled in different regions ofIsrael. Luke mentions two of Herods sons whilst the third son, who was mentioned by namein Matthew 2:22, was sent into exile in 6 A.D. and died 12 years after his banishment.

(Source)

The argument that Pontius Pilate could be the name of different political figures is ratherweak as it from the start ignores the fact that Herod is both explicitly and implicitly stated to

be a name shared by the members of the same dynasty whereas nothing of the sort can be

asserted about Pontius Pilate. No Evangelical or secular data refers to first or second Pilate or

suggests that more than two rulers had the name Pilate around that period. Even Pseudo-

Barnabas does not make any efforts to distinguish the Pilate we know from the supposed

other rulers who were identically called Pontius Pilate, disappointing Muslims by depriving

them of any support for their theories. People who approach Lukes Gospel with doubts inregard to the veracity of the historical claims contained in it can check Jewish historian

Flavius Josephus writings and see with their own eyes how the information given in Lukeabout Pilate is compatible with what Josephus wrote concerning the Roman governor.

Josephus work testifies to the fact that in first century Israel there was one single Romangovernor who was named Pontius Pilate and that he was not in power at the time of Christsbirth. Consequently, Pseudo-Barnabas teaching in view is proven to be historicallyinaccurate.

It is likewise not at all reasonable to assert that fake Barnabas exclusively knew and revealed

a historical fact about the name Pilate that had been kept hidden from the Evangelists as well

as Jewish historians. In other words, we cannot presume that the Pilate mentioned in the

infancy narrative of the medieval Gospel of Barnabas was a different ruler than the Pilate

mentioned in the rest of the book. This is basically because the information given in the

sentences below lacks originality due to the authors heavy and undeniable plagiarism fromthe Gospel of Luke:

There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree ofCaesar Augustus, and Pilate was

governor in the priesthood ofAnnas and Caiaphas. Wherefore, by decree of Augustus, all

the world was enrolled; wherefore each one went to his own country, and they presented

themselves by their own tribes to be enrolled. (GOB 3)

A person who is familiar with the Gospel of Luke may immediately figure out that Pseudo-

Barnabas produced this section by simply putting together the data he collected from

different sections of Lukes text. As we saw in the first part of our analysis, some of spuriousBarnabas mistakes resulted from his hasty and careless combination of certain Evangelicalaccounts through basic thematic association. Pseudo-Barnabas reckoned six people while

relating the political and religious structure at the time of Jesus nativity, but some of thesepeople were mentioned by Luke in different places rather than in one single section primarily

because they lived and reigned in different periods. To compare and contrast:

Herod, King of Judea:His name appears in the first chapter of Lukes Gospel and his reignis referred to in association with the birth of John the Baptist:

During the reign of Herod king of Judea, there lived a priest named Zechariah who

belonged to the priestly division of Abijah, and he had a wife named Elizabeth, who was adescendant of Aaron. (1:5)

4
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=3#n3http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=3#n3http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=3#n3http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htmhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_4http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_4http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_4http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_4http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htmhttp://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=3#n3


17/29

Caesar Augustus:His name occurs in the second chapter of Lukes Gospel in the account ofChrists nativity and related to the census taken at that time:

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for

taxes. (2:1)

Pilate the governor: His name first appears in the third chapter of Lukes Gospel, whereJohn the Baptist and Christs prophetic ministries are introduced after a brief presentation ofthe political and religious figures of the time:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of

Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of

Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene (3:1)

Priests Annas and Caiaphas: They are mentioned in the same section as Pilate as the

foremost religious authorities in Israel:

During the high priesthood ofAnnas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son

of Zechariah in the wilderness. (3:2)

Obviously, there was a temporal gap of around 30 years between the period of John and

Jesus infancy and that of their public ministry in their thirties, the former having been relatedin the first two and the latter from the third chapter onwards in Lukes Gospel. Strikinglyenough, Pseudo-Barnabas followed Luke when he said that Jesus started His prophetic

ministry at the age of 30 (compare GOB 10 with Luke 3:23), but devised an entirely different

account that did not only change the place, instrument, and form of the divine manifestation

through which Jesus started His mission, but also excluded all the references made by Luke

to the political and religious figures in Israel at the time when Jesus was about thirty years

old. (compare GOB 10 and Luke 3:1-23). Thus, instead of keeping faithful to the original

account in Luke, spurious Barnabas distorted it and moved some of its components to his

innovated version of Jesus nativity and infancy narrative, foolishly bridging the temporalgap between the time of Jesus infancy and the time when He was in His thirties, that is, inthe period of post-baptism.

The following comparative table illustrates the source of fake Barnabas gross historicalmistake about the time of Pontius Pilates reign in Judea:

Gospel of Luke Gospel of Barnabas

Herod King of Judea John and Jesus nativity Jesus nativity

Caesar Augustus Jesus nativity Jesus nativity

Pontius Pilate Jesus in His thirties Jesus nativity

Annas and Caiaphas Jesus in His thirties Jesus nativity


18/29

The question that must be posed now is what prompted fake Barnabas to combine two

different periods and falsely appoint Pilate a governor in Judea at the time of Christs birthand at the same time when Herod ruled in Judea? To put it another way, what forced him to

swim in dangerous waters and eventually drown in this gross historical mistake? In order to

understand why Pseudo-Barnabas dissociated Pontius Pilate and the priests Annas and

Caiaphas from the era of Jesus baptism in His thirties and abruptly inserted their names intothe era of Jesus nativity, we must recall one of the major discrepancies between thecanonical Gospels and the medieval Gospel of Barnabasreferences to John the Baptist.

Unlike the four canonical Gospels, which designate John as a great prophet and Christsforerunner, the Gospel of Barnabas does not make a single reference either to John or his

prophetic mission. This is why in contrast to all the Evangelists that narrate Johns mission inthe wilderness, his call to repentance, and the ritual of baptism practiced by him for the

manifestation of the Messiah to Israel, fake Barnabas ignores anything related to John and

contends that at the time Jesus started His ministry, there was no other prophet who prepared

His way by preaching a baptism of repentance. Since there is neither a forerunner nor

baptizer in the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus goes not to River Jordan to be baptized by John, butto the Mount Olives with His mother to gather olives, after which He receives the book of

prophecy! (Compare GOB 10 with Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-

34.)

The reason underlying the lack of a reference to John the forerunner in the entire Gospel of

Barnabas is later understood to be the spurious authors aim to replace John the Baptist withJesus in his forgery. This primary act of substitution serves the greater purpose of Jesusreplacement with Muhammad, whom Pseudo-Barnabas considers the only true Messiah. In

order to turn Muhammad into the Messiah, fake Barnabas iden tified Jesus as the Messiahsforerunner and ascribed to Jesus the role of John the Baptist through the reckless distortion of

the following particular section in Johns Gospel. Compare and notice how Pseudo-Barnabasassimilated John the Baptist by making Jesus take his place and mission:

Now this was Johns testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from

Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? He confessed he did not deny but confessedI amnot the Christ! So they asked him, Then who are you? Are you Elijah? He said, I amnot! Are you the Prophet? He answered, No! Then they said to him, Who are you? Tellus so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?John said, I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, Make straight the way for

the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said. (John 1:19-23)

Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many

who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch

him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him,

saying: Who art thou? Jesus confessed, and said the truth: I am not the Messiah. They said: Art thou Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets? Jesus answered:No. Then said they: Who art thou? Say, in order that we may give testimony to thosewho sent us. Then said Jesus: I am a voice that crieth through all Judea, and crieth:Prepare ye the way for the messenger of the Lord, even as it is written in Esaias. (GOB 42)

Actually, most of the innovated and contradictory teachings in the Gospel of Barnabas arefounded on the systematic replacement of people and tenets. In the first place, the book came


19/29

into existence because its author wanted to replace the canonical writings of Christianity with

his so-called Islamic version of Christs Gospel and put Islamic tenets in place of Christiandoctrines. Jesus the Messiahs replacement with Muhammad the supposed Messiah and John the Baptists replacement with Jesus the supposed forerunner are some of the many acts ofdistortions and substitutions worked out by Pseudo-Barnabas, such as Judas substitution for

Jesus in the passion narrative, Thomas replacement with Barnabas in the list of the apostles,Simon the Pharisees replacement with Simon the Leper in the account of the sinful woman(see myfirstarticle on the mistakes of the Gospel of Barnabas).

