1. The monthly Renaissance, Al-Mawrid,
51-K, Model Town Lahore, July & August, 1997, pp. 14-27; December,
1997, pp. 35-44.
2. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, Ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, London, Oxford Univ. Press,
II Ed, 1974, p. 385,
3. Rheme Perkins, New Testament Introduction,
St. Paul Publications, Bandra, Bombay, 1992, p. 15.
4. The Oxford Companion to the Bible,
Ed Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan, NY, Oxford University Press, 1993,
pp. 502 f.
5. Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers,
John Rogerson,, and Anthony Saldarini, The Cambridge Companion to the Bible,
Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 410.
6. The Cambridge Companion to the
Bible, op.cit., pp. 502 f.
7. The Cambridge Companion to the
Bible, op.cit., p. 447.
8. The Cambridge Companion to the
Bible, op.cit., p. 447.
9. The Cambridge Companion to the
Bible, op.cit., p. 456.
10. Rheme Perkins, New Testament
Introduction, op.cit., p. 15.
11. McKenzie’s DB, London, Geoffrey
Chapman, 1984, pp. 648-9, etc., etc.
12. As asserted in the NIV Study
Bible in its introduction to this ‘I Corinthians’ on page 1734, ‘The letter
was written c. 55 toward the close of Paul’s 3-year residency in Ephesus
(see 16:5-9; Ac 20:31).’
13. As stated by The Nelson Study
Bible, p. 1911, ‘he wrote it in the last year of his three-year stay in
Ephesus, sometime in the spring of A.D. 56.’
14. New BD, op.cit., p. 125.
15. Hastings DB, Edinburgh: T.&T.
Clark, NY, 1904, Vol. I, p. 248.
16. John L. McKenzie, Dictionary
of the Bible, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1984, p. 648.
17. William Smith, A Dictionary
of the B, Regency Reference Library, Michigan, 1984, p. 494.
18. The New Bible Dictionary, Ed.
N. Hillyer, Inter-Versity Press, Leicester, 1980, p. 891.
19. Pictorial Biblical Encyclopedia,
Ed. Gaalyahu Cornfeld, The Macmillan Co, NY, 1964, p. 571.
20. Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, 1888,
Vol. I, p. 745, as quoted by Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar, in his M. Phil.
Thesis (at A.I.O.U., Islamabad) on this subject, 1990, p. 34.
21. New Age Encyclopaedia, Ed D.A.Girling,
Bay Books, Sydney, London, 7th Edn., 1983, Vol. II, p. 151.
22. Merit Students Encyclopedia,
Ed. Bernard Johnston, Macmillan Education Co., NY, 1989, Vol. 2, p. 576.
23. Everyman’s Encyclopaedia, Ed
by D. A. Girling, 6th Edition in 12 Vols, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London,
1978, Vol. I, p. 733.
24. New Catholic Encyclopedia,
The Catholic University of America, Washington, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY,
na, Vol. II, p. 102.
25. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Micropaedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1985, (15th Ed),
Vol. I, p. 903.
26. Britannica, 1907, Vol. 3, p.
326; as quoted by Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar, in his M. Phil. Thesis (at
A.I.O.U., Islamabad) on this subject, 1990, p. 39.
27. New Catholic Encyclopedia,
op.cit., Vol. II, p. 102.
28. Acta Sanctorum, Boland Junii,
Tome II, pages 422-450, published in Antwerp in 1698; as quoted by Mr.
Bashir Mahmud Akhtar, in his M. Phil. Thesis (at A.I.O.U., Islamabad) on
this subject, 1990, p. 39.
29. S.A.E., Life of St. Barnabas,
A Sketch for Nurses, London, W. Knott, Holborn, n.a., p. 84: as quoted
by Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar, in his M. Phil. Thesis (at A.I.O.U., Islamabad)
on this subject, 1990, p. 35. This booklet has been preserved in the British
Museum Library; and the writer of the Thesis, Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar,
had himself seen it there.
30. Ilime ve Sanat, Dergisi, Istanbul,
Turkey, (Mart/Nisan, 1986), pp.91-94; as quoted by Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar,
in his M. Phil. Thesis (at A.I.O.U., Islamabad) on this subject, 1990,
pp. 72 f.
31. J. L. McKenzie, DB, Geoffrey
Chapman, London, 1984, p. 648.
