A. Ancient Manuscripts

It is remarkable that there is no existing Gospel of Barnabas in the Greek language, the language of the orthodox Gospel writers. The source of the current translation into English is from an Italian manuscript now housed in the Imperial Library at Vienna. George Sale in the preface to the earliest translation of the Qur’an an into English refers to a copy of The Gospel of Barnabas in Spanish which appears to have been, at least for a time, in his possession. (The text of the Italian manuscript contains numerous spelling errors, so perhaps the Spanish version is the original.) By contrast, more than 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament now exist, and more are likely to be discovered. No other document of antiquity begins to approach such numbers. In comparison, The Iliad by Homer, the authenticity of which no scholar contests, is a far second with only 643 manuscripts of the Greek poem still surviving.

Sale states that the Spanish version of The Gospel of Barnabas was a translation from the Italian by a Spanish Muslim named Mustafa de Aranda (Aranda, a town in northern Spain). The now lost Spanish version was prefaced, according to Sale, by the imaginary story that the Italian text had been stolen by a monk, Fra Marino, from the papal library while Pope Sixtus V was having a little nap. After reading it Fra Marino became a Muslim. His theft was supposedly prompted by his eagerness to lay hands on the book ever since he had accidentally met with a writing of the Church Father Irenaeus in which he spoke against St. Paul, alleging for his authority a ‘Gospel of St. Barnabas’. Nowhere, however, in the voluminous extant writings of Irenaeus is there mention of a Gospel of Barnabas. Furthermore, Irenaeus clearly recognizes Paul’s writings as inspired and states succinctly that none but the accepted ‘four’ Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were or ever had been given by God.

It was in 1907 that the Italian text of The Gospel of Barnabas was translated into English by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg. In their introduction to the work they provide evidence to the effect that the book was a Medieval forgery. Since then Arabic and Urdu translations have been produced, all, however, without the introduction by the Raggs. Lt. Col. M.A. Rahim (Pakistan) reprinted The Gospel of Barnabas in English in 1973, omitting the Raggs’ introduction and substituting another from a different point of view.

A Gospel of Barnabas was listed in a decree attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492-495 AD), although the date of this decree and its genuineness are disputed. In this so-called Gelasian Decree a Gospel of Barnabas is rejected along with some 10 other Greek ‘gospels’ considered heretical. Had such a book been authored by the real Barnabas it would have undoubtedly been accepted as authentic, for Barnabas was held in high esteem everywhere. Whatever other references to an ancient Gospel of Barnabas there might be, there are no grounds whatsoever to equate it, if it existed, with the present Gospel of Barnabas under discussion here. Identical titles do not prove identical books.

B. The Historical Barnabas

Barnabas, according to the New Testament, the only source of historical information available concerning him, was not an Apostle of Jesus. It Is doubtful that he ever even saw Jesus. Barnabas’ name is mentioned 28 times in the New Testament but never once in the fourfold Gospel portion. This is because he did not become a disciple until after Jesus’ ascension and was called Barnabas (Son of Encouragement) by the Apostles some time later (Acts 4: 36). Jesus, had He known him, would have addressed him by his original name Joseph.

Paul and Barnabas had a temporary rift when they disagreed about young John Mark’s suitability as a dependable traveling companion, but they never were at odds, as The Gospel of Barnabas makes them out to be, in matters of doctrine, which a careful review of the New Testament text will attest. Paul and Barnabas were in entire agreement as to the pure Gospel. And they both agree with the Apostle Peter who was a disciple and companion of Jesus (I Pet. 1: 3).

A legend has it that in 478 AD Barnabas appeared in a vision to the Bishop of Salanus (Cyprus) and said:

"You will find a cave and a coffin, because there my whole body has been preserved and a Gospel written in my own hand..." This quotation is only partial, for it continues in the original: "...which I received from the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew."

So this Gospel, if it did indeed exist, was written by Barnabas but originated with Matthew, and for that reason could not possibly read like the present-day Gospel of Barnabas. It would unquestionably be in agreement with Matthew’s canonical Gospel which, along with all the other New Testament writings, was accepted as genuine by the Christian Church by the year 200 AD and officially declared authentic by 382 AD. The Church Fathers up to and thereafter quoted extensively from all the New Testament books but not once from The Gospel of Barnabas. Nor did any Muslim scholar make reference to The Gospel of Barnabas until the 18^th century. It is beyond reason that The Gospel of Barnabas, were it genuine, could have been squashed and hidden away for all those centuries.

Factually, no one knows what eventually happened to Barnabas. Tradition has him both in Alexandria and Rome. In fact, another apocryphal book, The Epistle of Barnabas (not to be confused with The Gospel of Barnabas), came from Alexandria. Other books as well have been attributed to Barnabas, such as the Acts of Barnabas, but none of them were ever acknowledged canonical or inspired. They have no correlation with the Gospel of Barnabas examined in this paper.

C. Medieval Manuscript

The earliest known history of the Italian manuscript of The Gospel of Barnabas begins with its discovery or acquisition by a scholar named Cramer in Amsterdam, Holland in 1709 AD. It changed hands more than once before coming to rest in Vienna where it is now kept. This manuscript in the Imperial Library was written sometime in the 16^th century AD according to experts who have examined its script, binding and paper. This in itself actually proves little, since it cannot be shown that it was translated from an earlier source. But it is significant that there is no reference or hint at all to any original source, be it Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Spanish, Arabic or whatever. Some marginal notes in blundering Arabic which betray a European hand, do appear, which only reinforces the conclusion that it could not be based on any other language (with the possible exception of Spanish since the Italian itself is weak).

It is highly suspect, therefore, that Mustafa de Aranda is himself the author of The Gospel of Barnabas because of the Medieval character of the text, as is apparent in the preceding section of this examination.