Of the four Evangelists, Luke was the only person to recount John the Baptists nativity andhis relation to Jesus even prior to the days of Jesus mission in His thirties. While producinghis false Gospel version, medieval Barnabas both copied and distorted the infancy narrative

in Matthew and Luke, but, in particular, the distortion of the latter gave him a great

opportunity to replace John son of Zechariah with Jesus even in the period preceding Jesus ministry. Fake Barnabas could achieve his goal by simply deleting John from the infancy

narrative in Luke and attributing to Jesus what was originally said about John. To compare:

And Zechariah, visibly shaken when he saw the angel, was seized with fear. But the angel

said to him, Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wifeElizabeth will bear you a son; you will name him John. Joy and gladness will come to

you, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must

never drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before

his birth. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God . And he will go

as forerunner before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers

back to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the

Lord a people prepared for him. (Luke 1:12-17)

Joseph being a righteous man, when he perceived that Mary was great with child, was

minded to put her away because he feared God. Behold, whilst he slept, he was rebuked by

the angel of God saying, O Joseph, why art thou minded to put away Mary thy wife? Knowthat whatsoever hath been wrought in her hath all been done by the will of God. The virgin

shall bring forth a son, whom thou shall call by the name Jesus; whom thou shalt keep

from wine and strong drink and from every unclean meat, because he is an holy one of

God from his mothers womb. He is a prophet of God sent unto the people of Israel, in

order that he may convert Judah to his heart , and that Israel may walk in the law of the

Lord, as it is written in the law of Moses. He shall come with great power, which God shall

give him, and shall work great miracles, whereby many shall be saved. (GOB 2)

After transforming the original account of the angelic annunciation to Zechariah about Johnsnativity in Luke into that of the angelic annunciation to Joseph about Jesus nativity in hisfake Gospel, Pseudo-Barnabas continued copying further material from the infancy narrative

in Luke and made references to the rulers that were in power at the time of Jesus birth. Thisdependence on Luke marked the beginning of trouble for fake Barnabas as he naively

believed that there would be nothing wrong with putting all the names of the major political

and religious figures mentioned in Luke together in one section that was thematically

relevant: Jesus nativity. The first result of this tendency was the transfer of Herods name from its original place in Luke 1:5 into the sentence having Caesar Augustus name in Luke2:1 and the association of Herods rule with Emperor Augustus decree concerning the

census. Pseudo-Barnabas next step was the selection of the names Pontius Pilate, Annas, andCaiaphas from Lukes third chapter for their inclusion into the account of Jesus nativity.
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes1.html


20/29

This selection, needless to say, made crucial the detachment of the names of the ruling

figures in view from the period of Jesus baptism in His thirties and came to represent anotherexample of medieval Barnabas addiction to substitutions. Of course, spurious Barnabasfundamental aversion to John the Baptist was also a major factor that contributed to this

replacement. The names Pontius Pilate, Annas, and Caiaphas originally appear in the third

chapter of Lukes Gospel and are thematically linked to the beginning of John the Baptistsministry, which was deliberately left out in the Gospel of Barnabas. Thinking that these

names were too significant to be dismissed altogether, fake Barnabas determined the account

of Jesus nativity as a better and safe section for their placement, which was unsurprisinglythe same section where he had first replaced John the Baptist with Jesus.

To sum up, Pseudo-Barnabas historical mistake concerning the time of Pontius Pilatesadministration stemmed from his will to both imitate and distort Luke. He walked in Lukesfootsteps when he made a particular reference to the political and religious rulers of Jesustime, but deviated from Lukes account when he insisted that these figures were in poweralready at the time of Jesus nativity. This ridiculous contention, which gave birth to a

prominent historical blunder, was linked to spurious Barnabas fundamental ideal of deletingJohn the Baptist from history by putting Jesus in his stead. Since he knew that referring to the

governor of Judea and the high priests in the same context as the beginning of Jesus ministrywould make his new and false Gospel version more similar to that of Lukes and highlight theabsurd removal of John the Baptist from his forgery, he detached the names Pontius Pilate,

Annas, and Caiaphas from the original account in Luke (that he chose to ignore because of

John the Baptists occurrence) and attached them to the account of Jesus nativity and in thesame context as the other rulers reigning at that time. This particular strategy of misplacing

figures or events was not at all unusual for Pseudo-Barnabas, who followed the same course

while erroneously claiming that Jesus was circumcised in the temple on the eighth day of His

birth.5

Geographical Mistake: The Location of Nazareth

The geographical mistake concerning the location of Nazareth in the Gospel of Barnabas is

undoubtedly one of the most shocking claims of the author that destroys the texts allegedauthenticity. Since this particular error is based on the basic geographical data that any

disciple of Christ would be expected to be familiar with and never be expected to be mistaken

about, it could also be considered second to none among Pseudo-Barnabas other severalabsurdities of the same or even similar nature. The problem arises from the medieval writersargument that Jesus sailed to Nazareth:

Jesus went to the sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of

Nazareth; whereupon there was a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was nigh

unto sinking. And Jesus was sleeping upon the prow of the ship. (GOB 20)

The statement that Jesus got into a boat that went to Nazareth is equal to saying that at the

time of the Hijrah (migration) Muhammad went to Medina in a boat. Scholars who expose

the mistakes of the Gospel of Barnabas highlight the problems that arise from the account of

Jesus calming a tempest in the sea:

In chapters 20-21 of this book we are told about Jesus sailing to Nazareth and being

welcomed by the seamen of that town. He then leaves Nazareth and goes up to Capernaum:


21/29

Jesus went to the sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth.

... Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus

wrought (done) ... (then) Jesus went up to Capernaum (chaps. 20-21).

There is a major error in this account. Nazareth was not a fishing village, in fact it was about

14 km from the sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range! (Source)

In his comprehensive analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas, Dr. Campbell notes how some

Muslims try to cover this gross absurdity by changing the meaning of the verb in the original

text through its loose translation into Arabic (*). This proves that Muslims who praise the

medieval Gospel of Barnabas make every effort either to conceal or to solve this major

problem. One of the remedies that could be tried in addition to inaccurate translations is the

supposition that the phrase sailing to Nazareth does not necessarily mean Nazareths beingon the shore of the Sea of Galilee, but its being the final destination that was accessed via a

station at the sea. However, the order and chronology in the Gospel of Barnabas refutes this

theory as Pseudo-Barnabas carefully noted all the stations of Jesus journey from thebeginning of His prophetic ministry:

1. Jesus went up to Mount Olives and started His mission (chapter 10).2. Jesus descended from Mount Olives and entered Jerusalem (chapter 11).3. Jesus once more went up to Mount Olives (chapter 13).4. Jesus passed to the farther side of Jordan and then returned to Jerusalem (chapters 14

and 15).

5. Jesus attended a wedding and then went up to a mountain to deliver a sermon(chapters 15-19).(Since it is not stated in these chapters that Jesus left Jerusalem, it

will be right to infer that He attended the wedding and gave a sermon while staying in

Jerusalem.)

6. Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, embarked a ship, and sailed to Nazareth (chapter 20).Further, there is absolutely nothing in the 20

thchapter of the Gospel of Barnabas that suggests

Jesus passing through another town or place on His way to Nazareth. Actually, Pseudo -Barnabas seems convinced about Nazareths location on the shore of the Sea of Galilee as hemakes Jesus journey to Nazareth both start and end on the sea:


Nazareth; whereupon there was a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was

nigh unto sinking. And Jesus was sleeping upon the prow of the ship. Then drew near to him

his disciples, and awoke him, saying: O master, save thyself, for we perish! They wereencompassed with very great fear, by reason of the great wind that was contrary and theroaring of the sea. Jesus arose, and raising his eyes to heaven, said: O Elohim Sabaoth, havemercy upon thy servants. Then, when Jesus had said this, suddenly the wind ceased, andthe sea became calm. Wherefore the seamen feared, saying: And who is this, that the seaand the wind obey him? Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spreadthrough the city all that Jesus had wrought, whereupon the house where Jesus was, was

surrounded by as many as dwelt in the city. (GOB 20)