32. W. Smith, A DB, Regency Reference
Library, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984, p. 491.
33. 7th Day Adventist BD, Revised
Ed, Review & Herald © Pblg. Association, Washington, 1979, p.
398.
34. The NAB, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Nashville, 1991, p. 1320.
35. A New Catholic Commentary,
on Holy Scripture, Ed C. Fuller, Nelson, 1981, p. 1173.
36. The NT Standard Ed., Paulines
Publications, Africa, Nairobi (Kenya), 1995, p. 474 f.
37. The NT Standard Ed., op.cit.,
p. 475.
38. Edgar Hennecke, NT Apocrypha,
The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963, Vol. I, p. 51 f.
39. As stated by the editors of
‘The Gospel of Barnabas’, Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, in their introduction
to the book, p.xvi:
the Moslems themselves who boast, under the title of Barnabas,
the possession of the only true and authentic Gospel, derive their knowledge
of the existence of the ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ solely from Sale’s Preface
and Preliminary Discourse, of which they are known to possess a translation.
They have further elaborated their claim at page xlviii,
xlix that the Muslims were unaware of the existence of any ‘Gospel of Barnabas’
before the publication of Sale’s work. They assert:
Against the supposition that the Gospel of Barnabas ever existed
in Arabic we must set the argument from silence from such a Gospel in the
Polemical literature of the Moslems. This has been admirably cataloged
by Stein-schneider in his monograph on the subject in the Abhandlungen
fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1877. Of the works enumerated by him,
3, belonging to very different periods, are accessible in printed editions.
To the writers of all these treatises the Gospel of Barnabas would have
been very welcomed, but the fame of it had not reached their ears.
The earliest of them is Ibn Hazm (obit. 456 A.H.), whose
fisal
fi-l-milal wal-ahwa wal-nihal was printed in Cairo a few years ago
(part I., 1317 A.H.) He condemns the four Evangelists with much vehemence,
and declares that the names of the Apostles are quite unknown.
The treatise of Ibn Taymiyyah (obit. 728 A.H.) was published
in Cairo last year: it is called Al-Jawab al Sahih liman Baddala din
al-Masih. He is far less virulent than his predecessors, and assigns
a certain amount of genuineness to our four Gospels. But he has no suspicion
of the existence of a Gospel favouring the Prophet as does the Gospel of
Barnabas.
The treatise of Abu’l-Fadl al-Su’udi (composed 942 A.H.,
and based on the earlier work of Abu’l-Baka Salih al-Ja‘fari) was
published at Leyden, 1877-92, with the title Disputatio pro religione
Muhammedana adversus Christianos. The author deals with the Four Gospels,
the genesis of which he appears to assume, though he regards the Christian
interpretation as erroneous.
A work in which we might certainly have expected to find some
allusion to an Arabic Gospel of Barnabas, if such existed, is the bibliography
of Hajji Khalifah (obit. A.H. 1067, 1656-7 A.D.). Under the heading
Injil he gives the names of the four Evangelists, and asserts, as many
others assert, that the Gospel of ‘Isa Ibn Maryam must have been
quite different. But he knows of no Barnabas.
The conjecture that any knowledge which the Indian Moslems
may possess of the Gospel of Barnabas is due to Sale’s Koran seems to me
highly probable, if not certain.
40. G. Sale writes:
The book is a moderate quarto, in Spanish, written in a very
legible hand, but a little damaged towards the latter end. It contains
two hundred and twenty-two chapters of unequal length, and four hundred
and twenty pages; and is said, in the front, to be translated from the
Italian, by an Arrogonian Moslem, named Mustafa de Aranda. There is a preface
prefixed to it, wherein the discoverer of the original MS., who was a Christian
monk, called Fra Marino, tells us that having accidentally met with a writing
of Irenaeus (among others), wherein he speaks against St. Paul, alleging,
for his authority, the Gospel of Barnabas, he became exceeding[ly] desirous
to find this gospel; and that God, of His mercy, having made him very intimate
with Pope Sixtus V [b.1521 d.90, Pope from 1585], one day, as they were
together in that Pope’s library, his Holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ
himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved
to be the very gospel he wanted: overjoyed at the discovery, he scrupled
not to hide his prize in his sleeve, and on the Pope’s waking, took leave
of him, carrying with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which
he became a convert to Mohammedanism.
