The propaganda of Barnabas's gospel.

24th February 2012:
*“Turkish culture and tourism minister Ertugrul Gunay said the book could be an authentic version of the Gospel, which was suppressed by the Christian Church for its strong parallels with the Islamic view of Jesus.” *Link.

The above paragraph has been translated into Arabic on many news websites and on TV stations as if that “Christian Church” has hidden that book for 12 years!, here is an example of such translation and the reference link: :dts:
[RIGHT]وقال وزير الثقافة والسياحة التركي أرطغول غوناي: "إن قيمة الكتاب تقدر بـ22 مليون دولار، حيث يحوي نبوءة المسيح بظهور النبي محمد، ولكن الكنيسة المسيحية عمدت إلى إخفائه طيلة السنوات الماضية لتشابهه الشديد مع ما جاء في القرآن الكريم بخصوص ذلك
[/RIGHT]

That is a total propaganda to create a scandal for the Christian faith and now Islamic TV stations keep mentioning it!, however, the correct translation according to our CAF member “gilliam” that what the tourism minister was saying that the Gospel of Barnabas was suppressed; not that particular physical book.

I hope if anyone lives in that Ottoman Empire to send a letter to that minister to issue another statement clarifying that to the Arabic world, and request handling that book to the Catholic Church as requested by Pope Benedict XVI.

That’s interesting.

When was the Gospel of Barnabas written? I cannot find a clear answer, but I haven’t found anything to suggest that it predates Islam. Naturally the Islamic parallels therein contained mean it lends itself well to Islamic propaganda, much like the Gnostic Gospels lend themselves well to New Age propaganda on account of their similarity.

It would be interesting if the Gospel of Barnabas did predate Islam, as it would mean that that of the early heresies of Christianity, one actually turned into a major world religion.

Nope. It is likely written during the middle ages as it even contradicts the Quran. Muslims better avoid it or they’ll feel quite foolish. :smiley:

Never heard of the gospel of Barbabas, but Wikipedia (I know, bad source) says:

"some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic, Ebionite or Diatessaronic), edited to conform to Islam. "

Besides, we’ve got the Epistle of Barbabas, with a high chance of it being written by Barnabas the Apostle, that is orthodox, unlike the heretical pseudepigraphical gospel of Barnabas.

Looks politically-motivated. :coffeeread:

When are people going to remember that Islam came about over half a millennium after Christianity? I’m sick of people acting like it sprung up on its own and before Christianity. The lack of absolute common sense in thinking about this in comparison to Judaism or Christianity is staggering.

This is like, 250+ years in the future from now, saying the Founding Fathers were communist and anti-gun because of what some Mexican President now wants.:shrug:

Christianity makes a very, very bold statement in even its basic mode: God became flesh and we know Who He was, is, and ever shall be…

This is forgotten. Jesus was a “good guy”, “liberal”, “quasi-socialist”, and of course Jesus would support contraception and abortion. Doesn’t everyone remember the parable of the absentee father and health concerns to the mother?:rolleyes: Aside from certain aspects of what one means by “good guy”, Jesus was none of these things.

When people forget that Christianity claims Christ as the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, or merely ignores that for some PBS-Jesus, we get stories such as this.

Sad.

[quote=the article]Turkish culture and tourism minister Ertugrul Gunay said the book could be an authentic version of the Gospel, which was suppressed by the Christian Church for its strong parallels with the Islamic view of Jesus.
[/quote]

[quote=Sam_777]however, the correct translation according to our CAF member “gilliam” that what the tourism minister was saying that the Gospel of Barnabas was suppressed; not that particular physical book.
[/quote]

I don’t think I’ve seen gilliam state that he is fluent in, or a translator of, Arabic. Rather, I think he is taking a poorly written article and trying to make sense out of it.

I see three possible interpretations of the Daily Mail’s reported claim of “suppression” by the “Christian Church.”

