By Cyril Anderson 

There has been much discussion of the text known as the Gospel of Barnabus in the recent decades within the Muslim world.  The book is printed widely in the Muslim world, and is often billed as the “hidden real Gospel of Jesus.” 

 This is an overstatement, however.

 It is an interesting text to read, indeed, as an academic exercise for those who desire, out of intellectual curiosity to see all the literature related to Jesus, whether the account is considered more trustworthy or whether it is considered less trustworthy, whether they are likely to be authentic accounts of the words and accounts of Jesus, or whether they are texts that are likely of a more legendary nature, inspired by or co-opting the figure of Jesus rather than authentically tying to capture his life’s story.

 The Gospel of Barnabus is popular amongst many Muslim communities because it supports the traditional Muslim mainstream understanding that Jesus was not crucified, but that rather Judas was crucified in his place.  As well, it supports many of the Qu’ranic statements about Jesus, including the Qu’ranic teaching that Jesus prophecied of the coming of Muhammad.  

 The figure of Barnabus is one that is known from the mainstream Christian scriptures; Barnabus is  a minor character mentioned in the New Testament, particularly in the Acts of the Apostles.  At one point, he travels with Paul on missionary journeying.  However, the Gospel of Barnabus text is problematic, and should be taken with a generous grain of salt.

 For one thing, the text contains numerous historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms that indicate that the text that we have today, if not written by a medieval author, was at least tampered with in the medieval period.  The earliest version of the text dates to the middle ages, when it suddenly appeared in Italian in translation supposedly from an earlier source.  Associated with the appearance of the text is a legend of sorts explaining how the text was allegedly hidden following the strict legislation of the Bible canon, with a copy preserved in the Vatican library, only to be later uncovered in the Middle Ages and translated into Italian, giving the text we have today.  More troubling, from an Islamic perspective, are statements in the text that contradict Islamic teachings; for example, the claim in the text that the coming prophet Muhammad would be the promised Messiah.  However, the Qu’ran itself uses this title for Jesus, calling him “al-Masih.”  Put quite simply, there are serious doubts regarding the text.

 Now it has to be granted that it is possible of course that this text does indeed come from an authentic early text, and that the text was simply embellished or distorted in transmission and translation to give the extant version.  But of course, this is speculation.  Lacking evidence, a lot of things are possible.  The majority scholarly opinion, however, based on careful analysis of the text and taking into account the lack of any known earlier version, is that this text was a medieval forgery, possibly written by an Italian or Spanish Muslim traveling through or living in Europe at the time.

 Some Muslim readers argue for the authenticity of the text by referring to supposed references by early Church fathers of the first few centuries to the text as a non-canonical, yet useful text.  However, the text there mentioned is the Epistle of Barnabus, a different text.

 Ultimately, there is little evidence to indicate that the text is genuine, and some indirect textual evidence to indicate that it is a late forgery.  However, one can say that it is worth a read in any case, even if only to see what the fuss is about.