This Gospel of Barnabas contains a complete history of Jesus
Christ from his birth to his ascension; and most of the circumstances in
the four real gospels are to be found therein, but many of them turned,
and some artfully enough, to favour the Mohammedan system. From the design
of the whole, and the frequent interpolations of stories and passages wherein
Mohammed is spoken of and foretold by name, as the messenger of God, and
the great prophet who was to perfect the dispensation of Jesus, it appears
to be a most barefaced forgery [What a reason to pronounce it a ‘most barefaced
forgery’!]. one particular I observe therein induces me to believe it to
have been dressed up by a renegade Christian, slightly instructed in his
new religion, and not educated a Mohammedan (unless the fault be imputed
to the Spanish, or perhaps the Italian translator, and not to the original
compiler [stress added]); I mean the giving to Mohammed the title of
Messiah, and that not once or twice only, but in several places; whereas
the title of Messiah, or, as the Arabs write it, al-Masih, i.e., Christ,
is appropriated to Jesus in the Koran, and is constantly applied by the
Mohammedans to him, and never to their own prophet [it is strange that
rather than taking it as a proof to the fact that this gospel cannot have
been written by a Muslim, the worthy scholar takes it unreasonably to a
quite contrary theme!]. (George Sale, ALKORAN OF MOHAMMED, London &
NY, Frederick Warne & Co., n.a., p. ix,x under ‘TO THE READER’)
41. For example, in the introductory
paragraph or the prologue of this Gospel, Barnabas writes:
Barnabas, apostle of Jesus of Nazarene, called Christ, to all
them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and consolation.
Dearly beloved, the great and wonderful God hath during these
past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching
and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence
of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God,
repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every
unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived, whereof I speak
not without grief; for which cause I am writing that truth which I have
seen and heard, in the intercourse that I have had with Jesus, in order
that ye may be saved, and not be deceived of Satan and perish in the judgement
of God. (Lonsdale & Laura Ragg, ‘The Gospel of Barnabas’ Edited and
Translated From the Italian MS in the Imperial Library at Vienna, Oxford
at the Clarendon Press, 1907, p. 3).
Barnabas ends his gospel, in chapter CCXXII, in the
following words:
For certain evil men, pretending to be disciples, preached
that Jesus died and rose not again. Others preached that he really died,
but rose again. Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the son
of God, among whom is Paul deceived. (‘The Gospel of Barnabas’,
op.cit., p. 489.)
42. there is a footnote on it
by the editors, ‘i e. Muhammed’ [sws]
43. Lonsdale & Laura Ragg,
‘The Gospel of Barnabas’ Edited and Translated From the Italian MS.in the
Imperial Library at Vienna, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1907, Chapter
XVII, p. 33.
44. The futurity is particularly
to be noticed, which means that the messenger is to come after Jesus Christ.
The phrase ‘Messenger of God’ (in Arabic language: Rasulullah) is also
to be noted. It is the specific epithet of the Prophet of Islam. Now it
is a fact that nobody has successfully claimed to be the prophet or ‘Messenger
of God’ after Jesus Christ except the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (sws).
45. And it is a historical fact.
There had been no universal prophet before the Prophet of Islam. It is
only Muhammad (sws) who has categorically asserted, as directed to him
in the Qur’an by the Almighty, ‘O humankind! I am the Messenger
of God towards all of you.’ (Al-A‘raf, vii:158)
46. This is also a historical fact.
Prophet Muhammad (sws) came with power and got all the idols of Ka‘bah
broken to pieces at the time of the Conquest of Makkah, and, afterwards,
banned and destroyed every form of idolatry by force. The theme has been
dilated upon later while exploring the ‘Prophecy Regarding the Prophet
of Islam in the ‘Assumption of Moses’.
47. ‘The Gospel of Barnabas’, op.cit.,
ch. XLIII, p. 101,3.
48. What a true and compact picture
of the traits of the Prophet of Islam! Every word depicts the actual and
exact qualities of the Prophet of Islam, which has been described in hundreds
of pages by the Muslim and non-Muslim scholars the world over. The material
for their description has been taken from the reliable compilations on
biography and collections of the traditions of the Prophet of Islam. The
record of these sources had been related to the compilers of these collections
through the complete and continuous (without any break) chain of narrators
from the primary eye-witnesses to the last narrator. It is remarkable that
the credibility of every narrator or reporter of the traditions of the
Prophet of Islam has been objectively judged and recorded in the books
on ‘Asma al-Rijal’, i.e. ‘the qualities of the reporting persons’
etc. The traits described in the Gospel are in complete accord with actual
qualities of the Prophet of Islam related in these sources.
49. It is remarkable how respectably
Jesus esteems the era of the Prophet of Islam and how ardently welcomes
and blesses him.
50. ‘The Gospel of Barnabas’, op.cit.,
ch. XLIV, p. 105.
51. Obviously it means a lengthy
period of time, as the condition ‘when my gospel shall be annulled insomuch
that there shall be scarcely thirty faithful’ implies.
52. It is a historical fact.
53. The Prophet of Islam was born
orphan, as his father, ‘Abd Allah, had died before his birth. He was assigned
to Halimah Sa‘diyah to nurse and breast-feed him. So he was brought up
in the open atmosphere of Bani Sa‘ad. He could not enjoy the lullaby of
his mother, and, as such, ‘the moon ministered sleep to him in his boyhood’.
His mother also passed away when he was still a boy of six years and he
was deprived of the shelter of his parents just in his boyhood.
54. It points to the miracle of
the splitting of the moon (The Qur’an - ch. LIV: v.1 ‘The Moon’). One part
of the moon came in his hand.
55. No doubt every prophet came
with truth, but the qualities of truth and honesty were so glaringly and
characteristically conspicuous in the Prophet of Islam that he was known
with the epithets of ‘the Truthful’, and ‘the Honest’ even before his being
appointed as ‘Prophet’. His sworn enemy, Abu Sufyan, when he was chief
of the pagans of Makkah and their supreme military commander in their struggle
against Muhammad (sws), bore witness before the Roman Emperor to that effect.
Even his worst enemies like Abu Jahal etc would say, ‘Muhammad, we do not
blame you of falsehood, but your defiance of idols and asserting the monotheism
is something which is not acceptable to us’.
56. ‘The Gospel of Barnabas’, op.cit., ch. LXXII,
p. 169.
57. The Arabic word ‘Muhammad (sws)’ is derived from the triliteral
root ‘H+M+D’, which means, ‘to praise, commend, laud, extol’ (Hans Wehr’s
A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, SLS Inc., NY, 1976, p.204). The
word ‘Muhammad (sws)’ means, ‘praised; commendable, laudable’ (ibid, p.
204). ‘Hammada’ is from another ‘form’ (the Arabic word for this ‘form’
is ‘Bab’, which literally means, ‘door or gate’) of the same root word.
It means, ‘He praised much, with good forms of praise; or repeatedly; or
time after time’ (E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, The Islamic Texts
Society Trust, Cambridge, 1984, Vol. I, p. 639). The word ‘Muhammad’, according
to the same Lane’s Lexicon, means, ‘A man praised much, or repeatedly,
or time after time: endowed with many praiseworthy qualities’ (ibid, p.640).
58. Prophet Muhammad (sws) was
so notable for his being true that ‘The Truthful’ became his common title
or agname among the Arabs.
59. ‘The Gospel of Barnabas’, op.cit.,
ch. XCVII, p. 225,27.
60. ‘Judas Iscriot, who had betrayed
him’, Matt. X: 4, XXVI: 25, XXVII: 3; Mark III: 19; Luke XXII: 48; John
XVIII: 2, etc.
61. ‘Judas Iscriot, which … was
the traitor’, Luke VI: 16.
62. The Christian say, ‘Jesus died
an accursed death’, the Jews say, ‘We got him executed as a convict’; whereas
the Qur’an asserts:
and for their [Jews’] unbelief, and their uttering against
Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus
son of Mary, the Messenger of God’— yet they did not slay him, neither
crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are
at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have
no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him
not of certainty—no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty,
All-wise. (…). And for the evildoing of those of Jewry, (…). We have prepared
for the unbelievers among them a painful chastisement. But those of them
that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in what
has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform
the
prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day—them
We shall surely give a mighty wage.’ (Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted,
Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 95 f.)
63. The Gospel of Barnabas’, op.cit.,
ch. CXII, p. 259. |