The first is the one that alarmed you, that somehow the Church is so powerful in modern Turkey that it was able to bottle up the book in the custody of law enforcement. Since the article earlier pointed the finger at the “Turkish state” and “Turkish police” for hiding the book, and few seriously believe the Turkish government is under the thumb of the pope or the patriarch, it is reasonable to assume the author meant something else: suppression by the Church in much earlier years because of its resemblance to Quranic scripture.

The second interpretation is that the gospel was present alongside the other gospels until Muhammad came along, at which point Christian authorities suppressed it when they noticed in surprise that one of their five gospels was too close to the teachings of this new religion. Obviously ludicrous.

The third interpretation is that the gospel was lost for many centuries and discovered after the time of Muhammad, whereupon Church officials had to decide whether it was authentic, and decided against it, because of the Quranic references. This may be closer to the truth, if part of the gospel dates from earlier. I think any reasonable scripture scholar is likely to discount the mention of Muhammad in the gospel as an add-in, even if they accept that parts of the gospel date from the first few centuries.

If the gospel is in any way authentic, dating from the first few centuries after Christ, suppression would have been likely at that time, well before Muhammad came along. The Church certainly did try to suppress various gospels and other scriptures that it considered non-canonical - but not because they resembled Islamic teaching, since that didn’t exist. By the time Islam rolled around, any purported gospel not in the canon would have been suppressed by burning or whatever other means, simply because it was not in the established canon. Church authorities would not have needed to read it for careful comparison to the Quran, since they assumed anything outside the canon must be heretical.

Are they truly Islamic TV stations, or just Arabic stations that happen to be in majority Muslim countries or employ a mostly Muslim staff? Regardless, this sort of thing is common in popular culture - it makes a flashy story, so people run with it, not paying much attention to the actual facts. You’ll find many threads in the CAF news forums where members carry on about some erroneous fact based only on a headline. Not necessarily propaganda in some organized plot to control people’s opinions - it may simply be sloppy journalism.

Sam…

Are you aware that the book refers to mohamad as the “messiah”…?

As a calligrapher, I find articles on lost books of the bible most interesting. If I am not wrong, I have read that one of the works of Barnabas that had been considered authentic is now considered as a forgery and not valid any longer by the Moslem academic world.
The easiest method of debunking a forgery that mimics the bibical works is to date its calligraphy. Naturally, handwriting styles evolve into altered forms every few generations. So someone trying to pass off a 5th century work as a 2nd century work ususally didn’t realize the handwritting style had altered from the earlier period. The first line of detection to discern if a work was of the original era was a study of the handwriting style and grammar. I believe the prementioned work by Barnabas determined as a forgery was given away by certain words placed in the false work that did not exist in the time of Barnabas.

I agree with you, it’s really poorly written, and Daily Mail should have made better job since it’s a UK based news agency.

The first is the one that alarmed you, that somehow the Church is so powerful in modern Turkey that it was able to bottle up the book in the custody of law enforcement.

:frowning: Yes, and that what the Arabic sites are assuming as well, you can see that from the Arabic link I provided earlier…

it is reasonable to assume the author meant something else: suppression by the Church in much earlier years because of its resemblance to Quranic scripture.

:slight_smile: That is what made me comfortable, but I want the Daily Mail to clarify it for everyone.

By the time Islam rolled around, any purported gospel not in the canon would have been suppressed by burning or whatever other means, simply because it was not in the established canon.

Sounds reasonable, I hope Muslims realize that before making propagandas…

Are they truly Islamic TV stations, or just Arabic stations that happen to be in majority Muslim countries or employ a mostly Muslim staff?

Yes, those TV channel are purely Islamic channels, see this link which shows some of those free in Saudi Arabia (not to mention other satellites and other subscription based ones), however, thank you Digitonomy for those good remarks http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Yes sister in Christ, I’m aware of that, but Muslims will consider that part as corrupted and catch only the statement which prophesies the upcoming of Muhammed, and make a propaganda of it…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.