No matter how the defenders of the Gospel of Barnabas make efforts in their desperation to

conceal this absurdity,6we can proclaim with certainty that spurious Barnabas geographical

mistake was derived from his misunderstandings coupled with the inept harmonization of theEvangelical accounts, being independent of the allegations or doubts about Nazareths exact
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_6http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_6http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_6http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/barnabas/mistakes2.html#fn_6http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/campbell/barnabas/chapter2.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm


22/29

place in Israel. We owe this certainty to fake Barnabas apparent confusion of Capernaumwith Nazareth,both of which were significant places in Jesus life and prophetic mission. Asa natural result of this confusion, in the 21st chapter of the Gospel of Barnabas Capernaum is

implied to be an inland city away from the sea when it is said that Jesus went up to it from

Nazareth:

Jesus went up to Capernaum, and as he drew near to the city behold there came out of the

tombs one that was possessed of a devil, and in such wise that no chain could hold him, and

he did great harm to the man. (GOB 21)

In sharp contrast with the geographical information given in the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus

would in fact go to Capernaum by a boat and then up to Nazareth. The discovery of this

confusion takes us to the source of Pseudo-Barnabas gross geographical mistake andexplains why he foolishly depicted Nazareth as a coastal city. This confusion, as usual, came

into existence through a curse imposed on medieval Barnabas by a certain Evangelist. In

order to find out which Evangelist cursed the writer of the Gospel of Barnabas and in what

particular way, it will suffice to read the verses below comparatively:


Nazareth; whereupon there was a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was nigh

unto sinking. (GOB 20)

After getting into a boat he crossed to the other side and came to his own town. (Matthew

9:1)

Obviously, fake Barnabas copied Matthew 9:1, but added the word Nazareth to his version

because he mistakenly thought that Jesus town referred to by Matthew in that particularverse was Nazareth! However, the phrase his own town in Matthew 9:1 pertained toCapernaum rather than Nazareth, which is supported by ample evidence. First, the Greek

word used by Matthew in 9:1 is different from the Greek word used in 13:54, where Jesusvisit to Nazareth is narrated:

(New Testamentin Greek)

Then he came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue. (Matthew

13:54)

.

After getting into a boat he crossed to the other side and came to his own town. (Matthew

9:1)

It should be noted that this distinction in vocabulary was reflected also in the Latin translation

of the Bible (known as Vulgate), but Pseudo-Barnabas became pathetically unaware of it

despite his use of that particular translation:

Et ascendens in naviculam, transfretavit, et venit in civitatem suam. (Matthew 9:1)
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreekhttp://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreekhttp://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreekhttp://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreekhttp://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreekhttp://www.goarch.org/chapel/biblegreek


23/29

Et veniens in patriam suam, docebat eos in synagogis eorum, ita ut mirarentur, et dicerent:

Unde huic sapientia hc, et virtutes? (Matthew 13:54) (Vulgate)

Second, Evangelist Matthew did not deem it necessary to make an explicit reference to

Capernaum in 9:1 since he had already related in his Gospel how and why Capernaum

became Jesus own town at the beginning of His prophetic ministry:

Now when Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, he went into Galilee. While in Galilee,

he moved from Nazareth to make his home in Capernaum by the sea , in the region of

Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled:

Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way by the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of theGentilesthe people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those who sit in theregion and shadow of death a light has dawned. From that time Jesus b egan to preach thismessage: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near. (Matthew 4:12 -17)

Fake Barnabas did not take this section into account and erroneously concluded that Jesusown town was still Nazareth.7

Third, a comparative reading of Matthew 9:1-8 with Mark 2:1-12 confirms that Evangelist

Matthew had in mind Capernaum rather than Nazareth when he used the phrase Jesus owntown, for Mark repeated the account of Jesus healing a paralytic in Matthew 9:1-8 onlywith slight variations and additionally said that this miraculous incident occurred in

Capernaum. Thus, the implicit reference to Jesus own town Capernaum in Matthew 9:1 wasmade explicit in Mark 2:1. The interesting point here is that Pseudo-Barnabas narrated the

same incident in his false Gospel, but unsurprisingly contended that the place where Jesus

healed the paralytic man was His own town Nazareth rather than Capernaum. To compare

and contrast:

the anatomy of pseudo - barnabas' mistakes - by masud masihiyyen

Documents