Most people are aware of the Christian view of Jesus.
However many people would be surprised to learn that the Islamic faith adheres
to the account of Jesus that is in the Gospel of Barnabas. For those who are a
bit rusty on the background of Barnabas, he was a Levite from Cyprus who became
a Christian sometime after the first Pentecost (Acts 4:36-37). There is no
evidence one way or the other that Barnabas heard of Jesus or met him before
Jesus was crucified. So it is strange to say the least that somehow Barnabas
would have known something about Jesus’ crucifixion that the twelve apostles didn’t
know. Christians view the Gospel of Barnabas as a late apocryphal story created
by members of the Gnostic sect of anti-christians. One of the main reasons to
view the story as apocryphal is that there is no logical reason that Barnabas
would have known something that the eyewitnesses didn’t. Also Barnabas was not
a witness of the crucifixion even in the account related in the Gospel of
Barnabas. The main precept of the Gospel of Barnabas is that Jesus managed to
confuse the Jewish authorities and make them believe that Judas Iscariot was
Jesus. Then the authorities tried Judas Iscariot and crucified him believing
that he was Jesus.
The contextual problems with the Gospel of Barnabas are:
1. Jesus would have orchestrated the death of an innocent
man in order for himself to avoid execution. Since the gospel of Barnabas
contextually identifies Jesus as a prophet on a God given mission then the
action of orchestrating the death of an innocent man is inconsistent with the actions
of a prophet on a God given mission in the Judeo-Christian corpus of
literature. Prophets on a God given mission in the Judeo-Christian tradition
work to save the innocent not to kill them.
2. The Gospel of Barnabas indicates that the Jewish
authorities thought that Judas was Jesus and they tried and executed the wrong
man. Contextually this is a problem since the authorities knew Jesus and Judas
personally before the trial. So they weren’t likely to be fooled by a switch
since they already knew each of these men from personal encounters. Also Judas
at the trial would have certainly tried to have convinced the authorities of
his real identity as his defense at the trial. There is nothing in any account
of the trial that there was any type of defense based on mistaken identity with
another individual.
3. The Gospel of Barnabas indicates that the people at the
crucifixion thought that Judas was Jesus. This would mean that Mary, the mother
of Jesus, would not have recognized her own son on the cross. Some of the other
women who were at the crucifixion also knew Jesus personally and they would
have also had to have been fooled. Some of these women knew Jesus and Judas
Iscariot for years in some cases so it is highly unlikely that they would have
been deceived. The apostle John who was at the crucifixion would have to have
been deceived and since he knew both Jesus and Judas this is unlikely. Also
Judas would’ve made a plea from the cross about his mistaken identity since it
was possible to survive crucifixion if removed quickly enough (Josephus saved
one of his relatives who had been crucified if I remember correctly). In any
case, there is nothing in any account of the crucifixion that there was any
type of defense based on mistaken identity with another individual. Since we
know that the individual who was on the cross was conscious and was able to
speak which was typical of people being crucified then it is not credible that
if the person wasn’t Jesus that he didn’t make a plea of mistaken identity.
4. The Gospel of Barnabas does not tell us what happened to
Judas’ body. His body was found and it did not bear any marks of crucifixion
but did have the marks of hanging by the neck and abdominal rupture. So the
Gospel of Barnabas suffers from the problem that Judas’ could not have been
crucified based on the condition of his corpse.
5. Jesus showed the marks of his crucifixion and spear wound
to the apostles after his resurrection. The marks convinced them that he had
been dead. This is especially true in the case of Thomas who actually placed
his hands on the wounds. So if the Gospel of Barnabas was correct then the
wounds would have been faked. It’s one thing to possibly fake wounds in your
hands and feet – it’s quite another thing to fake a mortal spear wound in your
side. There is little doubt that the eleven remaining apostles believed as a
certainty based on their examination of Jesus’ wounds that Jesus had been dead
and was resurrected. Many of them suffered martyrdom based on this belief. So
for the Gospel of Barnabas to be true – a prophet on a mission from God, Jesus,
would have deceived people into giving their lives based on a lie. This is
inconsistent with the actions of a prophet on a mission from God in the
Judeo-Christian tradition.
6. The Gospel of Barnabas indicates that the apostle Paul
was a deceiver. The other apostles accepted Paul and none of them indicated
that he practiced deception.
Summation: One of the major theological differences between
Christianity and Islam are the two opposing views of Jesus. But the difference
is not just theological it is also a logical difference. Do you believe that
Jesus died on the cross? Even the Jews believe that Jesus was crucified. In
fact many people who aren’t Christians believe that Jesus was crucified. Or do
you believe that Jesus managed to switch identities with Judas Iscariot and
fool everyone into crucifying Judas while Jesus made his getaway? If you
believe that the account of Jesus’ death in the Gospel of Barnabas is false
then you believe that the views of the anti-christian sects including Islam are
false.
J.
Clontz – Editor of The Comprehensive New Testament
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment